HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015.12.01 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
BUSINESS MEETING
DECEMBER 1, 2015
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
1.(5 Minutes)Roll Call
2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.AM-8155 Approval of claim checks #217341 through #217394 dated November 25, 2015 for
$156,028.33.
B.AM-8156 Approval of payments for Kelly buy back (check #61879 through #61912) for Law
Enforcement Commissioned Employees in the amount of $37,764.97 and Holiday buy
back (checks #61913 though #61964) for Law Enforcement Commissioned Employees
and Law Enforcement Support Service Employees in the amount of $129,882.54 per
union contracts.
C.AM-8147 Report on final construction costs for the Vista Place Outfall Repair project and
acceptance of project
D.AM-8153 Approve Interlocal Agreement with the Snohomish Conservation District
E.AM-8154 Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with
Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. for Prosecuting Attorney Services
F.(20 Minutes)
AM-8159
Approval of Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda
G.AM-8160 Edmonds School District - Emergency Access Key ILA
Packet Page 1 of 549
H.AM-8161 Yakima County Inmate Housing Agreement - Addendum
I.AM-8162 Ordinance Amending ECC Sections 5.32.107 and 5.32.108 - Shellfish Regulations and
Enforcement
J.AM-8163 WDFW Grant Agreement Amendment Authorization
4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
5.PUBLIC HEARING
A.(60 Minutes)
AM-8151
Public Hearing on 2016 Budget and Adoption of 2016 Budget and Adoption of
Amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
6.ACTION ITEMS
A.(30 Minutes)
AM-8152
Proposed 2016-2021 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program
B.(20 Minutes)
AM-8122
2015 NonRepresented Compensation Study
C.(30 Minutes)
AM-8158
Potential Action regarding Future of Citizens Economic Development Commission
7.STUDY ITEMS
A.(5 Minutes)
AM-8145
October 2015 Monthly Financial Report
B.(60 Minutes)
AM-8144
Continued Discussion of City Options for Addressing Crumb Rubber
8.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
9.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
10.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
11.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 549
AM-8155 3. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #217341 through #217394 dated November 25, 2015 for $156,028.33.
Recommendation
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2015
Revenue:
Expenditure:156,028.33
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $156,028.33
Attachments
Claim cks 11-25-15
Project Numbers 11-25-15
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 11/25/2015 10:15 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/25/2015 10:15 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2015 10:18 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2015 10:18 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 11/25/2015 08:48 AM
Packet Page 3 of 549
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 4 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217341 11/25/2015 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 359423 WWTP-PEST CONTROL
November Service
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 73.00
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.23 6.94
Total :79.94
217342 11/25/2015 075470 ACCELA INC INV-ACC11729 LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA & MINUTE
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA &
001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1,350.00
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA & MINUTEINV-ACC11730
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA &
001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1,350.00
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA & MINUTEINV-ACC13135
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA &
001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1,350.00
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA & MINUTEINV-ACC13796
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA &
001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1,350.00
Total :5,400.00
217343 11/25/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988320244 WWTP-UNIFORMS, MATS AND TOWELS
mats and towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 76.74
Uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.80
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.29
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1988320245
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.02
Total :125.21
1Page:
Packet Page 5 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217344 11/25/2015 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 7261 E5GA.SERVICES THRU 10/23/15
E5GA.Services thru 10/23/15
423.000.75.594.35.41.30 12,404.33
Total :12,404.33
217345 11/25/2015 075344 BIRCH, BONNIE 2015-1120 MUSICIAN FOR HOLIDAY MARKET NOVEMBER 21
Musical performance during Holiday
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 100.00
Total :100.00
217346 11/25/2015 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 10834 E5NA.SERVICES THRU OCTOBER 2015
E5NA.Services thru October 2015
421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4,466.16
E5NA.Services thru October 2015
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4,466.17
E5NA.Services thru October 2015
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4,466.17
Total :13,398.50
217347 11/25/2015 067391 BRAT WEAR 17228 INV#17228 - EDMONDS PD - BURRELL
DUTY JACKET WITH ITEMS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 375.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 35.63
INV#17244 - EDMONDS PD - STRUM17244
WINTER MOTORCYCLE PANTS
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 235.00
SUMMER MOTORCYCLE PANTS
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 215.00
SAP POCKETS ON PANTS
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 12.00
KEVLAR REINFORCEMENT/OVERLAY
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 50.00
UNLINED DUTY GLOVES
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 26.50
9.5% Sales Tax
2Page:
Packet Page 6 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217347 11/25/2015 (Continued)067391 BRAT WEAR
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 51.16
Total :1,000.29
217348 11/25/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 15487323 PARKS & REC COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT 001-
PARKS & REC COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 273.74
P & REC PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT 001-015487327
P & REC PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT
001.000.64.571.21.45.00 30.65
PARKS MAINT PRINTER IRC1030IF SCHEDULE15496558
PARKS MAINT PRINTER IRC1030IF SCHEDULE
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 36.16
Engineering copier/printer lease.15499585
Engineering copier/printer lease.
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 306.29
DSD copier/printer lease.15499586
DSD copier/printer lease.
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 343.06
Total :989.90
217349 11/25/2015 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS 48 COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY OUTREACH NOVEMB
Communications and community outreach
001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.00
Total :2,500.00
217350 11/25/2015 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC BFB2973 CISCO COMPACT ACCESS POINT 2ND FLOOR CIT
Cisco 700 Series 802.11N CAP702 -
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 643.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.35.00 61.13
Total :704.63
217351 11/25/2015 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS BLD20151491 C443CT025 - PLAN REVIEW FEE
BLD2151491 - C433.ct.025
016.000.66.518.30.49.00 3,744.00
3Page:
Packet Page 7 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,744.0021735111/25/2015 069457 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS
217352 11/25/2015 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TH ST / METER
WWTP FLOW METER 2203 N 205TH ST / METER
423.000.76.535.80.47.62 15.08
Total :15.08
217353 11/25/2015 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3306676 E5HA.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT
E5HA.RFQ Advertisement
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 471.90
Total :471.90
217354 11/25/2015 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 2060 CEMETERY AD IN BUSINESS DIRECTORY
CEMETERY AD IN BUSINESS DIRECTORY
130.000.64.536.20.41.40 545.00
Total :545.00
217355 11/25/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025 MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER
MARINA BEACH PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 324.30
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS6-00200
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,013.40
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 356.52
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS6-00475
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 920.35
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 20886-01127
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 2088
423.000.76.535.80.47.64 155.18
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 94396-01130
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 9439
423.000.76.535.80.47.64 25.63
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 50104846-01140
4Page:
Packet Page 8 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217355 11/25/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 5010484
423.000.76.535.80.47.64 1,472.31
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 311.29
CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,113.04
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK6-01280
CITY PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 317.58
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 308.98
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER6-02727
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 216.76
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK SPRINK6-02730
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 216.76
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N / ME6-02735
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TH AVE N /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,705.13
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N / ME6-02736
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH AVE N /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 76-02737
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,115.65
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250 5TH6-02738
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGATION 250
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 216.76
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 7096-02825
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,414.88
5Page:
Packet Page 9 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217355 11/25/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN ST6-02875
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE 700 MAIN
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 25.63
FAC SPRINKLER6-02900
FAC SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 392.39
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME6-02925
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,599.73
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 397.99
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 327.55
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER6-03575
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 249.50
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE6-04127
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 733.80
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW /6-04128
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 14.65
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 730.63
SEAVIEW PARK6-04425
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 501.45
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER6-04450
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 307.24
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE6-05155
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
6Page:
Packet Page 10 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217355 11/25/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 119.71
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 454.91
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 454.91
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 454.91
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 454.91
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 454.92
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW /6-05156
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 1.83
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.95
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 210TH ST SW
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 6.94
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION6-06040
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGATION
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 213.40
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER6-07775
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 402.55
YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 970.18
YOST POOL6-08525
7Page:
Packet Page 11 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217355 11/25/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 639.79
Total :22,156.49
217356 11/25/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR20540 Engineering copier - extra images
Engineering copier - extra images
001.000.62.524.10.45.00 308.72
Total :308.72
217357 11/25/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH666698 E5HA.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT
E5HA.RFQ Advertisement
423.100.76.594.39.41.10 209.84
Legal Description: City ApplicationsEDH6668057
Legal Description: City Applications
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 60.20
Legal Description: City Notices~EDH666944
Legal Description: City Notices~
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 51.60
E5JB.RFQ ADVERTISEMENTEDH668066
E5JB.RFQ Advertisement
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 175.44
Legal description: County Bids HE RFQEDH668271
Legal description: County Bids HE RFQ
001.000.62.558.60.41.40 32.68
Total :529.76
217358 11/25/2015 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD 443 17433 RANGER STATION BANNER DONATION FROM FRIE
RANGER STATION BANNER DONATION FROM
127.000.64.575.50.31.00 286.20
9.5% Sales Tax
127.000.64.575.50.31.00 27.20
Total :313.40
217359 11/25/2015 011900 FRONTIER 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND
8Page:
Packet Page 12 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217359 11/25/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 129.40
Total :129.40
217360 11/25/2015 075181 GINGER'S PET PARADISE LLC DECEMBER 2015 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 12/2015 EDMONDS PD
ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 12.2015
001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,169.62
Total :2,169.62
217361 11/25/2015 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197334 PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES FOR NOVEMBER 2015
Photography for November 2015
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00
Total :200.00
217362 11/25/2015 074966 HIATT, ELLEN COE-2015-1122 TOURISM COMMUNICATIONS/MARKETING NOVEMBE
Tourism communications and marketing
120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,000.00
Total :1,000.00
217363 11/25/2015 074746 HIGUCHI, ROD 20235 UKULELE 20235 UKULELE INSTRUCTION
20235 UKULELE INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 75.90
Total :75.90
217364 11/25/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1054180 PM: PAINT RESPIRATOR
PM: PAINT RESPIRATOR
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 34.46
PM: LIGHTS6070550
PM: LIGHTS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 443.88
PM: LIBRARY DRAINPIPE8092403
PM: LIBRARY DRAINPIPE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 70.66
Total :549.00
217365 11/25/2015 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2025047 WWPT-SUPPLIES OPERATIONS
3/8" plugs
9Page:
Packet Page 13 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217365 11/25/2015 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 40.58
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.21 3.86
WWTP-SUPPLIES OPERATIONS4591546
operating supplies: Wood handle and
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 55.83
9.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.11 5.30
Total :105.57
217366 11/25/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2710373 Office supplies DSD.
Office supplies DSD.
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 26.85
Office supplies, DSD2716248
Office supplies, DSD
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 329.27
Total :356.12
217367 11/25/2015 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 766179 PM: ELECTRICAL TAPE
PM: ELECTRICAL TAPE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.85
Total :9.80
217368 11/25/2015 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD 20452 DIGITAL PHOTO 20452 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 101 INSTRUCTIO
20452 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 101
001.000.64.571.22.41.00 110.00
Total :110.00
217369 11/25/2015 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3978771 INV#3978771 ACCT#100828 - EDMONDS PD
20 RMS HOLED MULTI USE COPY PAPER
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 51.80
HANDING FEE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 18.60
10Page:
Packet Page 14 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217369 11/25/2015 (Continued)072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.92
Total :75.32
217370 11/25/2015 016600 KROESENS INC 61312 INV#61312 CUST#1320 EDMONDS PD - BURREL
HAIX TACTICAL BOOTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 149.00
9.6% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 14.30
Total :163.30
217371 11/25/2015 075492 LEVERAGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS 1532936 MAINTENANCE FOR SWITCHES & SERVERS CITY
Maintenace agreement for City Hall
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 6,194.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.518.88.48.00 588.52
Total :6,783.48
217372 11/25/2015 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER December 2015 DECEMBER 2015 PREMIUMS
December 2015 premiums
811.000.231.550 11,135.71
Total :11,135.71
217373 11/25/2015 069862 MAKERS ARCHITECTURE AND 1438-11 ECDC Rewrite
ECDC Rewrite
001.000.62.524.10.41.00 3,432.50
Total :3,432.50
217374 11/25/2015 075425 MCARTHUR, AMELIA 11/3 GYM ATTEND 11/3/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT
11/3/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 30.00
11/5-11/19/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT11/5-11/19 GYM ATTEN
11/5-11/19/15 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT
001.000.64.571.25.41.00 105.00
Total :135.00
11Page:
Packet Page 15 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217375 11/25/2015 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 15-1695-4 E5JA.SERVICES THRU 10/31/15
E5JA.Services thru 10/31/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 16,502.25
Total :16,502.25
217376 11/25/2015 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S6787451.001 WWTP-SCADA & PLC
Controllogix Equipment
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 2,278.99
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 216.50
WWTP-SCADA & PLCS6787451.002
A B 1756 EN2TR-PORT CLX HI-CAP EN
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 1,933.73
9.5% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10 183.70
Total :4,612.92
217377 11/25/2015 073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC PLLC October 2015 HE Examiner Services October 2015
HE Examiner Services October 2015
001.000.245.967 339.00
Total :339.00
217378 11/25/2015 075284 OLMSTED, PETER PONK15-006 INV#PONK15-006 - EDMONDS PD
TRAVEL TO REPAIR CHAIR
001.000.41.521.11.48.00 60.00
LABOR TO REPAIR CHAIR
001.000.41.521.11.48.00 20.00
Total :80.00
217379 11/25/2015 075494 OREGON MILITARY DEPT ARB 00818 INV#ARB 00818 - EDMONDS PD (SWAT)
4 KOSKI TWIN ROOM @$25 - 5 DAYS
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 500.00
19 KOSKI FULL ROOMS @$35 -5 DAYS
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 3,325.00
2 KOSKI SUITES @$45 - 5 DAYS
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 450.00
12Page:
Packet Page 16 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217379 11/25/2015 (Continued)075494 OREGON MILITARY DEPT
SHOOTHOUSE 6 HRS @ $49 - 3 DAYS
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 882.00
MOUT SITE 6 HRS @$25 - 3 DAYS
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 450.00
SHOOTHOUSE 5 HRS @$49 - 1 DAY
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 245.00
MOUT SITE 5 HRS @$25 - 1 DAY
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 125.00
INV#ARD00415 - EDMONDS PD (SWAT)ARD00415
24 BREAKFAST MEALS 10/5/15 @$9.49
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 227.76
24 LUNCH MEALS 10/5/15 @ $9.49
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 227.76
24 BREAKFAST MEALS 10/6/15 @ $9.49
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 227.76
24 LUNCH MEALS 10/06/15 @ $9.49
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 227.76
24 BREAKFAST MEALS 10/7/15 @ $9.49
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 227.76
25 LUNCH MEALS 10/7/15 @ $9.49
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 237.25
24 BREAKFAST MEALS 10/8/15 @ $9.49
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 227.76
24 LUNCH MEALS 10/8/15 @ $9.49
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 227.76
24 BREAKFAST MEALS 10/9/15 @ $9.49
628.000.41.521.23.31.00 227.76
Total :8,036.33
217380 11/25/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC I159003 PM: 5TH & MAIN FOUNTAIN
PM: CLSR PLT W/O END, 2 P CONTACTOR
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 72.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.93
13Page:
Packet Page 17 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :79.8921738011/25/2015 028860 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
217381 11/25/2015 073231 POLYDYNE INC 1008240 WWTP-SUPPLIES, POLYMER
Polymer Clarifloc
423.000.76.535.80.31.51 8,184.00
Total :8,184.00
217382 11/25/2015 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 255173 INV#255173 - EDMONDS PD
TSR X26 EXTENDED DPM
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 209.75
Freight
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 9.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.31.00 20.87
Total :240.57
217383 11/25/2015 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA 21893 INV#21893 - EDMONDS PD
INDIGO BX400 CAMERA FOR LOBBY
001.000.41.521.10.35.00 733.20
INDIGO 12MO SUP PER CHANNEL
001.000.41.521.10.35.00 46.80
INSTALLATION OF CAMERA
001.000.41.521.10.35.00 519.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.10.35.00 24.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.35.00 125.74
Total :1,449.30
217384 11/25/2015 073993 SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES W0081617 GLOBAL POSITIONING SUBSCRIPTION
Global Positioning Subscription
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 661.09
Global Positioning Subscription
422.000.72.531.40.49.00 661.10
Global Positioning Subscription
423.000.75.535.80.49.00 661.10
14Page:
Packet Page 18 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,983.2921738411/25/2015 073993 073993 SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES
217385 11/25/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 16.85
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 12003-4823-3
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 48.05
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 12004-6859-3
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 269.82
TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / METER 10002005-9295-4
TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.98
SEAVIEW PARK2007-1403-8
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 49.99
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / MET2007-3984-5
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 16.29
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME2008-6520-2
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 71.09
SEAVIEW PARK2011-9708-4
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 88.80
100 DAYTON ST2012-3682-5
100 DAYTON ST
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 243.41
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,601.14
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 12016-1195-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 31.27
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 10002017-8264-6
15Page:
Packet Page 19 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217385 11/25/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.98
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 12019-0786-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 29.22
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
001.000.65.518.20.47.00 80.98
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
111.000.68.542.90.47.00 307.74
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
421.000.74.534.80.47.00 307.74
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 307.74
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
511.000.77.548.68.47.00 307.74
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /
422.000.72.531.90.47.00 307.72
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8912-0
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 57.41
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,512.36
STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT METERE2023-8937-5
STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 8.85
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,452.27
Total :11,152.44
217386 11/25/2015 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 104757 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPOSAL
WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPOSAL
423.000.76.535.80.47.65 3,498.07
16Page:
Packet Page 20 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,498.0721738611/25/2015 038300 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
217387 11/25/2015 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 971162 E4JB.SERVICES THRU 9/25/15
E4JB.Services thru 9/25/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 1,367.60
E4JB.SERVICES THRU 10/30/15978058
E4JB.Services thru 10/30/15
421.000.74.594.34.41.10 3,140.82
Total :4,508.42
217388 11/25/2015 040572 SUPER SEER CORP 59874 INV#59874 CUST#AE052 - EDMONDS PD - STRU
3/4 MOTORCYCLE HELMET
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 395.00
QUICK RELEASE BUCKLE
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 12.00
BLUE REFLECTIVE STRIPE
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 12.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.71.24.00 21.00
Total :440.00
217389 11/25/2015 074669 TIGER DIRECT INC L82175690101 WWTP-COMPUTER RELATED SUPPLIES
Diplay port to HDMI Adapter
423.000.76.535.80.31.42 53.97
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.42 8.98
Total :62.95
217390 11/25/2015 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 5078 PM: MARINA BEACH OFF LEASH PARK FENCE PA
PM: MARINA BEACH OFF LEASH PARK FENCE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.94
Total :33.94
217391 11/25/2015 043935 UPS 00002T4T13445 UPS outbound shipping DSD - Bld Div
17Page:
Packet Page 21 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217391 11/25/2015 (Continued)043935 UPS
UPS outbound shipping DSD - Bld Div
001.000.62.524.20.41.00 34.73
Total :34.73
217392 11/25/2015 075496 VALERIE INC 2015-11-23 MANAGEMENT OF HOLIDAY MARKET
Management services for Holiday Market
001.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,000.00
Total :2,000.00
217393 11/25/2015 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9755514279 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.62.524.20.42.00 18.37
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.67.532.20.42.00 91.87
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 87.40
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.64.571.23.42.00 18.37
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.64.576.80.42.00 47.80
Cell Service-PD
001.000.41.521.22.42.00 273.42
Cell Service-PD 104 Fund
104.100.41.521.21.42.00 145.70
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.77
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.68.542.90.42.00 17.90
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00 17.89
Cell Service-PW Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00 65.87
Cell Service-PW Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00 75.79
Cell Service-WWTP
18Page:
Packet Page 22 of 549
11/25/2015
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
8:17:18AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
217393 11/25/2015 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
423.000.76.535.80.42.00 34.02
Total :913.17
217394 11/25/2015 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6855 BUSINESS CARDS MASTER
30,000 Business Card Masters
001.000.141.100 602.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.141.100 57.19
Total :659.19
Bank total :156,028.3354 Vouchers for bank code :usbank
156,028.33Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report54
19Page:
Packet Page 23 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA
STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 24 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 25 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
STR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 26 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 27 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STM E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support
WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
WtR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
STR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair
STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project
STR E2DB c146 Interurban Trail
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 28 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)
STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)
FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 29 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program
STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
STM E7FG m013 NPDES
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 30 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program
STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project
STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 31 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)
SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
STR E2DB c146 Interurban Trail
General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program
STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program
SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements
SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project
PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support
FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
STM E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs
WtR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 32 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
STR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair
SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades
WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project
STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement
STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant
STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 33 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects
SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 34 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM E7FG m013 NPDES
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 35 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
STM 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA
STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 36 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 37 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 38 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
WtR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 39 of 549
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
Revised 11/24/2015 Packet Page 40 of 549
AM-8156 3. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of payments for Kelly buy back (check #61879 through #61912) for Law Enforcement
Commissioned Employees in the amount of $37,764.97 and Holiday buy back (checks #61913 though
#61964) for Law Enforcement Commissioned Employees and Law Enforcement Support Service
Employees in the amount of $129,882.54 per union contracts.
Recommendation
Approval of Law Enforcement Kelly & Holiday buy back checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2015
Revenue:
Expenditure:167,647.51
Fiscal Impact:
Kelly buy back $37,764.97
Holiday buy back $129,882.54
Attachments
Kelly buy back summary
Holiday buy back summary
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 11/25/2015 10:15 AM
Packet Page 41 of 549
Finance Scott James 11/25/2015 10:15 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/25/2015 10:15 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2015 10:17 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2015 10:18 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 11/25/2015 08:54 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 42 of 549
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 805 (11/23/2015 to 11/23/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
KELLY DAYS BUY BACKKELLY DAY149 1,149.00 48,470.19
Total Net Pay:$37,764.97
$48,470.19 1,149.00
11/23/2015 Page 1 of 1
Packet Page 43 of 549
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 806 (11/23/2015 to 11/23/2015)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
HOLIDAY BUY BACKHOLIDAY153 4,295.50 178,427.05
Total Net Pay:$129,882.54
$178,427.05 4,295.50
11/23/2015 Page 1 of 1
Packet Page 44 of 549
AM-8147 3. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Ed Sibrel Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on final construction costs for the Vista Place Outfall Repair project and acceptance of project
Recommendation
Accept project.
Previous Council Action
On November 24, 2015, staff presented this item to the City Council and it was forwarded to the consent
agenda for approval.
Narrative
The Vista Place outfall is a storm facility that drains the hillside and 12 th Avenue West roadway area in
the vicinity of Vista Way. The outfall empties into an open channel within a Native Growth Protection
Area, which then drains to Hindley Creek downstream.
Storm events in recent years have eroded the stream channel and caused the failure of the outfall. In
accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy, the City contracted with D & G Backhoe under a Small
Works contract in the amount of $27,703.50 for the repairs. The funds were paid out of the Citywide
Drainage Replacement Projects budget.
The project was physically completed October 28, 2015 at a total cost of $25,669.31, under budget by
$2,004.19.
Attachments
Vicinity Map
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 11/24/2015 09:39 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 11/25/2015 08:23 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/25/2015 08:27 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2015 08:30 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2015 08:31 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 11/24/2015 07:59 AM
Packet Page 45 of 549
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 46 of 549
Packet Page 47 of 549
AM-8153 3. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approve Interlocal Agreement with the Snohomish Conservation District
Recommendation
Approve Interlocal Agreement.
Previous Council Action
On November 16, 2010, the City Council authorized the Mayor to sign a 5-year agreement with the
Snohomish Conservation District.
On November 24, 2015, staff presented this item to the City Council and it was forwarded to the consent
agenda for approval.
Narrative
The Snohomish Conservation District (SCD) is a political sub-division of state government that has been
working with farmers and landowners since 1941. District boundaries include Camano Island (added in
1961) and most of Snohomish County. Since the SCD was formed in 1941, the area of Edmonds that was
part of the County in that year can receive services from the SCD (all except the downtown area). SCD
received approval for an assessment of $5 per parcel and $.05 per acre through 2020. These funds go
towards direct help to Edmonds and other residents of the County.
The mission of the SCD is to work cooperatively with others to promote and encourage conservation and
responsible use of natural resources. This Interlocal Agreement (ILA) renews the current agreement and
provides a continuing mechanism for the SCD to provide services directly to Edmonds residents and to
provide assistance to Edmonds staff on as-needed basis.
Over the past year, SCD has provided the City with services in the areas of outreach and education on
stormwater- related issues. They have:
Conducted two ecosystem/watershed classes at Westgate Elementary.
Two additional classes will be conducted before end of 2015.
The cost to the City was $150 per class.
SCD planned, designed and, implemented Edmonds’ first formal neighborhood rain garden program.
This included:
Packet Page 48 of 549
Meetings with City staff to discuss rain garden program and outreach approach.
Organized, promoted, and conducted a Rain Garden Workshop at PCC Market, June 13th, at which
19 Edmonds residents were in attendance.
Conducted Rain Garden Cluster outreach – during several outings, Conservation District staff
canvassed neighborhoods in Edmonds to identify location of City/District sponsored cluster.
Identified/selected two locations in Edmonds for clusters – Sierra Drive and 3rd Ave S.
Coordinated Sierra Drive rain garden cluster installation.
Organized/educated property owners.
Coordinated logistics of installation with WSU Extension rain garden mentor program.
Completed design of six rain gardens.
Constructed (excavation and planting preparation) 6 rain gardens with Conservation District and
City Operations crews from September 30 th through October 5th.
Organized and conducted community planting event on October 10th.
The cost to the City for this rain garden program was $18,577. SCD contributed approximately $8,000.
The SCD Scope of Work for 2016 attached to the ILA (attachment) is similar to that for 2015. It includes
youth education and second neighborhood rain garden program for 3 rd Ave S. In addition, SCD has
submitted rain garden program project pre-proposal for regional funding organization (South Central
Puget Sound Action Area, established by Puget Sound Partnership). The proposal includes a project to
identify and prioritize areas appropriate for rain garden or bio-filtration installations that would result in a
measurable impact and flow reduction in the Perrinville Creek watershed, building on the Perrinville
Creek Flow Reduction Study conducted by the City in 2013
SCD is a valuable and cost effective supplement to City staff on conservation issues.
Fiscal Impact:
Funds for both the education and the rain garden programs came from a combination of Ecology
stormwater grants and Stormwater Fund dollars. Future funding for the SCD work will come from these
same sources.
Attachments
Snohomish Conservation District Interlocal Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Robert English 11/24/2015 09:46 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 11/25/2015 08:23 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/25/2015 08:27 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2015 08:30 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2015 08:31 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 11/24/2015 09:41 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 49 of 549
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2020
Page 1 of 8
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF EDMONDS
AND
SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT
FOR JOINT OR COOPERATIVE SERVICES
January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020
This Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") is entered into by and
between the City of Edmonds (hereinafter “City”), a political subdivision of the State of
Washington, and the Snohomish Conservation District (hereinafter "District"), a
Washington municipal corporation established pursuant to Chapter 89.08 RCW.
WHEREAS, the District was established pursuant to Chapter 89.08 RCW to
undertake a variety of activities relating to the conservation, management, and
sustainability of natural resources; and
WHEREAS, the District and City of Edmonds are authorized pursuant to the
Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, to enter into agreements with one
another for joint or cooperative action; and
WHEREAS, the District’s boundaries include all of the City of Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, for over 70 years the District has assisted landowners and local
governments as they face resource management challenges relating to water quality and
other natural resource issues; and
WHEREAS, increasing demands for resource management programs, resulting
from more stringent regulations, urban development pressures, and public interest and
awareness, has put a strain on both District and City of Edmonds financial resources; and
WHEREAS, the District has outlined long term goals and objectives in its Long-
Range Plan; and
Packet Page 50 of 549
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2020
Page 2 of 8
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds shares responsibility for conserving and
managing the City of Edmonds’s natural resources; and
WHEREAS, the District and City of Edmonds support and concur in the need to
continually refine and coordinate their long and short term goals, objectives, and
programs for managing and conserving the City of Edmonds’s natural resources; and
WHEREAS, the revenue from special assessments imposed by Snohomish
County (County) pursuant to RCW 89.08.400 will allow the District to work in
partnership with the City of Edmonds to obtain grant funding and support the County and
the City of Edmonds in addressing requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing of salmon species,
and other natural resource protection requirements and needs;
NOW, THEREFORE, the District and City of Edmonds mutually agree as follows:
I. PURPOSE
A. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference.
B. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish and define the terms and
conditions for the cooperative efforts to be undertaken by the City of Edmonds and the
District to promote, facilitate, and undertake certain conservation programs and activities.
C. This Agreement shall be implemented through an annual scope of work as
provided in Articles VI and VII.
II. DURATION OF AGREEMENT
A. This Agreement shall commence on the date of January 1, 2016 and terminate
December 31, 2020, unless otherwise modified or terminated in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement.
B. The activities described in the yearly Appendices that are performed after the
execution date of this Agreement, shall be eligible for funding under this Agreement.
Packet Page 51 of 549
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2020
Page 3 of 8
III. FUNDING
Funds for the resource management and conservation programs provided for in this
Agreement shall be defined within the annual Scope of Work and Budget negotiated
between the City of Edmonds and the District.
IV. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DISTRICT
A. Scope of Work
This Agreement shall be implemented through a scope of work. The City of
Edmonds and the District shall negotiate a scope of work and budget for each year of this
Agreement, which scope of work and budget will coordinate and describe the
conservation programs and activities to be undertaken using funds from the City of
Edmonds and the District. The first annual scope of work and budget is set out in
Appendix 1-2016, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which shall
take effect on the date of execution of this Agreement. Subsequent annual scope of work
and budget will be attached to this Agreement labeled as Appendix 1-2017 (or
subsequent year).
B. Future Scope of Work
On or before December 1 of each year, the District will submit to the City of
Edmonds, a proposed annual scope of work and budget that describes the District’s
conservation programs and activities proposed to be undertaken by the District with funds
obtained from the City of Edmonds in the succeeding year. The scope of work will be
coordinated with City of Edmonds conservation programs and activities. The District
shall actively involve constituents and partners in the development of the proposed scope
of work.
C. Program Reporting
With each quarterly invoice, the District shall prepare and submit to the City of
Edmonds a quarterly report which shall summarize the work performed and expenditures
incurred during the preceding months for funding provided by the City of Edmonds and
evaluate the performance and results of the work performed. The reports shall also
include, but not be limited to, the following:
Packet Page 52 of 549
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2020
Page 4 of 8
1. A description of work performed during the period and progress made to date.
2. A description of any adverse conditions that affected the program objectives
and/or time schedules, and actions taken to resolve them.
V. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
A. Cooperation with the District
The City of Edmonds shall assist the District in a timely manner in the preparation,
review, modification, and implementation of the scope of work, including
accommodation of sensitive District timelines and assistance in identifying and making
plan modifications that are reasonably consistent with the mission and goals of the
District.
B. Payment of Billing Requests
The City of Edmonds shall provide payment within 30 days of an approved billing
request submitted by the District for work activities and expenditures identified by the
agreed to scope of work and budget.
VI. ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the City of Edmonds and
the District and supersedes all proposals, oral and written, and all other communication
between the parties in relation to the subject matter of this Agreement. No other
agreement exists between the City of Edmonds and the District with regards to the instant
subject matter except as expressly set forth in this instrument. Except as otherwise
provided herein, no modification of this Agreement shall be effective until reduced to
writing and executed by both parties.
VII. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS
The District shall maintain all books, documents, receipts, invoices, and records,
including payroll records, necessary to sufficiently and properly reflect the expenditures
associated with this Agreement. The accounting records shall provide for a separate
recording and reporting of all receipts and expenditures. Financial records pertaining to
Packet Page 53 of 549
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2020
Page 5 of 8
matters authorized by this Agreement are subject to inspection and audit by
representatives of the City of Edmonds or the State Auditor upon request.
VIII. AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS OF PROGRAM
EXPENDITURES
A. Changes in Approved Projects or Program Activities
The City of Edmonds, through the mayor or mayor’s designee, must approve the
removal, modification, or addition of work identified in the annual scope of work.
B. Delays
Spending for some projects or program activities may be delayed because of
extended timeframes for obtaining supporting grant funds, holdups in the permit
review/approval processes, or other unforeseen circumstances. Variations in the scope of
work or budget for these reasons shall be documented between the District and the City
of Edmonds.
IX. PROPERTY
Title to property purchased by the District in carrying out the scope of work shall
vest in the District.
X. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Notice
Except as set forth elsewhere in this Agreement, notice for purposes of this
Agreement, except service of process, shall be given by the District to the City of
Edmonds by delivery to the Public Works Director, 121 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA
98020. Notice to the District for purposes of this Agreement, except service of process,
shall be given to the Chair of the Board of Supervisors of the District and to the District
Manager, 528 – 91st Ave. NE. Lake Stevens, WA 98258.
Packet Page 54 of 549
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2020
Page 6 of 8
B. Compliance with Laws
The District and the City of Edmonds shall comply with all federal, state, and local
laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to the performance of this
Agreement. The District and the City of Edmonds agree to comply with all the
provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act and all regulations interpreting or
enforcing such acts.
C. Indemnification
The District and the City of Edmonds agree to protect, defend and hold harmless
each other, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents, from and against all
claims, demands and causes of action of any kind or character, including any cost of
defense and attorney’s fees, arising out of any actions, errors or omissions of the other
party, its officials, employees and agents in performing this Agreement except for those
arising out of the sole negligence of the other party.
D. Non-assignment
The District shall not subcontract, assign or delegate any of the rights, duties or
obligations covered by this Agreement without prior express written approval by the City
of Edmonds.
E. Independent Contractor
The District will perform the services under this Agreement as an independent
contractor and not as an agent, employee, or servant of the City of Edmonds. The parties
agree that the District is not entitled to any benefits or rights enjoyed by employees of the
City of Edmonds. The District specifically has the right to direct and control the
District’s own activities in implementing the scope of work in accordance with the terms
of this Agreement. The City of Edmonds shall only have the right to ensure performance.
F. Interlocal Cooperation Act
The parties agree that no separate legal or administrative entities are necessary in
order to carry out this Agreement. If determined by a court to be necessary for purposes
of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Ch. 39.34 RCW, an administrator or joint board
responsible for administering the Agreement will be established by mutual agreement.
Packet Page 55 of 549
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2020
Page 7 of 8
Any real or personal property used by either party in connection with this Agreement will
be acquired, held, and disposed of by that party in its discretion, and the other party will
have no joint or other interest herein. No partnership or joint venture between the parties
is created by this Agreement.
XI. TERMINATION
A. The City of Edmonds reserves the right to terminate or suspend this Agreement
at any time, with or without cause, upon seven (7) days prior written notice.
B. In the event this Agreement is terminated or suspended, the District shall be
entitled to payment for all services performed and reimbursable expenses incurred to the
date of termination.
C. This Agreement may be canceled immediately if the District is unable to perform
the services called for by this Agreement.
D. The District reserves the right to terminate this Agreement with not less than
fourteen (14) days written notice, or in the event that outstanding services are not paid
within thirty (30) days.
E. These provisions shall not prevent the City of Edmonds from seeking any legal
remedies it may otherwise have for the violation or nonperformance of any provisions of
this Agreement.
XII. MISCELLANEOUS
A. No obligation in this Agreement shall limit the District or the City of Edmonds
in fulfilling its responsibilities otherwise defined by law.
B. The City of Edmonds shall cause this Agreement to be recorded with the
Snohomish County Auditor.
Packet Page 56 of 549
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT
January 1, 2016 - December 31, 2020
Page 8 of 8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
latest date written below.
SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Accepted and executed this ____ day of ________________, 2015
By: ____________________________
Mark Craven, Chair
Snohomish Conservation District
City of Edmonds
Accepted and executed this ____ day of ________________, 2015
By: ____________________________
David O. Earling, Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
By: ____________________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ____________________________
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Page 57 of 549
Appendix 1- 2016
Task Description Estimated Cost SCD
Contributions City's Cost
Administration Project Administration: Assist with reporting, billing, and
general project management.$474 $119 $356
Youth Ed Provide stormwater education classes to Edmonds School
District, with SCD or SWM paying 25%, Edmonds 75%. $500 $500
Final designs 6 rain gardens with homeowner participation -
including engineered designs, plant palettes and
maintenance plans (with WSU Extension).
$8,000
EarthCorp Crew installation (*not including: excavation for
all (hand dig some), disposal of excavated soil, overflow
connection, planting).
$11,000
Coordinate a community planting event and rain garden tour
(with WSU Extension).$2,500
Overhead 15% charged on top of staff time $3,371 $3,371
Event Costs Promotional material, refreshments, misc. materials $1,500 $375 $1,125
Bioretention soil, mulch, riprap, piping $2,476 $619 $1,857
zone 1 plants $1,000 $250 $750
Interpretive signs for 6 rain gardens $2,400 $600 $1,800
Travel Mileage for planning and coordination meetings and
workshops $378 $95 $284
Total Estimated Costs $33,599 $7,432 $26,167
Rain Garden
Cluster $5,375 $16,125
Rain Garden
Materials (for 6
rain gardens)
Packet Page 58 of 549
AM-8154 3. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with
Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. for Prosecuting Attorney Services
Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign this Amendment.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. is the firm that provides prosecuting attorney services for the City. Zachor
& Thomas, Inc., P.S. approached the City in July 2015 to negotiate an increase in its fees for prosecuting
attorney services, as contemplated by its current Professional Services Agreement. That agreement, which
expires December 31, 2015, contemplated that Zachor & Thomas would submit a proposed contract for
2016 and attempt to negotiate new terms for services for this additional year, if possible. Zachor &
Thomas’ proposal for a rate increase was in response to: (a) the new requirements for defense counsel
imposed by the Washington Supreme Court’s New Standards for Indigent Defense and the anticipated
additional workload for prosecutors; (b) the City’s change in defense counsel, which introduced some
uncertainty into the prosecutor’s expected workload; and (c) the addition, in July 2015, by the Edmonds
Municipal Court of a new required court calendar every Tuesday, which requires additional work for the
prosecutors. The attached Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement for Prosecuting
Attorney Services between the City and Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. incorporates a $3,500 per month
increase in the firm’s base rate (which allows for an additional .5 attorneys), as well as allowing Zachor &
Thomas to bill separately for the new Tuesday court calendar (with a cap of $12,000 for the year), and
for prosecutor services to review police incident reports for charging determinations above 125 cases per
year (it is expected that such cases will not exceed 125 cases by more than 10 cases).
The increase of $3500 per month is reflected in the Mayor's budget. The additional $12,000 is not
currently added in yet, but is being recommended by the Mayor due to the change in the court's calendar.
Because of the change in standards, and the increase in the amount of the contract, staff would
recommend that the City implement an RFQ process next year for prosecuting attorney services.
Attachments
Packet Page 59 of 549
Current PSA Zachor and Thomas
Proposed Amendment Zachor and Thomas
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/25/2015 08:40 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2015 08:44 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2015 08:46 AM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 11/25/2015 08:37 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 60 of 549
Packet Page 61 of 549
Packet Page 62 of 549
Packet Page 63 of 549
Packet Page 64 of 549
Packet Page 65 of 549
Packet Page 66 of 549
Packet Page 67 of 549
Packet Page 68 of 549
Packet Page 69 of 549
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter
referred to as the “City”), and the Law Offices of Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. (hereinafter
referred to as the "Consultant"), entered into an underlying agreement for the provision of
prosecuting attorney services dated January 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Underlying
Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Underlying Agreement is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2015,
but provides the Consultant the opportunity to submit a proposed contract for the 2016 calendar
year; and
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to extend the Underlying Agreement through the
2016 calendar year; and
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to increase the payments to be made pursuant to the
Underlying Agreement for the 2016 calendar year;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by
and between the parties thereto as follows:
1. The Underling Agreement, which is incorporated by this reference as if
fully set forth herein, is amended in, but only in, the following respects:
1.1 Payments. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Underlying Agreement shall be amended
as follows, which provisions shall apply to payments made during the 2016 calendar year
only, and shall not be increased by the Payment Rate Adjustment provided for in Section
2.3 of the Underlying Agreement:
2.1 Base Rate: The Prosecutor shall receive a monthly retainer of SEVENTEEN
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS ($17,430.00) per month
for performance of those duties set forth in Attachment A, Scope of Work, to the
Underlying Agreement.
2.2 Hourly Rate: Services performed outside the Scope of Work described in
Attachment A, or which may be mutually agreed upon to be added at a later date,
or additional court calendars, including preparation and appearance time, shall be
in addition to the base rate set forth in paragraph 2.1. Absent a separate
agreement, those services shall be billed at a rate of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-
FIVE DOLLARS ($125.00) per hour. Any Rules of Appeal of Decisions of
Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (RALJ) case filed in Superior Court, or criminal
case filed into the South Division of Snohomish County District Court shall be
billed at the rate of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($125.00) per
hour. Forfeitures shall be billed at a flat rate of THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS
Packet Page 70 of 549
($300.00) per case. Motions set and confirmed on Tuesdays by the Court as part
of the new 2015 court calendar shall be billed at a flat rate of THREE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($300.00) per calendar, with a cap of TWELVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($12,000.00) for the 2016 calendar year. If reviews of police incident
reports for determination of charging exceed 125 cases in 2016, the Consultant
shall bill hourly for such services with a cap of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
DOLLARS ($150.00) per case over the 125 case threshold.
Any other cases filed at the Court of Appeals; cases filed at the Supreme Court;
cases filed in a District Court Division other than the South Division of the
Snohomish County District Court; forfeiture cases filed or removed in courts
other than before the Edmonds Chief Law Enforcement Officer or his/her
Designee, which may require the appearance of the Consultant; and such other
activities agreed to by the City and the Consultant, shall be billed at ONE
HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($150.00) per hour. The Consultant shall obtain
written approval from the City prior to pursuing or appearing on appeal of any
matter beyond the Superior Court.
1.2 Scope of Work. Paragraph 9 of the Underlying Agreement’s Scope of Work
shall be amended as follows:
9. Represent the City in the prosecution of drug, felony, and firearm forfeitures
that are filed by the City before the Edmonds Chief Law Enforcement Officer or
his/her Designee. Forfeitures shall be billed at a flat rate of $300.00 per case.
Notice of Intended Forfeitures and Seizure Hearings pursuant to RCW 69.50.505
and RCW 10.105.010 shall be set before the Edmonds Chief Law Enforcement
Officer or his/her Designee within ninety (90) days of receipt of Notice of
Demand for Hearing.
2. In all other respects, the Underlying Agreement between the parties shall
remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. Nothing
in this agreement precludes the Consultant and the City from renegotiating these terms should
there be a significant change in case filings, court dates or case management.
DATED this _____ day of November, 2015.
CITY OF EDMONDS ZACHOR & THOMAS, INC., P.S.
David O. Earling, Mayor By:_________________________________
Its: _________________________________
Packet Page 71 of 549
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of _______________, 2015, before me, the under-signed, a Notary
Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally
appeared _______________________, and executed the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged the said instrument to be his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the
uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that s/he was authorized to
execute said instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above
written.
______
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
____________________________________
Packet Page 72 of 549
AM-8159 3. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Potential Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda
Recommendation
Approval on Consent.
Previous Council Action
On 11/10/15 the Draft 2016 Legislative Agenda was presented to City Council who offered additional
items for inclusion in in the Agenda: support for capital funding for the Edmonds Senior/Community
Center, and monitor and potential support of environmental issues. These items were added to the current
draft Legislative Agenda attached here. Staff presented the draft on 11/24/2015 and received Council
consensus to place on the 12/1 agenda for approval on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
Attached you will find the DRAFT 2016 City of Edmonds Legislative Agenda, containing those items we
would wish to "Actively Pursue" and those we would with to "Support" during the 2016 Legislative
Session. The Agenda and Appendix have been amended since the 11/10/15 Council meeting to include
mention of support for the Edmonds Senior/Community Center capital campaign, and monitor and
potential support of measures related to environmental issues. You will also see an Appendix containing
those items we would wish to "Monitor and Potentially Support."
Attachments
Draft Edmonds 2016 Legislative Agenda
DRAFT Edmonds 2016 Legislative Agenda - APPENDIX
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 11/25/2015 10:05 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 73 of 549
DRAFT
CITY OF EDMONDS 2016 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
SYNOPSIS
Actively Pursue
• Accelerate Funding for the SR 99 Edmonds Gateway Project
• Capital Project Funding for Frances Anderson Center
Support
• Bolster Resources for Infrastructure Investment
• Public Records Cost Recovery and Privacy
• Public Defense Costs
• Emergency Responsiveness
• Rulemaking and Fiscal Notes
• Property Tax Growth
• EMS Levy
• Washington Wildlife & Recreation Program (WWRP)
• Clarify & Reinforce Recreational Liability Immunity for Multi-Purpose Trails
• Capital Project Funding for Edmonds Senior/Community Center
DETAIL OF LEGISLATIVE AGENDA ITEMS
Actively Pursue
Accelerate Funding for the SR 99 Edmonds Gateway Project
The Legislature provided $10 million in the 2021-23 biennium for the concept design,
environmental work, and design development of the SR 99 Edmonds Gateway project. Pursue
shifting full funding to the 2015-17 biennium, enabling earlier progress on the design work and
Packet Page 74 of 549
Edmonds 2016 Legislative Agenda
Page 2 of 3
2
allowing Edmonds to leverage other sources of funds for construction of this project. Note that
the City has launched a Highway 99 planning process, which will help guide project priorities,
especially for pedestrian improvements.
Capital Project Funding for Frances Anderson Center
We are seeking $350,000 in capital funding to repair/replace the aging Frances Anderson
Center roofs, now experiencing frequent and costly leaks and associated damage.
Support
Bolster Resources for Infrastructure Investment
Continue to support efforts to restore support for critical infrastructure programs that help
cities grow and prosper. Halt diversion of funds from programs, such as the Public Works
Assistance Account, the result of which means that communities cannot affordably maintain
and secure new infrastructure. Other creative, statewide approaches and/or incentives for
local infrastructure funding should also be considered.
In addition, join Snohomish County officials in advocating for additional funding for projects in
the Multimodal Transportation 30-year Plan that remain unfunded.
Public Records Cost Recovery and Privacy
Continue to support legislation to strengthen the Public Records Act in response to changing
technology and burdensome, increasingly costly requests. Support legislation that helps to
provide cost recovery for local agencies in the growing area of electronic records requests, and
for public records clearly for commercial purposes. Additionally, clarify retention and disclosure
requirements for audio and visual records. Support legislative efforts to reduce costs of
retaining these records, as well as efforts to clarify retention requirements and to provide
sufficient privacy protection for members of the public who appear in audio/video records.
Public Defense Costs
Continue to support efforts to provide a state revenue stream for additional city public defense
costs as a result of the State Supreme Court’s mandated caseload rule for public defenders.
Emergency Responsiveness
As a result of recent disasters and emergencies (wildfire, landslides, etc.), support cities’
requests for better ways to address emergency management, including improved ways to
coordinate response and communication among agencies, authority to ban fireworks during
dangerous situations, etc.
Packet Page 75 of 549
Edmonds 2016 Legislative Agenda
Page 3 of 3
3
Rulemaking and Fiscal Notes
Support efforts to include an analysis of “do no harm” to cities when the State proposes new
rules or legislation. Likewise, fiscal notes accompanying legislation should include both the
financial costs and benefits (currently only costs are analyzed).
Property Tax Growth
Support provisions that would give municipalities a local-option to permit property tax revenue
to exceed the 1% limit and grow with indicators of cost growth.
EMS Levy
Support efforts to amend the current EMS levy limit of $0.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation
(AV) to a local option of $0.75 per $1,000.
Washington Wildlife & Recreation Program (WWRP)
Support recommended steps to update and improved the 25-year-old WWRP program – for
example, with recommendations for more local parks funding into projects that will upgrade
and renovate existing facilities. Meanwhile, join other stakeholders in working to ensure that
the basic structure and integrity of the WWRP remain intact through any 2016 legislative
overhaul of the program.
Clarifying and Reinforcing Recreational Liability Immunity for Multi-Purpose Trails
Support 2016 legislation being promoted by the City of Mercer Island to reinforce recreational
liability immunity for trails used by bicyclists. This issue has been clouded by the recent Camicia
v Howard S. Wright Construction and City of Mercer Island case. WRPA will work to ensure that
no current recreational immunity protection be undermined in any legislation.
Capital Project Funding for Edmonds Senior/Community Center
Support the Edmonds Senior/Community Center’s continuing efforts to secure funding for their
proposed new community center on the Edmonds waterfront.
Packet Page 76 of 549
DRAFT
CITY OF EDMONDS 2016 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
APPENDIX
ITEMS TO MONITOR AND POTENTIALLY SUPPORT
SYNOPSIS
• Growth Management Act Review
• Human Services, Homelessness and Affordable Housing
• Fiscal Sustainability
• Environmental Issues
• Advanced Composites Center Manufacturing Institute
• Washington Tourism Marketing Authority
• Supplemental Funding for Coordinated Prevention Grants
• Public Health
• Improve Washington State’s Economic Climate
• Increase Funding for Local Economic Development Programs
• Reinstate Research and Development Tax Incentive
• Workforce Development – Career and Technical Education
• REET for Affordable Housing
• Local-Option Housing Preservation Property Tax Exemption
• Governor’s “Healthiest Next Generation” Initiative
Packet Page 77 of 549
Edmonds 2016 Legislative Agenda - APPENDIX
Page 2 of 4
2
DETAIL OF MONITOR/POTENTIALLY SUPPORT ITEMS
GENERAL
Growth Management Act Review
Some legislative discussion rose last year—and will probably come up again--about doing a “big
look” at the Growth Management Act and perhaps assembling some kind of commission or
study to evaluate it and suggest reforms. Depending on the nature of any study, this could
affect cities’ interest in the environment, infrastructure, or reducing sprawl.
Human Services, Homelessness and Affordable Housing
Support efforts to enhance the human services programs to address issues that drive increased
homelessness and public safety concerns.
Fiscal Sustainability
Continue to support efforts to ensure sufficient, stable and flexible revenue for essential city
services.
Environmental Issues
Monitor and potential support potential environmental-protection measures, including those
that would enhance the Puget Sound ecosystem, salmon recovery, drought management, toxics
control and clean-up, as well as measures associated with climate change, crumb rubber
athletic field infill, etc.
OTHER JURISDICTION/AGENCY PROPOSALS
The City of Edmonds will also monitor and may potentially support the efforts proposed by
other jurisdictions and agencies that may accrue benefit to Edmonds and Snohomish County:
Advanced Composites Center Manufacturing Institute
Proposals, funding or otherwise to bring an advanced composites center to Snohomish County
to support diversification and new industry growth opportunities.
Washington Tourism Marketing Authority
Legislation establishing an industry-funded Washington Tourism Marketing Authority to
contract for statewide tourism-marketing services.
Supplemental Funding for Coordinated Prevention Grants
Packet Page 78 of 549
Edmonds 2016 Legislative Agenda - APPENDIX
Page 3 of 4
3
Restore funding to the Coordinated Prevention Grant Program (CPG) that was cut in the 2015-
17 Capital Budget. CPGs fund the operation and regulation of local solid-waste facilities, reduce
exposure to toxins, and support resources-conservation through recycling and reuse programs.
Public Health
Establish dedicated state funding for public health and support funding for marijuana
prevention. Pursue legislation regulating the sale and use of vapor devices and authorizing
public health nurses to dispense drugs for family planning and communicable diseases.
Improve Washington State’s Economic Climate
Improve the state’s economic climate, including attracting private investment, funding STEM
education, building necessary infrastructure, reducing the state’s regulatory burden, funding CERB
and workforce education, and maintaining the $.09 Rural Economic Development Sales Tax Credit.
The State should also focus on policies that promote growth for small- and mid-sized businesses.
Increase Funding for Local Economic Development Programs
Increase investment in local economic development programs to ensure appropriate funding
successful job growth. Priority programs include Associate Development Organizations, the
Community and Economic Revitalization Board, “economic gardening” programs, Startup
Washington 365, Innovation Partnership Zones, local workforce training programs and Department
of Commerce initiatives to market Washington as the best place in the world to operate a business.
Reinstate Research and Development Tax Incentive
Reinstate the Research and Development tax incentives. Maintain key tax policies that lead to job
recruitment, retention and expansion including Business & Occupation (B&O) tax credits, aerospace
incentives, and food processing and agricultural incentives.
In addition, all tax incentives should be reviewed periodically to ensure that they provide intended
returns.
Workforce Development – Career and Technical Education
Prioritize career and technical education as the funding for K-12 education continues to
increase. Proactively engage the broader business community in all strategic planning and
implementation for how to target career and technical education investments to ensure that
our young adults are best prepared for careers in greatest demand.
REET for Affordable Housing
Seattle Mayor Murray intends to seek legislation that would enable cities to impose up an
additional 0.25% Real Estate Excise Tax by vote of city council, dedicated for investments in
affordable housing. The REET revenue would go to construction and M&O of housing affordable
to renters earning up to 60% of area median income and home-owners earning up to 80% of
Packet Page 79 of 549
Edmonds 2016 Legislative Agenda - APPENDIX
Page 4 of 4
4
area median income. Such affordable housing would need to remain serving the targeted
income groups for 50 years.
Local-Option Housing Preservation Property Tax Exemption
Mayor Murray also intends to seek legislation that would enable cities to provide a customized
property tax exemption to owners of existing affordable housing properties who agree to
restrict rents to prescribed income cohorts for a minimum period of time. Income thresholds,
numbers of units per property, time periods, etc., would all be customized by each jurisdiction.
The properties would also be held to minimum housing quality standards, such as the Uniform
Physical Conditions Standard, for which the tax exemption would free up funds to allow
property owners to make needed repairs.
Governor’s “Healthiest Next Generation” Initiative
The Governor’s Office 2016 Supplemental Operating Budget added permanent funding for
staffing associated with the “Healthiest Next Generation” initiative. Ensure that for purposes of
the 2017-19 budget, the Governor’s Office and the Department of Health are working toward
“built environment” and parks/recreation investments that can enhance public health, guard
against obesity, and improve access to the outdoors and to open space for those who need it
most.
Packet Page 80 of 549
AM-8160 3. G.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:James Lawless
Department:Police Department
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Edmonds School District - Emergency Access Key ILA
Recommendation
Approval via Consent Agenda.
Previous Council Action
Staff presentation during November 24, 2015 Council Meeting with Council forwarding to the December
1, 2015 Council Meeting for approval via Consent Agenda.
Narrative
The Edmonds School District has provided the Edmonds Police Department with two emergency access
master keys. These keys allow access to every building and/or door within the Edmonds School District
should the need arise. Given the extremely sensitive nature of these keys, the District has prepared an
Inter-local Agreement outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the Police Department in
maintaining these keys. The Edmonds School District adopted this ILA on September 15, 2015. The ILA
has been reviewed by the City of Edmonds City Attorney's Office and has been approved as to form.
The ILA is also attached.
Attachments
Edmonds School District - Emergency Access Key ILA
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/25/2015 12:21 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2015 12:26 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2015 12:27 PM
Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 11/25/2015 10:13 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 81 of 549
Packet Page 82 of 549
Packet Page 83 of 549
Packet Page 84 of 549
Packet Page 85 of 549
Packet Page 86 of 549
Packet Page 87 of 549
AM-8161 3. H.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:James Lawless
Department:Police Department
Type: Forward to Consent
Information
Subject Title
Yakima County Inmate Housing Agreement - Addendum
Recommendation
Approval via Consent Agenda.
Previous Council Action
Staff presentation during November 24, 2015 Council Meeting with Council forwarding to the December
1, 2015 Council Meeting for approval via Consent Agenda.
Narrative
The Edmonds Police Department currently has contracts with multiple jail facilities for the housing of
both short and long-term prisoners. Jail capacities vary and at times facilities are unable to accommodate
our needs for booking prisoners. In addition, costs vary from facility to facility with those on the east side
of the state generally being less expensive, especially for long-term commitments. In order to have
additional options for booking prisoners to address capacity issues, as well as to ensure that we are being
as financially responsible as we can be, we originally entered into an interlocal agreement with the
Yakima County Jail in June of 2014, for the housing of long-term commitments. The agreement with
Yakima County is set to expire on December 31, 2015. Staff wishes to continue our agreement with the
Yakima County Jail for the housing of long-term commitments. This agreement may be renewed for
another one year period by written addendum. This Inmate Housing Agreement Addendum is attached
reflecting the amended duration period of January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 with no increases
in fees; compensation (bed rates) shall remain the same. The city attorney has reviewed the previously
executed agreement and the Inmate Housing Agreement Addendum (both attached as one) and it has been
approved as to form. Staff requests that Council approve this matter authorizing the Mayor to so sign the
Agreement addendum for continued services beginning January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.
Attachments
Yakima County 2016 Addendum to Inmate Housing Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/25/2015 12:21 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2015 12:26 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2015 12:27 PM
Packet Page 88 of 549
Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 11/25/2015 10:21 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 89 of 549
Packet Page 90 of 549
Packet Page 91 of 549
Packet Page 92 of 549
Packet Page 93 of 549
Packet Page 94 of 549
Packet Page 95 of 549
Packet Page 96 of 549
Packet Page 97 of 549
Packet Page 98 of 549
Packet Page 99 of 549
Packet Page 100 of 549
Packet Page 101 of 549
Packet Page 102 of 549
Packet Page 103 of 549
Packet Page 104 of 549
Packet Page 105 of 549
Packet Page 106 of 549
Packet Page 107 of 549
Packet Page 108 of 549
Packet Page 109 of 549
AM-8162 3. I.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:James Lawless
Department:Police Department
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance Amending ECC Sections 5.32.107 and 5.32.108 - Shellfish Regulations and Enforcement
Recommendation
Approval via the Consent Agenda.
Previous Council Action
Staff presentation during November 24, 2015 Council Meeting with Council forwarding to the December
1, 2015 Council Meeting for approval via Consent Agenda.
Narrative
Each year, a large number of individuals visit the Edmonds waterfront and fishing pier for the purpose of
engaging in the recreational harvesting of shellfish in accordance with the various seasons established by
the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Numerous times during these seasons, the
Edmonds Police Department responds to citizen complaints of individuals committing violations
pertaining to the taking/possession of shellfish. The ordinances that cover the taking and possessing of
shellfish, as well as the duties of police officers to enforce shellfish violations were last updated in 1993.
The applicable ECC sections (5.32.107 and 5.32.108) adopted various chapters of the Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC).
During the last 21+ years, quite a few of the referenced/adopted RCW and WAC chapters have been
changed, renumbered, or removed. This has, in essence, made the applicable ECC sections
unenforceable. The amendments contained in the attached ordinance would correct this and allow
officers from the Edmonds Police Department to respond to complaints and take enforcement action
if/when necessary and when needed, cite into Edmonds Municipal Court as opposed to South District
Court.
The attached ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney's Office and has been approved as to form.
Attachments
Ordinance Amending ECC 5.32.107 and 5.32.108 - Shellfish Regulations and Enforcement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/25/2015 12:21 PM
Packet Page 110 of 549
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2015 12:26 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2015 12:27 PM
Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 11/25/2015 10:23 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 111 of 549
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC SECTIONS 5.32.107 AND
5.32.108 TO REVISE THE “STATE REGULATIONS ON
TAKING AND POSSESSION OF SHELLFISH ADOPTED BY
REFERENCE" AND “DUTIES OF POLICE OFFICERS TO
ENFORCE SHELLFISH VIOLATIONS” PROVISIONS OF
THOSE CODE SECTIONS TO REFERENCE TITLE 77 RCW;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, after review and discussion, the City Council has determined it
appropriate to amend Sections 5.32.107 and 5.32.108 of the Edmonds City Code (“ECC”) to
revise the “State Regulations on Taking and Possession of Shellfish Adopted by Reference” and
“Duties of Police Officers to Enforce Shellfish Violations” provisions of those code sections to
reference Title 77 RCW, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 5.32.107 of the ECC, entitled “State regulations on taking and
possession of shellfish adopted by reference,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new
language is underlined; deleted text is shown in strikethrough):
5.32.107 State regulations on taking and possession of shellfish adopted by
reference.
The following sections of the Washington Administrative Code and the Revised
Code of Washington regulating the taking of and possession of shellfish are
hereby adopted by this reference as fully as if herein set forth:
A. Chapter 75.10 RCW in its entirety – Enforcement – Penalties; Chapter 77.15
RCW in its entirety – Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Code;
B. Shellfish General Provisions.
WAC
220-56-310 Shellfish – Daily Bag Limits
220-56-312 Shellfish – Possession Limits
Packet Page 112 of 549
C. Hard/Soft Shell Clams.
WAC
220-56-355(3) Undersized Clams (1-1/2” Minimum)
220-56-335355(1) Failure to Fill Clamming Holes
220-56-340 Illegal Gear
D. Geoducks.
WAC
220-56-310(3) Over Possession Limit (3 Clams)
220-56-355(2) Possession of Necks Only
220-56-340 Illegal Gear (No Mechanical Harvesting)
E. Crabs.
WAC
220-56-310(1816) Possession of Over (65) Dungeness Crabs
220-56-310(1917) Possession of Over (126) Red Rock Crab
220-56-335(1) Possession of Female/Soft Dungeness
220-56-335(2) Undersize Dungeness Crab
220-56-335(3) Undersize Red Rock Crab
220-56-335(4) Measurement of Crab
220-56-335(45) Possession of Crab/Back Removed
220-56-335(6) Possession of Softshell Crab
220-56-330 Closed Season/Area-Pot Closure
F. Chapter 77.32 RCW in its entirety – Licenses
Section 2. Section 5.32.108 of the ECC, entitled “Duties of police officers to
enforce shellfish violations,” is hereby amended to read as follows (new language is underlined;
deleted text is shown in strikethrough):
5.32.108 Duties of police officers to enforce shellfish violations.
Pursuant to RCW 75.10.010 77.08.010(18), all city of Edmonds commissioned
police officers with the primary function of enforcing criminal laws in general
shall be deemed “ex officio” fisheries patrol fish and wildlife officers” for the
purpose of enforcement of adopted shellfish regulations.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
Packet Page 113 of 549
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an administrative function
of the city council, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage
and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 114 of 549
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC SECTIONS 5.32.107 AND
5.32.108 TO REVISE THE “STATE REGULATIONS ON
TAKING AND POSSESSION OF SHELLFISH ADOPTED BY
REFERENCE" AND “DUTIES OF POLICE OFFICERS TO
ENFORCE SHELLFISH VIOLATIONS” PROVISIONS OF
THOSE CODE SECTIONS TO REFERENCE TITLE 77 RCW;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2015.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Page 115 of 549
AM-8163 3. J.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
WDFW Grant Agreement Amendment Authorization
Recommendation
Approval on the consent agenda.
Previous Council Action
In February of 2014 the Council provided approval to an ILA with the WDFW to fund the design work
for the Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project.
Narrative
The City has been working with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife on making
structural and other repairs to the Edmonds Fishing Pier. In June of this year, design work for this project
was completed with the assistance of the consultant firm, BergerABAM. In the current biennial budget,
the state legislature authorized $800,000 of capital funding for the project work itself. There is an
additional $500,000 of RCO funding via an ALEA grant that is also earmarked for this work, for a total
of $1,300,000.
In order to execute the contract amendment that will provide the City access to these sources of funding,
the Council must first authorize the mayor to enter into the agreement. Once both parties have signed the
amendment, the City can move forward with the project work itself. Approval of this contract
amendment between the two parties is essential if the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project is to move into
construction phase next year.
Attachments
Grant Amendment
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 11/25/2015 12:51 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 116 of 549
Packet Page 117 of 549
Packet Page 118 of 549
AM-8151 5. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Scott James
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on 2016 Budget and Adoption of 2016 Budget and Adoption of Amendments to the
Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation
There is one recommendation for Council.
The recommendation is for Council to make a motion to approve ordinance XXXX adopting the 2016
Budget as amended and adopting amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Previous Council Action
Mayor Earling presented the Proposed 2016 Budget to City Council during their October 13th City
Council meeting. On October 20th, the Police Department, City Clerk, Mayor's Office, Council, Finance
& Information Services and the Nondepartmental departments presented their 2016 budget requests. On
October 27th, the Economic Development/Community Services, Development Services, Parks
departments, Human Resources and Municipal Court presented their 2016 budget requests to Council. On
November 2nd, the Public Works department present their 2016 budget requests to Council.
On November 10th, staff provided Council a presentation of 2016 revenue sources. The remaining time
for this agenda item was for Public Comment and for Council to begin their discussion of the 2016
Budget.
The scheduled November 17th Public Hearing and Potential adoption of the 2016 Budget was cancelled
due to weather.
On November 24th, 2015, Council will held a Public Hearing on the 2016 Budget and Revenue Sources.
Amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan:
On September 22, 2015, City Council began the review of the proposed 2016-2021 Capital Facilities
Plan and Capital Improvement Program amendments.
TheCapital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program were presented at Public Hearing held
before the Planning Board on October 14, 2015.
Packet Page 119 of 549
On October 27, 2015, a Council Public Hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan Update for 2016-2021 to
the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program was held, and on November 24, 2015,
City Council discussed the Capital Facilities Plan Update for 2016-2021 to the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and Capital Improvement Program.
Narrative
On December 1st, 2015, Council will hold a Public Hearing on the 2016 Budget and Approve an
Ordinance Adopting the 2016 Budget and Adopting Amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan Element
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments
2016 Budget and Amendments to CFP Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 11/25/2015 08:57 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/25/2015 08:58 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2015 10:15 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2015 10:16 AM
Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 11/24/2015 02:37 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 120 of 549
2016 Budget Ordinance Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2016; ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING
A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, on or before the first business day in the third month prior to the
beginning of the fiscal year of 2016, the Finance Director submitted to the Mayor the
estimates of revenues and expenditures for the next fiscal year as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor reviewed the estimates and made such revisions and/or
additions as deemed advisable and prior to sixty days before January 1, 2016, filed the said
revised preliminary budget with the City Clerk together with a budget message, as
recommendation for the final budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk provided sufficient copies of such preliminary budget
and budget message to meet the reasonable demands of taxpayers therefore and published and
posted notice of filing and the availability of said preliminary budget together with the date of a
public hearing for the purpose of fixing a final budget, all as required by the law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled hearings on the preliminary budget for
the purpose of providing information regarding estimates and programs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did meet on November 2, 2015 which was on or
before the first Monday of the month next preceding the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, for
Packet Page 121 of 549
2016 Budget Ordinance Page 2
the purpose of fixing a final budget at which hearing all taxpayers were heard who appeared for
or against any part of said budget; and
WHEREAS, following the conclusion of said hearing the City Council made such
adoptions and changes as it deemed necessary and proper;
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2015, City Council reviewed the proposed 2016-
2021 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program were
presented and a Public Hearing was held before the Planning Board on October 14, 2015; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2015, a Public Hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan
Update for 2016-2021 to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program was
held; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2015, City Council discussed the Capital Facilities
Plan Update for 2016-2021 to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement
Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council expressly finds that, consistent with RCW
36.70A.130, the adoption of these amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan concurrently with
the adoption of the City’s 2016 budget meets one of the permissible exceptions to the general
rule requiring concurrent review of all amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, NOW,
THEREFORE;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A, in summary form, are
the totals of estimated revenues and appropriations for each separate fund and the aggregate
Packet Page 122 of 549
2016 Budget Ordinance Page 3
totals for all such funds combined, and by this reference said Exhibit A is incorporated herein as
if set forth in full and the same is hereby adopted in full. The Finance Director is authorized to
update year-end fund balances in the final budget document as projected prior to printing the
final budget document.
Section 2. A complete copy of the final budget for 2016, as adopted, together
with a copy of this adopting ordinance shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of
Municipal Corporations of the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington
Cities.
Section 3. The Capital Facilities Plan element of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
Section 4. This ordinance is a legislative act delegated by statute to the City
Council of the City of Edmonds, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days
after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY ___
CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
Packet Page 123 of 549
2016 Budget Ordinance Page 4
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 124 of 549
2016 Budget Ordinance Page 5
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2016; ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING
A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________,2015.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Page 125 of 549
2016 Budget Ordinance Page 6
Fund No.Fund Description Revenue Expenditure
Difference (Rev -
Exp) *
001 General Fund 39,341,350$ 39,748,030$ (406,680)$
009 LEOFF Medical Insurance Reserve Subfund 278,770 279,480 (710)
011 Risk Management Reserve Subfund 6,660 - 6,660
012 Contingency Reserve Subfund 28,110 800,000 (771,890)
014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund - 400 (400)
016 Building Maintenance Subfund 1,680,000 1,754,000 (74,000)
104 Drug Enforcement Fund 153,000 76,030 76,970
111 Street Fund 1,760,500 1,712,370 48,130
112 Street Construction Fund 5,290,850 5,123,960 166,890
117 Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund 102,410 181,380 (78,970)
118 Memorial Tree Fund 110 - 110
120 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 82,150 149,650 (67,500)
121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 21,390 26,880 (5,490)
122 Youth Scholarship Fund 5,550 3,000 2,550
123 Tourism Promotional Arts Fund 27,530 31,500 (3,970)
125 REET 2 1,108,000 1,523,650 (415,650)
126 Special Capital/Parks Acquisition 1,102,000 1,934,390 (832,390)
127 Gifts Catalog Fund 46,900 44,950 1,950
129 Special Projects Fund 280 - 280
130 Cemetery Maintenance/Imp. Fund 177,260 210,370 (33,110)
132 Parks Construction Fund 2,037,240 2,100,000 (62,760)
136 Parks Trust Fund 630 - 630
137 Cemetery Maintenance Fund 19,880 - 19,880
138 Sister City Commission Fund 7,010 7,550 (540)
139 Transportation Benefit District Fund 682,500 682,500 -
211 LID Control Fund 14,400 14,400 -
213 LID Guaranty Fund 14,400 - 14,400
231 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund 677,380 677,380 -
232 2014 Debt Service Fund 949,540 949,540
421 Water Utility Fund 8,429,970 12,511,460 (4,081,490)
422 Water Utility Fund 4,131,780 6,612,170 (2,480,390)
423 Water Utility Fund 12,414,120 17,172,110 (4,757,990)
424 Water Utility Fund 1,989,900 1,990,920 (1,020)
511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,579,570 1,942,820 (363,250)
617 Firemen's Pension Fund 64,840 59,610 5,230
Totals 84,225,980$ 98,320,500$ (14,094,520)$
* Amount represents a contribution of (use of) fund balance
EXHIBIT "A" 2016 BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND
Packet Page 126 of 549
AM-8152 6. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:Engineering
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed 2016-2021 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and an ordinance be
prepared to adopt the 2016-2021 Capital Facilities Plan with the approval of the 2016 Budget.
Previous Council Action
On September 22, 2015, Council reviewed the Draft Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement
Program.
On October 27, 2015, a public hearing was held to receive public comment.
On November 24, 2015, Council discussed the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program.
Narrative
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is a document updated annually that identifies capital projects for
at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of
projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City's
projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that
preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified
within the six-year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which
encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects.
CIP vs. CFP
The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to
different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying
those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital
needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be
consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are
restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP.
The proposed 2016-2021 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of
General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2016-2021 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP
has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's
financial fund numbers. Exhibit 3 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects
Packet Page 127 of 549
between last year's CFP/CIP to the proposed CFP/CIP.
The CFP and CIP were presented and a public hearing was held at the Planning Board meeting on
October 14, 2015. The Planning Board recommended the CFP and CIP be forwarded to the City Council
for approval. The minutes from the Planning Board meeting are attached as Exhibit 4.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP 2016-2021
Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP 2016-2021
Exhibit 3 - CFP/CIP Comparison (2016-2021)
Exhibit 4 - Planning Board Minutes
Exhibit 5 - 2016 CIP CFP Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering (Originator)Scott Passey 11/25/2015 12:57 PM
Public Works Scott Passey 11/25/2015 01:10 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2015 01:22 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2015 01:24 PM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 11/24/2015 03:13 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 128 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2016-2021
DRAFT
1 Packet Page 129 of 549
2 Packet Page 130 of 549
CFP
GENERAL
3 Packet Page 131 of 549
4 Packet Page 132 of 549
$0 Public Vote
Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds
$0
$0 Total $5-$23 M
$0 Community
Unknown Conceptual $0 Partnerships
$0 REET
$0 Total Unknown
$0 Public Vote
Conceptual $3,100,000 REET 1 / Grants $100,000 $3,000,000
$0 G.O. Bonds
$3,100,000 Total $100,000 $3,000,000
$0 Capital Campaign
RCO Phase1 $0 REET 2
Complete $0 School District
$0 Foundation
$0 Grants
$0 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6-8M
$0 Public Vote
Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds
$0
$0 Total $3 - $4M
$1,050,000 REET / Grants $25,000 $525,000 $500,000
Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds
$0 Private Partnership
$1,050,000 Total $25,000 $525,000 $500,000
EIS $0 Federal (Unsecured)
US DOT Completed $0 State Funds
$0 Total Unknown
Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants
$0 Total
Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants
$0 Total $300,000 $0
General Local Funds $66,670
Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants $383,330 $130,000
$0 Total $450,000 $130,000
Total CFP $4,150,000 Annual CFP Totals $875,000 $655,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $3,000,000
RCO Land
Acquisition
PurposeProject Name
Aquatic Facility Meet citizen needs for an Aquatics
Center (Feasibility study complete
August 2009).
Edmonds School District
(City has lease until 2021).
Civic Playfield Acquisition and/or development
Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study
Grant
Opportunity
Initiate feasibility study of providing
and promoting Cultural / Arts
facilities for the City of Edmonds.
2022-2035202120202019201820172016Revenue Source
(2016-2021)
Total Cost
Current
Project
Phase
Community Park / Athletic Complex -
Old Woodway High School: Phase 2 and 3
In cooperation with ESD#15 develop
a community park and athletic
complex.
Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal
Facility
Relocate ferry terminal to Marina
Beach.
Replace / Renovate deteriorating
building in City Park.
Senior Center Grounds Rehabilitate grounds, parking,
beach access and area around
Senior Center.
Edmonds Waterfront Analysis Develop alternatives to improve
emergency access and safety
improvements.
Downtown Public Restroom Locate, construct, and maintain a
public restroom downtown.
Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations
Building
Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)Acquire and develop property for a
year round public market.
5
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
3
o
f
5
4
9
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
4
o
f
5
4
9
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 –
$23,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2035
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5m - $23m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
7 Packet Page 135 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility
Needs Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts
facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high
priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008
update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
8 Packet Page 136 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition
and/or Development
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,950,000
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire Civic field from School District. Develop this 8.1 acre
property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of
some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important
park site for the citizens of Edmonds.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2035
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Acquisition $1,950,000
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $3,000,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,950,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
9 Packet Page 137 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
or unlighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District,
community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon
successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project for all 3 phases.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained
facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
Phase 1 will be complete in 2015 for $4.2M, Phases 2 & 3 will be completed in the future for an
additional $6-8M.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2026
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $4.2 M $6-8M
*all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10-12M
10 Packet Page 138 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities
Maintenance & Operations Building
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the
end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this
existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City
parks and Capital facilities for the long term.
SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real
estate taxes.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $3m - $4m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
11 Packet Page 139 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Park and
surrounding areas, beach access
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park and parking lot
when the center is rebuilt. Rebuilt center will be available as a community center in the
evenings and weekends.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety
and better accessibility for Seniors, and be available for the whole community. One of the top
priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE: Work with Senior Center on timing of construction and grounds rehab.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study $25,000 $25,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $500,000 $500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $25,000 $525,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
12 Packet Page 140 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing
WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will
provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting
various forms of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing.
NOTE: The design of Marina Beach Park is a separate project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between
existing and planned transportation modes.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2035
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2035
Engineering &
Administration
Right of Way
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
13 Packet Page 141 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown
Waterfront)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public
market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community
gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a
valuable asset to Edmonds.
SCHEDULE:
This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners
willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished
by 2017.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL Unknown
14 Packet Page 142 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Restroom ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to locate, construct and
maintain a downtown public restroom.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project satisfies goals in the Strategic Action
Plan and the PROS plan. It is being supported by the Economic Development
Commission and Planning Board. This will help to provide a much needed
downtown amenity, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be
a valuable asset to Edmonds.
SCHEDULE:
This project depends on the ability of funds.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2035
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $300,000
15 Packet Page 143 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Waterfront
Analysis
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $680,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Waterfront access issues emphasizing and prioritizing near
term solutions to providing emergency access, also including, but not limited to, 2) At grade
conflicts where Main and Dayton Streets intersect BNSF Rail lines, 3) Pedestrian/bicycle
access, and 4) Options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project (Identified as
Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve waterfront access.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study $450,000 $130,000
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $450,000 $130,000
SCHEDULE: 2016-2017
16 Packet Page 144 of 549
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
17 Packet Page 145 of 549
18 Packet Page 146 of 549
Safety / Capacity Analysis
$8,650 (Federal or State secured)$8,650
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Construction $0 (Unsecured)
$1,350 (Local Funds)$1,350
$10,000 Total $10,000
$397,874 (Federal or State secured)$397,874
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Construction $0 (Unsecured)
$49,203 (Local Funds)$49,203
$447,077 Total $447,077
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$50,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$50,000 $8,690,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$50,000 (Local Funds)$50,000 $1,356,000
$100,000 Total $100,000 $10,046,000
$3,134,910 (Federal or State secured)$3,134,910
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
$0 (Unsecured)
$1,842,630 (Local Funds)$1,842,630
$4,977,540 Total $4,977,540
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$10,000,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000
State Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
Appropriation $0 (Local Funds)
$10,000,000 Total $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$744,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$122,000 $87,500 $535,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$158,500 (Local Funds)$71,000 $87,500
$903,000 Total $193,000 $175,000 $535,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$894,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$118,000 $776,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$17,000 (Local Funds)$17,000
$911,000 Total $135,000 $776,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$4,284,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$206,000 $1,127,000 $2,951,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$30,000 (Local Funds)$30,000
$4,314,000 Total $236,000 $1,127,000 $2,951,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$2,783,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$152,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$23,000 (Local Funds)$23,000
$2,806,000 Total $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000
2022-2035201920202021
Grant
Opportunity
(2016-2021)
Total CostPurpose 201820162017Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
212th St SW @ 84th Ave W
(5corners) Intersection Improvements
Realign highly skewed intersection to
address safety and improve
operations; create new east-west
corridor between SR-99 and I-5.
228th St. SW Corridor Safety
Improvements
Intersection improvements to
improve intersection delay and level
of service.
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl.
W
Install two-way left turn lanes and
sidewalks to improve capacity and
pedestrian safety (project split with
Snohomish County)
ROW /
Construction
76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Intersection improvements to
improve intersection delay and level
of service (LOS).
Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection
Improvements
Widen 212th St. SW to add a
westbound left turn lane for 200'
storage length and an eastbound left
turn lane.
Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization Install gateway elements and safety
improvements along SR-99 Corridor.
SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave W
Intersection Improvements
Improve intersection safety by
converting a stop controlled
intersection for NB and SB
movements to a signalized
intersection.
Install traffic signal to improve
intersection delay and Level of
Service (mini roundabout is an
alternative solution).
Main St. and 9th Ave S
76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Convert split phasing operation for
EB and WB movements to
concurrent through movements, with
protected / permissive LT phasing.
1
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
7
o
f
5
4
9
2022-2035201920202021
Grant
Opportunity
(2016-2021)
Total CostPurpose 201820162017Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$2,313,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$142,000 $334,000 $1,837,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$22,000 (Local Funds)$22,000
$2,335,000 Total $164,000 $334,000 $1,837,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$3,192,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$152,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$23,000 (Local Funds)$23,000
$3,215,000 Total $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$179,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$15,000 $164,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$15,000 (Local Funds)$15,000
$194,000 Total $30,000 $164,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$485,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$65,000 $420,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$10,000 (Local Funds)$10,000
$495,000 Total $75,000 $420,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,311,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$173,000 $1,138,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$27,000 (Local Funds)$27,000
$1,338,000 Total $200,000 $1,138,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$1,183,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,183,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$15,441,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $15,441,000
Install traffic signal to improve
vehicular and pedestrian safety;
revise geometry to allow for safer
turns.
Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements
Install traffic signal to reduce the
intersection delay and improve Level
of Service.
84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th
St. SW)
Install two-way left turn lanes and
sidewalk to improve capacity and
pedestrian safety (split with
Snohomish County)
Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection
Improvement
Widen 216th St. SW to add a left
turn lane for eastbound and
westbound movements.
Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection
Improvement
Widen 220th St. SW and Hwy 99 to
add a westbound right turn lane (for
325' storage length) and a soutbound
left turn lane (for 275' storage
length).
SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Extend left turn storage area for WB
movement on SR-104 w/ various
bicycle and pedestrian
improvements.
SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection
Improvements
Convert EB and WB LT along SR-
104 to protected LT phasing;
upgrade ADA curb ramps; and add
C-Curb for access management
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection
Improvements
2
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
8
o
f
5
4
9
2022-2035201920202021
Grant
Opportunity
(2016-2021)
Total CostPurpose 201820162017Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,017,468
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,017,468
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$3,017,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $3,017,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)$610,000
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $610,000
$44,000 (Federal or State secured)$44,000
Possible $1,090,650 (Federal or State unsecured)$8,650 $1,082,000
RCO / TIB Grant Design $0 (Unsecured)
for construction $1,151,350 (Local Funds)$1,350 $133,000 $1,017,000
$2,286,000 Total $10,000 $177,000 $2,099,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$37,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$37,500
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$37,500 (Local Funds)$37,500
$75,000 Total $75,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,205,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$100,000 $1,105,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$100,000 (Local Funds)$100,000
$1,305,000 Total $200,000 $1,105,000
$34,954 (Federal or State secured)$34,954
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Construction $0 (Unsecured)
$113,181 (Local Funds)$113,181
$148,135 Total $148,135
$391,356 (Federal or State secured)$391,356
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Construction $0 (Unsecured)
$202,109 (Local Funds)$202,109
$593,465 Total $593,465
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,288,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$106,500 $1,182,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$106,500 (Local Funds)$106,500
$1,395,000 Total $213,000 $1,182,000
SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Intersection
Improvements
Add a 2nd WB left turn lane (split
with Shoreline).
Install traffic signal to improve Level
of Service and intersection delay.
Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
Non-motorized Pedestrian / Bicycle Projects
Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to
Caspers St.
Provide multi-use path on the west
side of Sunset Ave, with various
utility upgrades.
SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W Intersection /
Westgate Area Improvements
Implement Westgate Circulation
Access Plan, midblock pedestrian
crossings along 100th Ave. W, and
rechannelization with bike lanes /
sharrows along 100th Ave. W.
Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S to 8th
Ave. S Walkway
Provide safe sidewalk along short
missing link.
Improve pedestrian safety along
232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to
SR-104.
232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to
SR-104
238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to
104th Ave. W
Improve pedestrian safety along
238th St. SW from 100th Ave. to
104th Ave.
236th St SW from Edmonds Way
(SR-104) to Madrona Elementary
Improve pedestrian safety along
236th St. SW, creating a safe
pedestrian connection from
SR-104 to Madrona school.
Improve pedestrian safety along
236th St. SW, creating a safe
pedestrian connection from
SR-104.
236th St SW from Edmonds Way
(SR-104) to 97th Ave. W
2
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
9
o
f
5
4
9
2022-2035201920202021
Grant
Opportunity
(2016-2021)
Total CostPurpose 201820162017Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$90,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$90,000 $495,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$90,000 Total $90,000 $495,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$833,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$30,000 $37,000 $766,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$67,000 (Local Funds)$30,000 $37,000
$900,000 Total $60,000 $74,000 $766,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$30,000 (Local Funds)$30,000
$30,000 Total $30,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$1,938,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$170,000 $1,768,000
Possible grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$170,000 (Local Funds)$170,000
$2,108,000 Total $340,000 $1,768,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$978,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$100,000 $878,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$327,000 (Local Funds)$100,000 $227,000
$1,305,000 Total $200,000 $1,105,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$105,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$105,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$105,000 Total $105,000
$137,000 (Federal or State secured)$137,000
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$20,000 (Local Funds)$20,000
$157,000 Total $157,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$372,300 (Federal or State unsecured)$372,300
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$118,700 (Local Funds)$118,700
$491,000 Total $491,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$300,000 (Local Funds)$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
$300,000 Total $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
84th Ave. W from 238th St. SW to
234th St. SW
Improve pedestrian safety along 84th
Ave. W. from 238th St. SW to 234th
St. SW.
80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to
212th St. SW
Improve pedestrian safety along 80th
Ave. W, within proximity to Edmonds-
Woodway High School.
Provide safe sidewalk along short
missing link.
Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to
ex. sidewalk along 200th St. SW
(direct link to Maplewood Elementary
School).
218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to
84th Ave. W
Provide safe sidewalk along a
missing link of 218th St. SW. from
76th Ave. to 84th Ave.
Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave.
S Walkway
Provide short missing link.
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99
to 72nd Ave W
Provide sidewalk on north side of
216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd
Ave W (completing missing link)
238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 Provide sidewalk on north side of
238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy.
99 (completing missing link)
Minor Sidewalk Program Complete short sidewalk stretches
throughout the City (annual program)
2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St.
Walkway
Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th
St. SW
2
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
0
o
f
5
4
9
2022-2035201920202021
Grant
Opportunity
(2016-2021)
Total CostPurpose 201820162017Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$630,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $630,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$585,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $585,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$990,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $990,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$225,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $225,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$315,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $315,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$315,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $315,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$765,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $765,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,170,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,170,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,350,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $1,350,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)$585,000
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$0 Total $585,000
95th Pl. W from 224th St. SW to 220th
St. SW
Provide sidewalk on one side of 95th
Pl. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St.
SW completing missing link)
104th Ave. W / Robinhood Lane from
238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W
Provide sidewalk on west side of
104th Ave. from 238th St. SW to
106th Ave. W (completing missing
link)
Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave.
S
Provide sidewalk on one side of Elm
Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
Ferry/Railroad
84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to
186th St. SW
Provide sidewalk on one side of 84th
Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th
St. SW
236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th
Ave. W
Provide sidewalk on one side of
236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th
Ave. W
238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th
Ave. W
Provide sidewalk on one side of
238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th
Ave W
80th Ave. W / 180th St. SW from
188th St. SW to OVD
Provide sidewalk on one side of 80th
Ave. W / 180th St. SW from 188th
St. SW to OVD
80th Ave. W from 218th St. SW to
220th St. SW
Provide sidewalk on one side of 80th
Ave. W from 218th St. SW to 220th
St. SW (completing missing link)
189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to
76th Ave. W
Provide sidewalk on one side of
189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to
76th Ave. W
191st St. SW from 80th Ave. W to
76th Ave. W
Provide sidewalk on one side of
191th St. SW from 80th Ave. to 76th
Ave. (completing missing link)
2
3
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
1
o
f
5
4
9
2022-2035201920202021
Grant
Opportunity
(2016-2021)
Total CostPurpose 201820162017Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$357,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$357,000
Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$0 (Local Funds)
$357,000 Total $357,000
$0 (Federal or State secured)
$0 (Federal or State unsecured)
Conceptual $0 (Unsecured)
$300,000 (Local Funds)$300,000
$300,000 Total $300,000
Total CFP $43,991,217 Annual CFP Totals $6,536,217 $227,000 $80,000 $5,490,000 $12,856,000 $18,802,000 $35,139,468
Totals Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
$581,006 Total Federal & State (Secured)$3,967,744 $44,000 $0 $137,000 $0 $0 $0
$16,943,150 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$8,650 $0 $0 $3,735,300 $12,311,500 $18,475,000 $20,149,468
$0 Unsecured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,234,000
$2,795,309 Local Funds $2,559,823 $183,000 $80,000 $1,617,700 $544,500 $327,000 $1,356,000
Install wayside horns at both
crossings to reduce noise from train
horns.
Traffic Planning Projects
Ferry Storage Improvements from
Pine St. to Dayton St.
Improve ferry queueing by extending
ferry storage area along SR-104
(striping changes).
Revenue Summary by Year
Trackside Warning System at Dayton
St. and Main St. Railroad Crossings
2
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
2
o
f
5
4
9
PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW @ 84th Ave.
W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,305,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct roundabout and new water and stormwater facilities at
the intersection of 84th Ave and 212th St.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the intersection Level of Service and pedestrian
safety.
SCHEDULE: Construction complete. Project close-out will be completed in 2016.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2018 2019 2020
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
Construction $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000
25 Packet Page 153 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW Corridor
Safety Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,300,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 228th St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West 2)
Signalize the intersection of 228th St SW @ SR99 and 228th St. SW @ 76th Ave. West 3) Construct a raised
median in the vicinity of 76th Avenue West. 4) Add illumination between 224th St SW and 228th St SW on SR 99
5) Overlay of 228
th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to ~ 2,000’ east of 76th Ave. W.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will improve access / safety to the I-5 / Mountlake
Terrace Park & Ride from SR99. This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two east-
west corridors (220th Street SW and SR104). Roadway safety will also be improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW
will become a signalized intersection. 228th St. SW is being overlaid from 80th Pl. W to ~ 1,000 LF east of 72nd
Ave. W. as well as 76th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to Hwy. 99. The project consists of various utility upgrades.
SCHEDULE: Construction began in 2015 and is scheduled to be completed in 2016. Federal and State grants
were secured for the construction phase. This project is combined into one construction contract with the Hwy. 99
(Phase 3) Lighting project.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering,
Administration, and
ROW
Construction $447,077
1% for Art
TOTAL $477,077
*All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
26 Packet Page 154 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW from Hwy.
99 to 95th Pl. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,146,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W to three lanes
(with two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety and traffic
flow along this corridor.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$100,000 $1,400,000
Construction $8,646,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000 $10,046,000
SCHEDULE: 2021-2035
27 Packet Page 155 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave W @ 212th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,470,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left-turn lane to convert the signal
operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected-permissive phasing. Add a right-
turn lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. The project also consists of
various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level
of service from LOS D (LOS F by 2015) to LOS C.
SCHEDULE: Federal grants have been secured for all project phases. Design started in 2012 and
is scheduled for completion in January 2016. Right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to be
completed in January 2016. Construction is scheduled to be completed in 2016.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$150,000
Construction $4,824,230
1% for Art 3,310
TOTAL $4,977,540
28 Packet Page 156 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 Gateway /
Revitalization
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement
sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access
control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater
management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities,
landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access
management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved.
SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled for 2019. The construction phase is scheduled for
2020 and 2021.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$500,000
Construction $4,500,000 $5,000,000
1% for Art
TOTAL 500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000
29 Packet Page 157 of 549
PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196th St. SW)/ 88th
Ave. W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $903,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave.
W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and
southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also
address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one
concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be
implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are
met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). This project was ranked #6 in the
Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the
intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St.
SW.
SCHEDULE: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved
by WSDOT since 196th St. SW is a State Route (SR524). No funding is currently allocated to
this project (pending grant funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$193,000 $175,000
Construction 535,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $193,000 $175,000 $535,000
30 Packet Page 158 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $911,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal (or mini-roundabout is an alternative
solution).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop-controlled for all
approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City’s
concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the
intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2019 and 2021 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$135,000
Construction $776,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $135,000 $776,000
31 Packet Page 159 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
$4,316,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right
turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected-permitted phase for
eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during
southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The
LOS would be improved from LOS E to LOS C.
SCHEDULE: Engineering, ROW, and construction scheduled between 2019 and 2021
(unsecured funding).
*All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering & ROW
&
Administration
$238,000 $1,127,000
Construction $2,951,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $238,000 $1,127,000 $2,951,000
32 Packet Page 160 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,806,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane
for 200’ storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300’ storage length.
Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound
movements.(ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #4)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce
delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2019 and 2021 (unsecured
funding).The project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the
project is in Lynnwood.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering,
ROW, &
Administration
$175,000 $1,091,000
Construction $1,540,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000
33 Packet Page 161 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,335,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane
for and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected-permissive left turn phases for
eastbound and westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway
Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce
delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2019 and 2021 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
ROW &
Administration
$164,000 $334,000
Construction $1,837,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $164,000 $334,000 $1,837,000
34 Packet Page 162 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,215,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for
325’ storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275’ storage
length. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #1).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce intersection delay and improve traffic flow
and safety.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2019 and 2021 (unsecured funding for
all phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
& ROW $175,000 $1,085,000
Construction $1,955,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000
35 Packet Page 163 of 549
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 226th St. SW /
15th St. SW Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $194,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend the left turn lane for the westbound movement on SR-104.
Complete various pedestrian and bicycle intersection improvements. This project was
identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve non-motorized transportation safety at the
intersection and improve traffic flow along the SR-104 corridor.
SCHEDULE: 2019-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$30,000
Construction $164,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $164,000
36 Packet Page 164 of 549
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $495,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Convert LT phasing for EB and SB to protected LT phasing;
upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access management.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles.
SCHEDULE: 2019-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$75,000
Construction $420,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $75,000 $420,000
37 Packet Page 165 of 549
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,338,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The warrants are met for such an installation.
This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in
2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2019-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$200,000
Construction $1,138,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $1,138,000
38 Packet Page 166 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave.
W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
$1,183,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for
all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #11).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The
projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is below the City’s concurrency standards
(LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2022 and 2035
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction $983,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,183,000
39 Packet Page 167 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW
to 238th St. SW)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,441,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and
sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #6 in the Long Walkway list
of the 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along
this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with
their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any
back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2022 and 2035
(unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since
half the project is in Esperance.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$2,000,000
Construction $13,441,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $15,441,000
40 Packet Page 168 of 549
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,017,468
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid-block
pedestrian crossing along 100th Ave. W, and re-striping of 100th Ave. W with the potential
addition of bike lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor
Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and
improve non-motorized transportation safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$150,000
Construction $867,468
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,017,468
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
41 Packet Page 169 of 549
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a 2nd left turn lane along SR-104. This project was
identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and
improve non-motorized transportation safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$453,000
Construction $2,564,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $3,017,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035. The project cost would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds
since half the intersection is in Shoreline.
42 Packet Page 170 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St.
SW Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $610,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane
for 50’ storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration
lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce
intersection delay. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers
accessing either street.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2022 and 2035
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$100,000
Construction $510,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $610,000
43 Packet Page 171 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway
from Bell St to Caspers St.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,350,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a multi-use path on the west side of the street, facing
waterfront (~ 1/2 mile / more recent project).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements have been installed to evaluate the alignment of the
proposed multi-use path. The final design phase is on-hold until the evaluation period is
completed.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study $10,000
Engineering &
Administration
$177,000
Construction $2,099,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $177,000 $2,099,000
44 Packet Page 172 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St between 7th Ave.
S and 8th Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250’) on
Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in
2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2019 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $75,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $75,000
45 Packet Page 173 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 232nd St. SW Walkway
from 100th Ave. W to SR-104
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104.
This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List of 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction $1,105,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000
SCHEDULE: 2020-2021
46 Packet Page 174 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from 100th
Ave. W to 104th Ave. W Walkway and
Stormwater Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,677,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of ~ 1,200’ of sidewalk on the north side of 238th St.
SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W. as well as sharrows. Stormwater improvements will
also be incorporated into the project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create a safe pedestrian
connection between 100th Ave. W and 104th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE Construction is scheduled to be completed in 2016. Funding was secured for the
completion of the design and construction phases (through Safe Routes to School program).
Stormwater improvements are funded by the Stormwater Utility Fund 422.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $148,135
1% for Art
TOTAL $148,135
47 Packet Page 175 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW from
Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $665,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct an ~ 800’ sidewalk on the south side of 236th St.
SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary as well as the addition of sharrows along that
stretch. (This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project, which ranked #1 in the Long
Walkway list in the 2009 Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route
near Madrona Elementary School and along 236th St. SW.
SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to be completed in 2016. The project is
funded through the Safe Routes to School Grant program.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
& ROW
Construction $593,465
1% for Art
TOTAL $593,465
48 Packet Page 176 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW Walkway
from Edmonds Way to 97th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,395,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236nd St. SW from
Edmonds Way to 97th Ave. W . This project ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$213,000
Construction $1,182,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $213,000 $1,182,000
SCHEDULE: 2019-2020
49 Packet Page 177 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway
from 238th St. SW to 234th ST. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 238th St .SW to 234th St.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$90,000
Construction $495,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $90,000 $495,000
SCHEDULE: Begin design in 2021 (unsecured funding)
50 Packet Page 178 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W Walkway
from 206th St. SW to 212th ST. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St.
SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve non-motorized
transportation safety.
SCHEDULE: 2019-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$60,000 $74,000
Construction $766,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $60,000 $74,000 $766,000
51 Packet Page 179 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S from James St.
to Main St. Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 100’) on
2nd Ave. S between Main St. and James St. (Ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in
2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: 2019
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $30,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000
52 Packet Page 180 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway
from Main St. to 200th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,108,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW
(~ 2,700’). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to
Maplewood Elementary School (rated #22 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation
Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood
Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non-motorized
transportation to walk to / from school.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2020 and construction in 2021 (funding unsecured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration $340,000
Construction $1,768,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $340,000 $1,768,000
53 Packet Page 181 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 218th St. SW Walkway
from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave.
W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$200,000
Construction $1,105,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000
54 Packet Page 182 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 3rd Ave. S to 4th
Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $105,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350’)
on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project
list in 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2019 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $95,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $105,000
55 Packet Page 183 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 216th St. SW Walkway from
Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $157,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150’ sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from
Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). This project
ranked #4 in the Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2019 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$30,000
Construction $127,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $157,000
56 Packet Page 184 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to
SR-104 Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $491,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #12 in Long Walkway list from 2015 Transportation Plan.
Install 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating
safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled in 2019 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$91,000
Construction $400,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $491,000
57 Packet Page 185 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Minor Sidewalk Program ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete missing sidewalk along short segments throughout the
City.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2016-2021 (annual program)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Construction $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
58 Packet Page 186 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW from 80th
Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $630,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave.,
with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation
Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$90,000
Construction $540,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $630,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
59 Packet Page 187 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 95th Pl. W Walkway from
224th ST. SW to 220th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 95th Pl. W from 224th ST. SW to 220th ST.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #9 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$85,000
Construction $500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $585,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
60 Packet Page 188 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 104th Ave. W Walkway
from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $990,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104th Ave. W from 238th ST. SW to 106th
Ave. W , with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$150,000
Construction $840,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $990,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
61 Packet Page 189 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Elm Way Walkway from
8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $225,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S. This
project ranked #6 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$40,000
Construction $185,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $225,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
62 Packet Page 190 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W from 218th St.
SW to 220th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 218th ST. SW to 220th ST.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$55,000
Construction $260,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $315,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
63 Packet Page 191 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W from 188th St.
SW to 186th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St.
SW ., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in Short Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$60,000
Construction $255,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $315,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
64 Packet Page 192 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW from Hwy 99
to 76th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $765,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W.
This project ranked #11 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$115,000
Construction $650,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $765,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
65 Packet Page 193 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from Hwy 99
to 76th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,170,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W
This project ranked #12 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$175,000
Construction $995,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,170,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
66 Packet Page 194 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W / 180th St.
SW from 188th St. SW to OVD
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,350,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to OVD. This
project ranked #13 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$270,000
Construction $1,080,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,350,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
67 Packet Page 195 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 189th Pl. SW from 80th
Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave.
W. This project ranked #14 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2035
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$115,000
Construction $470,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $585,000
SCHEDULE: 2022-2035
68 Packet Page 196 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Ferry Storage
Improvements from Pine St. Dayton St.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $357,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle
storage for ferry users.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to
local driveways.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$50,000
Construction $307,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $357,000
SCHEDULE: 2019 (unsecured funding)
69 Packet Page 197 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Trackside Warning System
@ Dayton and Main St. RR Crossing
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $350,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and
Main St. Railroad Crossings.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce noise from train horns at both intersections.
SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled for 2016.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
300,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $300,000
70 Packet Page 198 of 549
CFP
STORMWATER
71 Packet Page 199 of 549
72 Packet Page 200 of 549
$0 (Federal or State secured)
Design $0 (Federal or State unsecured)
$2,252,700 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$302,700 $1,900,000 $50,000
$2,252,700 Total $302,700 $1,900,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0
RCO SRF Grant $157,331 (Federal or State secured)$157,331
Possible Grant/TBD Study $4,200,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$225,000 $225,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000
$1,467,869 (Debt/Stormwater)$47,869 $75,000 $75,000 $600,000 $650,000 $20,000
$5,825,200 Total $205,200 $300,000 $300,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000
Ecology Grant $633,750 (Federal or State secured)$123,375 $510,375
Possible Grant/TBD Design $1,087,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$337,500 $375,000 $375,000
$623,750 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$41,125 $170,125 $112,500 $125,000 $125,000 $50,000
$2,345,000 Total $164,500 $680,500 $450,000 $500,000 $500,000 $50,000
Total CFP $10,422,900 Annual CFP Totals $672,400 $2,880,500 $800,000 $2,900,000 $3,100,000 $70,000
Totals Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
$791,081 Total Federal & State (Secured)$280,706 $510,375 $0 $0 $0 $0
$5,287,500
Total Federal & State
(Unsecured)$0 $225,000 $562,500 $2,175,000 $2,325,000 $0
$4,344,319 Debt / Stormwater Fees $391,694 $2,145,125 $237,500 $725,000 $775,000 $70,000
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage
Improvements.
Add lift station and other new infrastructure to reduce
intersection flooding.
Revenue Summary by Year
Willow Creek/Daylighting Daylight channel to allow better connnectivity with the Puget
Sound to benefit fish and reduce flooding.
Perrinville Creek High Flow
Reduction/Management Project -
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
Find solution to high peak stream flows caused by excessive
stormwater runoff that erodes the stream, causes flooding
and has negative impacts on aquatic habitat.
Project Name Purpose
Grant Opportunity
Grant/Date
Current Project
Phase
(2016-2021)
Total Cost 2021Revenue Source 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
7
3
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
1
o
f
5
4
9
7
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
2
o
f
5
4
9
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104
Drainage Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,252,700
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station in the Beach Place parking lot and other new
infrastructure.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and
State Hwy 104.
SCHEDULE: 2016-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $302,700
Construction $1,881,000 $50,000
1% for Art $19,000
TOTAL $302,700 $1,900,000 $50,000
75 Packet Page 203 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Willow Creek Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,825,000
Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source:
www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/gallery.php
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Building on the studies completed in 2013 and 2015 that assessed the
feasibility of daylighting the Willow Creek channel, this project will likely construct a new tide gate and
1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for
design and construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek will help reverse the negative
impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in the early
1960s. This project will provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. This project,
along with its companion CIP projects “Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements” and “Dayton Street
Pump Station,” will also help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton
Street.
SCHEDULE: 2016-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $205,200 $300,000 $300,000
Construction $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $205,000 $300,000 $300,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000
76 Packet Page 204 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow
Reduction/Management Project
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,345,000
Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that
will be addressed by restoration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study for the Perrinville Creek basin was
completed in 2014. This study recommended a number of flow control and water quality
projects to improve the conditions in Perrinville Creek. The City applied for and won a grant
from the Department of Ecology for $633,750 to design and construct a stormwater infiltration
facility in Seaview Park. The 2016 and 2017 budgets are for that facility. The dollars allocated
in the out years are to implement additional water quality and flow control projects in the
Perrinville Creek basin as recommended by the Flow Reduction Study.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased
flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low-gradient downstream
reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be
controlled or these improvements will be washed away.
SCHEDULE: 2016-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $164,500 $450,000 $50,000
Construction $673,695 $495,000 $495,000
1% for Art $6,805 $5,000 $5,000
TOTAL $164,500 $680,500 $450,000 $500,000 $500,000 $50,000
Perrinville
Creek
77 Packet Page 205 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2016-2021
DRAFT
1 Packet Page 206 of 549
2 Packet Page 207 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2016-2021)
Table of Contents
FUND DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT PAGE
GENERAL
112 Transportation Public Works 7
113
Multimodal
Transportation
Community
Services
10
116
Building
Maintenance
Public Works
11
125
Capital
Projects Fund
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
13
126
Special Capital /
Parks Acquisition
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
15
129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 16
132
Parks Construction
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
17
421 Water Projects Public Works 19
422 Storm Projects Public Works 20
423 Sewer Projects Public Works 22
423.76
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Public Works
24
PARKS – PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
125
Capital
Projects Fund
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
27
126
Special Capital /
Parks Acquisition
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
58
132
Parks Construction
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
61
3 Packet Page 208 of 549
4 Packet Page 209 of 549
CIP
GENERAL
5 Packet Page 210 of 549
6 Packet Page 211 of 549
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 112 - Transportation Projects
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
Preservation / Maintenance Projects
Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc.)$1,336,357 $1,137,643 $2,180,000 $1,420,000 $2,900,000 $2,060,000 $3,120,000 $12,817,643
220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave W to 84th Ave W $1,010,000 $30,000 $30,000
Citywide - Signal Improvements $325,000 $325,000 $650,000
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $425,000 $500,000
Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW $750,000 $750,000
Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 $375,000
Safety / Capacity Analysis
212th St. SW / 84th Ave (Five Corners) Roundabout X $141,226 $10,000 $10,000
228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements X $5,569,928 $447,077 $447,077
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl. W X $100,000 $100,000
76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements X $484,223 $4,974,232 $4,974,232
SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization X $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000
SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements X $193,000 $175,000 $535,000 $903,000
Main St. @ 9th Ave. X $135,000 $776,000 $911,000
76th Ave. W @ 220th St SW - Intersection Improvements X $236,000 $1,127,000 $2,951,000 $4,314,000
Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements $50,000 $50,000
Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000 $2,806,000
Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $164,000 $334,000 $1,837,000 $2,335,000
Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 $3,215,000
SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $30,000 $164,000 $194,000
SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements X $75,000 $420,000 $495,000
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $200,000 $1,138,000 $1,338,000
Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000 $20,000
Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers $100,000 $100,000
Non-motorized transportation projects
Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.X $5,198 $10,000 $177,000 $2,162,000 $2,349,000
Dayton St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $75,000 $75,000
232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to SR-104 X $200,000 $1,105,000 $1,305,000
238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W X $1,523,135 $148,135 $148,135
236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary X $71,002 $593,465 $593,465
236th St. SW from SR-104 to 97th Ave. W X $213,000 $1,182,000 $1,395,000
84th Ave. W from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW X $90,000 $90,000
80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St. SW X $60,000 $74,000 $766,000 $900,000
2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway X $30,000 $30,000
Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW Walkway X $340,000 $1,768,000 $2,108,000
218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W X $200,000 $1,015,000 $1,215,000
Walnut St. from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. Walkway X $105,000 $105,000
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W X $157,000 $157,000
238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 X $491,000 $491,000
ADA Curb Ramps Improvements $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,575,000
Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000 $25,000
15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S X $30,693 $0
Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3) $585,321 $41,000 $41,000
Minor Sidewalk Program X $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000
ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave S from Main St to Pine St $70,108 $0
Verdant Citywide Bicycle Improvements $109,785 $626,840 $626,840
Traffic Calming Projects
Traffic Calming Program / non-motorized transportation safety $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $120,000
Ferry Projects
Ferry Storage Improvements from Pine St. to Dayton St.X $357,000 $357,000
Projects for 2016-2021
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
2
o
f
5
4
9
Traffic Planning Projects
Transportation Plan Update $107,194 $0
SR104 Transportation Corridor Study $95,026 $0
Citywide ADA Transition Plan $110,000 $110,000
Trackside Warning Sys or Quiet Zone @ Dayton/Main St. RR Crossings X $50,000 $300,000 $300,000
Total Projects $11,209,196 $8,543,392 $2,452,000 $1,515,000 $10,328,000 $16,261,000 $22,652,000 $61,751,392
Debt Service
Debt Service on Loan (1) 220th St Design $18,869 $18,778 $18,687 $18,596 $19,506 $18,415 $18,325
Debt Service on Loan (2) 220th St Construction $22,235 $22,129 $22,023 $21,917 $21,811 $21,706 $21,494
Debt Service on Loan (3) 100th Ave Road Stabilization $34,854 $34,690 $34,525 $34,361 $34,196 $34,032 $33,868
Total Debt $75,958 $75,597 $75,235 $74,874 $75,513 $74,153 $73,687
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance $209,915 $191,938 $208,800 $297,565 $572,691 $654,478 $408,325
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $140,000 $140,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000
Reimbursement - Fund 125 Annual Street Preservation Program $654,357 $257,643 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 Annual Street Preservation Program $12,000 $880,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
Contribution - General Fund for Annual Street Preservation Program $670,000 $0 $650,000 $820,000 $1,100,000 $1,160,000 $1,220,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th to 84th $252,500 $7,500
Reimbursement - Fund 421 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $106,730
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $68,500
Reimbursement - Fund 423 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $177,254
Reimbursement - Mountlake Terrace for 228th St. SW Improvements (Overlay)$386,433 $31,823
Reimbursement - Fund 421 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $70,000 $580,000
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $15,000 $330,755
Reimbursement - Fund 423 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $70,000 $700,000
Reimbursement - Fund 421 for Sunset Ave. Walkway $75,000 $575,000
Reimbursement - Fund 423 for Sunset Ave. Walkway $50,000 $150,000
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 238th St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W $957,610 $81,283
Reimbursement - PSE for 238th St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W $55,159
Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to Madrona School $202,109
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Minor Sidewalk Program $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Reimbursement - Fund 125 - Hwy 99 Lighting (Phase 3)$30,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Traffic Calming Program $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Contribution - General Fund for SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study $95,026
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Citywide ADA Transition Plan $110,000
Contribution - General Fund for Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone $50,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 Trackside Warning System $300,000
Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Protective/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000
Reimbursement - Fund 422 (STORMWATER)$50,258 $109,000 $116,000 $120,000 $125,000 $130,000 $135,000
Traffic Impact Fees $82,982 $125,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Total Revenues $4,123,724 $4,192,051 $2,024,800 $2,162,565 $3,972,691 $3,394,478 $3,213,325
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
3
o
f
5
4
9
Grants 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
(Federal) for 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave $757,445 $22,500
(Federal) for 212th @ 84th (Five Corners) Roundabout $122,160 $8,650
(Federal) for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements $3,435,343 $277,947
(State) for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements $1,379,576 $119,927
(Federal) for 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $283,674 $3,134,914
(Federal) Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.$4,496 $8,650
(State) 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W $503,765 $34,954
(State) 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S $30,693
(Federal) 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary $71,002 $391,356
(Federal) Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3)$585,321 $10,000
(Federal) ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave. S from Main St. to Pine St.$70,108
(Verdant) for Verdant Citywide Bicycle Improvements $109,785 $626,840
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $7,353,368 $4,635,738 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grants 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not Secured)
Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc)$800,000 $900,000 $1,000,000
Citywide Safety Improvements - Signal Cabinet $325,000 $325,000
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $425,000
Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave W @ 238th St SW $750,000
Main St @ 3rd Ave Signal Upgrades $37,500 $250,000
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl. W $50,000
SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization $500,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000
196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Intersection Improvements $122,000 $87,500 $535,000
Main @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements $118,000 $776,000
76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $206,000 $1,127,000 $2,951,000
Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $152,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000
Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements $142,000 $334,000 $1,837,000
Hwy 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $152,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000
SR-104 @ 226th / 15th Intersection Improvements $15,000 $164,000
SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements $65,000 $420,000
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements $173,000 $1,138,000
Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers $100,000
Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St $1,870,000
Dayton St. Walkway from 7th to 8th Ave.$37,500
232nd St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. to SR-104 $100,000 $1,105,000
236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to 97th Pl. W $106,500 $1,182,000
84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th to 234th $90,000
80th Ave. W Walkway from 206th to 212nd $30,000 $37,000 $766,000
Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th $170,000 $1,768,000
218th St. SW Walkway from 76th to 84th $100,000 $878,000
Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd to 4th $105,000
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 72nd Ave W $137,000
238th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to SR-104 $372,300
ADA Curb Ramps Improvements $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Audible Pedestrian Signals $25,000
Ferry Storage Improvements $357,000
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not secured) $0 $0 $800,000 $0 $7,085,300 $13,349,000 $19,975,000
Grant / Not Secured Funding Subtotal $7,353,368 $4,635,738 $800,000 $0 $7,085,300 $13,349,000 $19,975,000
Total Revenues & Grants $11,477,092 $8,827,789 $2,824,800 $2,162,565 $11,057,991 $16,743,478 $23,188,325
Total Projects ($11,209,196)($8,543,392)($2,452,000)($1,515,000)($10,328,000)($16,261,000)($22,652,000)
Total Debt ($75,958)($75,597)($75,235)($74,874)($75,513)($74,153)($73,687)
Ending Cash Balance $191,938 $208,800 $297,565 $572,691 $654,478 $408,325 $462,638
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
4
o
f
5
4
9
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 113 - Multimodal Transportation
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry/Multimodal Facility X Unknown
Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859
State Transportation Appropriations
Federal Funding (Unsecured)
Interest Earnings
Total Revenues $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859
Total Revenue $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859
Total Project $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Cash Balance $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859 $55,859
Projects for 2016-2021
1
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
5
o
f
5
4
9
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 116 - Building Maintenance
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
ADA Improvements- City Wide $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000
Anderson Center Accessibility $50,000 $50,000
Anderson Center Interior Painting $20,000 $30,000 $50,000
Anderson Center Exterior Painting $30,000 $30,000
Anderson Center Radiator Replacement $25,000 $85,000 $110,000
Anderson Center Exterior Repairs $75,000 $75,000
Anderson Center Blinds $5,000 $5,000
Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement $75,000 $75,000
Anderson Center Flooring/Gym $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $65,000
Anderson Center Countertop Replacement $10,000 $10,000
Anderson Center Oil Tank Decommissioning $30,000 $30,000
Anderson Center Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000
Anderson Center Roof Replacement $325,000 $25,000 $350,000
Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement $0
City Hall Carpet Replacement $25,000 $50,000 $75,000
City Hall Elevator Replacement $150,000 $150,000
City Hall Exterior Cleaning and Repainting $40,000 $20,000 $60,000
City Hall Roof Repairs $0
City Hall HVAC $20,000 $20,000
City Hall Security Measures $35,000 $35,000
City Park Maint. Bldg. Roof $25,000 $25,000
ESCO III Project $60,000 $0
ESCO IV Project $170,000 $0
Fishing Pier Rehab $146,400 $0
Fire Station #16 Painting $5,000 $5,000
Fire Station #16 Carpet $20,000 $10,000 $30,000
Fire Station #16 HVAC Replacement $30,000 $30,000
Fire Station #17 Carpet $12,000 $12,000
Fire Station #17 Interior Painting $15,000 $15,000
Fire Station #20 Carpet $15,000 $15,000
Fire Station #20 Interior Painting $10,000 $10,000
Fire Station #20 Stairs and Deck Replacement $40,000 $40,000
Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs $100,000 $100,000
Library Plaza Appliance Replacement $4,000 $4,000
Library Plaza Brick Façade Addition $21,000 $21,000
Library Wood Trim $5,000 $5,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement $28,000 $0
Meadowdale Flooring Replacement $25,000 $25,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement $15,000 $10,000 $25,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Ext. Surface Cleaning $0
Meadowdale Clubhouse Fire Alarm Replacement $25,000 $25,000
Misc. Fire Sprinkler System Repairs $0
Misc. / Unanticipated Buliding Maintenance $30,000 $15,000 $15,000
Public Safety/Fire Station #17 Soffit Installation $4,000 $4,000
Public Safety Exterior Painting $20,000 $20,000
Public Safety Council Chamber Carpet $10,000 $10,000
Public Safety HVAC Repairs & Maintenance $0
Public Works Decant Improvements $0
Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maintenance $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000
Senior Center Siding/ Sealing (CDBG)$0
Total Projects $439,400 $90,000 $564,000 $310,000 $300,000 $297,000 $290,000 $1,851,000
Projects for 2016-2021
1
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
6
o
f
5
4
9
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$52,400 $36,000 $2,600 $13,600 $3,600 $3,600 $6,600
Interest Earnings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contribution from Gen Fund #001 and other $266,600 $56,600 $575,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
Commerce Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CDBG Grant (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WA Dept. of Ecology Grant $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WDFW Grant (Secured)$146,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WDFW Grant (Unsecured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Utility Grant Funding (Estimated)$10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WA State HCPF Grant Funding (Secured)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues $475,400 $92,600 $577,600 $313,600 $303,600 $303,600 $306,600
Total Revenue $475,400 $92,600 $577,600 $313,600 $303,600 $303,600 $306,600
Total Project ($439,400)($90,000)($564,000)($310,000)($300,000)($297,000)($290,000)
Ending Cash Balance $36,000 $2,600 $13,600 $3,600 $3,600 $6,600 $16,600
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
7
o
f
5
4
9
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 125 - Capital Projects Fund
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
Park Development Projects*
Anderson Center Field / Court / Stage $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000
Brackett's Landing Improvements $5,000 $50,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $170,000
City Park Improvements $272,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $75,000
Civic Center Improvements X $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $600,000 $640,000
Sunset Avenue Walkway $100,000 $100,000
Fishing Pier & Restrooms $175,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $225,000
Former Woodway HS Improvements (with successful capital campaign)X see below $0
Maplewood Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000
Marina Beach Park Improvements $100,000 $50,000 $350,000 $500,000 $500,000 $5,000 $1,505,000
Mathay Ballinger Park $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $35,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds $75,000 $5,000 $5,000 $85,000
Meadowdale Playfields $250,000 $250,000 $500,000
Pine Ridge Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000
Seaview Park Improvements $20,000 $10,000 $5,000 $15,000
Sierra Park Improvements $70,000 $70,000
Yost Park / Pool Improvements $120,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000
Parklet development, 4th Ave cultural corridor $40,000 $40,000 $80,000
City Gateway replacements $40,000 $40,000
Outdoor Fitness Zones $50,000 $50,000
Citywide Park Improvements*
Citywide Beautification $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $126,000
Misc Paving $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $40,000
Citywide Park Improvements/Misc Small Projects $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $240,000
Sports Fields Upgrade / Playground Partnership $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $75,000
Specialized Projects*
Aquatic Center Facility (dependent upon successful capital campaign)X $0
Trail Development*
Misc Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000
Planning
Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study X $0
Edmonds Marsh / Hatchery Improvements X $105,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000 $130,000
Edmonds Cemetery Mapping Project $100,000 $100,000
Civic Center Master Plan $100,000 $100,000
Sr. Center/Waterfront walkway design $25,000 $25,000 $50,000
Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study $50,000 $50,000
Total Project $718,000 $1,111,000 $786,000 $741,000 $716,000 $746,000 $786,000 $4,886,000
Reimbursements
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Sr. Center design)$25,000 $25,000
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Outdoor Fitness Zones)$50,000
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Dayton St Plaza)
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Fishing Pier rehab match)$100,000
Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Former Woodway HS Improvements)X $500,000 $155,000
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (Pavement Preservation Program)$654,357 $257,643 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (Highway 99 Lighting Phase 3)$30,000
Total Reimbursements $1,154,357 $617,643 $175,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0
Projects for 2016-2021
1
3
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
8
o
f
5
4
9
Total Project & Reimbursements $1,872,357 $1,728,643 $961,000 $891,000 $866,000 $896,000 $786,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$1,531,384 $769,727 $49,084 $88,084 $197,084 $331,084 $435,084
Real Estate Tax 1/4% $1,100,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Donations
Miscellaneous $10,700 $8,000
Total Revenues $2,642,084 $1,777,727 $1,049,084 $1,088,084 $1,197,084 $1,331,084 $1,435,084
Total Revenue $2,642,084 $1,777,727 $1,049,084 $1,088,084 $1,197,084 $1,331,084 $1,435,084
Total Project & Reimbursements ($1,872,357)($1,728,643)($961,000)($891,000)($866,000)($896,000)($786,000)
Ending Cash Balance $769,727 $49,084 $88,084 $197,084 $331,084 $435,084 $649,084
*Projects in all categories may be eligible for 1% for art with the exception of planning projects.
1
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
1
9
o
f
5
4
9
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 126 - Special Capital/Parks Acquisition
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
Debt Service on City Hall $0
Debt Service Marina Bch/Library Roof $84,428 $83,228 $82,028 $80,828 $79,628 $83,428 $409,140
Debt Service on PSCC Purchase $57,098 $56,198 $60,298 $54,298 $53,398 $52,498 $276,690
Debt Service on FAC Seismic retrofit $29,874 $29,957 $29,621 $29,640 $29,630 $29,981 $148,829
Estimated Debt Payment on Civic Playfield Acquisition $0
Total Debt $171,400 $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 $165,907 $0 $834,659
Project Name
Acquistion of Civic Field
Misc. Open Space/Land $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000
Reimbursements
Reimbursement to Fund 132 for Waterfront / Tidelands Acquisition $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Annual Street Preservation Program $264,500 $887,500 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,687,500
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Trackside Warning System $300,000 $300,000
Reimbursement to Fund 111 for Signal Cabinet Upgrades $70,000 $70,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds $25,000 $25,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for ADA Transition Plan $110,000 $110,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Traffic Calming Program $20,000 $20,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Permissive Left Turn Modifications $20,000 $20,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Minor Sidewalk Program $50,000 $50,000
Total Project & Reimbursements $664,500 $1,882,500 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $400,000 $5,682,500
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$1,166,950 $1,433,050 $383,167 $363,220 $350,454 $339,798 $325,891
Real estate Tax 1/4%/1st Qtr % $1,100,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Interest Earnings $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Total Revenues $2,268,950 $2,435,050 $1,385,167 $1,365,220 $1,352,454 $1,341,798 $1,325,891
Grants 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured)
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenue & Grants & Subsidy $2,268,950 $2,435,050 $1,385,167 $1,365,220 $1,352,454 $1,341,798 $1,325,891
Total Debt ($171,400)($169,383)($171,947)($164,766)($162,656)($165,907)$0
Total Project & Reimbursements ($664,500)($1,882,500)($850,000)($850,000)($850,000)($850,000)($400,000)
Ending Cash Balance $1,433,050 $383,167 $363,220 $350,454 $339,798 $325,891 $925,891
Projects for 2016-2021
1
5
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
0
o
f
5
4
9
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 129 - Special Projects
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
$0
Total Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Balance (January 1st)$17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922
Investment Interest
Total Revenues $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $0
Grants 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues & Grants $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $0
Total Construction Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Cash Balance $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $0
Projects for 2016-2021
1
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
1
o
f
5
4
9
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 132 - Parks Construction
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
4th Ave Corridor Enhancement $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $4,325,000
Cultural Heritage Tour and Way-Finding Signage $0
Dayton Street Plaza $168,000 $0
Civic Center Acquisition/Development $1,950,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Senior Center Project $25,000 $525,000 $500,000 $1,050,000
City Park Revitalization $854,900 $0
Former Woodway HS Improvements $500,000 $155,000 $155,000
Wetland Mitigation $6,343 $0
Edmonds Marsh/Daylighting Willow Creek $200,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,200,000
Fishing Pier Rehab $200,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000
Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)$0
Outdoor Fitness Zones $125,000 $125,000
Veteran's Plaza $10,000 $475,000 $475,000
Total Projects $3,689,243 $1,805,000 $525,000 $1,925,000 $4,400,000 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $13,155,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$788,630 $422,970 $1,235,210 $1,435,210 $1,985,210 $1,835,210 $2,035,210
Beginning Cash Balance Milltown
Beginning Cash Balance Cultural Heritage Tour
Park Impact Fees $136,410 $136,410 $500,000
Reimbursement from Fund 117-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Reimbursement from Fund 120 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Reimbursement from Fund 127-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour
Reimbursement from Fund 120 for Way-Finding Signage Grant Match
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Outdoor Fitness Zones $50,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Dayton St. Plaza
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for City Park Revitalization
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Former Woodway HS Improvements $500,000 $155,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Senior Center Design $25,000 $25,000
Reimbursement from Fund 126 for Waterfront Acquisition/Development $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Contribution from 01 for Edmonds Marsh $200,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Marsh/Marina Beach $350,000 $500,000 $500,000
Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Fishing Pier $100,000
Investment Interest $830 $830
Total Revenues $1,825,870 $1,290,210 $1,960,210 $1,985,210 $2,685,210 $2,535,210 $2,235,210
Projects for 2016-2021
1
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
2
o
f
5
4
9
Grants 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Grants/ Loans (Secured)
4th Ave / Cultural Heritage Tour (Preserve America/National Park Service)
Dayton Street Plaza (Arts Fest. Found./Hubbard Trust/Ed in Bloom)
Interurban Trail (Federal CMAQ)
Interurban Trail (State RCO)
Snohomish County / City Park $80,000
RCO State grant / City Park Revitalization $500,000
Snohomish County Tourism for Way-Finding
Conservation Futures/Waterfront Acquisition $500,000
Wetland Mitigation $6,343
RCO/Civic Acquisition $1,000,000
RCO/Fishing Pier $200,000 $1,200,000
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $2,286,343 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured)
4th Ave Corridor Enhancement (state, federal, other)$1,425,000 $2,900,000
Outdoor Fitness Zones $75,000
Sr. Ctr Project $500,000
Edmonds Marsh/Marina Beach $650,000 $1,000,000
Veterans Plaza $475,000
Civic Development $2,400,000
Bond funding/Civic
Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought (not secured) $0 $550,000 $0 $1,925,000 $3,550,000 $1,000,000 $2,400,000
Grants Subtotal $2,286,343 $1,750,000 $0 $1,925,000 $3,550,000 $1,000,000 $2,400,000
Total Revenues & Cash Balances & Grants $4,112,213 $3,040,210 $1,960,210 $3,910,210 $6,235,210 $3,535,210 $4,635,210
Total Construction Projects (3,689,243)($1,805,000)(525,000)(1,925,000)($4,400,000)(1,500,000)($3,000,000)
Ending Cash Balance $422,970 $1,235,210 $1,435,210 $1,985,210 $1,835,210 $2,035,210 $1,635,210
*Projects may be partially eligible for 1% for Art
1
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
3
o
f
5
4
9
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 421 - Water Projects
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
2013 Replacement Program $0
2014 Replacement Program $603,920 $0
2014 Waterline Overlays $0
2015 Replacement Program $2,291,559 $490,000 $490,000
2015 Waterline Overlays $98,284 $0
2016 Replacement Program $304,482 $2,052,028 $2,052,028
2016 Waterline Overlays $220,000 $220,000
Dayton Ave 3rd to 9th Utility Improvements $487,500 $487,500
2017 Replacement Program $302,948 $2,678,999 $2,981,947
2018 Replacement Program $400,000 $2,786,159 $3,186,159
2019 Replacement Program $416,000 $2,897,605 $3,313,605
2020 Replacement Program $432,640 $3,013,510 $3,446,150
2021 Replacement Program $449,946 $3,134,050 $3,583,996
2022 Replacement Program $467,944 $467,944
Five Corners Reservoir Recoating $100,000 $1,850,100 $1,850,100
2016 Water System Plan Update $86,100 $116,500 $116,500
Total Projects $3,484,345 $5,519,076 $3,078,999 $3,202,159 $3,330,245 $3,463,456 $3,601,994 $22,195,929
Reimbursements & Contributions
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (228th Project)$106,730 $0
Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$70,000 $580,000 $580,000
Reimbursement to Fund 117 1% Arts (2015 Watermain)$1,886 $0
Reimbursement to Fund 117 1% Arts (2016 Watermain)$1,000 $1,000
Total Reimbursements $178,616 $581,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $581,000
Total Water Projects $3,662,961 $6,100,076 $3,078,999 $3,202,159 $3,330,245 $3,463,456 $3,601,994 $22,776,929
Revenues & Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Balance (January 1st)
Connection Fee Proceeds $316,700 $301,400 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Interfund Reimbursement from Fund 423 (Dayton 3rd to 9th)$150,000
Interfund Reimbursement from Fund 422 (Dayton 3rd to 9th)$187,500
2015 Bond $5,300,000
General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements $100,000 $114,600 $119,184 $123,900 $128,856 $134,010 $139,370
Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $5,716,700 $753,500 $219,184 $223,900 $228,856 $234,010 $239,370
Unsecured Revenue 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers
Total Unsecured Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues
Total Projects & Reimbursements
Ending Cash Balance
Projects for 2016-2021
1
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
4
o
f
5
4
9
CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project. X $90,486 $716,800 $716,800
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements- Dayton St Pump Station X $115,344 $302,700 $1,900,000 $50,000 $2,252,700
Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study / Design/Construction (See Note 1)X $293,981 $205,200 $300,000 $300,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 $5,825,200
Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements $200,000 $500,000 $50,000 $750,000
Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation $82,500 $82,500 $550,607 $715,607
Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr - Assessment /
Stabilization $45,500 $750,000 $795,500
Rehab/Replace of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr (See Note 1)$10,000 $140,200 $1,500,000 $500,000 $2,140,200
Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects - Seaview Infiltration (See
Note 1)X $164,500 $680,500 $450,000 $500,000 $500,000 $50,000 $2,345,000
Improvments - 88th Ave W and 194th St SW $87,500 $300,000 $387,500
Improvements - Dayton St - 3rd to 9th $88,172 $324,000 $324,000
Improvements - Sierra Pl- 12th Ave N to Olympic $84,000 $240,000 $324,000
City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects $168,776 $158,000 $150,000 $150,000 $250,000 $350,000 $500,000 $1,558,000
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects $7,009 $45,000 $64,000 $66,000 $68,000 $68,000 $70,000 $381,000
Storm System Video Assessment $23,363 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $165,000
Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset
management plan)$110,000 $110,000 $220,000
$797,131 $2,680,900 $6,297,000 $2,441,607 $3,248,000 $3,553,000 $680,000 $18,900,507
Perrinville Creek Basin Projects
Capital Improvements Program
PROJECT NAME
SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Projects
Edmonds Marsh Related Projects
Projects for 2016-2021Fund 422 Storm
Northstream Projects
Annually Funded Projects
Storm Drainage Improvement Projects
Compliance-Related Projects
Total Project
2
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
5
o
f
5
4
9
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW
Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park
Infiltration System)$957,610 $81,283 $81,283
228th SW Corridor Improvements $68,500 $0
76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $15,000 $330,575 $330,575
76th Ave W & 220th St SW Intersection Improvements $25,000 $25,000 $250,000 $300,000
236th SW Walkway Project $202,109 $202,109
Utility Replacements Dayton btwn 3rd & 9th Ave $187,500 $200,000 $1,900,000 $1,500,000 $200,000 $3,987,500
Stormwater Utility - Transportation Projects $50,258 $109,000 $112,000 $116,000 $119,000 $123,000 $125,000 $704,000
Total Reimbursements to 112 Fund $1,091,368 $910,467 $337,000 $2,041,000 $1,869,000 $323,000 $125,000 $5,605,467
105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project $6,325 $6,325
City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects $1,500 $800 $800
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW
Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park
infiltration system)$9,828 $0
228th SW Corridor Improvements $685 $0
76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $3,306 $3,306
76th Ave W & 220th St SW Intersection Improvements $2,500 $2,500
226th SW Walkway Project $1,750 $1,750
Utility Replacement Dayton btwn 3rd & 9th Ave $2,000 $19,000 $15,000 $2,000 $38,000
Total Reimbursements to 117 Fund $12,013 $12,181 $2,000 $19,000 $17,500 $2,000 $0 $52,681
$1,103,381 $922,648 $339,000 $2,060,000 $1,886,500 $325,000 $125,000 $5,658,148
$1,900,512 $3,603,548 $6,636,000 $4,501,607 $5,134,500 $3,878,000 $805,000 $24,558,655
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
$3,500,000
$52,995 $31,975 $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000
$75,000 $157,331
X $200,000 $433,750
$3,627,995 $389,306 $463,750 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
$1,125,000 $375,000
X $510,375 $337,500 $375,000 $375,000 $37,500
X $225,000 $225,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000 $15,000
X $1,425,000 $37,500
$0 $0 $3,285,375 $975,000 $2,175,000 $2,325,000 $52,500
1. All or part of this project funded by secured grants or grants will be pursued, see Revenue section for details.
2 Assumes grant funding is 75% of total project costs per year beginning 2017
Total Secured Revenues
Total Project & Transfers
Ending Cash Balance
Unsecured Revenue 2015-2021
Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds)
Total Unsecured Revenues
Notes:
Estimated Connection Fees (capital facilities charge)
Beginning Balance (January 1st)
Total Revenue
Grants (Secured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Final
Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration
Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management -Seaview Infiltration
Grants (Unsecured) - Rehab/Replace of Northstream Culvert under Puget
Dr (See Note 2)
Grants (Unsecured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See
Note 2)
Grants (Unsecured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr -
Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration (See Note 2)
Grants (Unsecured) - Dayton St & Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements (See
Note 2)
Projects for 2016-2021
Proceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds)
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
Total Project & Reimbursements
Total Reimbursements
To 117 - Arts
Reimbursements
To 112 - Street Fund
2
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
6
o
f
5
4
9
CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 $3,000 $0
Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement $36,566 $0
Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement $269,344 $0
2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $1,460,567 $22,000 $22,000
2015 Sewerline Overlays $14,223 $0
2016 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $161,222 $1,907,104 $1,907,104
2016 Sewerline Overlays $220,000 $220,000
2017 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $278,750 $1,551,905 $1,830,655
2018 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $287,113 $1,598,462 $1,885,575
2019 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $295,726 $1,646,416 $1,942,142
2020 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $304,598 $1,695,809 $2,000,406
2021 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $313,736 $1,746,683 $2,060,419
2022 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $323,148 $323,148
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $92,000 $1,006,263 $412,000 $424,360 $437,091 $450,204 $463,710 $3,193,627
Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Study $80,000 $120,000 $120,000
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study $10,000 $290,000 $290,000
$2,126,922 $3,844,117 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $2,533,541 $15,795,076
Reimbursement to Fund 421 (Dayton 3rd to 9th)$150,000 $150,000
Reimbursement to Fund 112 (228th Project)$177,254 $0
Reimbursement to Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements)$70,000 $700,000 $700,000
$247,254 $850,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $850,000
$2,374,176 $4,694,117 $2,251,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $2,533,541 $16,645,076
Capital Improvements Program
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations
Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP
Infiltration & Inflow Study & Projects
Total Projects, Transfers & Reimbursements
Reimbursements & Contributions
Total Reimbursements
Projects for 2016-2021
PROJECT NAME
Fund 423 - Sewer Projects
Total Projects
2
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
7
o
f
5
4
9
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
$384,400 $310,200 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
$8,700,000
$9,084,400 $310,200 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2015 Bond
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
Beginning Balance (January 1st)
Sewer Connection Fees
Ending Cash Balance
Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc)
Unsecured Revenue 2015-2021
New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers
Total Unsecured Revenue
Total Revenues
Total Projects & Reimbursements
2
3
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
8
o
f
5
4
9
Capital Improvements Program
Fund 423.76 - WWTP
PROJECT NAME CFP 2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
(2016-2021)
Repair and Replacement $35,664 $25,000 $25,000 $250,000 $250,000 $330,000 $330,000 $1,210,000
Construction Projects - In House $15,000 $20,000 $20,000 $40,000
Construction Projects Contracted $2,075,957 $2,856,000 $2,100,000 $250,000 $250,000 $300,000 $600,000 $6,356,000
Debt Service - Principle and Interest $257,560 $257,516 $256,163 $255,371 $255,929 $256,371 $256,902 $1,538,252
Total Project $2,384,181 $3,138,516 $2,381,163 $755,371 $755,929 $906,371 $1,206,902
Projects less revenue from outside partnership $2,221,131 $3,105,466 $2,346,113 $740,321 $740,879 $891,321 $1,191,852
Revenues and Cash Balances 2015-2021
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000
Intergovernmental $2,221,131 $3,105,466 $2,346,113 $740,321 $740,879 $891,321 $1,191,852
Interest Earnings $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50
Miscellaneous (biosolids, Lynnwood, etc)$13,000 $13,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
Grants, Incentives and Rebate for Engergy Eff. Projects $150,000 $20,000 $20,000
Subtotal $2,584,181 $3,338,516 $2,581,163 $955,371 $1,305,929 $1,456,371 $1,756,902
Total Revenue $2,584,181 $3,338,516 $2,581,163 $955,371 $1,305,929 $1,456,371 $1,756,902
Total Project ($2,384,181)($3,138,516)($2,381,163)($755,371)($755,929)($906,371)($1,206,902)
Ending Cash Balance $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000
Interest earned estimated at 0.75% per year
Contribution breakdown by agency
2015
Estimate 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Edmonds 50.79%$1,128,046 $1,577,173 $1,191,520 $375,987 $376,270 $452,675 $605,306
Mountlake Terrace 23.17%$514,725 $719,661 $543,688 $171,562 $171,691 $206,555 $276,200
Olympic View Water & Sewer District 16.55%$367,619 $513,986 $388,305 $122,531 $122,623 $147,523 $197,263
Ronald Sewer District 9.49%$210,741 $294,647 $222,599 $70,242 $70,295 $84,569 $113,083
TOTALS 100.00%$2,221,131 $3,105,466 $2,346,113 $740,321 $740,879 $891,321 $1,191,852
*In 2019 per the agreement, fund balance will increase to $550,000.
Projects for 2016-2021
2
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
2
9
o
f
5
4
9
CIP
PARKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
25 Packet Page 230 of 549
26 Packet Page 231 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center
Field/Court/Stage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000
700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities
and children’s play equipment. Replacement and renovation of amphitheater in 2015 with
improved courtyard area and drainage.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center
serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various
special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $100,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
27 Packet Page 232 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Brackett’s Landing
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000
South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound
North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park
South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park
through Deed-of-Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench
maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat
improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom
phased rehabilitation in 2016 and 2018.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park,
regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $5,000 $50,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $50,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
28 Packet Page 233 of 549
PROJECT NAME: City Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $347,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete play/spray ground project, field renovation, continued
pathway, access improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This is for completion of the play and spray revitalization
and ongoing upgrades to City Park as referenced in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $272,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $272,000 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
29 Packet Page 234 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $650,000
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development
Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and
play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair
and resurfacing, irrigation. Landscape and site furnishing improvements.
Master Plan in 2016, development improvements based on Master Plan in 2021.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study 100,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $600,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $600,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
30 Packet Page 235 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Avenue Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a multi-use path on the west side of Sunset Ave with
expansive views of the Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. The multi-use path will connect
the downtown business district, surrounding neighborhoods, water access points, and the
existing parks and trails system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This multi-use path has been a priority for the City of
Edmonds for several years. It is included in 5 different City plans, the Transportation
Improvement Plan, Non-Motorized Section; the Parks Recreation and Open Plan; the City
comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan; the Capital Improvement Plan; and the Shoreline
Master Program. Specifically, the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan identified Sunset
Avenue Overlook priorities, namely improved connectivity and multi-modal access, complete the
bicycle and pedestrian route system, identify scenic routes and view areas, and landscape
improvements.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $100,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
31 Packet Page 236 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $225,000
LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and
renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations.
Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and
enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $175,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $175,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
32 Packet Page 237 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $655,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges,
user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital
campaign. $10m - $12M project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained
facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $500,000 $155,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $500,000 $155,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
33 Packet Page 238 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $15,000
89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and
natural trail system to Maplewood Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
34 Packet Page 239 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $1,505,000
South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with
federal transportation funds.
WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed-of-Right RCW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace play structure in 2016. Begin development of Master
plan, daylighting Willow Creek in 2018-2020.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional
waterfront park system.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $100,000 $50,000 $350,000 $500,000 $500,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $100,000 $50,000 $350,000 $500,000 $500,000 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
35 Packet Page 240 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $35,000
78th Place W. & 241st. St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Install path from Interurban Trail spur terminal to parking lot. Improve picnic area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $20,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $20,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
36 Packet Page 241 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse
Grounds
ESTIMATED COST: $85,000
6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and
landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. Replace playground.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation
that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care,
recreation classes and preschool activities.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $75,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $75,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
37 Packet Page 242 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Playfields ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $500,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with City of Lynnwood and Edmonds School District to
renovate Meadowdale Playfields, installation of synthetic turf for year around play.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Partnership to leverage funds and increase field use for
Edmonds citizens.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
38 Packet Page 243 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,000
83rd Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County
22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife
habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street
connecting to Yost Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional
trail connections.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
New additions meet the 1% for the Arts Ordinance requirements
39 Packet Page 244 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $35,000
80th Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed-
Of-Right
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Re-surface
tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area maintenance. Renovate restrooms.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court,
parking and tennis courts.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
40 Packet Page 245 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $70,000
80th Street West and 191th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation
to include field drainage for turf repair.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities,
basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
41 Packet Page 246 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Yost Park/Pool
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $420,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and
unanticipated repairs. Add in-pool play amenities.
Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping,
parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for
environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $120,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $120,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
42 Packet Page 247 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Parklet Development, 4th
Avenue Cultural Corridor
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $80,000
A parklet is a small urban park that is made by creating a sidewalk extension that provides
more space and amenities for people using the street. Usually parklets are installed on top of
parking lanes and use one or more parking spaces, but do not permanently impact the
underlying street. Parklets typically extend out from the sidewalk at the level of the sidewalk to
the width of the adjacent parking space creating a patio and seating area, often including
plantings. Parklets are public space and open to everyone.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop one or more parklets on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor.
The first parklet will be created on Sprague St. just east of 4th Avenue on the north side, based
on site concepts in the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Plan. The design will be developed with
Parks crew and an artist/landscape consultant.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide a small urban park along the 4th Avenue Cultural
Corridor with views of Puget Sound and seating on a popular walking route. Parklets as a
resting and a gathering space highlight the social function integral to streets. The importance of
additional small gathering spaces is referred to in both the Community Cultural Plan and the
PROS Plan.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Construction $40,000 $40,000
TOTAL $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $0
43 Packet Page 248 of 549
PROJECT NAME: City Gateway
Replacements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $40,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and construct new gateway elements at SR 104 and 5th
Ave. S and at Sunset and Main St. to replace aging and deteriorated signage.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The PROS Plan, Community Cultural Plan and Streetscape
Plan all refer to the importance of these visual “gateways” to the City of Edmonds. New signage
with artistic elements will enhance the gateways and reinforce Edmonds reputation as a cultural
destination for visitors.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Repairs &
Maintenance $40,000
TOTAL $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
44 Packet Page 249 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within
the park system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health
and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while
their children play.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Construction $50,000
TOTAL $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
45 Packet Page 250 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $147,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include library, Senior Center, outdoor
plaza, city park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree plantings,
streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide
comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 21,000 21,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000
46 Packet Page 251 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway
improvements citywide.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Repair & Maint $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000
* all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
47 Packet Page 252 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park
Improvements / Misc Small Projects
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $280,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements
including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking
fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and
equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway
entrances into the city and 4th Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the
Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities
and streetscape improvements in public areas.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering / Administration
Construction $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40000
48 Packet Page 253 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade /
Playground Partnerships
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring
jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create
neighborhood park facilities at non-City facilities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create
additional facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0
49 Packet Page 254 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved
Trail/Bike Path/Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 40,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the
goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the
comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to
meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path
improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with
engineering funding.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
* all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
50 Packet Page 255 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility
Needs Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $unk
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts
facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high
priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008
update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
51 Packet Page 256 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $235,000
South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL
23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the
comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water
impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway
repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible.
Hatchery repairs as needed. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, Earthcorps and others
in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of
Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park; completion of the Marina Beach Master Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh
water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird
sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water
Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant
funds available through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Professional
Services
$70,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000
TOTAL $105,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000
52 Packet Page 257 of 549
`
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery
Mapping
ESTIMATED COST: $ 100,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Memorial Cemetery was deeded to the City in 1982.
The City has been operating the cemetery with no markings, rows, aisles, or surveyed
mapping. It is essential that the City survey/map/and mark the cemetery so as to effectively
manage the plots.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Operations of a public cemetery, with effective and
accurate stewardship.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study $100,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
53 Packet Page 258 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition
and/or Development
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,750,000
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire Civic field from School District. Develop this 8.1 acre
property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of
some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important
park site for the citizens of Edmonds.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Acquisition $1,950,000
Planning/Study $100,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $3,000,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,950,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
54 Packet Page 259 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Park and
surrounding areas, beach access
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park and parking lot
when the center is rebuilt. Rebuilt center will be available as a community center in the
evenings and weekends.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety
and better accessibility for Seniors, and be available for the whole community. One of the top
priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study $25,000 $25,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $500,000 $500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $25,000 $525,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
55 Packet Page 260 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Forest
Management Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hire consultant to develop a plan for best forest management
practices in Pine Ridge Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This forest park is under stress from over-mature trees
especially alder and others. This study will give the Parks Division necessary guidance to
better manage this park to become a more healthy forest and open space.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study $50,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
56 Packet Page 261 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved
Capital Projects and Acquisitions
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,006,059
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on:
City Hall: Debt retired end of 2014
Marina Beach / Library Roof: $ $82,261
PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $55,631
Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,784
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
Principal &
Interest
$171,400 $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 $165,907
TOTAL $171,400 $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 $165,907 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
57 Packet Page 262 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open
Space/Land
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,400,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens that
fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open
space.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Land $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
58 Packet Page 263 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront/Tidelands
Acquisition
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,200,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcels and tidelands wherever feasible to
secure access to Puget Sound for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
59 Packet Page 264 of 549
PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue
Corridor Enhancement
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,325,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable
surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create
stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible
projects may include surface art, interpretive signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting. The
Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park
Service Preserve America grant program, will be implemented in 2011-12.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will
enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the
downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for
the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will
assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project
implementation phase.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
60 Packet Page 265 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Heritage Tour and
Way-Finding Signage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a downtown Edmonds walking tour highlighting a dozen historic
sites with artist made interpretive markers, and add way-finding signage for the downtown area.
Completed.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Promote tourism and economic development in the core
downtown. The walking tour and interpretive signage focuses on local history and as unique artist
made pieces also reflect the arts orientation of the community. Improved way-finding signage which
points out major attractions and services/amenities such as theaters, museums, beaches, train station,
shopping, dining and lodging promotes both tourism and economic vitality in the downtown /waterfront
activity center.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
61 Packet Page 266 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $168,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works
building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and
creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main
walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation
and Edmonds in Bloom.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $168,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $168,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
62 Packet Page 267 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Park and
surrounding areas, beach access
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park and parking lot
when the center is rebuilt. Rebuilt center will be available as a community center in the
evenings and weekends.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety
and better accessibility for Seniors, and be available for the whole community. One of the top
priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study $25,000 $25,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $500,000 $500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $25,000 $525,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
63 Packet Page 268 of 549
PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $854,900
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete play/spray ground project, field renovation, continued
pathway, access improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of
the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a
repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City’s
oldest and most cherished park.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $854,900
1% for Art
TOTAL $854,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
64 Packet Page 269 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $655,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community
colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful
regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained
facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2026
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-
2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $500,000 $155,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $500,000 $155,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
65 Packet Page 270 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Wetland Mitigation ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,343
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive
management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to
support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation
of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the
Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the
marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water
marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary.
Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as
defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available
through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $6,343
1% for Art
TOTAL $6,343 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
66 Packet Page 271 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Willow
Creek Daylighting
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,200,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive
management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to
support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation
of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the
Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the
marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water
marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary.
Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as
defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available
through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
67 Packet Page 272 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $1,500,000
LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and
renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations.
Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and
enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $200,000 $1,300,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
68 Packet Page 273 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown
Waterfront)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public
market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community
gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a
valuable asset to Edmonds.
SCHEDULE:
This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners
willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished
by 2017.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
69 Packet Page 274 of 549
PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within
the park system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health
and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while
their children play.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Construction $125,000
TOTAL $125,000
70 Packet Page 275 of 549
PROJECT NAME:
Veteran’s Plaza
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The establishment of a Veteran’s Plaza was unanimously
approved by the City Council in 2014. It will serve as a tribute to the patriotic and courageous
men and women who served this nation. The Plaza will reflect the bravery, sacrifice and
strength they gave our country. The design will accommodate flagpoles (in their existing
location), space for display of military seals and a Plaza, seating areas for reflection, some
educational monuments or placards, and existing hardscape and significant trees. The
address is 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 and is adjacent to the Edmonds Public
Safety Building.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Veteran’s Plaza will serve as a focal point which
raises awareness of the contributions made by veterans and illustrates the high respect the
citizens of Edmonds have for the men and women who have defended the rights and
freedoms of this nation. It will provide a tribute for the men and women who have served and
are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. The Plaza will establish a central site
for the citizens of Edmonds to conduct official observances, activities and ceremonies to honor
veterans including Veterans Day.
SCHEDULE: 2015-2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $10,000 $475,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $475,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
71 Packet Page 276 of 549
Page 1 of 4 10/22/2015
FUND PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION
001 SR99 Access Management Study Evaluate options to implement access management improvements between
220th St and 224th St.
112 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W X Install two way left turn lane along stretch and install sidewalk.
112 ADA Transition Plan Update the City's Transition Plan to comply with the American with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements.
112 Minor Sidewalk Program X Improve pedestrian safety along short stretches throughout the City.
112 Citywide Protective/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion Convert Protected left-turn signals to permissive turn movements to improve
level of service at signalized intersections.
112 SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements X Extend left turn storage area for WB movement and non-motorized
transportation improvements.
112 SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements X Traffic signal phasing modifications; upgrade ADA curb ramps; and add C-Curb
for access management.
112 SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements X Install traffic signal to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety.
112 SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W Intersection Improvements
X
Implement Westgate Circulation Plan, install midblock crossing along 100th
Ave. W; and re-channelize 100th Ave. W with bike lanes / sharrows.
112 SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements X Add a 2nd WB left turn lane.
112 232nd St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to SR-104 X Improve pedestrian safety along 232nd from 100th to SR-104
112 236th St. Walkway from Edmonds Way to 97th Ave X Improve pedestrian safety along 236th from Edmonds Way to 97th Ave.
112 84th Ave. Walkway from 238th St. to 234th St. X Improve pedestrian safety along 84th from 238th to 234th
112 80th Ave. Walkway from 206th St. to 212th St. X Improve pedestrian safety along 80th from 206th to 212th
112 218th St Walkway from 76th Ave. to 84th Ave. X Improve pedestrian safety along 218th from 76th to 84th
112 238th St. Walkway from Hwy. 99 to SR-104 X Improve pedestrian safety along 238th from Hwy 99 to SR-104
112 191th St. Walkway from 80th Ave. to 76th Ave. X Improve pedestrian safety along 191th from 80th to 76th
112 95th Pl. Walkway from 224th St. to 220th St. X Improve pedestrian safety along 95th from 224th to 220th
112 104th Ave. Walkway from 238th St. to 106th Ave. X Improve pedestrian safety along 104th from 238th to 106th
112 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S X Improve pedestrian safety along Elm Way from 8th to 9th
112 80th Ave. Walkway from 218th St. SW to 220th St. X Improve pedestrian safety along 80th from 218th to 220th
112 236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W X Improve pedestrian safety along 236th from Hwy 99 to 76th
112 238th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W X Improve pedestrian safety along 238th from Hwy. 99 to 76th
112 80th Ave. W / 180th St SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD X Improve pedestrian safety along 80th / 180th from 188th to OVD
112 189th Pl. SW Walkway from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W X Improve pedestrian safety along 189th from 80th to 76th
112 Ferry Storage Improvements from Pine St. to Dayton St.X Improve ferry queueing by extending storage area
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2015 TO 2016)
ADDED PROJECTS
Packet Page 277 of 549
Page 2 of 4 10/22/2015
016 Anderson Center Roofing Project Subject of a DP for 2016 funding
016 Fire Station #20 Generator Subject of a DP for 2016 funding.
016 City Hall Carpet Replacement Starting a cycle to replace all carpeting
016 City Hall Security Measures Insufficient funding last year. Moved project to 2016, added funding
016 Meadowdale Gutter Replacement Insufficient funding last year. Moved project to 2016, added funding
016 Fire station #17 Bay Ceiling Subject of a DP for 2016 funding.
016 Anderson Center Flooring Subject of a DP for 2016 funding.
125 Parklet development, 4th Ave Corridor Consistent with Community Cultural and PROS plan.
125 City Gateway Replacements Consistent with PROS plan.
125 Outdoor Fitness Zones Consistent with PROS plan.
125 Sr. Ctr Walkway/Park Design Consistent with PROS plan.
125 Civic Center Master Plan x After purchase, work with community to master plan downtown park.
125 Meadowdale Playfields Same as last year, but carrying it over: Installing turf fields, in partnership with
Lynnwood and Edmonds School District, and contingent upon grant funds.
126 Trackside Warning System at Main & Dayton Streets X 2016 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue.
126 Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Standards 2016 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue.
126 ADA Transition Plan 2016 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue.
126 Traffic Calming Program 2016 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue.
126 Citywide Protective/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion 2016 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue.
126 Minor Sidewalk Program X 2016 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue.
132 Outdoor Fitness Zones Consistent with PROS plan
132 Fishing Pier Rehab Completion of fishing pier rehab
421 2022 Replacement Program Estimated future costs for waterline replacements.
421 Dayton 3rd to 9th Utility Improvements Combined water/sewer/storm utility replacement project funding is from the
respective utilities' replacement project funding.
421 2016 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements.
422 Improvements - Sierra Pl - 12th Ave N to Olympic Outfall causing erosion on slope. Advanced maintenance fix will be constructed
this fall. This new project would divert some storm flows to minimize future
slope erosion.
423 2022 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr.
423 2016 Sewerline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewerline repl/rehab/impr.
Packet Page 278 of 549
Page 3 of 4 10/22/2015
FUND PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION
112 Walnut St. @ 9th Intersection Improvements X Convert All-way Stop intersection to signalized intersection
112 Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link (ranked #8 out of 12 projects in
Short Walkway list of 2015 Transportation Plan).
112 Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway X Provide sidewalk along missing link (ranked # 24 out of 28 in Long Walkway list
of 2015 Transportation Plan)
112 Walnut St. Walkway from 6th to 7th X Provide sidewalk along missing link (ranked #9 out of 12 projects in Short
Walkway list of 2015 Transportation Plan).
112 4th Ave. W Corridor Enhancement X Create more attractive and safer corridor along 4th Ave. (Inserted in
PARKS CFP)
112 Olympic Ave. Walkway from Main St. to SR-524
X
Reconstruct sidewalk - The Transportation Committee removed this project
from the walkway list during the 2015 Plan update, since there is existing
sidewalk on the corridor.
112 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S X Completed in 2015.
016 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement Removed from project list at this time
421 2013 Replacement Program Completed in 2014.
421 Telemetry System Improvements Deleted. Discussions with operations department revealed that improvements
are maintenance that they do as part of their operational budget. Operations
will do this work as part of their operations and maintenance tasks.
421 2014 Waterline Overlays Completed in 2014.
421 76th Avenue Waterline Replacement Completed in 2014.
423 2013 CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation Completed in 2014.
423 224th Sewerline Replacement Project Completed in 2014.
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2015 TO 2016)
DELETED PROJECTS
Packet Page 279 of 549
Page 4 of 4 10/22/2015
FUND PROJECT NAME CFP CHANGE
001 Alternatives analysis to study, 1) waterfront access issues emphasizing
and prioritizing near term solutions to providing emergency access, also
including, but not limited to, 2) at grade conflicts where Main and
Dayton streets intersect BNSF rail lines, 3) pedestrian/bicycle access, and
4) options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project
(identified as Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
X The project was added to the CFP and moved from the 112 Fund to the General
Fund. The project name was revised to "Edmonds Waterfront Analysis" and the
project description is the wording approved at the City Council meeting in
December 2013.
422
Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements Project broken out from Willow Creek Daylight project to focus on channel and
other improvements upstream of the proposed daylighting project. This project
will also improve the conditions at SR-104 and Dayton St.
423.76 Repair and Replacement Secondary Clarifier #3 has turned to out be more than a coating project. In
2015 we evaluated soil and ground water conditions to determine that the
foundation slab will need to be reinforced. Design will continue through 2015
and the repair will be made in 2016. Pagoda repairs have been placed on hold
for time being.
423.76 Upgrades Offsite Flow Telemetry: This project will modify the offsite monitoring stations
to solar power in an effort to significantly lower our energy bills. All stations
should be completed in 2015. Control System Upgrade: Replace aging control
system equipment, provide for redundancy and upgrade the operating
platform. At the end of 2015 all PLC's with the exception of the 600 PlC will be
complete. The 600 PLC is scheduled for spring 2016. SSI project: All equipment
is purchased, all requirements are on track for meeting the new requirements
in May 2016. Operator training is currently being developed although there is
no standard or means to ensure compliance. Phase 4 energy improvements:
The project should be completed by end of 2015. Compressors were replace in
2014, blowers and diffusers in 2015. The project has given us the opportunity
to optimize the aeration control system.
423.76 Studies and Consulting We will continue to evaluate UV vs. Hypo for disinfection, begin the design for
solids system enhancements and look at gasification as a future alternative to
the SSI. Much of this work will be accomplished under the ESCO model and
focus on energy improvements.
CHANGED PROJECTS
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2015 TO 2016)
Packet Page 280 of 549
APPROVED OCTOBER 28TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 14, 2015
Chair Tibbott called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Neil Tibbott, Chair
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Carreen Rubenkonig
Daniel Robles
Valerie Stewart
Nathan Monroe
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY,
WITH BOARD MEMBERS CHEUNG AND LOVELL ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Courtney Hamilton, Edmonds, proposed a ban on crumb rubber use on all fields in the City of Edmonds. Crumb rubber is
a synthetic mix of dangerous chemicals that were never meant to be played on. There are multiple levels of exposure:
chemicals are absorbed through simple dermal contact; rubber pieces are swallowed during normal sports play; dust is spread
into surrounding areas and tracked into homes; heavy metals in the chemical make-up of crumb rubber could leach into
ground water, streams and other bodies of water; and athletes, neighbors and students will inhale Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC’s) and tire dust. She referred to a study released in June of 2015 by Yale University and Encompass
Home Health Insurance, which found that of the 96 chemicals detected in crumb rubber, a little under half have had no
toxicity assessments done on them for their health effects. The other half have had some toxicity testing done on them, but
many have incomplete toxicity assessments. Of the half that had toxicity assessments, 20% are probable carcinogens. David
Brown, Sc.D., Public Health Toxicologist, explained that “chemicals are usually assessed for their toxicity one chemical at a
time. Synergistic effects of being exposed to numerous chemicals at the same time are not known.”
Ms. Hamilton observed that those who support the use of crumb rubber argue that even though crumb rubber contains
carcinogens, players only get a limited exposure, and studies thus far all assume this limited exposure position. However,
Packet Page 281 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 2
direct experience with the fields conflicts with such hypothesis and assertions. Some players, especially goalies, get repeated
and routine exposure to the loose sand-like material and the dust that results from its continual degradation. No study has
provided adequate assurances of safety, and there are so many chemicals of concern with this issue. At some point, it must
be recognized that the ability to understand exactly how cancerous materials interact in the human environment is limited.
She noted that the Precautionary Principle states that, “if an action or policy has a suspected risk of harm, in the absence of
proof that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof is on those taking the action.” Following this principle, the
social responsibility is to protect the public from harm. New studies, combined with the growing list of young athletes with
cancer, should be a clear call to stop the use of crumb rubber. We should not be installing fields of old tires and assuming
they are safe. We know there are carcinogens in them, and we know there will be exposure. The only question is how much
exposure, and kids should not be used as the guinea pigs in order to answer that question.
Kristy Davis, Brier, said she has a PhD in Health Services Research. She commented that her favorite quote is from Susan
Wuerthele, a former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist who is now retired, who said, “The EPA made a
mistake in promoting this. That’s my personal point of view. This is a serious no brainer. You take something with all kinds
of hazardous materials and make it something kids play on. It seems like a dumb idea.” Ms. Davis observed that when
crumb rubber supporters claim that the health risks are minimal, they often point to studies or health risk assessments that
supposedly prove this. However, it is important to understand that the assessments are component-based and assume that you
can estimate the total risk of a mixture by summing the risks of all the individual components. The risk from each
component is roughly assumed to be the amount and duration of the exposure, multiplied by the toxicity. There is a problem
with this approach because they don’t have any information on the toxicity of half of the chemicals, and information on the
other half is very limited. For example, the Connecticut Study is often referred to as one of the primary studies, but just 13
chemicals were included in its risk assessment. One of them was benzo(a)pyrene, and the carcinogenicity of that was based
off a single study of about 100 hamsters. The carcinogenicity of four other chemicals was based on their relative potency
compared to benzo(a)pyrene. So the toxicity of five of the chemicals used in the health risk assessment was based off a
single study of 100 hamsters. She further observed that even if the researchers had perfect toxicity data and perfect exposure
data, they would still have been using an invalid technique for calculating risk. Crumb rubber is a complex mixture with
dozens of chemicals that can interact with each other in complex and unpredictable ways once inside the human body.
Complex mixtures must be studied as whole mixtures like cigarette smoke, toxic soil from Love Canal, or diesel fumes. The
EPA guidelines for health risk assessments of chemical mixtures define a complex mixture as a mixture containing so many
components that any estimation of its toxicity based on its components’ toxicities contains too much uncertainty and error.
Jen Carrigan, Edmonds, said a recent two-part story done by NBC covered the national issue of the growing early evidence
linking crumb rubber to various forms of cancer in young soccer goalies, as well as the growing national concern of parents
and communities on the use of the product. The story indicated that the Federal Government no longer stands behind its
statement that the material is safe and the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman, Elliot Kay, has
recently said that “safe to play on means something very different to parents that I don’t think was intended to convey, and I
don’t think we should have conveyed.” In addition, United States Congressman Frank Pallone has also stated, “in the
absence of definitive information on crumb rubber, our children cannot be the guinea pigs.” She pointed out that decision
makers in communities locally and around the country are responding by listening to concerns of constituents and choosing
available non-toxic alternatives.
Ms. Carrigan read the warning label on a bottle of crumb rubber which says, “Avoid contact with skin and eyes. Can cause
irritation. Avoid breathing vapor. Use in a well ventilated area. May cause coughing and lung irritation. If skin contact
occurs, wash skin thoroughly with soap and water. If eye contact occurs, rinse immediately with plenty of water for at least
15 minutes. For further precautionary handling information, please review material safety data sheets.” She emphasized that
the bottom of the label says, “Keep out of reach of children.” She pointed out that because crumb rubber is a recycled
product, it is unregulated, and no warning signs are required to be posted on the fields that the kids play on.
Ms. Carrigan said the issue is not going away, and she has had the opportunity to speak with many citizens over the past
months from all over the community and from all walks of life. These people strongly disagree with the choice of putting
material containing carcinogens on our children’s playfields as well as in our environment (open spaces, creeks, and so near
Puget Sound). While out for a walk earlier in the day, she noted many signs on the City’s drains stating “Puget Sound Starts
Here.” She expressed her belief that the Federal Government’s wavering on the safety of the use of crumb rubber gives much
reason to take notice. She believes the City wants to make choices to keep kids healthy. If there is any question or chance
Packet Page 282 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 3
that crumb rubber could make children sick or pollute the environment, decisions makers involved in the health and well
being of the children and community have the ability to discontinue the use of the product in Edmonds and on school-owned
property, and to choose non-toxic alternatives. She, along with many other local residents, urged the City to not just listen to
industry-funded and limited biased studies, but also hear from those vested in the lives of children who could be impacted.
She asked them to make the right and safest decision for the community and its youngest citizens and ban the use of crumb
rubber in Edmonds.
Erin Zackey, Edmonds, said she is a science and math teacher in the Edmonds School District, but was present to speak as a
parent of children who are active soccer players. She said she regularly takes her students outside as part of their curriculum,
and she is an avid outdoor enthusiast. She also recognizes that athletic fields are a growing need in the community.
However, as more fields are developed in Edmonds, there are alternatives to crumb rubber. She presented a stack of about
1,000 petitions from concerned community members, all of whom have engaged in conversations about what is the right
thing to do in Edmonds. She said she has family members who are engaged in environmental concerns in the area, and she
knows that millions of dollars are spent in the State trying to clean up old tires from aquatic habitat. The City has done its
best to make sure its ecosystems are healthy for all life. It seems counterintuitive that they are now dumping these materials
back on playfields. Crumb rubber is an unregulated product, and they know that there are other options. As the Board
considers future building code regulations relative to athletic fields, she asked them to keep in mind what is going on
nationally and consider other options and then ban crumb rubber use in Edmonds.
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, advised that the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) conducted research and put out a
publication called, “Controlling Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound.” The publication lists 17 main chemicals of the most
concern, chosen because of their high potential to harm the health of people, fish and the Puget Sound ecosystem. She said
she chose to focus her comments on just two from the list, zinc and fire retardants, which are both present in crumb rubber.
Zinc is a component of tires and chemical fire retardants are added to the field because, as a petroleum product, tires are
flammable. She explained that the DOE’s assessment found that the most common pathway that toxic chemicals take to
reach Puget Sound is polluted surface water runoff, which runs into storm drains and then flows mostly unfiltered into Puget
Sound.
Ms. Johnson observed that, in the case of the Woodway Fields, the 2005 stormwater management practices were followed
even though updated 2012 standards considering artificial turf surfaces “pollution generating impervious surfaces.” The zinc
and chemical fire retardants will not be filtered out before reaching Puget Sound. The publication lists ways to reduce the
threat of chemicals in Puget Sound. The smartest, cheapest and healthiest option is to avoid releases. The second option is to
reduce releases by helping people and businesses limit or manage the amount of chemicals that enter the environment. The
most costly option is to clean up after contamination. The publication also lists key actions that include improving the way
we manage polluted surface water runoff and keep it from reaching Puget Sound and reducing the level of pollutants by
finding alternatives to the toxic chemicals.
Ms. Johnson emphasized that everyone shares responsibility for the health of the Sound and reducing pollution. If good land-
use decisions are made today and runoff is controlled, the magnitude of the problem will be smaller for future generations.
The City and its residents can actively support community organizations that work to clean up the waters and insist that
elected leaders make reducing toxic threats a priority. She noted that Edmonds proudly proclaims its participation in the
Puget Sound Starts Here Program, using big banners and bumper stickers on City vehicles. The City’s website also discusses
what is meant by “only rainwater down our storm drains.” It all starts with stormwater runoff, which is the main source of
pollution in Puget Sound. Since storm drains don’t flow into treatment plants, stormwater runoff is discharged, untreated,
directly into lakes and streams and eventually into Puget Sound. These pollutants can harm fish and wildlife populations and
native vegetation and make recreational areas unsafe and unpleasant. She requested that the City honor its commitment to
reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff, follow the advice from the DOE, and live by the mottos, “Puget Sound Starts Here,”
and “Only Rainwater Down Our Drains.” She also asked that the City adopt into its building code, requirements that non-
toxic alternatives to crumb rubber be used in all future athletic and play fields within the City of Edmonds. This move would
help to protect current and future generations of Edmonds citizens and help to care for the health of Puget Sound.
Packet Page 283 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 4
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Vice Chair Lovell requested clarification of the Historic Preservation Commission’s discussion about adding tree stumps to
the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Mr. Chave responded that a member of the Commission researched and reported
on the historic value of a remnant tree stump he found in the City. The Commission concluded that the stump did not fit into
the historic preservation program, but they encouraged him to work with the Edmonds Museum and the Parks, Recreation
and Cultural Services Director to gauge interest in providing some type of educational information near the stump. Ms. Hite
reported that she received an email from a Commissioner pointing out several old growth stumps in Yost Park. One, in
particular, shows evidence it was cut down during the timber time when people were falling trees and hauling them to
sawmills along the waterfront. He suggested the City create a path to the stump and install a sign to recognize the history of
the stump. She reported that she and the Parks Maintenance Manager will visit the site with the Commissioner and discuss
ways to identify its historic significance and recognize Edmonds as a timber town.
Board Member Stewart thanked Ms. Hite for following up on the stump idea. She noted that the discovery program does talk
about sumps, but most citizens in Edmonds do not get the benefit of this history because there is no signage available.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if the Tree Board has had any discussion relative to the creation of an Urban Forestry Management
Plan. Ms. Hite advised that the Mayor’s proposed 2016 budget includes funding for an Urban Forestry Management Plan,
and the Planning Division would take the lead on the project, with help from the Tree Board and Planning Board.
PUBLIC HEARING ON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(CIP) FOR 2016 - 2021
Mr. English started his presentation by providing a diagram to illustrate the components of the CIP and CFP, particularly
noting where the two documents overlap. He explained that both plans identify the six-year capital projects with funding
sources, but the CIP also identifies six-year maintenance projects with funding sources and the CFP identifies long-range (20
year) capital project needs. The CFP is divided into three project sections: General (parks, buildings and regional projects),
Transportation (safety/capacity and pedestrian bicycle projects), and Stormwater. The CIP is organized based on the City’s
financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six-year period. He provided
pictures to illustrate the work that occurred recently on 228th Street between 76th Avenue West and Highway 99, which will
provide a new east/west corridor along 228th Street to tie Edmonds on the west with Mountlake Terrace on the east. In
addition to the transportation improvements on 228th, a stormwater detention vault was placed under the street to contain
flows collected from adjacent street runoff and mitigate during peak runoff period. He also provided pictures to illustrate the
paving work that was done on 220th Street between 76th Avenue West and Highway 99 using grand funding and local dollars
from the Pavement Preservation Program.
Mr. English reviewed each of the projects under the following funds:
Fund 112 – Transportation
• As part of the Pavement Preservation Program, the City was able to pave 9.6 lane miles of roadway in 2015, and $1.03
million is identified for this program in 2016.
• The 228th Street corridor improvements are currently underway but it is likely that the electrical work and some of the
signal changes will carry over into 2016.
• Phase 3 of the Highway 99 improvements (lighting) is underway in conjunction with the 228th Street corridor
improvements.
• The stormwater portion of the 238th Street walkway project is currently underway, and the walkway will be constructed
later in the year.
• The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan was updated and adopted in 2015.
• The SR-104 Corridor Study is in its final draft, and it is anticipated the City Council will vote to adopt it next week.
• The biggest project scheduled for 2016 will be the 76th Avenue West/212th Street intersection improvements. The City
has been working on this project for several years, and it is currently in the design and right-of-way acquisition phase.
The goal is to advertise the project in the spring of 2016 and begin construction shortly thereafter.
Packet Page 284 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 5
• Citywide bicycle improvements are scheduled for 2016 and will be funded by a grant from Verdant Health Care. The
project is a combined effort that involves the Cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds. It involves adding
bike lanes and signage throughout Lynnwood, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace.
• They had hoped to move forward with the 236th Street Walkway project in 2015, but it got hung up with right-of-way
issues with the school district. The City is in the process of securing the right-of-way, and the plan is to advertise the
project in 2016.
Funds 125 and 126 – Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
• REET funds have been allocated into the 112 Fund to pay for the 2016 Pavement Preservation Program.
• A trackside warning system would be installed at Main and Dayton to help alleviate some of the noise caused by the
trains.
• Signal cabinet upgrades are scheduled to occur in 2016.
• Curb ramp upgrades are scheduled for 2016 to comply with the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the
ADA Transition Plan will be updated, as well.
• Funds are identified in 2016 for the ongoing Traffic Calming Program.
• An access management study for Highway 99 would also be funded in 2016 to identify solutions to some of the
existing problems.
• $50,000 has been allocated for the Minor Sidewalk Program that can be used for potential matching funds for larger
grants or to make improvements where sections of sidewalk are missing.
Fund 421 – Water
• In 2015, 8,200 lineal feet of water main was replaced, along with two pressure reduction valves.
• Also in 2015, the City overlaid 1,700 lineal feet of street affected by previous waterline replacement projects.
• In 2016, funding is identified for replacement of 8,000 lineal feet of water main and the replacement of one pressure
reduction valve.
Fund 422 – Stormwater
• The 238th Street Project is a combination of walkway and drainage improvements. A fairly large drainage area will be
connected to the Hickman Park infiltration system, and some additional rain gardens will be constructed.
• The Willow Creek Daylight Feasibility Study will continue into 2016.
• The Southwest Edmonds 105th/106th project is a drainage improvement project that was bid in July of 2015, which was
not the ideal time. They received some high bids, and the City decided to rebid the project in the winter of 2016 with the
hope of getting a better bid.
• The City secured a grant for the Seaview Infiltration Project, and design work will start in 2016 with the plan to build in
2017.
• Work on the Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh design will continue into 2016, focusing on permitting and environmental
aspects.
• The Stormwater Comprehensive Plan will be updated in 2016 through 2017. It will likely come before the Planning
Board for review and a public hearing in early 2017.
Fund 423 – Sewer/Wastewater Treatment Plant
• 2,700 lineal feet of sewer main will be replaced in 2015, and pavement overlays will be completed on 500 feet of street
affected by sewer main replacements.
• 3,000 feet of sewer main is scheduled for replacement in 2016.
• Also in 2016, a process called cured-in-place pipe will be used to rehabilitate 5,800 feet of existing pipe. This trenchless
method has proven to be a more effective way of taking care of infrastructure.
• Numerous stormwater infiltration and bio-retention work has either been completed or is under construction at this point.
The improvements include:
Packet Page 285 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 6
o Bio-swale and infiltration improvements will be done in conjunction with the 228th Street improvements. The
bio-swale will allow water to be infiltrated in place as opposed to flowing into the detention vault across the
street and being released into Lake Ballinger.
o Five new rain gardens and infiltration will be done in conjunction with the 238th Street Walkway improvements.
The rain gardens will be located within the right-of-way.
o Six new rain gardens were constructed on residential properties as part of the Residential Rain Garden Pilot
Program.
o The 105th/106th infiltration project will move forward this next winter.
o Another rain garden is planned on 171st Street in 2016.
Vice Chair Lovell referred to the two-page document that was provided by staff to outline the differences between the 2015
and 2016 CIPs, and noted that a number of projects were deleted. For example, the Meadowdale Beach Road walkway was
deleted from the six-year plan. Mr. English explained that when the Transportation Plan was being updated in 2015, the
Walkway Committee considered projects in the 2009 Transportation Plan, as well as projects identified through the public
process. Each of the projects were evaluated based on a set of criteria, and a new set of priorities was established. Although
all of the projects are still part of the Walkway Program, some were dropped from the six-year CIP as a result of this process.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if there is a process in place to reconcile the projects in the CIP with the priorities identified in the
Strategic Action Plan (SAP). Mr. English said that consideration was given to the SAP throughout the process of updating
the CIP and CFP. However, he cautioned that the SAP does not provide project-specific details so it is hard to reconcile
each of the projects in the CIP with the priorities identified in the SAP. Vice Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the SAP
had a lot of public input, and the community’s priorities are embedded within it. Ms. Hite explained that the SAP was
adopted in March of 2013 and was used as a reference when updating the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan.
For example, the SAP calls out the community’s desire to encourage partnerships for sports field, creating a spray pad, and
developing parklets and a public restroom in the downtown. These priorities were all addressed in the PROS Plan that was
recently adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, and she used the PROS Plan as her guide when developing the CIP.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she appreciates that the project descriptions contained in the CIP provide information about
where each project originated. This allows her to understand where the source of the priority came from and wraps up the
details of why the projects are in the CIP. Mr. English recalled that Board Member Rubenkonig requested this additional
information last year. Board Member Rubenkonig said she also liked that the language provided rationale and described the
project benefits, particularly related to level of service (LOS). She said she appreciates that sources of information, such as
the 2009 and 2015 Transportation Plan, SR104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis, and the Safe Routes to Schools Program,
were quoted throughout the CIP to further identify each project’s origination. She suggested the Plan should also give credit
to the citizens groups that provided attention and advocacy for the walkway projects, Highway 99, Sunset Avenue and the
waterfront all-year market.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked Mr. English to clarify the definition for “Non Motorized Transportation.” Mr. English
replied that non-motorized transportation could be a walkway or a trail project (pedestrian and bicycle improvements). Board
Member Rubenkonig asked if the definition is clear that only bicycles and pedestrians can travel on these walkways and
trails. Mr. English answered that certain engineering standards control the use of a path and identify how wide it must be to
accommodate both user groups. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if electric bicycles would be allowed, and Mr. English
answered affirmatively, depending on the width. For example, the Interurban Trail can accommodate electric bicycles and
Segways.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it is possible to consider an “all walk” at the traffic signal at the Edmonds Woodway
High School Intersection. Mr. English answered that it is necessary to accommodate a number of different modes of
transportation at this intersection, and it could be a challenge to provide an “all walk” and still meet the LOS requirement.
Board Member Rubenkonig said the project description for the Seaview Infiltration Project did not clearly identify where the
project would be located. Mr. English clarified that the project would be located in Seaview Park and would benefit
Perrinville Creek. The purpose is to pull some of the back flow out of Perrinville Creek to minimize the erosion problems
that are occurring.
Packet Page 286 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 7
Board Member Stewart said she had hoped that the CIP and CFP would include more green infrastructure and sustainable
practices. For example, the CFP makes note of the deteriorating building in City Park, which will be replaced or renovated at
a cost of between $3 and $4 million. She pointed out that Edmonds Woodway High School and Edmonds Community
College offer wonderful architecture and green building programs. She asked if these students could be involved in the
project to bring the cost of design down or if the City is required to use the services of contractors from an approved list. Mr.
English answered that the City could utilize the student’s assistance in designing the building. He explained that, typically,
the City uses a roster or publishes an announcement asking for Statements of Qualification, and a selection committee
reviews the submittals based on qualification and experience. He further explained that public agencies are required to put
projects out to bid, and the lowest responsive bidder receives the contract. He said the City works with a number of different
contractors each year.
Board Member Stewart asked if anyone could bid on the project, and Mr. English answered affirmatively. Board Member
Stewart asked if the City is required to award the contract to the lowest bidder or if the longevity and quality of the proposal
could also be part of the decision. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the City to pay more upfront if a contractor could
ensure the project will be better and last longer. Mr. English said the laws are pretty strict on public bidding and require the
City to accept the lowest responsive bid. However, qualifications and quality can be addressed as part of the Statement of
Qualifications. For example, the City could require a contractor to have a certain level of experience in order to be eligible to
bid on a project. Also, the specifications within the plans, themselves, can identify if certain materials or products must be
used for the project. Board Member Stewart asked if new technology is considered as it comes forward, and Mr. English
answered affirmatively.
Board Member Stewart voiced concern that the CIP identifies millions of dollars for buildings and infrastructure and a
relatively small amount ($200,000) for open space and shoreline acquisition. She explained that when opportunities to
acquire shoreline come up, the cost will be greater than $200,000. She also voiced concern that much of the proposed new
infrastructure is not what she would consider green and natural systems are a better way to go. The amount of stormwater
that is diverted from Puget Sound as a result of the six residential rain gardens that were constructed last week can be
quantified. She suggested that the $2 million that is identified for the Seaview infiltration project would be better used
creating rain gardens. She questioned how City staff can justify spending such a large amount of money on conventional
infrastructure. Mr. English explained that while rain gardens offer a huge benefit in some situations, many of the problems
associated with the existing and inherited conventional systems cannot be addressed by rain gardens because of soils, critical
areas, etc. That being said, the City looks for opportunities to build green infrastructure. While this approach is generally
more efficient and cost effective, it may not be the best answer for every problem. Board Member Stewart said she
understands that the current infrastructure needs to be maintained, but she hopes some consideration would be given to open
space acquisition when addressing future flow control. This greener approach would do a better job than conventional
infrastructure, as well. She said she would not support the proposed CIP and CFP if it does not include this more green
approach.
Board Member Stewart requested clarification of the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project, which is identified as a walkway in
one location and a multi-use pathway in another. Mr. English answered that a trial project is currently in place on Sunset
Avenue to evaluate the effects of adjusting parking and locating the trail/walkway on the west side of the street. At this
point, he does not know what the project will be. Data related to pedestrian counts, traffic speeds, and accident history has
been collected and presented to the City Council. As the discussion moves forward, the public will be invited to weigh in on
the pros and cons of the trial project via public meetings and a survey. Board Member Stewart commented from her
experience working with the older adult population, if given a choice, they will not use a walking pathway that includes
bicycles. She asked if the grant funding would still be available to do a pedestrian walkway on the west side of the street if
the bicycle path was eliminated and placed back on the street. Mr. English said the City would have to have this discussion
with the funding agency once they have identified a scope for the project if it no longer meets the original intent of the grant.
Board Member Robles asked why the sidewalk project on Meadowdale Beach Road was eliminated from the CIP. Mr.
English said the walkway project was eliminated from the CIP by the Walkway Committee because other projects were
ranked higher. However, it is still identified in the City’s Walkway Plan. Board Member Robles advised that citizens have
voiced concern that this east/west corridor is curvy, wet, dark and most cars travel fast. There are no sidewalks and few
people living in the area, but the combination of conditions have citizens concerned. He asked the best method for the
citizens to voice their concerns to the City staff. Mr. English suggested they contact him directly. He said the Engineering
Packet Page 287 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 8
Department receives requests for walkway improvements throughout the City, but there is very little funding available at this
time. The Engineer Department tries to secure grant funding for walkway projects through the Safe Routes to School
Program, and the intent is to leverage the dollars for future grant opportunities. The grant program is very competitive, as
most cities in the State are seeking funding for sidewalks. While all walkway projects are included in the City’s Walkway
Plan, the City’s focus over the next six years will be on those that have a greater potential for grant funding.
Board Member Robles asked if the City has plans to resurface or at least repair Meadowdale Beach Road to make it safer.
Mr. English said the goal is to continue the Pavement Preservation Program, with over $1 million budgeted in 2016. They
are currently working on the project list. Board Member Robles said he would encourage the citizens on Meadowdale Beach
Road to provide input as the City works to finalize the project list.
Board Member Robles asked if the City has completed a feasibility study related to alternative materials for athletic fields as
opposed to crumb rubber. He assumes that health research will be forthcoming, but what does the City know about the cost
of the alternative materials versus recycled rubber. Chair Tibbott suggested that this question be tabled until Ms. Hite has
presented the park-related elements contained in the CIP and CFP.
Board Member Robles asked if the definition for non-motorized vehicles in the Transportation Plan is consistent with the
State of Washington’s definition. Mr. English answered affirmatively.
Chair Tibbott observed that the REET Funds (125 and 126) are doing quite well right now. He asked if that means the City
can look forward to accomplishing more projects in 2016 than is typical for a calendar year. He also observed that utility
projects are funded from both the General Fund and the Utility Fund. Mr. English advised that very few utility projects are
funded by the General Fund. In 2015, the General Fund is estimated to contribute $670,000 in for the Pavement Preservation
Program. As proposed, no General Funds would be used for this program in 2016, and the REET Fund will pick up this
contribution. He agreed that REET Revenue has picked up, and a number of projects that haven’t been funded in the past
would be funded in 2016. These additional projects include the trackside warning system, pavement preservation, signal
cabinet upgrades, curb/ramp updates for ADA compliance, ADA Transition Plan update, Highway 99 Access Management
Study, Minor Sidewalk Program and Traffic Calming Program.
Ms. Hite provided an overview of the projects completed and in progress by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Department in 2015:
• The City Park spray pad area has been completed. It was operated manually last week, and they are programming it this
week. They are hoping to have it completely programmed in order to operate it for a few days before it is winterized.
The playground and spray pad project experienced some difficult technical issues, and they are excited to celebrate its
grand opening in May of 2016.
• The Dayton Street Project has been identified in the CIP for quite some time. The site has been demolished in house,
and the project will go out to bid tomorrow using the small works roster. The project was designed by the community
and includes artwork.
• Almost all of the wayfinding signs have been installed on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor, and some historic signs were
also added. A new art piece will be installed before the end of the year. The piece will be lit at night and visible all the
way from Main Street to the Edmonds Center for the Arts.
• The City conducted a robust planning process for the Marina Beach Master Plan, which was triggered by the City’s
project to daylight Willow Creek. The creek project was at 30% feasibility, and it was necessary to figure out where the
creek would fall out onto Marina Beach. Board Member Stewart participated on the Marina Beach Project Advisory
Committee, which consisted of 15 people. Several open houses were held, along with on-line virtual open houses and
stakeholder interviews. A draft Master Plan will be presented to the City Council in a few weeks for approval before the
end of the year. Formal adoption of the plan will take place as part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan amendments.
• The spa at Yost Pool was rebuilt in 2015 using REET funding from Fund 125.
Packet Page 288 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 9
• The Anderson Center Stage roof is old and is separating from its pilings. While the facility is structurally safe, it cannot
last much longer. The roof will be replaced in 2015 using REET funding from Fund 125. The final design has been
completed, and the project will go out to bid soon.
• The Veteran’s Plaza was added to the 2015 CIP and the City Council allocated $10,000 for the initial 30% design
process. The consultant, Site Workshop, is working with a community group to develop the design, and she sits on the
committee to ensure that the City is still involved in the project. The community group will approach the City Council in
the next few weeks to share some of the design development portions of the project. They are also doing fundraising in
the community. The CIP identifies $470,000 for the project, but it also identifies $475,000 of revenues that will come
from the fundraising efforts. The City is not anticipating spending money on the project.
• The design for the fishing pier rehabilitation was completed in 2015, and the City received a $1.3 grant from the State to
complete the project. Contracts are in process right now, and the project will start in March of 2015. Under the direction
of Board Member Stewart, Edmonds Woodway High School students visited the fishing pier and asked users what
amenities they would like. While most of the $1.3 million in the current budget will be used to shore up the underside of
the fishing pier, they will try to carve out some money for above ground amenities, as well.
• REET funds from the 125 Fund were transferred to the Park Construction Fund (Fund 132) to be used as a match for
grants. One of the City’s current construction projects is Edmonds Marsh and daylighting Willow Creek, which is a joint
project with the Stormwater Division and Engineering Department. The project is twofold to mitigate stormwater
flooding concerns on SR104 into the Marsh and Puget Sound and to daylight Willow Creek to increase the salmon
habitat.
• The City has been in active negotiations with the Edmonds School District to purchase the Civic Center, and they are
very close to an agreed-upon price. Once the agreed upon price has been identified, the City’s intent is to sign a
purchase and sale agreement and put the funding together before the end of the year. The City received a $1 million
grant from the State of Washington and a $500,000 Conservation Futures Grant. In addition to $1.5 million in grant
funding, the City has set aside $400,000 in Fund 126 (Land Acquisition) to go towards the purchase of Civic Center.
• The Woodway High School Athletic Complex Project was put through a significant public process in 2006 and 2007 and
has been part of the City’s CIP and CFP since 2001. Money has been set aside for the project, but it has become a very
controversial because of the crumb rubber. In response to Board Member Robles’ earlier question, she said she asked a
landscape architect to put together the pros and cons of the various infill materials, and the information was presented as
part of a City Council packet about a month ago. She agreed to send the information to Board Members, as well. She
cautioned that the information is not scientific, but just his experience in designing fields and the cost and maintenance
differences associated with using field turf as opposed to crumb rubber. The information is probably not as in-depth as
what Board Member Robles is requesting; and to her knowledge, this more detailed information does not exist. Based
on her conversation with the industry and the architect, crumb rubber is considered the industry standard right now in the
nation, but many communities are turning away from that for reasons discussed earlier tonight.
Ms. Hite said Nike Grind, a material made from ground up tennis shoes, has been used on some fields in Puget Sound,
but Nike does not make any confirmation or promise regarding the safety of its product. However, it does say that the
pre-product is on the safe list and they are assuming the post product is, as well. There is no scientific information to
back up their claim, as no one has tested Nike Grind as much as they have tested the crumb rubber. There are several
other options. A cork and coconut husk material was installed two years ago on a field in Kitsap County, and they
having issues with it clumping up and clogging the drainage system of the field. She referred to the NBC news report
and said there is still not a lot of information about what the best and most cost effective alternatives are. She will
continue to pay attention to research and learn from communities that have installed the alternatives.
The funding set aside for the Woodway High School Athletic Complex has not been spent. The expenditure is
contingent upon the City Council making a decision on whether or not they want to sign an interlocal agreement with the
school district. She reminded the Board that the use of crumb rubber for this project was the school district’s decision.
Both the staff and City Council requested that the school district consider alternatives, but the school board decided to
move ahead with the crumb rubber. From a parks perspective, the City does not have a tremendous amount of athletic
Packet Page 289 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 10
fields (no full-size fields), and the project has been an important part of the CIP for a number of years. The issue has yet
to be determined by the City Council in the coming weeks. If they do not approve the interlocal agreement, the $500,000
allocation can be reallocated to a different project such as improvements at Marina Beach Park or Civic Center.
She pointed out that $155,000 of the $655,000 allocation has been set aside for a community garden and to maintain the
field for the first year. She will be seeking feedback from the City Council and Planning Board relative to staff working
with the school district to see if they can still site the community garden at the Woodway High School site.
• The fishing pier rehabilitation will be managed by Fund 132, since the majority of the funding comes from grants.
Next, Ms. Hite reviewed additional projects identified in the 2016 CIP as follows:
• Temporary parklet development in the downtown is identified as a priority in the SAP, PROS Plan and Community
Cultural Plan. Various communities have tried this concept as a method of encouraging people to gather and enjoy
different areas of business districts and to increase tourism and economic development. It also provides additional green
space and adds flavor and culture to a downtown area. They are currently considering a parklet on a corner along the 4th
Avenue Cultural Corridor. Several businesses have also contacted the City expressing a desire to develop parklets in the
downtown. The City’s Cultural Arts Manager will be working on a policy for parklet development in 2016.
• Also a high priority in the PROS Plan is the ability for citizens to increase their fitness levels and be active in the
community. With the exception of Hickman Park, none of the City’s other parks include outdoor fitness zones, which
are popular across the nation and allow people to exercise outside. The City is currently considering adding this
equipment to three parks: City Park, Mathay Ballinger Park, and Sea View Park. This project will be contingent on
grant funding, and staff is currently writing grants to Green Zone Fitness and Verdant.
• There is currently a gateway sign on SR104, which welcomes people to Edmonds. The sign is in poor condition and
needs to be rehabilitated or replaced. The gateway sign on the waterfront may also be rehabilitated or replaced. There
has been some conversation of having solar lighting attached to the signs so they are visible at night. The sign design
will incorporate the fonts and colors identified in the Sign Master Plan that was adopted a few years ago, but a Council
Member has voiced interest in a different design.
• The Meadowdale Playfields are owned by the school district, but the City of Edmonds, City of Lynnwood and
Snohomish County all contributed capital dollars into its development as soccer and softball fields. It is now time to put
some improvements into the fields, and the City of Lynnwood and the school district are very interested in installing
field turf on the soccer field. The City of Edmonds has an agreement with the School District until 2025 for use of the
fields. If any party or parties suggest improvements, the other parties have the option to opt into the improvements and
continue to use of the fields. Discussions are taking place right now amongst the parties, and she is confident that the
topic of crumb rubber will come up in the conversation. The project was identified in the 2016 budget so the City can
still be at the table in future conversations. At this time, the school district and the City of Lynnwood are interested in
moving forward with soccer field renovations, but the City primarily uses the softball fields for adult leagues. The City
would like to continue to use the softball fields, which are not part of the current discussion.
• Mayor Earling has identified funding in 2016 to locate, construct and maintain a downtown restroom in the parking lot
(fronting the sidewalk) between the Rusty Pelican and City Hall. A few parking spaces would be eliminated to
accommodate the restroom, which would be centrally located.
• Money is identified in 2016 for Senior/Community Center Walkway Design in anticipation that the park area around the
Senior/Community Center could be developed in future years, and she is suggesting that the first $500,000 allocation for
this project come from park impact fees. She reminded the Board that the City began assessing park impact fees a few
years ago, but none of the revenue has been programmed yet. Development of the Senior Center park area is a perfect
use of these funds because it will add community center space and availability for the City to meet the needs of the
growth in the area for active recreation.
Packet Page 290 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 11
• Funding is identified in 2016 to work with the community on a robust master plan process of Civic Center if it is
acquired by the City. She pointed out that the current bleachers are in disrepair and hazardous. While they let people
use it, it is not the most ideal situation. Even if Civic Center is not developed further, she felt it would be appropriate to
add more paths and walking areas to connect the neighborhood to downtown and provide connections for people to get
around.
• Some projects have been lingering in the CFP for a number of years. For example, although the Sno-Isle Library
Building is owned by the City, it is operated by Sno-Isle Libraries. The building is solid and the City helps with
maintenance, but rehabilitating or rebuilding the structure in future would be the responsibility of Sno-Isle Libraries.
She is recommended that this item be deleted as a formal project in the CFP. Another example is the Boys and Girls
Club Building, which is currently being leased to the City. She questioned if the City wants to be responsible for
funding a building for a non-profit organization. She acknowledged that the City could maintain a strong relationship
with both of the organizations to support their success in the community, but it may no longer be appropriate to include
the buildings in the CFP.
• An Arts Center/Art Museum has been listed in the City’s CFP for a number of years, and the art museum at Salish
Crossing that was recently opened by a private entity may have met that need. She suggested that instead of specifically
planning for another arts center or art museum in the future, this line item could be changed to a Cultural Arts Facility
Needs Study, as identified in the Community Cultural Plan, to identify the gaps in the community.
Chair Tibbott asked if the City maintains the landscaping at the Edmonds Sno-Isle Library facility. Ms. Hite answered that
the landscaping maintenance at the library facility is not usually part of the CFP, but the City maintains the landscaping on a
regular basis as part of the parks budget. Chair Tibbott agreed that it makes sense to eliminate the library building from the
CFP.
Chair Tibbott asked if there has been any discussion about the possibility of forming a partnership with the Boys and Girls
Club to create a larger community center. Ms. Hite said the City has had discussions with the Boys and Girls Club about
what would happen if the City developed a large community center at the Civic Center. However, she recommended that
these discussions be postponed until the community has had an opportunity to participate in a master planning process for the
site. She reported that the City has a good relationship with the Boys and Girls Club, and they are in conversations with them
about extending their lease of the building, as well as their long-range plans. The line item in the CFP calls for the City
rebuilding the Boys and Girls Club facility, and she questioned the appropriateness of the City allocating money to build a
non-profit center. She explained that including the project in the CFP means the City is committed to financial planning for a
new building. In recent conversations, it is apparent that the City is interested in supporting the Boys and Girls Club in their
efforts to build a new building, but not necessarily paying for the project.
Chair Tibbott said his understanding is that a drainage system will be in place to handle the potential toxic runoff from the
Woodinville High School fields. He asked Ms. Hite to describe the system and explain how effective it would be. Ms. Hite
acknowledged that drainage is not her expertise. However, as part of the permit process, the Planning Division made sure the
system would meet the standard code requirements. Her understanding is that the system would filter most, if not all, of the
toxins, and the school district is planning to do testing before and after the filtration system is in place to ensure it is working
correctly. Chair Tibbott asked if the infiltration system would be placed on a regular maintenance schedule, and Ms. Hite
answered affirmatively.
Chair Tibbott asked if the proposed parklets are intended to be temporary. Ms. Hite answered that the parklet proposed on
the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor would be permanent, but the parklets that are created by business owners would likely be
temporary during the summer months. She reminded the Board that the City will develop a policy to address parklets in
2016.
Chair Tibbott asked if the CIP includes walkway improvements along the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. Ms. Hite said there
is definitely interest for sidewalk improvements in this location, and it is identified in the Community Cultural Plan.
However, she is not clear as to whether the project is included in the Walkway Plan that was adopted as part of the
Transportation Plan. Chair Tibbott commented that it would be great to upgrade the entire corridor at the same time.
Packet Page 291 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 12
In addition to the gateway on SR104, Chair Tibbott asked if it would be appropriate to upgrade other gateways at the same
time. Ms. Hite said the other gateways are not as elaborate as the one on SR104. They are smaller signs that were made by
the City, and they do not need to be upgraded unless they are made larger. Next year’s plan is to replace the main gateway
signs on SR104 and at the waterfront, but the City will continue to consider the other locations, as well. She recalled that
Chair Tibbott previously requested that a gateway sign be placed on 196th, but she has not determined an appropriate
location. Chair Tibbott commented that if the City upgrades the two gateways with a common theme, he assumes that the
theme could be continued to other gateway areas in the future.
Board Member Stewart commented that the proposed CIP includes a wonderful assortment of projects. Once again, she
voiced her support for the acquisition of open space and waterfront tidelands. Edmond is a unique shoreline community at
grade. Ms. Hite agreed and said she was disappointed when the City’s recent opportunity to acquire waterfront property fell
through. She said she continues to add $200,000 for park acquisition every year, and the dollars are carried over. She
explained that $200,000 actually equals $2 to $3 million worth of bonding capacity to acquire waterfront property when
opportunities come up.
Board Member Stewart asked if the City could set up a building fund whereby donors could match the City’s contribution.
Ms. Hite voiced support for the idea and suggested it is a discussion staff should have with the City Council, but it would
likely have to be codified.
Board Member Stewart said that as she reviewed the CIP, she looked for opportunities to shave costs from large projects so
more money could be allocated for open space and waterfront land acquisition. For example, she asked what the $4.3
allocated to the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor would entail. Ms. Hite said the improvements include streets, sidewalks, and
everything that leads from Main Street to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. She emphasized there is no money set aside, and
the project is entirely dependent upon grant funding. Board Member Stewart also referred to the $3 to $4 million allocated to
rebuild the Parks Maintenance Building. Ms. Hite explained that this building houses the facilities and park maintenance
crews. While it is a fairly large, one-story building, they actually need about 10,000 square feet of space. Although the park
crew is resilient and has indicated they can make do with the existing building for the time being, it is in poor condition and
will need to be rehabilitated or relocated soon.
Board Member Stewart said she has been following discussions in the City relative to crumb rubber on the Woodway High
School Fields. The more research she has reviewed, the more she is concerned about making healthier choices for the future
when opportunities come up, and opportunities come when projects are built. While she recognized that healthier choices for
existing fields will have to wait until the next cycle of replenishing the infill, she hopes that the City’s budget includes a
buffer of money to enable healthier alternatives to be used. This is particularly true for fields that are used by young people,
since the exposure is magnified because their bodies are still developing. At the least, the City should consider having one
natural grass field and one synthetic field so parents have a choice. If it was her child today, she would not let them play on
the synthetic fields. While the crump rubber is the industry standard, not enough is known about its affects on the body when
exposed repeatedly. She recalled that at the recent international soccer tournament in Vancouver, Canada, some teams
became upset when they couldn’t plan on the grass fields. More injuries occur on the turf fields. She acknowledged that
grass fields are more costly to maintain, but they are safer and better for the children and the environment, as well. Again,
she suggested that a cushion of funding be in place in case the decision is made to use an alternative infill.
Regarding the community garden concept that was previously proposed at the Woodinville High School site, she suggested
that the gardens could be done privately.
Board Member Stewart asked if the Boys and Girls Club have an estimate for how long the current building will last. Ms.
Hite said the building is in ill repair, which has prompted the Boys and Girls Club into discussions about rebuilding the
structure but maintaining its location at the Civic Center. These discussions will continue in the future. Board Member
Stewart said it is a shame that the Boys and Girls Club facility could not be combined with another project, such as the Senior
Center or Francis Anderson Center.
Ms. Hite explained that if the Woodway High School Fields were owned by the City, the conversation would have been
completely different, but the decision-making power was out of the City’s hands. The City had extra money to put into the
project for alternative infill, but it was not well received by the school district. The dilemma is that the community does not
Packet Page 292 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 13
have a lot of space for fields except Civic Center, which is surrounding on three sides by residential development and not the
best location for a lot of athletic events. The PROS Plan points to partnering with other entities to leverage their assets, and
the City relies on partnerships with the school district.
Board Member Rubenkonig noted the large number of commissions, boards and committees that are listed as having
provided the attention and advocacy that led to the projects being identified in the CIP. However, she noted that the
Economic Development Commission did not receive credit for recommending the waterfront all-year market, and Ms. Hite
agreed to make note of their contribution. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled the City Council’s recent discussion about
the money that is allocated to staff support for boards and commissions. It is good to see how effective these groups have
been in processing the interests of the community, which is a wonderful tribute to Edmonds and an excellent picture of how
things get done in the City. She listed the various plans and processes that were used to inform the projects. She commented
that the list speaks to the benefits of staff supporting all of the groups that are part of creating the plans and recommendations
that give support to the projects listed in the CIP and CFP. Ms. Hite pointed out that Board Member Rubenkonig requested
this specific information when the 2015 CIP and CFP were reviewed by the Board
Chair Tibbott said he thought the Willow Creek project was also intended to address stormwater issues as well as daylighting
the creek. Ms. Hite agreed that the project is a two-fold solution.
Mr. English concluded the presentation by reviewing the schedule for moving the draft CIP and CFP forward, noting that the
process started in July. An initial presentation of the CIP and CFP was made to the City Council in September, and the
Planning Board’s public hearing and recommendation will be followed by a public hearing before the City Council on
October 27th. It is anticipated that the City Council will adopt the draft CIP and CFP into the City’s Comprehensive Plan in
November or December.
Chair Tibbott invited members of the public to address the Planning Board on the draft CIP and CFP. No one indicated a
desire to do so, and the public hearing was closed.
Board Member Robles commented that there is plenty of data available on the cost of infill alternatives to put together a
feasibility study to determine what is most appropriate for the area. Ms. Hite clarified that the City does have a report from a
landscape architect with cost figures and pros and cons relative to the alternative infill materials that are currently available
on the market. However, she does not have any longevity studies to indicate how the materials have reacted or been applied
in the northwest weather. She agreed to forward the landscape architect’s report to the Planning Board Members.
Board Member Stewart said that although she generally supports the draft CIP and CFP, she is concerned that, as currently
proposed, it identifies insufficient funds to acquire open space and waterfront tidelands as it becomes available. She would
like this issue to be addressed before the CIP and CFP are approved. Also, unless there is some effort to include alternative
suggestions about rain gardens or green infrastructure, particularly in regard to the Perrinville Creek Project, she will not be
recommending approval of the documents in their current state.
Although she gives merit to Board Member Stewart’s concerns, Board Member Rubenkonig asked if there was another point
in time when her concerns could have been addressed before the public hearing. Mr. Chave explained that the CIP and CFP
come before the Board each year, and most of the projects have been reviewed in some form in past years. The Board can
discuss the projects and make recommendations to the City Council on priorities going forward at any time, but they should
keep in mind that it is more difficult to make major changes mid stream. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the CFP and
CIP would be addressed by a particular City Council Committee, and Mr. Chave said the documents will be reviewed and
adopted by the Council, as a whole. Board Member Rubenkonig asked staff to provide direction as to the best way for the
Board to address their concerns and recommend changes. Mr. Chave advised that the Board has the ability to influence the
priority of projects when they review the various plans that are contained in the Comprehensive Plan such as the PROS Plan
and Transportation Plan. It is important to pay careful attention to the goals and policies expressed in these plans, since they
help inform the prioritization of projects in the CIP and CFP.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the SAP contains policies that address waterfront and open space land acquisition as a
priority. Vice Chair Lovell said his understanding is that the SAP does not take precedence over the goals and policies
contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The SAP was a citizen-initiated, grassroots effort that included a lot of public input to
Packet Page 293 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 14
identify the desires of the community, but there are a number of other overarching needs identified in the Comprehensive
Plan and other focus plans that need to be addressed in the CIP and CFP, as well.
Vice Chair Lovell recalled that the original intent was that City Council would establish a priority-based budget process, and
the priorities identified in the SAP would be used to inform the budget process. While the City Council has not yet
implemented a priority-based budget process, he is confident they had the SAP in mind when considering which projects to
fund. As examples, he noted the senior center project, bikeways and walkways, and the restroom in downtown Edmonds.
VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT 2016 – 2021
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND CAPITAL FACLITIES PROGRAM TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION.
Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that the Board has discussed the need for coordination between the SAP and the CIP/CFP, and
the issue will likely be a topic of discussion by the City Council.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the purpose of the Planning Board is to represent the future citizenry, and the
vision presented by Board Member Stewart will change the scope of how the Board reviews projects. She would like to
understand how the Board can critique future CIPs and CFPs to address issues such as those raised by Board Member
Stewart.
Board Member Stewart referred to the recent shoreline acquisition tour that was presented by Bill Phillips, who served on the
Planning Board for approximately 18 years. During his time on the Board, the City acquired a significant amount of
shoreline to become public access. This was done collaboratively with a number of groups in the City. If it wasn’t for that
vision, the City would not have these parks today. She sees the tidelands as a resource, and once they are placed in private
lands and developed, they are no longer available for public access. When opportunities come up, the City needs to be poised
to purchase and act. She cannot support the CIP and CFP as presented.
Board Member Robles said he generally supports the CIP and CFP, but he would also like to see an avenue for public
opinion to challenge the ranking system, mostly from a value of life standpoint. Most of the issues that are important to him
are concerning life threatening conditions such as bikeways, slippery dangerous dark roads, and turf. He suggested it would
be helpful to clarify the avenue citizens can use to influence the priorities.
Board Member Monroe said he believes the CIP and CFP are wonderful plans, and he appreciates how difficult it is to
balance all of the issues. He commented that in order to find the best path forward, they should rely on the metrics already
used by the City to identify the appropriate balance. Quality of life is a subjective term that is appropriate to consider as a
factor, but the City needs to utilize hard data when establishing priorities, and the proposed CIP does a good job of that.
Chair Tibbott reflected that when he served on the Transportation Committee, the walkway systems were prioritized and
ranked. The Transportation Committee is just one of the groups citizens can participate on to help prioritize projects. The
PROS Plan is another input opportunity that helps to inform the budgeting process. He recalled Board Member
Rubenkonig’s previous comment about the amazing capacity the City has with people who volunteer their time and share
their expertise to provide information to inform the process. He encouraged the Board Members to invite others to be a part
of the public process, as well.
Chair Tibbott said he is supportive of the draft CIP and CFP, particularly the walkway projects that are identified. Even a
$50,000 budget to complete walkway projects is a great idea. He is particularly concerned about the large number of
walkways that start and stop and then start up again. It would be great to complete the system at some point in the future.
Chair Tibbott pointed out that there are some heavily-congested areas in the City where foot traffic and bicycle traffic is
alongside vehicular traffic. Special adherence needs to be given to the awareness that these congestion zones are increasing.
The City needs to make sure they are addressing these problem areas with walkway projects, road diets, and other available
means.
THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER STEWART VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Packet Page 294 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 15
UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLANNING PROCESS
Mr. Chave provided an update on the Highway 99 Subarea Planning Process, noting that his presentation is the same one that
was recently given by the Development Services Director to the City Council. He advised that the overall project involves
subarea planning for the Highway 99 Corridor. He provided a map to identify the portions of the corridor that pass through
or border Edmonds. He explained that other cities, along with Edmonds, have recognized the importance of the Highway 99
Corridor, and it is fairly easy to find plans that have been done by the Cities of Everett, Lynnwood and Shoreline. He
particularly referred to the improvements that have occurred or are occurring on the City of Shoreline’s portion of the
corridor.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) completed a fairly
substantial improvement project on the Edmonds segment of the corridor in the 1990s, but it did not address the land use and
enhancement elements that the more recent projects have encompassed. In terms of transportation, the 1990s project may
have been a success, but when you look at what Everett and Lynnwood wants to do and what Shoreline has been doing, there
is much more importance attached to a complete streets approach.
Mr. Chave announced that, in the last legislation session, the Legislature allocated $10 million to the City of Edmonds for
improvements along its segment of the corridor. While it will not fund all of the improvements needed, it will provide
significant funding for programming and design. He cautioned that there is no timeline attached to the grant at this time. The
City’s subarea planning effort will look at the entire corridor within the City. He noted there are a few areas that are not
actually in the City limits, such as the properties in unincorporated Snohomish County (Esperance). He noted that the study
area includes not just commercial zones, but some of the buffering multi-family zones that are nearby. It also includes the
hospital area near the north end. He noted that the hospital has been doing a lot of improvements and is a very important
anchor for what goes on in that area. Therefore, it is important to include them in the planning process.
Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council allocated $100,000 in 2015 to get the subarea planning process started, and the
Mayor’s proposed budget includes approximately $65,000 to complete the project in 2016. He explained that the project got
a late start because the Comprehensive Plan update took so much time and effort, but they have put out a request for
consultants and candidates will be interviewed later in October or in early November.
Mr. Chave explained that the corridor consists of a variety of uses. Most are commercial, with the primary economic driver
being the car lots. Some of the commercial uses were established many years ago and may be ripe for redevelopment. There
are also a number of businesses that people patronize for fast food and grocery stores, so services, in general, are very
prominent. As mentioned earlier, the hospital is also a key player, and there are a number of medical facilities in the area.
Given the investment that the hospital has been making on their campus, the City expects these uses to continue and even
expand in the future. Something that is not quite as prominent now but in close proximity to Highway 99, there is a fair
amount of multi-family housing, particularly in the hospital area. The study will take a closer look at opportunities to
encourage mixed use development. To the extent the City can get more people living on the corridor, that will help support
more and different kinds of businesses. The existing transportation corridor will provide support for this concept, as well.
Mr. Chave pointed out that the pedestrian environment along the corridor is lacking. While there are rudimentary sidewalks,
there is a lot of room for improvement. He said another aspect of the pedestrian/bicycle environment is that connections to
the corridor from neighboring communities are often poorly planned, unsafe, and/or missing altogether. This is something
the City should pay close attention to as the project moves forward. The Swift Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations have been a
real plus for the corridor, and the faster service has opened peoples’ eyes as to what is possible along the corridor. They
should build on this going forward.
Mr. Chave recalled that the City has provided some funding to begin to enhance the corridor. For example, the human-scale
lighting along the “international” area is an attempt to provide more identity. This is something the City should build on
throughout the corridor. Signage will also be a topic of discussion during the subarea planning process. Although it is not as
bad as it could be, a lot more could be done as far as identity.
Packet Page 295 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 16
Mr. Chave summarized that Phase 1 of the process will include an assessment of existing conditions to clearly understand
what the issues are and identification of potential design ideas. Phase 2 will happen later in 2016 and will address
environmental impacts and putting policies and land use codes in place to implement the plan. He advised that a host of
questions would be asked during Phase 1, including:
• What is the vision for the corridor?
• How to complement and/or encourage the unique parts of the corridor and also integrate it with the whole
community?
• How to retain desirable businesses and encourage new ones?
• How to include housing in the area?
• What will be needed over the next 20 years?
• Can new development be more attractive and would design standards help?
• What transit options will help corridor and community connections?
• What impacts could occur from redevelopment and how can they be reduced or managed to provide a net
community benefit:
• What ideas or lessons can the City learn from other cities’ corridor plans and projects that apply to Edmonds?
Mr. Chave advised that the project will include a substantial process with open houses, workshops, online surveys, and
newsletter articles. There will also be work sessions and public hearings before the Planning Board and City Council. In
addition, the front page of the City’s website provides a link to a “Highway 99 Corridor” page. The City is currently in the
process of selecting a consultant and spreading the word about the plan. The intent is to have a finalized plan and
recommendation to the City Council by the end of 2016.
Board Member Robles said he is amazed at how diverse the Highway 99 Corridor is, and he would like preservation of this
diversity to be a major component of the plan. Mr. Chave said that, over the years, property owners have indicated a desire
to do more with what they have. Some have indicated an interest in adding residential units on top of businesses, but the
zoning has been challenging for doing that up until recently. Going forward, there should be a much more proactive planning
process that identifies what, if any, changes need to be made in the City’s codes and design standards.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked staff to identify the southern and northern boundaries of the City’s segment of Highway
99. Mr. Chave said the southern boundary is 205th/244th and the northern boundary is 208th.
Vice Chair Lovell inquired if it would be feasible to ask the consultant to undertake a substantive review and interface with
the property owners along the corridor. He expressed his belief that input from the property owners will be vital to the
study. Mr. Chave agreed and said the process will require a combination of surveys, workshops, and meetings to solicit
public input. He noted that the Request for Qualifications for the consultant is posted on the City’s website. Chair Tibbott
said he is interested in learning the functions that a consultant would help with. Mr. Chave said it will require a multi-
disciplined team that has expertise in design, transportation, planning, economics and feasibility, public outreach, etc.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Tibbott reviewed that the October 28th agenda includes training on Appearance of Fairness and other information,
review of development code updates, and a discussion on the residential parking code amendment. As requested by staff, the
Board agreed to cancel the November 11th meeting, which falls on Veteran’s Day, and reschedule it for November 18th as a
special meeting. It was noted that the second meetings in November and December would be cancelled to accommodate the
holidays.
Board Member Stewart introduced Sam Kleven, an Edmonds Woodway High School Senior, who has indicated a desire to
serve as the student representative on the Board. The Board welcomed his participation starting at the next meeting. Chair
Tibbott encouraged the Board Members to read Mr. Kleven’s application. He brings a healthy background to the Board, and
he looks forward to hearing what his interests are.
Packet Page 296 of 549
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
October 14, 2015 Page 17
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Tibbott announced that an outreach meeting for a community of citizens along Olympic View Drive is scheduled for
November 4th at 6:30 p.m. at the Corner Café. The topic of discussion will be speeds along the street, as well as the walkway
system.
Chair Tibbott reminded everyone to vote in the upcoming election.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Stewart reported that at the October 13th City Council Meeting, students from Edmonds Woodway Highway
School who are part of the group, “Students Saving Salmon” presented their water-quality monitoring program. The data
they collect will determine the viability of the surface waters for salmon, as well as in the creeks that they measure and also
the marsh. The program is fully funded through mid 2016, and we hope will continue into perpetuity. The students are
supported by teacher involvement in the curriculum. She noted that an article about the project was recently published in MY
EDMONDS NEWS.
Board Member Rubenkonig said the Waste Warriors, a group of sustainable community stewards sponsored by the
Snohomish County Extension Service, have a green cleaning program, but it has been difficult to find information on the
elements and ingredients in different cleaning products because there is very little data available.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Packet Page 297 of 549
2016 Budget Ordinance Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2016; ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING
A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, on or before the first business day in the third month prior to the
beginning of the fiscal year of 2016, the Finance Director submitted to the Mayor the
estimates of revenues and expenditures for the next fiscal year as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor reviewed the estimates and made such revisions and/or
additions as deemed advisable and prior to sixty days before January 1, 2016, filed the said
revised preliminary budget with the City Clerk together with a budget message, as
recommendation for the final budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk provided sufficient copies of such preliminary budget
and budget message to meet the reasonable demands of taxpayers therefore and published and
posted notice of filing and the availability of said preliminary budget together with the date of a
public hearing for the purpose of fixing a final budget, all as required by the law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled hearings on the preliminary budget for
the purpose of providing information regarding estimates and programs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did meet on November 2, 2015 which was on or
before the first Monday of the month next preceding the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, for
Packet Page 298 of 549
2016 Budget Ordinance Page 2
the purpose of fixing a final budget at which hearing all taxpayers were heard who appeared for
or against any part of said budget; and
WHEREAS, the city council also held budget hearings on November 24, 2015
and December 1, 2015; and
WHEREAS, following the conclusion of said hearing the City Council made such
adoptions and changes as it deemed necessary and proper;
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2015, City Council reviewed the proposed 2016-
2021 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program were
presented and a Public Hearing was held before the Planning Board on October 14, 2015; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2015, a Public Hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan
Update for 2016-2021 to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program was
held; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2015, City Council discussed the Capital Facilities
Plan Update for 2016-2021 to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement
Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council expressly finds that, consistent with RCW
36.70A.130, the adoption of these amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan concurrently with
the adoption of the City’s 2016 budget meets one of the permissible exceptions to the general
rule requiring concurrent review of all amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, NOW,
THEREFORE;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Packet Page 299 of 549
2016 Budget Ordinance Page 3
Section 1. Attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A, in summary form, are
the totals of estimated revenues and appropriations for each separate fund and the aggregate
totals for all such funds combined, and by this reference said Exhibit A is incorporated herein as
if set forth in full and the same is hereby adopted in full. The Finance Director is authorized to
update year-end fund balances in the final budget document as projected prior to printing the
final budget document.
Section 2. A complete copy of the final budget for 2016, which is also hereby
adopted by this reference, together with a copy of this adopting ordinance shall be transmitted by
the City Clerk to the Division of Municipal Corporations of the Office of the State Auditor and
to the Association of Washington Cities.
Section 3. The Capital Facilities Plan element of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
Section 4. This ordinance is a legislative act delegated by statute to the City
Council of the City of Edmonds, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days
after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
Packet Page 300 of 549
2016 Budget Ordinance Page 4
BY ___
CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 301 of 549
2016 Budget Ordinance Page 5
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2016; ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING
A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________,2015.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Page 302 of 549
2016 Budget Ordinance Page 6
Fund No.Fund Description Revenue Expenditure
Difference (Rev -
Exp) *
001 General Fund 39,341,350$ 39,748,030$ (406,680)$
009 LEOFF Medical Insurance Reserve Subfund 278,770 279,480 (710)
011 Risk Management Reserve Subfund 6,660 - 6,660
012 Contingency Reserve Subfund 28,110 800,000 (771,890)
014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund - 400 (400)
016 Building Maintenance Subfund 1,680,000 1,754,000 (74,000)
104 Drug Enforcement Fund 153,000 76,030 76,970
111 Street Fund 1,760,500 1,712,370 48,130
112 Street Construction Fund 5,290,850 5,123,960 166,890
117 Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund 102,410 181,380 (78,970)
118 Memorial Tree Fund 110 - 110
120 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 82,150 149,650 (67,500)
121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 21,390 26,880 (5,490)
122 Youth Scholarship Fund 5,550 3,000 2,550
123 Tourism Promotional Arts Fund 27,530 31,500 (3,970)
125 REET 2 1,108,000 1,523,650 (415,650)
126 Special Capital/Parks Acquisition 1,102,000 1,934,390 (832,390)
127 Gifts Catalog Fund 46,900 44,950 1,950
129 Special Projects Fund 280 - 280
130 Cemetery Maintenance/Imp. Fund 177,260 210,370 (33,110)
132 Parks Construction Fund 2,037,240 2,100,000 (62,760)
136 Parks Trust Fund 630 - 630
137 Cemetery Maintenance Fund 19,880 - 19,880
138 Sister City Commission Fund 7,010 7,550 (540)
139 Transportation Benefit District Fund 682,500 682,500 -
211 LID Control Fund 14,400 14,400 -
213 LID Guaranty Fund 14,400 - 14,400
231 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund 677,380 677,380 -
232 2014 Debt Service Fund 949,540 949,540
421 Water Utility Fund 8,429,970 12,511,460 (4,081,490)
422 Water Utility Fund 4,131,780 6,612,170 (2,480,390)
423 Water Utility Fund 12,414,120 17,172,110 (4,757,990)
424 Water Utility Fund 1,989,900 1,990,920 (1,020)
511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,579,570 1,942,820 (363,250)
617 Firemen's Pension Fund 64,840 59,610 5,230
Totals 84,225,980$ 98,320,500$ (14,094,520)$
* Amount represents a contribution of (use of) fund balance
EXHIBIT "A" 2016 BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND
Packet Page 303 of 549
AM-8122 6. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie
Department:Human Resources
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
2015 NonRepresented Compensation Study
Recommendation
Council be briefed, discuss options, and approve the 2015 NR Compensation
recommendations regarding:
Item 1
The comparator cities market (Options 1, 2 or 3)
Item 2
Clarify policy language regarding:
1. The application of the 8 cities used for the compensation study.
2. use of private sector market data for comparators.
Previous Council Action
Council adopted the most recent NonRepresented employee compensation policy in 2012.
It was adopted following a comprehensive compensation study completed by Public Sector Personnel
Consultants (PSPC).
Attached is a final form of the NonRepresented Compensation Policy adopted by Council in November of
2012.
Council discussed the 2015 NR Compensation Study in August, and had interest in discussing policy
issues with the complete information provided.
At the September 22, 2015 Council meeting, Council approved the 2.5% based wage deferred
compensation contribution for the Assistant Police Chief position and the 4% wage adjustment for the
PT HR Assistant position.
Council requested further review of the salary and total cost of compensation comparator information
(without Kitsap county) at the 9/22/15 Council meeting. Additionally, the Mayor is also recommending
Option 3 for the comparator cities.
Packet Page 304 of 549
1. Policy comparator cities (including King, Snohomish, Pierce, Kitsap and Thurston Counties)
2. Policy comparator cities (without Kitsap County)
3. Policy comparator cities (without Kitsap and Thurston County)
Narrative
Attached is a final form of the NonRepresented Compensation Policy adopted by Council in November of
2012.
Current Policy
The City was successful (through Council adoption and approval) implementing a step pay scale for the
NonRepresented employees that has: 1) provided a more objective method or pay equity for employees to
link pay to performance, providing a fair market salary for current employees, and 2) a pay system that
prevents compression (difference in pay between subordinate and supervisor positions) and for the City to
recruit and retain a competitive workforce.
The compensation (salary) policy provides a 35% spread between the top and bottom of each salary
range, with seven steps per range, with approximate 5% between each step. For employees with an annual
performance evaluation that “meets standards,” these employees are eligible for a step increase each year
until they reach the top step of the salary range.
The City’ compensation philosophy has been to pay at the median of the external market salary ranges.
Each position will maintain a salary range between 5% high/low of the mid-point of the comparator city
median. In addition, any position whose salary exceeds the top of the approved salary range will be
frozen until such time that the market rates support pay range adjustment for their job classification. Any
employee whose actual salary falls below the median of their current salary range will prompt a
recommendation to be assigned to a new salary range within the salary range table that places the
position closest to the comparator city median.
Per the policy, every three years, the HR department is to conduct compensation surveys for each of the
non-represented, benchmark positions (with an approximate 80% match of duties to comparator cities) no
later than September 1, every three years. The results of the survey (including any recommendations for
changes as determined by the Mayor), will be brought forward to Council for review, discussion and
approval. For this reason, the HR department began the survey process of the NonRepresented positions
starting in May of 2015.
By policy, the Mayor is budgeting for a 2% COLA for NonRepresented employees (for the 2016 budget).
Staff is requesting Council consider the following recommendations:
I. COMPARATOR CITIES
Council has requested information about recommendations for a few options of comparator cities. For all
options listed, the cities used are plus/minus 10,000 population from Edmonds. The difference in the
options is the geographical area.
Option 1
Current policy comparator cities (includes: Snohomish, King, Pierce, Kitsap and Thurston Counties).
These cities include:
Packet Page 305 of 549
Bothell
Bremerton
Burien
Des Moines
Issaquah
Lacey
Lynnwood
Puyallup
Sammamish
University Place
Salary range adjustments based on the survey results (approved by Council at the 9/22/ Council meeting):
• Assistant Police Chief: 2.5% of a base wage deferred compensation benefit for this position. This would
bring this position within 4% of the market. This would cost the City approximately $7,013 per year.
• HR Assistant: Adjusting the HR Assistant wage range by 4% to bring this position in line with external
market comparators. This would cost the City approximately $988 per year.
Total approximate cost: $8001
Option 2
Policy comparator cities (without Kitsap County), as requested by Council.
These cities include:
Bothell
Bremerton
Burien
Des Moines
Issaquah
Lacey
Lynnwood
Puyallup
Sammamish
University Place
Salary range adjustments based on the survey results are the same as Option 1, which is already approved
by Council:
• Assistant Police Chief (already approved): 2.5% of a base wage deferred compensation benefit for this
position. This would bring this position within 4% of the market. This would cost the City approximately
$7,013 per year.
• HR Assistant (already approved): Adjusting the HR Assistant wage range by 4% to bring this position in
line with external market comparators. This would cost the City approximately $988 per year.
Total approximate cost: $8,001
Option 3
Packet Page 306 of 549
Mayor’s recommendation. Policy comparator cities (without Kitsap and Thurston Counties).
Recommended by the Mayor as this labor market most closely matches that of Edmonds.
Bothell, City of
Burien, City of
Des Moines, City of
Issaquah, City of
Lynnwood, City of
Puyallup, City of
Sammamish, City of
University Place, City of
Salary range adjustments based on the survey results:
• Assistant Police Chief (already approved): 2.5% of a base wage deferred compensation benefit for this
position. This would bring this position within 4% of the market. This would cost the City approximately
$7,013 per year.
• HR Assistant (already approved): Adjusting the HR Assistant wage range by 4% to bring this position in
line with external market comparators. This would cost the City approximately $988 per year.
• IT Supervisor – a decision package to reclassify this position is in the budget for Council approval. If
approved, this would be irrelevant. If not approved, the recommendation would cost $4,887 per year.
• Planning Manager – Adjust this position by 3%. This would cost the City approximately $5,940 per
year.
• Police Chief – Adjust this position by 3%. This would cost the city approximately $7,956 per year.
Total approximate cost: $26,784
II. POLICY CLARIFICATION
There is some language in the current policy that we would like to clean up. Please see attached red-line
version of the NR Compensation Policy.
1. Provide clarification that the same 8 cities will be used for each surveyed benchmark position.
2. Private sector market data can be challenging to find equivalent benchmark positions and total cost of
compensation information for. For this reason, it is recommended that the policy language be updated to
reflect that the City may use private sector market data with the study.
Attachments
TCC 2015
Policy Comparators
Policy comparators- without Kitsap County
Policy comparators - without Kitsap or Thurston Counties
Form Review
Packet Page 307 of 549
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 11/23/2015 08:56 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/23/2015 09:23 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/23/2015 11:04 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/23/2015 11:53 AM
Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 11/16/2015 08:05 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/23/2015
Packet Page 308 of 549
City of Edmonds 2015 NR Compensation Study - Total Cost of Compensation Range comparison
2015 NR Compensation Study -Salary Range Comparisons -TCC 11.15 11/20/2015
CURRENT POSITION TITLES Filled/Unfilled Salary
Range
% of
Difference
(Maximum
only)
approx. %
of
difference
from current
position
maximum
compared
to the
market
approx. %
of
difference
from current
position
maximum
compared
to the
market
approx. %
of
difference
from current
position
maximum
compared
to the
market
Job Titles Filled/Unfilled Salary
Range Minimum Midpoint Maximum Minimum Midpoint Maximum Minimum Midpoint Maximum Minimum Midpoint Maximum
Accounting Supervisor Filled 10 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $111,390 $114,599 $134,971 -1.52%
Assistant Building Official Unfilled 10 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
Arts & Cultural Services Prog. Mgr.Filled 12 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084 $113,743 $127,402 $132,690 0.9896 1.04%$116,439 $127,788 $137,593 -2.62%$116,439 $127,788 $137,593 -2.62%
Assistant Police Chief Filled 19 $136,446 $152,620 $171,345 $160,035 $168,602 $183,584 1.0714 -7.14%$156,899 $168,602 $183,584 -7.14%$156,335 $171,905 $187,475 -9.41%
Associate Planner Filled 9 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161 $101,242 $107,596 $119,893 1.0147 -1.47%$101,242 $107,596 $119,893 -1.47%$101,242 $107,596 $119,893 -1.47%
Building Official Filled 15 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389 $123,624 $134,532 $145,020 0.9579 4.21%$124,688 $137,167 $148,807 1.71%$125,063 $137,650 $150,192 0.79%
Capital Projects Manager Filled 11 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $110,919 $119,918 $129,584 1.0141 -1.41%$112,985 $121,565 $130,145 -1.85%$112,985 $121,565 $130,145 -1.85%
City Clerk Filled 14 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336 $105,019 $114,315 $124,929 0.8596 14.04%$105,504 $115,420 $125,995 13.31%$105,990 $116,526 $127,062 12.57%
City Engineer Filled 19 $143,878 $160,052 $178,777 $141,681 $153,079 $165,741 0.9271 7.29%$139,287 $150,946 $165,578 7.38%$138,338 $150,692 $165,578 7.38%
Community & Econ. Dev. Director Filled 20 $149,857 $166,841 $186,502 $158,682 $174,172 $190,424 1.0210 -2.10%$158,682 $174,172 $190,424 -2.10%$158,682 $174,172 $190,424 -2.10%
Court Administrator Filled 13 $111,354 $123,423 $137,397 $121,281 $130,407 $139,533 1.0155 -1.55%$122,560 $131,896 $141,232 -2.79%$122,560 $131,896 $141,232 -2.79%
Development Services Director Filled 20 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501 $156,499 $161,899 $175,416 0.9406 5.94%$156,666 $165,107 $178,856 4.10%$156,833 $169,565 $182,297 2.25%
Engineering Program Manager I Filled 10 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853 $105,971 $114,401 $121,622 0.9900 1.00%$105,797 $113,555 $121,359 1.22%$105,797 $113,555 $121,359 1.22%
Engineering Program Manager II Unfilled 12 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $115,051 $127,030 $138,075 1.0385 -3.85%$113,685 $120,321 $127,788 3.89%$113,685 $120,321 $127,788 3.89%
Engineering Program Manager III Unfilled 14 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336 $124,053 $134,273 $145,749 1.0028 -0.28%$122,079 $134,949 $147,819 -1.71%$124,053 $136,971 $149,889 -3.13%
Executive Assistant - Confidential Filled 7 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $92,833 $101,758 $109,703 1.0024 -0.24%$92,042 $100,102 $108,440 0.91%$92,042 $100,102 $108,440 0.91%
Executive Assistant to the Mayor Filled 8 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $93,318 $102,555 $111,792 0.9833 1.67%$92,833 $101,753 $109,703 3.51%$93,287 $102,744 $113,692 0.00%
Facilities Manager Filled 14 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
Finance Director Filled 20 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501 $159,889 $172,552 $185,146 0.9927 0.73%$158,377 $173,962 $186,724 -0.12%$156,864 $175,520 $191,151 -2.49%
Fleet Manager Filled 12 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Human Resources Analyst Filled 8 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $96,067 $104,389 $112,711 0.9914 0.86%$93,815 $102,736 $111,699 1.75%
Human Resources Assistant Filled $23,715 $30,547 $33,875 $28,291 $31,993 $35,529 1.0488 -4.88%$28,291 $31,993 $35,529 -4.88%
Human Resources Manager Filled 15 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389 $128,999 $138,300 $146,064 0.9648 3.52%$129,767 $139,669 $149,572 1.20%$129,767 $139,669 $149,572 1.20%
IT Supervisor Filled 12 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $115,091 $126,334 $134,897 1.0146 -1.46%$115,438 $129,495 $135,579 -1.97%$114,075 $126,055 $138,883 -4.46%
Parks & Recreation Director Filled 20 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501 $156,833 $167,772 $179,530 0.9626 3.74%$156,849 $168,669 $180,914 3.00%$156,833 $169,565 $182,297 2.25%
Parks Maintenance Manager Filled 12 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $108,473 $118,127 $127,781 0.9611 3.89%$115,779 $126,094 $136,409 -2.60%
Planner Unfilled 7 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $93,206 $99,908 $106,610 0.9742 2.58%
Planning Manager Filled 16 $127,594 $141,568 $157,742 $132,187 $143,317 $154,447 0.9791 2.09%$132,187 $143,317 $154,447 2.09%$136,624 $151,609 $166,594 -5.61%
Police Chief Filled 22 $154,004 $172,729 $194,405 $170,035 $187,219 $195,082 1.0035 -0.35%$175,594 $187,741 $199,742 -2.75%$170,035 $187,219 $204,403 -5.14%Public Disclosure and Records
Management Specialist (part time)Filled 1 $61,071 $66,112 $71,947
PW & Utilities Director Filled 21 $156,134 $173,967 $194,610 $159,894 $175,524 $185,146 0.9514 4.86%$158,375 $178,860 $186,725 4.05%$156,857 $175,524 $191,154 1.78%
Recreation Services Manager Filled 12 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084 $113,743 $127,402 $132,690 0.9896 1.04%$116,439 $127,788 $137,593 -2.62%$116,439 $127,788 $137,593 -2.62%
Recycling Coordinator Filled 7 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Senior Human Resources Analyst Unfilled 10 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853 $105,588 $114,426 $122,364 0.9960 0.40%
Senior Planner Filled 11 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $102,441 $110,848 $119,011 0.9314 6.86%$102,394 $111,730 $120,379 5.79%$102,441 $112,214 $120,722 5.53%
Senior Utilities Engineer Filled 14 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $119,070 $133,692 $143,639 0.9968 0.32%$118,332 $131,682 $143,206 0.62%$119,070 $133,692 $144,660 -0.39%
Storm Water Engineer Filled 14 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082 $125,170 $137,662 $150,155 1.0421 -4.21%$125,433 $141,051 $156,670 -8.74%$129,602 $143,489 $157,376 -9.23%
Street/Storm Water Manager Filled 15 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389 $125,170 $137,662 $150,155 0.9918 0.82%
Transportation Engineer Filled 14 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $117,288 $130,639 $142,545 0.9893 1.07%$116,981 $129,673 $141,751 1.63%$117,288 $130,639 $143,990 0.07%
Water/Sewer Manager Filled 15 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
WWTP Manager Filled 17 $132,760 $147,431 $164,415
WWTP Supervisor Filled 13 $112,347 $124,416 $138,390
CURRENT TCC SALARY RANGE Policy comparator cities Policy comparator cities- without
Kitsap County
Comparator cities - without
Kitsap & Thurston counties
Packet Page 309 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
1
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
ARTS & CULTURAL SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,728 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $1,128 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Rec & Park Planning Mgr. Bothell, City of $81,180 92,196 $103,212 $11,539 $23,859 $116,578 $127,594 $138,610 $6,848 $123,426 $145,458 $145,458
Athletics/Recreation Mgr.Bremerton, City of $70,392 78,078 $85,764 $9,588 $22,981 $102,961 $110,647 $118,333 $3,731 $106,692 $122,064 $122,064
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $77,640 86,010 $94,380 $10,552 $22,856 $111,048 $119,418 $127,788 $0 $111,048 $127,788 $127,788
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of ------------
Recreation Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
NO MATCH Lacey, City of ------------
Recreation Supt.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of ------------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
Recreation Manager University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$78,694 $88,167 $97,640 Median:$113,743 $127,402 $132,690
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$109,282 $120,777 $134,084
1.08 1.04 1.00 1.04 1.05 0.99
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Packet Page 310 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
2
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $134,244 $7,192 $24,300 $134,109 $150,283 $169,008 $2,337 $136,446 $152,620 $171,345
Deputy Police Chief Bothell, City of $114,708 $130,278 $145,848 $7,628 $23,859 $146,195 $161,765 $177,335 $10,140 $156,335 $171,905 $187,475
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of ------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Police Commander Des Moines, City of $113,868 $119,700 $125,532 $6,565 $24,079 $144,512 $150,344 $156,176 $9,463 $153,976 $159,808 $165,640
Deputy Police Chief Issaquah, City of $113,772 $129,480 $145,188 $7,593 $25,904 $147,269 $162,977 $178,685 $23,647 $170,916 $186,624 $202,332
Commander Lacey, City of $130,152 $131,988 $133,824 $6,999 $24,323 $161,474 $163,310 $165,146 $1,988 $163,462 $165,298 $167,134
Union- Deputy Chief Lynnwood, City of $123,636 $128,682 $133,728 $6,994 $25,411 $156,041 $161,087 $166,133 $27,004 $183,045 $188,091 $193,137
Deputy Police Chief Puyallup, City of $108,444 $124,716 $140,988 $7,374 $25,332 $141,150 $157,422 $173,694 $6,000 $147,149 $163,421 $179,693
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
NO MATCH University Place, City of ------------
Median:$114,288 $129,081 $137,406 Median:$159,899 $168,602 $183,584
Current Edmonds Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516 Current Edmonds Base Range:$136,446 $152,620 $171,345
1.11 1.09 1.00 1.17 1.10 1.07
Proposed Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516
Range 19
(2 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 311 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
3
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ASSOCIATE PLANNER $62,997 $72,928 $84,423 $81,740 $9,438 $24,300 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161 $0 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161
NO MATCH Bothell, City of -----------
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of ------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Land Use Planner II Des Moines, City of $63,960 $70,860 $77,760 $8,694 $24,079 $96,733 $103,633 $110,533 $0 $96,733 $103,633 $110,533
Associate Planner Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Associate Planner Lacey, City of $67,188 $73,542 $79,896 $8,932 $24,323 $100,443 $106,797 $113,151 $799 $101,242 $107,596 $113,950
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
Associate Planner Sammamish, City of $60,996 $72,234 $83,472 $9,332 $25,484 $95,812 $107,050 $118,288 $1,605 $97,417 $108,655 $119,893
Senior Planner University Place, City of $66,228 $62,473 $87,156 $9,744 $24,914 $100,886 $97,131 $121,814 $1,676 $102,562 $98,807 $123,490
Median:$66,228 $72,234 $83,472 Median:$101,242 $107,596 $119,893
Current Edmonds Base Range:$62,997 $72,928 $84,423 Current Edmonds Base Range:$96,735 $106,666 $118,161
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$62,997 $72,928 $84,423
Range 9
(3 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 312 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
4
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
BUILDING OFFICIAL $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $102,612 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
(-)Comm. Dev/Dpty Dir/Bldg Of Bothell, City of $93,528 $106,223 $118,919 $13,295 $23,859 $130,682 $143,377.52 $156,073 $7,890 $138,572 $151,267 $163,963
Building Official Bremerton, City of $79,644 $88,338 $97,032 $10,848 $22,981 $113,473 $122,167 $130,861 $4,181 $117,654 $126,348 $135,042
Building Official Burien, City of $85,728 $94,962 $104,196 $11,649 $22,585 $119,962 $129,196 $138,430 $0 $119,962 $129,196 $138,430
Building Official Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Building Official Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
Building Official Lacey, City of $87,060 $87,060 $87,060 $9,733 $24,323 $121,116 $121,116 $121,116 $871 $121,987 $121,987 $121,987
Building Official Lynnwood, City of $87,708 $99,348 $110,988 $12,408 $25,411 $125,527 $137,167 $148,807 $0 $125,527 $137,167 $148,807
Building Code Official Puyallup, City of $75,264 $86,562 $97,860 $10,941 $25,332 $111,537 $122,835 $134,133 $0 $111,501 $122,799 $134,097
Building Official Sammamish, City of $84,756 $100,374 $115,992 $12,968 $25,484 $123,208 $138,826 $154,444 $2,231 $125,439 $141,057 $156,675
(+)Building Official/Sr Bldg InspeUniversity Place, City of $85,100 $98,545 $111,989 $12,520 $24,914 $122,535 $135,979 $149,423 $2,154 $124,688 $138,133 $151,577
Median:$86,214 $97,290 $108,180 Median:$123,624 $134,532 $145,020
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
1.0212146 0.9955 0.9562028 1.00772 0.98932 95.79%
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 313 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
5
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER No PE required $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $86,634 $10,406 $24,300 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $0 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782
and supv req)(-)Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $67,092 76,194 $85,296 $9,536 $23,859 $100,487 $109,589 $118,691 $5,659 $106,146 $115,248 $124,350
Civil Engineer II Bremerton, City of $72,576 79,092 $85,608 $9,571 $22,981 $105,128 $111,644 $118,160 $3,724 $108,852 $115,368 $121,884
PE Req'd Civil Engineer II (PM)Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
CIP Project Manager Des Moines, City of $80,160 $88,800 $97,440 $10,894 $24,079 $115,133 $123,773 $132,413 $0 $115,133 $123,773 $132,413
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
PE Req'd Project Manager Lynnwood, City of $82,728 $93,378 $104,028 $11,630 $25,411 $119,769 $130,419 $141,069 $0 $119,769 $130,419 $141,069
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,484 $124,205 $137,123 $150,041 $2,154 $126,360 $139,278 $152,196
Project Engineer University Place, City of $64,800 $75,036 $85,272 $9,533 $24,914 $99,247 $109,483 $119,719 $1,640 $100,887 $111,123 $121,359
Median:$76,080 $85,338 $95,004 Median:$110,919 $119,918 $129,584
Current Edmonds Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076 Current Edmonds Base Range:$104,161 $115,109 $127,782
1.0953855 $1 1.0207143 1.064878 1.041778 1.0141025
Proposed Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Range 11
(4 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 314 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
6
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CITY CLERK $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $102,612 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $1,243 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
City Clerk Bothell, City of $73,548 $83,526 $93,504 $10,454 $23,859 $107,861 $117,839 $127,817 $6,204 $114,064 $124,042 $134,020
City Clerk Bremerton, City of $57,768 $64,080 $70,392 $7,870 $22,981 $88,619 $94,931 $101,243 $3,116 $91,735 $98,047 $104,359
City Clerk Burien, City of $70,344 $77,922 $85,500 $9,559 $22,585 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644 $0 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644
City Clerk Des Moines, City of $71,256 $78,936 $86,616 $9,684 $24,079 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379 $0 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379
City Clerk Issaquah, City of $80,844 $92,028 $103,212 $11,539 $25,904 $118,287 $129,471 $140,655 $18,645 $136,932 $148,116 $159,300
City Clerk Lacey, City of $66,612 $75,942 $85,272 $9,533 $24,323 $100,468 $109,798 $119,128 $853 $101,321 $110,651 $119,981
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
City Clerk Puyallup, City of $70,428 $80,964 $91,500 $10,230 $25,332 $105,990 $116,526 $127,062 $0 $105,990 $116,526 $127,062
City Clerk Sammamish, City of $69,576 $82,392 $95,208 $10,644 $25,484 $105,704 $118,520 $131,336 $1,831 $107,535 $120,351 $133,167
City Clerk University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$70,344 $78,936 $88,428 Median:$105,019 $114,315 $124,929
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$117,992 $130,665 $145,336
0.8748927 $1 0.8207003 0.890046 0.874867 0.8595839
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 315 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
7
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CITY ENGINEER $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $137,520 $15,375 $24,300 $142,292 $158,466 $177,191 $1,587 $143,878 $160,052 $178,777
Deputy PW Director/CE Bothell, City of $103,920 $118,026 $132,132 $14,772 $23,859 $142,551 $156,657 $170,763 $8,766 $151,318 $165,424 $179,530
City Engineer Bremerton, City of $101,940 $113,076 $124,212 $13,887 $22,981 $138,808 $149,944 $161,080 $5,268 $144,076 $155,212 $166,348
Asst. PW Director Burien, City of $101,892 $112,878 $123,864 $13,848 $22,585 $138,325 $149,311 $160,297 $0 $138,325 $149,311 $160,297
Engineering Services Mgr.Des Moines, City of $101,424 $112,356 $123,288 $13,784 $24,079 $139,287 $150,219 $161,151 $0 $139,287 $150,219 $161,151
(-)Director of PW - Engineering Issaquah, City of $112,892 $128,488 $144,083 $16,108 $25,904 $154,905 $170,500 $186,095 $24,603 $179,508 $195,103 $210,698
City Engineer Lacey, City of $123,096 $123,096 $123,096 $13,762 $24,323 $161,181 $161,181 $161,181 $1,231 $162,412 $162,412 $162,412
Deputy PW Director Lynnwood, City of $106,142 $120,224 $134,306 $15,015 $25,411 $146,569 $160,650 $174,732 $0 $146,569 $160,650 $174,732
City Engineer Puyallup, City of $92,208 $106,050 $119,892 $13,404 $25,332 $130,944 $144,786 $158,628 $0 $130,944 $144,786 $158,628
Deputy PW Director Sammamish, City of $90,504 $107,184 $123,864 $13,848 $25,484 $129,836 $146,516 $163,196 $2,382 $132,218 $148,898 $165,578
City Engineer University Place, City of $94,740 $109,698 $124,656 $13,937 $24,914 $133,591 $148,549 $163,507 $2,397 $135,988 $150,946 $165,904
Median:$101,916 $112,977 $124,038 Median:$141,681 $153,079 $165,741
Current Edmonds Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516 Current Edmonds Base Range:$143,878 $160,052 $178,777
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516
Range 19
Packet Page 316 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
8
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $144,396 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,857 $166,841 $186,502
.
Asst. City Mgr./Econ Dev.Bothell, City of $113,676 $129,108 $144,540 $16,160 $23,859 $153,695 $169,127 $184,559 $9,590 $163,284 $178,716 $194,148
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of -----------
(+)Economic Dev. Mgr.Burien, City of $116,381 $128,923 $141,466 $15,816 $22,585 $154,782 $167,324 $179,866 $0 $154,782 $167,324 $179,866
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
(+)Economic Dev. Director Issaquah, City of $131,419 $149,576 $167,732 $18,752 $25,904 $176,076 $194,232 $212,389 $35,553 $211,629 $229,785 $247,942
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
(+)Economic Dev. Director Lynnwood, City of $116,754 $132,244 $147,734 $16,517 $25,411 $158,682 $174,172 $189,662 $0 $158,682 $174,172 $189,662
(+)Economic Dev. Director Puyallup, City of $113,428 $130,449 $147,470 $16,487 $25,332 $155,247 $172,268 $189,290 $1,134 $156,381 $173,403 $190,424
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$116,381 $130,449 $147,470 Median:$158,682 $174,172 $190,424
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,857 $166,841 $186,502
1.0801303 1.045843 1.0213197 1.058891 1.043942 1.0210317
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 317 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
9
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
COURT ADMINISTRATOR $76,574 $88,643 $102,617 $102,612 $11,472 $22,124 $110,170 $122,239 $136,213 $1,184 $111,354 $123,423 $137,397
Court Administrator Bothell, City of $73,548 $83,526 $93,504 $10,454 $23,859 $107,861 $117,839 $127,817 $6,204 $114,064 $124,042 $134,020
Court Administrator Bremerton, City of $81,624 $90,540 $99,456 $11,119 $22,981 $115,724 $124,640 $133,556 $4,278 $120,002 $128,918 $137,834
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Court Administrator Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Court Administrator Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Court Administrator Lynnwood, City of $96,480 $109,278 $122,076 $13,648 $25,411 $135,539 $148,337 $161,135 $0 $135,539 $148,337 $161,135
Court Administrator Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$84,162 $93,288 $102,414 Median:$121,281 $130,407 $139,533
Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,574 $88,643 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$111,354 $123,423 $137,397
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Salary Range $76,574 $88,643 $102,617
Range 13
Packet Page 318 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
10
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $137,520 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Community Dev. Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Director of Comm. Dev.Bremerton, City of $107,100 $118,806 $130,512 $14,591 $22,981 $144,672 $156,378 $168,084 $5,520 $150,193 $161,899 $173,605
Community Dev. Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Development Serv. Director Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $18,792 $25,904 $176,408 $194,594 $212,780 $34,425 $210,833 $229,019 $247,205
Community Dev. Director Lacey, City of $116,784 $116,784 $116,784 $13,056 $24,323 $154,163 $154,163 $154,163 $2,336 $156,499 $156,499 $156,499
Comm. Dev. Director Lynnwood, City of $106,140 $120,222 $134,304 $15,015 $25,411 $146,566 $160,648 $174,730 $0 $146,566 $160,648 $174,730
Development Serv. Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Director of Comm. Dev.Sammamish, City of $110,256 $135,708 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,758 $179,210 $204,662 $3,099 $156,857 $182,309 $207,761
Planning and DSD University Place, City of $100,800 $116,724 $132,648 $14,830 $24,914 $140,544 $156,468 $172,392 $2,551 $143,095 $159,019 $174,943
Median:$110,256 $120,222 $134,304 Median:$156,499 $161,899 $175,416
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
1.023286 0.963850 0.9301346 1.044329 0.970383 0.9405608
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 319 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
11
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 3 (UNFUNDED/UNFILLED)$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $1,243 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $85,764 $95,130 $104,496 $11,683 $22,981 $120,428 $129,794 $139,160 $4,480 $124,907 $134,273 $143,639
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $93,612 $106,542 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $132,873 $145,803 $158,733 $21,015 $153,888 $166,818 $179,748
Development Review Eng.Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
Development Svcs. Supv.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
Engineering Services Mgr.Puyallup, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,332 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889 $0 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889
Development Review Eng.Sammamish, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,484 $124,205 $137,123 $150,041 $2,154 $126,360 $139,278 $152,196
Asst City Engineer University Place, City of $81,192 $94,014 $106,836 $11,944 $24,914 $118,050 $130,872 $143,694 $2,055 $120,105 $132,927 $145,749
Median:$85,764 $95,130 $106,836 Median:$124,053 $134,273 $145,749
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$117,992 $130,665 $145,336
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 320 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
12
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 2 (UNFUNDED/UNFILLED)$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(-)Senior Cilvil Engineer Bothell, City of $73,801 $83,813 $93,826 $10,490 $23,859 $108,150 $118,162 $128,174 $6,225 $114,375 $124,387 $134,399
Civil Engineer III Bremerton, City of $76,740 $83,376 $90,012 $10,063 $22,981 $109,784 $116,420 $123,056 $3,900 $113,685 $120,321 $126,957
(-)Civil Engineer III Burien, City of $75,605 $83,756 $91,907 $10,275 $22,981 $108,861 $117,012 $125,163 $0 $108,861 $117,012 $125,163
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
(-)Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $90,710 $107,291 $123,872 $13,849 $25,904 $130,463 $147,044 $163,625 $21,657 $152,120 $168,701 $185,282
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
(-)Development Svc. Supv.Lynnwood, City of $67,785 $76,775 $85,766 $9,589 $25,411 $102,785 $111,775 $120,766 $0 $102,785 $111,775 $120,766
(-)Eng. Svcs. Mgr Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
(+)Project Engineer- Dev. Svcs.Sammamish, City of $66,092 $78,272 $90,452 $10,113 $25,484 $101,689 $113,869 $126,049 $1,739 $103,428 $115,608 $127,788
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$75,605 $83,756 $91,907 Median:$113,685 $120,321 $127,788
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 321 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
13
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 1 PE may be required $66,147 $76,574 $88,643 $88,644 $9,910 $24,300 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853 $0 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853
Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $67,092 $76,194 $85,296 $9,536 $23,859 $100,487 $109,589 $118,691 $5,659 $106,146 $115,248 $124,350
Degree/PE Civil Engineer II Bremerton, City of $72,576 $79,092 $85,608 $9,571 $22,981 $105,128 $111,644 $118,160 $3,724 $108,852 $115,368 $121,884
PE Civil Engineer Burien, City of $72,060 $79,848 $87,636 $9,798 $22,585 $104,443 $112,231 $120,019 $0 $104,443 $112,231 $120,019
Civil Engineer I Des Moines, City of $71,940 $79,698 $87,456 $9,778 $24,079 $105,797 $113,555 $121,313 $0 $105,797 $113,555 $121,313
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Civil Engineer I Lynnwood, City of $54,392 $61,589 $68,786 $7,690 $25,411 $87,493 $94,690 $101,887 $0 $87,493 $94,690 $101,887
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $69,564 $82,386 $95,208 $10,644 $25,484 $105,692 $118,514 $131,336 $1,831 $107,523 $120,345 $133,167
Project Engineer University Place, City of $64,800 $75,036 $85,272 $9,533 $24,914 $99,247 $109,483 $119,719 $1,640 $100,887 $111,123 $121,359
Median:$71,760 $79,698 $87,456 Median:$105,971 $114,401 $121,622
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643 Current Edmonds Base Range:$100,357 $110,784 $122,853
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643
Range 10
Packet Page 322 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
14
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT - CONFIDENTIAL $57,141 $66,147 $76,574 $66,144 $8,561 $24,300 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $0 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Executive Assistant Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
City Manager Executive Assistant Bremerton, City of $66,996 $74,310 $81,624 $9,126 $22,981 $99,103 $106,417 $113,731 $1,570 $100,672 $107,986 $115,300
City Manager Executive Assistant Burien, City of $57,732 $63,954 $70,176 $7,846 $22,585 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607 $0 $88,536 $94,758 $100,980
City Manager Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $59,136 $65,508 $71,880 $8,036 $24,079 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995 $0 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995
Executive Assistant- Police Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Mayor Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $59,925 $67,870 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,812 $101,758 $109,703 $0 $93,812 $101,758 $109,703
City Manager Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $51,384 $59,088 $66,792 $7,467 $25,332 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591 $0 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591
City Manager Executive Assistant Sammamish, City of $57,108 $67,632 $78,156 $8,738 $25,484 $91,330 $101,854 $112,378 $1,503 $92,833 $103,357 $113,881
City Manager Executive Assistant University Place, City of $55,272 $64,002 $72,732 $8,131 $24,914 $88,317 $97,047 $105,777 $1,399 $89,716 $98,446 $107,176
Median:$59,136 $67,632 $75,816 Median:$92,833 $101,758 $109,703
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574 Current Edmonds Base Range:$90,002 $99,008 $109,435
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed salary range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Range 7
Packet Page 323 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
15
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR $59,998 $69,455 $80,403 $80,400 $8,989 $24,300 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $0 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692
Executive Assistant Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
City Manager Executive Assistant Bremerton, City of $66,996 $74,310 $81,624 $9,126 $22,981 $99,103 $106,417 $113,731 $1,570 $100,672 $107,986 $115,300
City Manager Executive Assistant Burien, City of $57,732 $63,954 $70,176 $7,846 $22,585 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607 $0 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607
City Manager Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $59,136 $65,508 $71,880 $8,036 $24,079 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995 $0 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995
City Manager Executive Assistant Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Mayor Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $59,916 $67,866 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,803 $101,753 $109,703 $0 $93,803 $101,753 $109,703
City Manager Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $51,384 $59,088 $66,792 $7,467 $25,332 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591 $0 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591
Executive Assistant Sammamish, City of $57,108 $67,632 $78,156 $8,738 $25,484 $91,330 $101,854 $112,378 $1,503 $92,833 $103,357 $113,881
Asst to the Mayor University Place, City of $55,272 $64,002 $72,732 $8,131 $24,914 $88,317 $97,047 $105,777 $1,399 $89,716 $98,446 $107,176
Median:$59,136 $67,632 $75,816 Median:$93,318 $102,555 $111,792
Current Edmonds Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403 Current Edmonds Base Range:$93,287 $102,744 $113,692
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Salary Range $59,998 $69,455 $80,403
Range 8
Packet Page 324 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
16
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
FINANCE DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $124,728 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Finance Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Director of Financial Svcs.Bremerton, City of $115,344 $127,938 $140,532 $15,711 $22,981 $154,036 $166,630 $179,224 $5,921 $159,958 $172,552 $185,146
Finance Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Finance Director Des Moines, City of $115,080 $127,488 $139,896 $15,640 $24,079 $154,799 $167,207 $179,615 $0 $154,799 $167,207 $179,615
Finance Director Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $18,792 $25,904 $176,408 $194,594 $212,780 $34,425 $210,833 $229,019 $247,205
Finance Director Lacey, City of $130,836 $130,836 $130,836 $14,627 $24,323 $169,786 $169,786 $169,786 $2,617 $172,403 $172,403 $172,403
Finance Director Lynnwood, City of $117,811 $133,442 $149,074 $16,666 $25,411 $159,889 $175,520 $191,151 $0 $159,889 $175,520 $191,151
Finance Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Finance Director Sammamish, City of $110,263 $135,714 $161,164 $18,018 $25,484 $153,765 $179,216 $204,666 $3,099 $156,864 $182,315 $207,765
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$117,576 $130,920 $143,652 Median:$159,889 $172,552 $185,146
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 325 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
17
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST $59,998 $69,455 $80,403 $72,924 $8,989 $24,300 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $0 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692
Human Resources Analyst Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
(+)HR Generalist Bremerton, City of $54,793 $60,779 $66,766 $7,464 $22,981 $85,239 $91,225 $97,211 $2,971 $88,209 $94,195 $100,182
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Human Resources Analyst Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Human Resources Analyst Lacey, City of $58,884 $67,128 $75,372 $8,427 $24,323 $91,634 $99,878 $108,122 $754 $92,387 $100,631 $108,875
Human Resources Analyst Lynnwood, City of $59,928 $67,872 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,815 $101,759 $109,703 $0 $93,815 $101,759 $109,703
(+)HR Generalist Puyallup, City of $59,756 $68,719 $77,682 $8,685 $25,332 $93,773 $102,736 $111,699 $0 $93,773 $102,736 $111,699
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$59,842 $68,296 $76,749 Median:$96,067 $104,389 $112,711
Current Edmonds Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403 Current Edmonds Base Range:$93,287 $102,744 $113,692
0.9974032 0.98331 0.9545539 1.02980 1.01601 0.99137
Proposed Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403
Range 8
Packet Page 326 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
18
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT $20,309 $27,141 $30,469 $19,864 $3,406 $23,715 $30,547 $33,875 $0 $23,715 $30,547 $33,875
NO MATCH Bothell, City of ------------
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of ------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Administrative Asst. 2 Des Moines, City of $26,286 $29,121 $31,956 $3,573 $29,859 $32,694 $35,529 $0 $29,859 $32,694 $35,529
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of ------------
Department Asst. 3 (HR)Lacey, City of $24,384 $26,676 $28,968 $3,239 $27,623 $29,915 $32,207 $290 $27,912 $30,204 $32,496
Admin Asst - HR Lynnwood, City of $24,750 $28,038 $31,326 $3,502 $28,252 $31,540 $34,828 $0 $28,252 $31,540 $34,828
Human Resources Coord.Puyallup, City of $24,702 $28,404 $32,106 $3,589 $28,291 $31,993 $35,695 $0 $28,291 $31,993 $35,695
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
Administrative Assistant University Place, City of $27,480 $31,836 $36,192 $4,046 -$31,526 $35,882 $40,238 $696 $32,222 $36,578 $40,934
Median:$24,750 $28,404 $31,956 Median:$28,291 $31,993 $35,529
Current Edmonds Base Range:$18,928 $21,913 $25,366 Current Edmonds Base Range:$23,715 $30,547 $33,875
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$22,714 $26,295 $30,439
Packet Page 327 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
19
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $107,747 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
-HR Director Bothell, City of $111,697 126,854 $142,010 $15,877 $23,859 $151,433 $166,589 $181,745 $9,422 $160,855 $176,011 $191,167
HR Manager Bremerton, City of $81,624 90,540 $99,456 $11,119 $22,981 $115,724 $124,640 $133,556 $4,278 $120,002 $128,918 $137,834
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
HR Manager Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
HR Manager Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
-HR Director Lynnwood, City of $90,750 $102,790 $114,830 $12,838 $25,411 $128,999 $141,039 $153,079 $0 $128,999 $141,039 $153,079
HR Director Puyallup, City of $93,062 $100,827 $108,592 $12,141 $25,332 $130,535 $138,300 $146,064 $0 $130,535 $138,300 $146,064
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Human Resources Manager University Place, City of $77,364 $89,586 $101,808 $11,382 $24,914 $113,660 $125,882 $138,104 $1,958 $115,618 $127,840 $140,062
Median:$90,750 $100,827 $108,592 Median:$128,999 $138,300 $146,064
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 328 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
20
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
IT SUPERVISOR $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $93,072 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(-)IS Manager Bothell, City of $80,654 $91,595 $102,535 $11,463 $23,859 $115,977 $126,917 $137,858 $6,803 $122,780 $133,720 $144,660
(-)IS Manager Bremerton, City of $77,188 $85,617 $94,046 $10,514 $22,981 $110,683 $119,112 $127,542 $4,062 $114,745 $123,174 $131,604
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
-IT Manager Des Moines, City of $78,030 $86,432 $94,835 $10,603 $24,079 $112,712 $121,114 $129,516 $0 $112,712 $121,114 $129,516
-IS Manager Issaquah, City of $84,251 $95,888 $107,525 $12,021 $25,904 $122,176 $133,813 $145,450 $19,274 $141,450 $153,087 $164,724
-IS Manager Lacey, City of $99,176 $99,176 $99,176 $11,088 $24,323 $134,587 $134,587 $134,587 $992 $135,579 $135,579 $135,579
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
-IT Manager Puyallup, City of $67,738 $77,906 $88,074 $9,847 $25,332 $102,916 $113,084 $123,253 $0 $102,916 $113,084 $123,253
-Information Sys Mgr.Sammamish, City of $76,276 $90,333 $104,389 $11,671 $25,484 $113,431 $127,487 $141,544 $2,007 $115,438 $129,495 $143,551
-IT Manager University Place, City of $73,440 $85,039 $96,638 $10,804 $24,914 $109,158 $120,757 $132,357 $1,858 $111,017 $122,616 $134,215
Median:$77,609 $88,382 $97,907 Median:$115,091 $126,334 $134,897
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 329 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
21
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PARKS MAINTENANCE MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,728 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(+)Maintenance Supervisor Bothell, City of $80,903 $91,879 $102,854 $11,499 $23,859 $116,261 $127,237 $138,213 $6,824 $123,085 $134,061 $145,037
Parks Maintenance Mgr.Bremerton, City of $70,632 $78,198 $85,764 $9,588 $22,981 $103,201 $110,767 $118,333 $3,731 $106,932 $114,498 $122,064
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Parks Division Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
(+)Parks Maint. Supervisor Lacey, City of $71,491 $81,503 $91,516 $10,231 $24,323 $106,046 $116,058 $126,070 $915 $106,961 $116,973 $126,985
(+)Parks Maint. Supt.Lynnwood, City of $72,768 $82,422 $92,076 $10,294 $25,411 $108,473 $118,127 $127,781 $0 $108,473 $118,127 $127,781
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$72,768 $82,422 $92,076 Median:$108,473 $118,127 $127,781
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
0.9978061 0.9763 0.9421467 1.002948 0.987279 0.9610765
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 330 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
22
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PARKS, RECREATION & CULUTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $144,392 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Parks & Rec Director Bothell, City of $103,920 $118,026 $132,132 $14,772 $23,859 $142,551 $156,657 $170,763 $8,766 $151,318 $165,424 $179,530
Parks & Rec Director Bremerton, City of $104,496 $115,902 $127,308 $14,233 $22,981 $141,710 $153,116 $164,522 $5,392 $147,102 $158,508 $169,914
Parks, Rec & Cultural Svcs. DBurien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Parks & Rec & Senior Svc. D Des Moines, City of $110,652 $122,574 $134,496 $15,037 $24,079 $149,768 $161,690 $173,612 $0 $149,768 $161,690 $173,612
Parks & Rec Director Issaquah, City of $125,436 $142,764 $160,092 $17,898 $25,904 $169,238 $186,566 $203,894 $32,788 $202,026 $219,354 $236,682
Parks & Rec Director Lacey, City of $126,744 $126,744 $126,744 $14,170 $24,323 $165,237 $165,237 $165,237 $2,535 $167,772 $167,772 $167,772
Parks, Rec & Cultural Arts Lynnwood, City of $117,816 $133,446 $149,076 $16,667 $25,411 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154 $0 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154
Parks & Recreation Dir.Puyallup, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,332 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889 $862 $124,915 $137,833 $150,751
Director of Parks & Rec Sammamish, City of $110,263 $135,712 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,765 $179,213 $204,662 $3,099 $156,864 $182,312 $207,761
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$110,652 $126,744 $134,496 Median:$156,833 $167,772 $179,530
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
1.0269613 1.0161 0.9314643 1.046559 1.005585 0.9626207
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 331 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
23
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PLANNER UNFUNDED/UNFILLED $57,141 $66,147 $76,574 $8,561 $24,300 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $0 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Planner Bothell, City of $61,932 $70,566 $79,200 $8,855 $23,859 $94,646 $103,280 $111,914 $5,255 $99,900 $108,534 $117,168
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of -----------
Planner Burien, City of $62,172 $68,874 $75,576 $8,449 $22,585 $93,206 $99,908 $106,610 $0 $93,206 $99,908 $106,610
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Associate Planner Puyallup, City of $54,324 $62,472 $70,620 $7,895 $25,332 $87,551 $95,699 $103,847 $0 $87,551 $95,699 $103,847
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$61,932 $68,874 $75,576 Median:$93,206 $99,908 $106,610
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574 Current Edmonds Base Range:$90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Proposed Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Range 7
Packet Page 332 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
24
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PLANNING MANAGER $88,643 $102,617 $118,791 $118,788 $13,281 $24,300 $126,224 $140,198 $156,372 $1,371 $127,594 $141,568 $157,742
Planning Manager Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of -----------
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Community Dev. Manager Des Moines, City of $93,780 $103,884 $113,988 $12,744 $24,079 $130,603 $140,707 $150,811 $0 $130,603 $140,707 $150,811
Land Dev. Manager Issaquah, City of $103,212 $117,462 $131,712 $14,725 $25,904 $143,841 $158,091 $172,341 $22,800 $166,641 $180,891 $195,141
Planning Manager Lacey, City of $73,536 $83,832 $94,128 $10,524 $24,323 $108,383 $118,679 $128,975 $941 $109,324 $119,620 $129,916
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
Deputy Dir of Comm Dev Sammamish, City of $96,660 $114,474 $132,288 $14,790 $25,484 $136,934 $154,748 $172,562 $2,544 $139,478 $157,292 $175,106
Planning Manager Shoreline, City of $84,492 $93,654 $102,816 $11,495 $19,620 $115,607 $124,769 $133,931 $1,186 $116,793 $125,955 $135,117
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$91,698 $102,828 $113,958 Median:$132,187 $143,317 $154,447
Current Edmonds Base Range:$88,643 $102,617 $118,791 Current Edmonds Base Range:$127,594 $141,568 $157,742
1.0344641 $1 0.9593151 1.035992 $1 0.9791074
Proposed Base Range:$88,643 $102,617 $118,791
Range 16
Packet Page 333 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
25
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
POLICE CHIEF $118,791 $137,516 $159,192 $159,192 $8,326 $24,300 $151,417 $170,142 $191,818 $2,587 $154,004 $172,729 $194,405
Police Chief Bothell, City of $126,612 $143,796 $160,980 $8,419 $23,859 $158,890 $176,074 $193,258 $11,144 $170,035 $187,219 $204,403
Police Chief Bremerton, City of $121,176 $134,412 $147,648 $7,722 $22,981 $151,879 $165,115 $178,351 $6,206 $158,085 $171,321 $184,557
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Police Chief Des Moines, City of $119,688 $132,588 $145,488 $7,609 $24,079 $151,376 $164,276 $177,176 $2,238 $153,614 $166,514 $179,414
Police Chief Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $8,791 $25,904 $166,407 $184,593 $202,779 $34,425 $200,832 $219,018 $237,204
Police Chief Lacey, City of $152,280 $152,280 $152,280 $7,964 $24,323 $184,567 $184,567 $184,567 $3,696 $188,263 $188,263 $188,263
Police Chief Lynnwood, City of $119,472 $135,324 $151,176 $7,907 $25,411 $152,790 $168,642 $184,494 $30,364 $183,154 $199,006 $214,858
Police Chief Puyallup, City of $119,292 $137,184 $155,076 $8,110 $25,332 $152,734 $170,626 $188,518 $6,563 $159,298 $177,190 $195,082
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$121,176 $137,184 $152,280 Median:$170,035 $187,219 $195,082
Current Edmonds Base Range:$118,791 $137,516 $159,192 Current Edmonds Base Range:$154,004 $172,729 $194,405
1.0200773 0.99759 0.9565807 1.104096 1.083889 100.35%
Proposed Base Range:$118,971 $137,516 $159,192
Range 22
Packet Page 334 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
26
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DIRECTOR $113,135 $130,968 $151,611 $151,609 $16,950 $24,300 $154,385 $172,218 $192,861 $1,749 $156,134 $173,967 $194,610
PW Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Director of PW & Utilities Bremerton, City of $115,344 $127,938 $140,532 $15,711 $22,981 $154,036 $166,630 $179,224 $5,921 $159,958 $172,552 $185,146
PW Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Director of PW Operations Issaquah, City of $125,436 $142,764 $160,092 $17,898 $25,904 $169,238 $186,566 $203,894 $32,788 $202,026 $219,354 $236,682
Public Works Director Lacey, City of $139,488 $139,488 $139,488 $15,595 $24,323 $179,406 $179,406 $179,406 $2,790 $182,196 $182,196 $182,196
PW Director/City Engineer Lynnwood, City of $117,816 $133,446 $149,076 $16,667 $25,411 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154 $0 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154
Public Works Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Director of PW Sammamish, City of $110,256 $135,708 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,758 $179,210 $204,662 $3,099 $156,857 $182,309 $207,761
PW & Parks Dir University Place, City of $100,800 $116,724 $132,648 $14,830 $24,914 $140,544 $156,468 $172,392 $2,551 $143,095 $159,019 $174,943
Median:$117,576 $133,446 $143,652 Median:$159,894 $175,524 $185,146
Current Edmonds Base Range:$113,135 $130,968 $151,611 Current Edmonds Base Range:$156,134 $173,967 $194,610
1.039254 1.01892 0.9475038 1.024077 1.008946 0.9513659
Proposed Base Range:$113,135 $130,968 $151,611
Range 21
Packet Page 335 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
27
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
RECREATION SERVICES MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,730 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $1,128 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Rec & Park Planning Mgr. Bothell, City of $81,180 92,196 $103,212 $11,539 $23,859 $116,578 $127,594.10 $138,610 $6,848 $123,426 $145,458 $145,458
Athletics/Recreation Mgr.Bremerton, City of $70,392 78,078 $85,764 $9,588 $22,981 $102,961 $110,647.42 $118,333 $3,731 $106,692 $122,064 $122,064
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $77,640 86,010 $94,380 $10,552 $22,856 $111,048 $119,418 $127,788 $0 $111,048 $127,788 $127,788
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Recreation Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Recreation Supt.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Recreation Manager University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$78,694 $88,167 $97,641 Median:$113,743 $127,402 $132,690
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$109,282 $120,777 $134,084
1.0790574 1.044348 0.9990842 1.040824 1.054852 0.9896061
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 336 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
28
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
SENIOR PLANNER $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $93,072 $10,406 $24,300 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $0 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782
Senior Planner Bothell, City of $68,760 $78,096 $87,432 $9,775 $23,859 $102,394 $111,730 $121,066 $0 $102,394 $111,730 $121,066
Senior Planner Bremerton, City of $66,996 $74,310 $81,624 $9,126 $22,981 $99,103 $106,417 $113,731 $3,565 $102,668 $109,982 $117,296
Senior Planner Burien, City of $70,344 $77,922 $85,500 $9,559 $22,585 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644 $0 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644
Senior Planner Des Moines, City of $71,256 $78,936 $86,616 $9,684 $24,079 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379 $0 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379
Senior Planner Issaquah, City of $77,004 $87,648 $98,292 $10,989 $25,904 $113,897 $124,541 $135,185 $17,928 $131,825 $142,469 $153,113
Senior Planner Lacey, City of $67,188 $73,542 $79,896 $8,932 $24,323 $100,443 $106,797 $113,151 $799 $101,242 $107,596 $113,950
Senior Planner Lynnwood, City of $63,440 $71,854 $80,267 $8,974 $25,411 $97,825 $106,238 $114,652 $0 $97,825 $106,238 $114,652
Senior Planner Puyallup, City of $63,576 $73,104 $82,632 $9,238 $25,332 $98,146 $107,674 $117,202 $0 $98,146 $107,674 $117,202
Senior Planner Sammamish, City of $65,142 $77,147 $89,151 $9,967 $25,484 $100,593 $112,598 $124,602 $1,714 $102,308 $114,312 $126,317
Principal Planner University Place, City of $77,364 $89,586 $101,808 $11,382 $24,914 $113,660 $125,882 $138,104 $1,958 $115,618 $127,840 $140,062
Median:$67,974 $77,534 $86,058 Median:$102,441 $110,898 $119,011
Current Edmonds Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076 Current Edmonds Base Range:$104,161 $115,109 $127,782
#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Range 11
Packet Page 337 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
29
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $107,747 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $0 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093
(-)Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $80,654 $91,595 $102,535 $11,463 $23,859 $115,977 $126,917 $137,858 $6,803 $122,780 $133,720 $144,660
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $85,764 $95,130 $104,496 $11,683 $22,981 $120,428 $129,794 $139,160 $4,480 $124,907 $134,273 $143,639
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $84,972 $102,222 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $124,233 $141,483 $158,733 $21,015 $145,248 $162,498 $179,748
Senior Civil Eng- Utilities Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Civil Engineer - Senior Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Senior Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $79,356 $93,978 $108,600 $12,141 $25,484 $116,981 $131,603 $146,225 $2,088 $119,070 $133,692 $148,314
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$80,556 $92,634 $104,496 Median:$119,070 $133,692 $143,639
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,749 $129,422 $144,093
1.0019029 0.99525 0.9698275 1.019879 1.032991 99.69%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 338 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
30
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
STORMWATER ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $107,747 $12,035 $24,300 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082 $0 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $85,764 $95,130 $104,496 $11,683 $22,981 $120,428 $129,794 $139,160 $4,480 $124,907 $134,273 $143,639
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
Stormwater Engineer Des Moines, City of $101,436 $112,362 $123,288 $13,784 $24,079 $139,299 $150,225 $161,151 $0 $139,299 $150,225 $161,151
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $84,972 $102,222 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $124,233 $141,483 $158,733 $21,015 $145,248 $162,498 $179,748
Senior Utilities Engineer Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Civil Engineer - Senior Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Sr. Stormwater PM Sammamish, City of $84,751 $100,370 $115,988 $12,967 $25,484 $123,202 $138,821 $154,439 $2,231 $125,433 $141,051 $156,670
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$84,862 $97,750 $109,320 Median:$125,170 $137,662 $150,155
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,738 $129,411 $144,082
1.0554519 1.05021 1.014599 1.072229 1.063759 104.21%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 339 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators
31
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $102,591 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $0 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093
Transportation Engineer Bothell, City of $77,796 $88,356 $98,916 $11,059 $23,859 $112,714 $123,274 $133,834 $0 $112,714 $123,274 $133,834
Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $85,764 $95,130 $104,496 $11,683 $22,981 $120,428 $129,794 $139,160 $4,180 $124,607 $133,973 $143,339
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -------$0 ---
Traffic Signal Oper. Eng Issaquah, City of $93,612 $106,542 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $132,873 $145,803 $158,733 $3,600 $136,473 $149,403 $162,333
(-)Transportation Design Mgr.Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
Traffic Engineer Lynnwood, City of $87,714 $99,351 $110,989 $12,409 $25,411 $125,533 $137,171 $148,808 $0 $125,533 $137,171 $148,808
Traffic Engineer Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Traffic Engineer Sammamish, City of $79,355 $93,979 $108,603 $12,142 $25,484 $116,981 $131,605 $146,229 $0 $116,981 $131,605 $146,229
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$80,070 $93,307 $104,604 Median:$117,288 $130,639 $142,545
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,749 $129,422 $144,093
0.9958584 1.00248 0.9708298 1.004614 1.009401 98.93%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 340 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
1
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
ARTS & CULTURAL SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,728 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $1,128 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Rec & Park Planning Mgr. Bothell, City of $81,180 92,196 $103,212 $11,539 $23,859 $116,578 $127,594.10 $138,610 $6,848 $123,426 $145,458 $145,458
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $77,640 86,010 $94,380 $10,552 $22,856 $111,048 $119,417.68 $127,788 $0 $111,048 $127,788 $127,788
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of ------------
Recreation Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
NO MATCH Lacey, City of ------------
Recreation Supt.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of ------------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
Recreation Manager University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$79,747 $90,324 $100,901 Median:$116,439 $127,788 $137,593
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$109,282 $120,777 $134,084
1.09 1.07 1.03 1.07 1.06 1.03
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Packet Page 341 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
2
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $134,244 $7,192 $24,300 $134,109 $150,283 $169,008 $2,337 $136,446 $152,620 $171,345
Deputy Police Chief Bothell, City of $114,708 $130,278 $145,848 $7,628 $23,859 $146,195 $161,765 $177,335 $10,140 $156,335 $171,905 $187,475
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Police Commander Des Moines, City of $113,868 $119,700 $125,532 $6,565 $24,079 $144,512 $150,344 $156,176 $9,463 $153,976 $159,808 $165,640
Deputy Police Chief Issaquah, City of $113,772 $129,480 $145,188 $7,593 $25,904 $147,269 $162,977 $178,685 $23,647 $170,916 $186,624 $202,332
Commander Lacey, City of $130,152 $131,988 $133,824 $6,999 $24,323 $161,474 $163,310 $165,146 $1,988 $163,462 $165,298 $167,134
Union- Deputy Chief Lynnwood, City of $123,636 $128,682 $133,728 $6,994 $25,411 $156,041 $161,087 $166,133 $27,004 $183,045 $188,091 $193,137
Deputy Police Chief Puyallup, City of $108,444 $124,716 $140,988 $7,374 $25,332 $141,150 $157,422 $173,694 $6,000 $147,149 $163,421 $179,693
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
NO MATCH University Place, City of ------------
Median:$114,288 $129,081 $137,406 Median:$159,899 $168,602 $183,584
Current Edmonds Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516 Current Edmonds Base Range:$136,446 $152,620 $171,345
1.11 1.09 1.00 1.17 1.10 1.07
Proposed Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516
Range 19
(2 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 342 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
3
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ASSOCIATE PLANNER $62,997 $72,928 $84,423 $81,740 $9,438 $24,300 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161 $0 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161
NO MATCH Bothell, City of -----------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Land Use Planner II Des Moines, City of $63,960 $70,860 $77,760 $8,694 $24,079 $96,733 $103,633 $110,533 $0 $96,733 $103,633 $110,533
Associate Planner Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Associate Planner Lacey, City of $67,188 $73,542 $79,896 $8,932 $24,323 $100,443 $106,797 $113,151 $799 $101,242 $107,596 $113,950
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
Associate Planner Sammamish, City of $60,996 $72,234 $83,472 $9,332 $25,484 $95,812 $107,050 $118,288 $1,605 $97,417 $108,655 $119,893
Senior Planner University Place, City of $66,228 $62,473 $87,156 $9,744 $24,914 $100,886 $97,131 $121,814 $1,676 $102,562 $98,807 $123,490
Median:$66,228 $72,234 $83,472 Median:$101,242 $107,596 $119,893
Current Edmonds Base Range:$62,997 $72,928 $84,423 Current Edmonds Base Range:$96,735 $106,666 $118,161
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$62,997 $72,928 $84,423
Range 9
(3 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 343 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
4
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
BUILDING OFFICIAL $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $102,612 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
(-)Comm. Dev/Dpty Dir/Bldg Of Bothell, City of $93,528 $106,223 $118,919 $13,295 $23,859 $130,682 $143,377.52 $156,073 $7,890 $138,572 $151,267 $163,963
Building Official Burien, City of $85,728 $94,962 $104,196 $11,649 $22,585 $119,962 $129,196 $138,430 $0 $119,962 $129,196 $138,430
Building Official Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Building Official Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
Building Official Lacey, City of $87,060 $87,060 $87,060 $9,733 $24,323 $121,116 $121,116 $121,116 $871 $121,987 $121,987 $121,987
Building Official Lynnwood, City of $87,708 $99,348 $110,988 $12,408 $25,411 $125,527 $137,167 $148,807 $0 $125,527 $137,167 $148,807
Building Code Official Puyallup, City of $75,264 $86,562 $97,860 $10,941 $25,332 $111,537 $122,835 $134,133 $0 $111,501 $122,799 $134,097
Building Official Sammamish, City of $84,756 $100,374 $115,992 $12,968 $25,484 $123,208 $138,826 $154,444 $2,231 $125,439 $141,057 $156,675
(+)Building Official/Sr Bldg InspeUniversity Place, City of $85,100 $98,545 $111,989 $12,520 $24,914 $122,535 $135,979 $149,423 $2,154 $124,688 $138,133 $151,577
Median:$86,700 $98,545 $110,988 Median:$124,688 $137,167 $148,807
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
1.0269713 1.0083 0.9810227 1.016397 1.008704 98.29%
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 344 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
5
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER No PE required $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $86,634 $10,406 $24,300 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $0 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782
and supv req)(-)Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $67,092 76,194 $85,296 $9,536 $23,859 $100,487 $109,589 $118,691 $5,659 $106,146 $115,248 $124,350
PE Req'd Civil Engineer II (PM)Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
CIP Project Manager Des Moines, City of $80,160 $88,800 $97,440 $10,894 $24,079 $115,133 $123,773 $132,413 $0 $115,133 $123,773 $132,413
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
PE Req'd Project Manager Lynnwood, City of $82,728 $93,378 $104,028 $11,630 $25,411 $119,769 $130,419 $141,069 $0 $119,769 $130,419 $141,069
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,484 $124,205 $137,123 $150,041 $2,154 $126,360 $139,278 $152,196
Project Engineer University Place, City of $64,800 $75,036 $85,272 $9,533 $24,914 $99,247 $109,483 $119,719 $1,640 $100,887 $111,123 $121,359
Median:$79,584 $88,164 $96,744 Median:$112,985 $121,565 $130,145
Current Edmonds Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076 Current Edmonds Base Range:$104,161 $115,109 $127,782
1.1458354 $1 1.0394087 1.084716 1.056087 1.0184931
Proposed Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Range 11
(4 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 345 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
6
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CITY CLERK $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $102,612 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $1,243 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
City Clerk Bothell, City of $73,548 $83,526 $93,504 $10,454 $23,859 $107,861 $117,839 $127,817 $6,204 $114,064 $124,042 $134,020
City Clerk Burien, City of $70,344 $77,922 $85,500 $9,559 $22,585 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644 $0 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644
City Clerk Des Moines, City of $71,256 $78,936 $86,616 $9,684 $24,079 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379 $0 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379
City Clerk Issaquah, City of $80,844 $92,028 $103,212 $11,539 $25,904 $118,287 $129,471 $140,655 $18,645 $136,932 $148,116 $159,300
City Clerk Lacey, City of $66,612 $75,942 $85,272 $9,533 $24,323 $100,468 $109,798 $119,128 $853 $101,321 $110,651 $119,981
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
City Clerk Puyallup, City of $70,428 $80,964 $91,500 $10,230 $25,332 $105,990 $116,526 $127,062 $0 $105,990 $116,526 $127,062
City Clerk Sammamish, City of $69,576 $82,392 $95,208 $10,644 $25,484 $105,704 $118,520 $131,336 $1,831 $107,535 $120,351 $133,167
City Clerk University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$70,386 $79,950 $89,964 Median:$105,504 $115,420 $125,995
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$117,992 $130,665 $145,336
0.8754151 $1 0.834956 0.894161 0.883327 0.8669218
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 346 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
7
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CITY ENGINEER $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $137,520 $15,375 $24,300 $142,292 $158,466 $177,191 $1,587 $143,878 $160,052 $178,777
Deputy PW Director/CE Bothell, City of $103,920 $118,026 $132,132 $14,772 $23,859 $142,551 $156,657 $170,763 $8,766 $151,318 $165,424 $179,530
Asst. PW Director Burien, City of $101,892 $112,878 $123,864 $13,848 $22,585 $138,325 $149,311 $160,297 $0 $138,325 $149,311 $160,297
Engineering Services Mgr.Des Moines, City of $101,424 $112,356 $123,288 $13,784 $24,079 $139,287 $150,219 $161,151 $0 $139,287 $150,219 $161,151
(-)Director of PW - Engineering Issaquah, City of $112,892 $128,488 $144,083 $16,108 $25,904 $154,905 $170,500 $186,095 $24,603 $179,508 $195,103 $210,698
City Engineer Lacey, City of $123,096 $123,096 $123,096 $13,762 $24,323 $161,181 $161,181 $161,181 $1,231 $162,412 $162,412 $162,412
Deputy PW Director Lynnwood, City of $106,142 $120,224 $134,306 $15,015 $25,411 $146,569 $160,650 $174,732 $0 $146,569 $160,650 $174,732
City Engineer Puyallup, City of $92,208 $106,050 $119,892 $13,404 $25,332 $130,944 $144,786 $158,628 $0 $130,944 $144,786 $158,628
Deputy PW Director Sammamish, City of $90,504 $107,184 $123,864 $13,848 $25,484 $129,836 $146,516 $163,196 $2,382 $132,218 $148,898 $165,578
City Engineer University Place, City of $94,740 $109,698 $124,656 $13,937 $24,914 $133,591 $148,549 $163,507 $2,397 $135,988 $150,946 $165,904
Median:$101,892 $112,878 $123,864 Median:$139,287 $150,946 $165,578
Current Edmonds Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516 Current Edmonds Base Range:$143,878 $160,052 $178,777
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516
Range 19
Packet Page 347 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
8
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $144,396 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,857 $166,841 $186,502
.
Asst. City Mgr./Econ Dev.Bothell, City of $113,676 $129,108 $144,540 $16,160 $23,859 $153,695 $169,127 $184,559 $9,590 $163,284 $178,716 $194,148
(+)Economic Dev. Mgr.Burien, City of $116,381 $128,923 $141,466 $15,816 $22,585 $154,782 $167,324 $179,866 $0 $154,782 $167,324 $179,866
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
(+)Economic Dev. Director Issaquah, City of $131,419 $149,576 $167,732 $18,752 $25,904 $176,076 $194,232 $212,389 $35,553 $211,629 $229,785 $247,942
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
(+)Economic Dev. Director Lynnwood, City of $116,754 $132,244 $147,734 $16,517 $25,411 $158,682 $174,172 $189,662 $0 $158,682 $174,172 $189,662
(+)Economic Dev. Director Puyallup, City of $113,428 $130,449 $147,470 $16,487 $25,332 $155,247 $172,268 $189,290 $1,134 $156,381 $173,403 $190,424
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$116,381 $130,449 $147,470 Median:$158,682 $174,172 $190,424
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,857 $166,841 $186,502
1.0801303 1.045843 1.0213197 1.058891 1.043942 1.0210317
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 348 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
9
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
COURT ADMINISTRATOR $76,574 $88,643 $102,617 $102,612 $11,472 $22,124 $110,170 $122,239 $136,213 $1,184 $111,354 $123,423 $137,397
Court Administrator Bothell, City of $73,548 $83,526 $93,504 $10,454 $23,859 $107,861 $117,839 $127,817 $6,204 $114,064 $124,042 $134,020
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Court Administrator Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Court Administrator Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Court Administrator Lynnwood, City of $96,480 $109,278 $122,076 $13,648 $25,411 $135,539 $148,337 $161,135 $0 $135,539 $148,337 $161,135
Court Administrator Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$86,700 $96,036 $105,372 Median:$122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,574 $88,643 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$111,354 $123,423 $137,397
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Salary Range $76,574 $88,643 $102,617
Range 13
Packet Page 349 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
10
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $137,520 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Community Dev. Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Community Dev. Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Development Serv. Director Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $18,792 $25,904 $176,408 $194,594 $212,780 $34,425 $210,833 $229,019 $247,205
Community Dev. Director Lacey, City of $116,784 $116,784 $116,784 $13,056 $24,323 $154,163 $154,163 $154,163 $2,336 $156,499 $156,499 $156,499
Comm. Dev. Director Lynnwood, City of $106,140 $120,222 $134,304 $15,015 $25,411 $146,566 $160,648 $174,730 $0 $146,566 $160,648 $174,730
Development Serv. Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Director of Comm. Dev.Sammamish, City of $110,256 $135,708 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,758 $179,210 $204,662 $3,099 $156,857 $182,309 $207,761
Planning and DSD University Place, City of $100,800 $116,724 $132,648 $14,830 $24,914 $140,544 $156,468 $172,392 $2,551 $143,095 $159,019 $174,943
Median:$113,520 $125,571 $138,978 Median:$156,666 $165,107 $178,856
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
1.0535792 1.006734 0.9625048 1.045444 0.989611 0.9590103
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 350 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
11
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 3 (UNFUNDED/UNFILLED)$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $1,243 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $93,612 $106,542 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $132,873 $145,803 $158,733 $21,015 $153,888 $166,818 $179,748
Development Review Eng.Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
Development Svcs. Supv.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
Engineering Services Mgr.Puyallup, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,332 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889 $0 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889
Development Review Eng.Sammamish, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,484 $124,205 $137,123 $150,041 $2,154 $126,360 $139,278 $152,196
Asst City Engineer University Place, City of $81,192 $94,014 $106,836 $11,944 $24,914 $118,050 $130,872 $143,694 $2,055 $120,105 $132,927 $145,749
Median:$83,694 $96,564 $109,434 Median:$122,079 $134,949 $147,819
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$117,992 $130,665 $145,336
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 351 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
12
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 2 (UNFUNDED/UNFILLED)$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(-)Senior Cilvil Engineer Bothell, City of $73,801 $83,813 $93,826 $10,490 $23,859 $108,150 $118,162 $128,174 $6,225 $114,375 $124,387 $134,399
Civil Engineer III Bremerton, City of $76,740 $83,376 $90,012 $10,063 $22,981 $109,784 $116,420 $123,056 $3,900 $113,685 $120,321 $126,957
(-)Civil Engineer III Burien, City of $75,605 $83,756 $91,907 $10,275 $22,981 $108,861 $117,012 $125,163 $0 $108,861 $117,012 $125,163
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
(-)Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $90,710 $107,291 $123,872 $13,849 $25,904 $130,463 $147,044 $163,625 $21,657 $152,120 $168,701 $185,282
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
(-)Development Svc. Supv.Lynnwood, City of $67,785 $76,775 $85,766 $9,589 $25,411 $102,785 $111,775 $120,766 $0 $102,785 $111,775 $120,766
(-)Eng. Svcs. Mgr Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
(+)Project Engineer- Dev. Svcs.Sammamish, City of $66,092 $78,272 $90,452 $10,113 $25,484 $101,689 $113,869 $126,049 $1,739 $103,428 $115,608 $127,788
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$75,605 $83,756 $91,907 Median:$113,685 $120,321 $127,788
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 352 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
13
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 1 PE may be required $66,147 $76,574 $88,643 $88,644 $9,910 $24,300 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853 $0 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853
Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $67,092 $76,194 $85,296 $9,536 $23,859 $100,487 $109,589 $118,691 $5,659 $106,146 $115,248 $124,350
PE Civil Engineer Burien, City of $72,060 $79,848 $87,636 $9,798 $22,585 $104,443 $112,231 $120,019 $0 $104,443 $112,231 $120,019
Civil Engineer I Des Moines, City of $71,940 $79,698 $87,456 $9,778 $24,079 $105,797 $113,555 $121,313 $0 $105,797 $113,555 $121,313
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Civil Engineer I Lynnwood, City of $54,392 $61,589 $68,786 $7,690 $25,411 $87,493 $94,690 $101,887 $0 $87,493 $94,690 $101,887
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $69,564 $82,386 $95,208 $10,644 $25,484 $105,692 $118,514 $131,336 $1,831 $107,523 $120,345 $133,167
Project Engineer University Place, City of $64,800 $75,036 $85,272 $9,533 $24,914 $99,247 $109,483 $119,719 $1,640 $100,887 $111,123 $121,359
Median:$69,564 $79,698 $87,456 Median:$105,797 $113,555 $121,359
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643 Current Edmonds Base Range:$100,357 $110,784 $122,853
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643
Range 10
Packet Page 353 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
14
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT - CONFIDENTIAL $57,141 $66,147 $76,574 $66,144 $8,561 $24,300 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $0 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Executive Assistant Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
City Manager Executive Assistant Burien, City of $57,732 $63,954 $70,176 $7,846 $22,585 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607 $0 $88,536 $94,758 $100,980
City Manager Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $59,136 $65,508 $71,880 $8,036 $24,079 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995 $0 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995
Executive Assistant- Police Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Mayor Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $59,925 $67,870 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,812 $101,758 $109,703 $0 $93,812 $101,758 $109,703
City Manager Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $51,384 $59,088 $66,792 $7,467 $25,332 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591 $0 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591
City Manager Executive Assistant Sammamish, City of $57,108 $67,632 $78,156 $8,738 $25,484 $91,330 $101,854 $112,378 $1,503 $92,833 $103,357 $113,881
City Manager Executive Assistant University Place, City of $55,272 $64,002 $72,732 $8,131 $24,914 $88,317 $97,047 $105,777 $1,399 $89,716 $98,446 $107,176
Median:$58,434 $66,570 $74,274 Median:$92,042 $100,102 $108,440
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574 Current Edmonds Base Range:$90,002 $99,008 $109,435
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed salary range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Range 7
Packet Page 354 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
15
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR $59,998 $69,455 $80,403 $80,400 $8,989 $24,300 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $0 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692
Executive Assistant Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
City Manager Executive Assistant Burien, City of $57,732 $63,954 $70,176 $7,846 $22,585 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607 $0 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607
City Manager Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $59,136 $65,508 $71,880 $8,036 $24,079 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995 $0 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995
City Manager Executive Assistant Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Mayor Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $59,916 $67,866 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,803 $101,753 $109,703 $0 $93,803 $101,753 $109,703
City Manager Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $51,384 $59,088 $66,792 $7,467 $25,332 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591 $0 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591
Executive Assistant Sammamish, City of $57,108 $67,632 $78,156 $8,738 $25,484 $91,330 $101,854 $112,378 $1,503 $92,833 $103,357 $113,881
Asst to the Mayor University Place, City of $55,272 $64,002 $72,732 $8,131 $24,914 $88,317 $97,047 $105,777 $1,399 $89,716 $98,446 $107,176
Median:$58,434 $66,570 $74,274 Median:$92,833 $101,753 $109,703
Current Edmonds Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403 Current Edmonds Base Range:$93,287 $102,744 $113,692
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Salary Range $59,998 $69,455 $80,403
Range 8
Packet Page 355 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
16
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
FINANCE DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $124,728 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Finance Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Finance Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Finance Director Des Moines, City of $115,080 $127,488 $139,896 $15,640 $24,079 $154,799 $167,207 $179,615 $0 $154,799 $167,207 $179,615
Finance Director Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $18,792 $25,904 $176,408 $194,594 $212,780 $34,425 $210,833 $229,019 $247,205
Finance Director Lacey, City of $130,836 $130,836 $130,836 $14,627 $24,323 $169,786 $169,786 $169,786 $2,617 $172,403 $172,403 $172,403
Finance Director Lynnwood, City of $117,811 $133,442 $149,074 $16,666 $25,411 $159,889 $175,520 $191,151 $0 $159,889 $175,520 $191,151
Finance Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Finance Director Sammamish, City of $110,263 $135,714 $161,164 $18,018 $25,484 $153,765 $179,216 $204,666 $3,099 $156,864 $182,315 $207,765
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$117,694 $132,181 $146,363 Median:$158,377 $173,962 $186,724
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 356 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
17
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST $59,998 $69,455 $80,403 $72,924 $8,989 $24,300 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $0 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692
Human Resources Analyst Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Human Resources Analyst Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Human Resources Analyst Lacey, City of $58,884 $67,128 $75,372 $8,427 $24,323 $91,634 $99,878 $108,122 $754 $92,387 $100,631 $108,875
Human Resources Analyst Lynnwood, City of $59,928 $67,872 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,815 $101,759 $109,703 $0 $93,815 $101,759 $109,703
(+)HR Generalist Puyallup, City of $59,756 $68,719 $77,682 $8,685 $25,332 $93,773 $102,736 $111,699 $0 $93,773 $102,736 $111,699
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$59,928 $68,719 $77,682 Median:$93,815 $102,736 $111,699
Current Edmonds Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403 Current Edmonds Base Range:$93,287 $102,744 $113,692
0.9988333 0.98941 0.966158 1.00566 0.99992 0.98247
Proposed Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403
Range 8
Packet Page 357 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
18
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT $20,309 $27,141 $30,469 $19,864 $3,406 $23,715 $30,547 $33,875 $0 $23,715 $30,547 $33,875
NO MATCH Bothell, City of ------------
NO MATCH Bremerton, City of ------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Administrative Asst. 2 Des Moines, City of $26,286 $29,121 $31,956 $3,573 $29,859 $32,694 $35,529 $0 $29,859 $32,694 $35,529
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of ------------
Department Asst. 3 (HR)Lacey, City of $24,384 $26,676 $28,968 $3,239 $27,623 $29,915 $32,207 $290 $27,912 $30,204 $32,496
Admin Asst - HR Lynnwood, City of $24,750 $28,038 $31,326 $3,502 $28,252 $31,540 $34,828 $0 $28,252 $31,540 $34,828
Human Resources Coord.Puyallup, City of $24,702 $28,404 $32,106 $3,589 $28,291 $31,993 $35,695 $0 $28,291 $31,993 $35,695
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
Administrative Assistant University Place, City of $27,480 $31,836 $36,192 $4,046 -$31,526 $35,882 $40,238 $696 $32,222 $36,578 $40,934
Median:$24,750 $28,404 $31,956 Median:$28,291 $31,993 $35,529
Current Edmonds Base Range:$18,928 $21,913 $25,366 Current Edmonds Base Range:$23,715 $30,547 $33,875
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$22,714 $26,295 $30,439
Packet Page 358 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
19
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $107,747 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
-HR Director Bothell, City of $111,697 126,854 $142,010 $15,877 $23,859 $151,433 $166,589 $181,745 $9,422 $160,855 $176,011 $191,167
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
HR Manager Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
HR Manager Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
-HR Director Lynnwood, City of $90,750 $102,790 $114,830 $12,838 $25,411 $128,999 $141,039 $153,079 $0 $128,999 $141,039 $153,079
HR Director Puyallup, City of $93,062 $100,827 $108,592 $12,141 $25,332 $130,535 $138,300 $146,064 $0 $130,535 $138,300 $146,064
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Human Resources Manager University Place, City of $77,364 $89,586 $101,808 $11,382 $24,914 $113,660 $125,882 $138,104 $1,958 $115,618 $127,840 $140,062
Median:$91,906 $101,808 $111,711 Median:$129,767 $139,669 $149,572
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 359 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
20
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
IT SUPERVISOR $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $93,072 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(-)IS Manager Bothell, City of $80,654 $91,595 $102,535 $11,463 $23,859 $115,977 $126,917 $137,858 $6,803 $122,780 $133,720 $144,660
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
-IT Manager Des Moines, City of $78,030 $86,432 $94,835 $10,603 $24,079 $112,712 $121,114 $129,516 $0 $112,712 $121,114 $129,516
-IS Manager Issaquah, City of $84,251 $95,888 $107,525 $12,021 $25,904 $122,176 $133,813 $145,450 $19,274 $141,450 $153,087 $164,724
-IS Manager Lacey, City of $99,176 $99,176 $99,176 $11,088 $24,323 $134,587 $134,587 $134,587 $992 $135,579 $135,579 $135,579
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
-IT Manager Puyallup, City of $67,738 $77,906 $88,074 $9,847 $25,332 $102,916 $113,084 $123,253 $0 $102,916 $113,084 $123,253
-Information Sys Mgr.Sammamish, City of $76,276 $90,333 $104,389 $11,671 $25,484 $113,431 $127,487 $141,544 $2,007 $115,438 $129,495 $143,551
-IT Manager University Place, City of $73,440 $85,039 $96,638 $10,804 $24,914 $109,158 $120,757 $132,357 $1,858 $111,017 $122,616 $134,215
Median:$78,030 $90,333 $99,176 Median:$115,438 $129,495 $135,579
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 360 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
21
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PARKS MAINTENANCE MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,728 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(+)Maintenance Supervisor Bothell, City of $80,903 $91,879 $102,854 $11,499 $23,859 $116,261 $127,237 $138,213 $6,824 $123,085 $134,061 $145,037
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Parks Division Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
(+)Parks Maint. Supervisor Lacey, City of $71,491 $81,503 $91,516 $10,231 $24,323 $106,046 $116,058 $126,070 $915 $106,961 $116,973 $126,985
(+)Parks Maint. Supt.Lynnwood, City of $72,768 $82,422 $92,076 $10,294 $25,411 $108,473 $118,127 $127,781 $0 $108,473 $118,127 $127,781
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$76,835 $87,150 $97,465 Median:$115,779 $126,094 $136,409
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
1.0535789 1.0323 0.9972905 1.070499 1.053863 1.0259679
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 361 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
22
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PARKS, RECREATION & CULUTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $144,392 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Parks & Rec Director Bothell, City of $103,920 $118,026 $132,132 $14,772 $23,859 $142,551 $156,657 $170,763 $8,766 $151,318 $165,424 $179,530
Parks, Rec & Cultural Svcs. DBurien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Parks & Rec & Senior Svc. D Des Moines, City of $110,652 $122,574 $134,496 $15,037 $24,079 $149,768 $161,690 $173,612 $0 $149,768 $161,690 $173,612
Parks & Rec Director Issaquah, City of $125,436 $142,764 $160,092 $17,898 $25,904 $169,238 $186,566 $203,894 $32,788 $202,026 $219,354 $236,682
Parks & Rec Director Lacey, City of $126,744 $126,744 $126,744 $14,170 $24,323 $165,237 $165,237 $165,237 $2,535 $167,772 $167,772 $167,772
Parks, Rec & Cultural Arts Lynnwood, City of $117,816 $133,446 $149,076 $16,667 $25,411 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154 $0 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154
Parks & Recreation Dir.Puyallup, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,332 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889 $862 $124,915 $137,833 $150,751
Director of Parks & Rec Sammamish, City of $110,263 $135,712 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,765 $179,213 $204,662 $3,099 $156,864 $182,312 $207,761
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$114,234 $128,832 $139,074 Median:$156,849 $168,669 $180,914
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
1.0602059 1.0329 0.9631697 1.046662 1.01096 0.9700402
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 362 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
23
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PLANNER UNFUNDED/UNFILLED $57,141 $66,147 $76,574 $8,561 $24,300 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $0 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Planner Bothell, City of $61,932 $70,566 $79,200 $8,855 $23,859 $94,646 $103,280 $111,914 $5,255 $99,900 $108,534 $117,168
Planner Burien, City of $62,172 $68,874 $75,576 $8,449 $22,585 $93,206 $99,908 $106,610 $0 $93,206 $99,908 $106,610
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Associate Planner Puyallup, City of $54,324 $62,472 $70,620 $7,895 $25,332 $87,551 $95,699 $103,847 $0 $87,551 $95,699 $103,847
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$61,932 $68,874 $75,576 Median:$93,206 $99,908 $106,610
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574 Current Edmonds Base Range:$90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Proposed Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Range 7
Packet Page 363 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
24
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PLANNING MANAGER $88,643 $102,617 $118,791 $118,788 $13,281 $24,300 $126,224 $140,198 $156,372 $1,371 $127,594 $141,568 $157,742
Planning Manager Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Community Dev. Manager Des Moines, City of $93,780 $103,884 $113,988 $12,744 $24,079 $130,603 $140,707 $150,811 $0 $130,603 $140,707 $150,811
Land Dev. Manager Issaquah, City of $103,212 $117,462 $131,712 $14,725 $25,904 $143,841 $158,091 $172,341 $22,800 $166,641 $180,891 $195,141
Planning Manager Lacey, City of $73,536 $83,832 $94,128 $10,524 $24,323 $108,383 $118,679 $128,975 $941 $109,324 $119,620 $129,916
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
Deputy Dir of Comm Dev Sammamish, City of $96,660 $114,474 $132,288 $14,790 $25,484 $136,934 $154,748 $172,562 $2,544 $139,478 $157,292 $175,106
Planning Manager Shoreline, City of $84,492 $93,654 $102,816 $11,495 $19,620 $115,607 $124,769 $133,931 $1,186 $116,793 $125,955 $135,117
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$91,698 $102,828 $113,958 Median:$132,187 $143,317 $154,447
Current Edmonds Base Range:$88,643 $102,617 $118,791 Current Edmonds Base Range:$127,594 $141,568 $157,742
1.0344641 $1 0.9593151 1.035992 $1 0.9791074
Proposed Base Range:$88,643 $102,617 $118,791
Range 16
Packet Page 364 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
25
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
POLICE CHIEF $118,791 $137,516 $159,192 $159,192 $8,326 $24,300 $151,417 $170,142 $191,818 $2,587 $154,004 $172,729 $194,405
Police Chief Bothell, City of $126,612 $143,796 $160,980 $8,419 $23,859 $158,890 $176,074 $193,258 $11,144 $170,035 $187,219 $204,403
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Police Chief Des Moines, City of $119,688 $132,588 $145,488 $7,609 $24,079 $151,376 $164,276 $177,176 $2,238 $153,614 $166,514 $179,414
Police Chief Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $8,791 $25,904 $166,407 $184,593 $202,779 $34,425 $200,832 $219,018 $237,204
Police Chief Lacey, City of $152,280 $152,280 $152,280 $7,964 $24,323 $184,567 $184,567 $184,567 $3,696 $188,263 $188,263 $188,263
Police Chief Lynnwood, City of $119,472 $135,324 $151,176 $7,907 $25,411 $152,790 $168,642 $184,494 $30,364 $183,154 $199,006 $214,858
Police Chief Puyallup, City of $119,292 $137,184 $155,076 $8,110 $25,332 $152,734 $170,626 $188,518 $6,563 $159,298 $177,190 $195,082
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$123,150 $140,490 $153,678 Median:$176,594 $187,741 $199,742
Current Edmonds Base Range:$118,791 $137,516 $159,192 Current Edmonds Base Range:$154,004 $172,729 $194,405
1.0366947 1.02163 0.9653626 1.14669 1.086912 102.75%
Proposed Base Range:$118,971 $137,516 $159,192
Range 22
Packet Page 365 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
26
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DIRECTOR $113,135 $130,968 $151,611 $151,609 $16,950 $24,300 $154,385 $172,218 $192,861 $1,749 $156,134 $173,967 $194,610
PW Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
PW Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Director of PW Operations Issaquah, City of $125,436 $142,764 $160,092 $17,898 $25,904 $169,238 $186,566 $203,894 $32,788 $202,026 $219,354 $236,682
Public Works Director Lacey, City of $139,488 $139,488 $139,488 $15,595 $24,323 $179,406 $179,406 $179,406 $2,790 $182,196 $182,196 $182,196
PW Director/City Engineer Lynnwood, City of $117,816 $133,446 $149,076 $16,667 $25,411 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154 $0 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154
Public Works Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Director of PW Sammamish, City of $110,256 $135,708 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,758 $179,210 $204,662 $3,099 $156,857 $182,309 $207,761
PW & Parks Dir University Place, City of $100,800 $116,724 $132,648 $14,830 $24,914 $140,544 $156,468 $172,392 $2,551 $143,095 $159,019 $174,943
Median:$117,696 $133,488 $146,364 Median:$158,375 $178,860 $186,725
Current Edmonds Base Range:$113,135 $130,968 $151,611 Current Edmonds Base Range:$156,134 $173,967 $194,610
1.0403147 1.01924 0.9653917 1.014352 1.028121 0.9594833
Proposed Base Range:$113,135 $130,968 $151,611
Range 21
Packet Page 366 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
27
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
RECREATION SERVICES MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,730 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $1,128 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Rec & Park Planning Mgr. Bothell, City of $81,180 92,196 $103,212 $11,539 $23,859 $116,578 $127,594.10 $138,610 $6,848 $123,426 $145,458 $145,458
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $77,640 86,010 $94,380 $10,552 $22,585 $110,777 $119,146.68 $127,517 $0 $110,777 $127,517 $127,517
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Recreation Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
Recreation Supt.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Recreation Manager University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$79,747 $90,324 $100,901 Median:$116,439 $127,517 $137,593
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$109,282 $120,777 $134,084
1.0935032 1.069898 1.0324465 1.06549 1.055804 1.0261692
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 367 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
28
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
SENIOR PLANNER $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $93,072 $10,406 $24,300 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $0 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782
Senior Planner Bothell, City of $68,760 $78,096 $87,432 $9,775 $23,859 $102,394 $111,730 $121,066 $0 $102,394 $111,730 $121,066
Senior Planner Burien, City of $70,344 $77,922 $85,500 $9,559 $22,585 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644 $0 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644
Senior Planner Des Moines, City of $71,256 $78,936 $86,616 $9,684 $24,079 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379 $0 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379
Senior Planner Issaquah, City of $77,004 $87,648 $98,292 $10,989 $25,904 $113,897 $124,541 $135,185 $17,928 $131,825 $142,469 $153,113
Senior Planner Lacey, City of $67,188 $73,542 $79,896 $8,932 $24,323 $100,443 $106,797 $113,151 $799 $101,242 $107,596 $113,950
Senior Planner Lynnwood, City of $63,440 $71,854 $80,267 $8,974 $25,411 $97,825 $106,238 $114,652 $0 $97,825 $106,238 $114,652
Senior Planner Puyallup, City of $63,576 $73,104 $82,632 $9,238 $25,332 $98,146 $107,674 $117,202 $0 $98,146 $107,674 $117,202
Senior Planner Sammamish, City of $65,142 $77,147 $89,151 $9,967 $25,484 $100,593 $112,598 $124,602 $1,714 $102,308 $114,312 $126,317
Principal Planner University Place, City of $77,364 $89,586 $101,808 $11,382 $24,914 $113,660 $125,882 $138,104 $1,958 $115,618 $127,840 $140,062
Median:$68,760 $77,922 $86,616 Median:$102,394 $111,730 $120,379
Current Edmonds Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076 Current Edmonds Base Range:$104,161 $115,109 $127,782
#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Range 11
Packet Page 368 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
29
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $107,747 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $0 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093
(-)Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $80,654 $91,595 $102,535 $11,463 $23,859 $115,977 $126,917 $137,858 $6,803 $122,780 $133,720 $144,660
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $84,972 $102,222 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $124,233 $141,483 $158,733 $21,015 $145,248 $162,498 $179,748
Senior Civil Eng- Utilities Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Civil Engineer - Senior Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Senior Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $79,356 $93,978 $108,600 $12,141 $25,484 $116,981 $131,603 $146,225 $2,088 $119,070 $133,692 $148,314
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$80,070 $92,114 $103,624 Median:$118,332 $131,682 $143,206
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,749 $129,422 $144,093
0.9958584 0.98967 0.9617307 1.013561 1.017464 99.38%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 369 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
30
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
STORMWATER ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $107,747 $12,035 $24,300 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082 $0 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
(-)Stormwater Engineer Des Moines, City of $101,436 $112,362 $123,288 $13,784 $24,079 $139,299 $150,225 $161,151 $0 $139,299 $150,225 $161,151
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $84,972 $102,222 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $124,233 $141,483 $158,733 $21,015 $145,248 $162,498 $179,748
Senior Utilities Engineer Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Civil Engineer - Senior Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Sr. Stormwater PM Sammamish, City of $84,751 $100,370 $115,988 $12,967 $25,484 $123,202 $138,821 $154,439 $2,231 $125,433 $141,051 $156,670
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$84,751 $100,370 $113,928 Median:$125,433 $141,051 $156,670
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,738 $129,411 $144,082
1.0540776 1.07836 1.0573659 1.07448 1.089947 108.74%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 370 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 COMPENSATION SURVEY - City Policy Comparators- without Kitsap county
31
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $102,591 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $0 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093
Transportation Engineer Bothell, City of $77,796 $88,356 $98,916 $11,059 $23,859 $112,714 $123,274 $133,834 $0 $112,714 $123,274 $133,834
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -------$0 ---
Traffic Signal Oper. Eng Issaquah, City of $93,612 $106,542 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $132,873 $145,803 $158,733 $3,600 $136,473 $149,403 $162,333
(-)Transportation Design Mgr.Lacey, City of $77,256 $88,044 $98,832 $11,049 $24,323 $112,628 $123,416 $134,204 $988 $113,617 $124,405 $135,193
Traffic Engineer Lynnwood, City of $87,714 $99,351 $110,989 $12,409 $25,411 $125,533 $137,171 $148,808 $0 $125,533 $137,171 $148,808
Traffic Engineer Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Traffic Engineer Sammamish, City of $79,355 $93,979 $108,603 $12,142 $25,484 $116,981 $131,605 $146,229 $0 $116,981 $131,605 $146,229
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$79,584 $92,634 $104,712 Median:$116,981 $129,673 $141,751
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,749 $129,422 $144,093
0.9898138 0.99525 0.9718322 1.001985 1.001937 98.37%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 371 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $80,400 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
NO MATCH Bothell, City of -------------
NO MATCH Burien, City of -------------
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -------------
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -------------
10% level (-)Finance Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $71,772 $73,162 $90,811 -$10,153 $25,411 $107,336 $108,726 $126,374 $0 $107,336 $108,726 $126,374
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of ------------
10% level (-)Accounting Manager Sammamish, City of $76,280 $81,308 $104,404 -$11,672 $25,484 $113,437 $118,464 $141,560 $2,008 $115,444 $120,472 $143,568
NO MATCH University Place, City of ------------
Median:$74,026 $77,235 $97,607 Median:$111,390 $114,599 $134,971
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
Packet Page 372 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ARTS & CULTURAL SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,728 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $1,128 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Rec & Park Planning Mgr. Bothell, City of $81,180 92,196 $103,212 $11,539 $23,859 $116,578 $127,594.10 $138,610 $6,848 $123,426 $145,458 $145,458
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $77,640 86,010 $94,380 $10,552 $22,856 $111,048 $119,417.68 $127,788 $0 $111,048 $127,788 $127,788
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of ------------
Recreation Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
Recreation Supt.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of ------------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
Recreation Manager University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$79,747 $90,324 $100,901 Median:$116,439 $127,788 $137,593
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$109,282 $120,777 $134,084
1.09 1.07 1.03 1.07 1.06 1.03
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 373 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $134,244 $7,192 $24,300 $134,109 $150,283 $169,008 $2,337 $136,446 $152,620 $171,345
Deputy Police Chief Bothell, City of $114,708 $130,278 $145,848 $7,628 $23,859 $146,195 $161,765 $177,335 $10,140 $156,335 $171,905 $187,475
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Police Commander Des Moines, City of $113,868 $119,700 $125,532 $6,565 $24,079 $144,512 $150,344 $156,176 $9,463 $153,976 $159,808 $165,640
Deputy Police Chief Issaquah, City of $113,772 $129,480 $145,188 $7,593 $25,904 $147,269 $162,977 $178,685 $23,647 $170,916 $186,624 $202,332
Union- Deputy Chief Lynnwood, City of $123,636 $128,682 $133,728 $6,994 $25,411 $156,041 $161,087 $166,133 $27,004 $183,045 $188,091 $193,137
Deputy Police Chief Puyallup, City of $108,444 $124,716 $140,988 $7,374 $25,332 $141,150 $157,422 $173,694 $6,000 $147,149 $163,421 $179,693
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of ------------
NO MATCH University Place, City of ------------
Median:$113,868 $128,682 $140,988 Median:$156,335 $171,905 $187,475
Current Edmonds Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516 Current Edmonds Base Range:$136,446 $152,620 $171,345
1.11 1.08 1.03 1.15 1.13 1.09
Proposed Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516
Range 19
(2 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 374 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ASSOCIATE PLANNER $62,997 $72,928 $84,423 $81,740 $9,438 $24,300 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161 $0 $96,735 $106,666 $118,161
NO MATCH Bothell, City of -----------
NO MATCH Burien, City of ------------
Land Use Planner II Des Moines, City of $63,960 $70,860 $77,760 $8,694 $24,079 $96,733 $103,633 $110,533 $0 $96,733 $103,633 $110,533
Associate Planner Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Associate Planner Lacey, City of $67,188 $73,542 $79,896 $8,932 $24,323 $100,443 $106,797 $113,151 $799 $101,242 $107,596 $113,950
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
Associate Planner Sammamish, City of $60,996 $72,234 $83,472 $9,332 $25,484 $95,812 $107,050 $118,288 $1,605 $97,417 $108,655 $119,893
Senior Planner University Place, City of $66,228 $62,473 $87,156 $9,744 $24,914 $100,886 $97,131 $121,814 $1,676 $102,562 $98,807 $123,490
Median:$66,228 $72,234 $83,472 Median:$101,242 $107,596 $119,893
Current Edmonds Base Range:$62,997 $72,928 $84,423 Current Edmonds Base Range:$96,735 $106,666 $118,161
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$62,997 $72,928 $84,423
Range 9
(3 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 375 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
BUILDING OFFICIAL $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $102,612 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
(-)Comm. Dev/Dpty Dir/Bldg Of Bothell, City of $93,528 $106,223 $118,919 $13,295 $23,859 $130,682 $143,377.52 $156,073 $7,890 $138,572 $151,267 $163,963
Building Official Burien, City of $85,728 $94,962 $104,196 $11,649 $22,585 $119,962 $129,196 $138,430 $0 $119,962 $129,196 $138,430
Building Official Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Building Official Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
Building Official Lynnwood, City of $87,708 $99,348 $110,988 $12,408 $25,411 $125,527 $137,167 $148,807 $0 $125,527 $137,167 $148,807
Building Code Official Puyallup, City of $75,264 $86,562 $97,860 $10,941 $25,332 $111,537 $122,835 $134,133 $0 $111,501 $122,799 $134,097
Building Official Sammamish, City of $84,756 $100,374 $115,992 $12,968 $25,484 $123,208 $138,826 $154,444 $2,231 $125,439 $141,057 $156,675
(+)Building Official/Sr Bldg InspeUniversity Place, City of $85,100 $98,545 $111,989 $12,520 $24,914 $122,535 $135,979 $149,423 $2,154 $124,688 $138,133 $151,577
Median:$86,214 $98,946 $111,488 Median:$125,063 $137,650 $150,192
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
1.0212146 1.0124 0.9854457 1.019454 1.012252 99.21%
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 376 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER No PE required $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $86,634 $10,406 $24,300 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $0 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782
and supv req)(-)Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $67,092 76,194 $85,296 $9,536 $23,859 $100,487 $109,589 $118,691 $5,659 $106,146 $115,248 $124,350
PE Req'd Civil Engineer II (PM)Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
CIP Project Manager Des Moines, City of $80,160 $88,800 $97,440 $10,894 $24,079 $115,133 $123,773 $132,413 $0 $115,133 $123,773 $132,413
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
PE Req'd Project Manager Lynnwood, City of $82,728 $93,378 $104,028 $11,630 $25,411 $119,769 $130,419 $141,069 $0 $119,769 $130,419 $141,069
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,484 $124,205 $137,123 $150,041 $2,154 $126,360 $139,278 $152,196
Project Engineer University Place, City of $64,800 $75,036 $85,272 $9,533 $24,914 $99,247 $109,483 $119,719 $1,640 $100,887 $111,123 $121,359
Median:$79,584 $88,164 $96,744 Median:$112,985 $121,565 $130,145
Current Edmonds Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076 Current Edmonds Base Range:$104,161 $115,109 $127,782
1.1458354 $1 1.0394087 1.084716 1.056087 1.0184931
Proposed Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Range 11
(4 positions- salary averaged)
Packet Page 377 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CITY CLERK $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $102,612 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $1,243 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
City Clerk Bothell, City of $73,548 $83,526 $93,504 $10,454 $23,859 $107,861 $117,839 $127,817 $6,204 $114,064 $124,042 $134,020
City Clerk Burien, City of $70,344 $77,922 $85,500 $9,559 $22,585 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644 $0 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644
City Clerk Des Moines, City of $71,256 $78,936 $86,616 $9,684 $24,079 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379 $0 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379
City Clerk Issaquah, City of $80,844 $92,028 $103,212 $11,539 $25,904 $118,287 $129,471 $140,655 $18,645 $136,932 $148,116 $159,300
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
City Clerk Puyallup, City of $70,428 $80,964 $91,500 $10,230 $25,332 $105,990 $116,526 $127,062 $0 $105,990 $116,526 $127,062
City Clerk Sammamish, City of $69,576 $82,392 $95,208 $10,644 $25,484 $105,704 $118,520 $131,336 $1,831 $107,535 $120,351 $133,167
City Clerk University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$70,428 $80,964 $91,500 Median:$105,990 $116,526 $127,062
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$117,992 $130,665 $145,336
0.8759375 $1 0.8492116 0.898276 0.891787 0.8742596
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 378 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
CITY ENGINEER $102,617 $118,791 $137,516 $137,520 $15,375 $24,300 $142,292 $158,466 $177,191 $1,587 $143,878 $160,052 $178,777
Deputy PW Director/CE Bothell, City of $103,920 $118,026 $132,132 $14,772 $23,859 $142,551 $156,657 $170,763 $8,766 $151,318 $165,424 $179,530
Asst. PW Director Burien, City of $101,892 $112,878 $123,864 $13,848 $22,585 $138,325 $149,311 $160,297 $0 $138,325 $149,311 $160,297
Engineering Services Mgr.Des Moines, City of $101,424 $112,356 $123,288 $13,784 $24,079 $139,287 $150,219 $161,151 $0 $139,287 $150,219 $161,151
(-)Director of PW - Engineering Issaquah, City of $112,892 $128,488 $144,083 $16,108 $25,904 $154,905 $170,500 $186,095 $24,603 $179,508 $195,103 $210,698
Deputy PW Director Lynnwood, City of $106,142 $120,224 $134,306 $15,015 $25,411 $146,569 $160,650 $174,732 $0 $146,569 $160,650 $174,732
City Engineer Puyallup, City of $92,208 $106,050 $119,892 $13,404 $25,332 $130,944 $144,786 $158,628 $0 $130,944 $144,786 $158,628
Deputy PW Director Sammamish, City of $90,504 $107,184 $123,864 $13,848 $25,484 $129,836 $146,516 $163,196 $2,382 $132,218 $148,898 $165,578
City Engineer University Place, City of $94,740 $109,698 $124,656 $13,937 $24,914 $133,591 $148,549 $163,507 $2,397 $135,988 $150,946 $165,904
Capital Projects Manager Kirkland, City of $95,784 $108,138 $120,492 $13,471 $28,620 $137,875 $150,229 $162,583 $463 $138,338 $150,692 $163,046
Median:$101,424 $112,356 $123,864 Median:$138,338 $150,692 $165,578
Current Edmonds Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516 Current Edmonds Base Range:$143,878 $160,052 $178,777
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$102,617 $118,791 $137,516
Range 19
Packet Page 379 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $144,396 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,857 $166,841 $186,502
.
Asst. City Mgr./Econ Dev.Bothell, City of $113,676 $129,108 $144,540 $16,160 $23,859 $153,695 $169,127 $184,559 $9,590 $163,284 $178,716 $194,148
20%(+)Economic Dev. Mgr.Burien, City of $116,381 $128,923 $141,466 $15,816 $22,585 $154,782 $167,324 $179,866 $0 $154,782 $167,324 $179,866
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
10%(+)Economic Dev. Director Issaquah, City of $131,419 $149,576 $167,732 $18,752 $25,904 $176,076 $194,232 $212,389 $35,553 $211,629 $229,785 $247,942
10%(+)Economic Dev. Director Lynnwood, City of $116,754 $132,244 $147,734 $16,517 $25,411 $158,682 $174,172 $189,662 $0 $158,682 $174,172 $189,662
10%(+)Economic Dev. Director Puyallup, City of $113,428 $130,449 $147,470 $16,487 $25,332 $155,247 $172,268 $189,290 $1,134 $156,381 $173,403 $190,424
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$116,381 $130,449 $147,470 Median:$158,682 $174,172 $190,424
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,857 $166,841 $186,502
1.0801303 1.045843 1.0213197 1.058891 1.043942 1.0210317
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 380 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
COURT ADMINISTRATOR $76,574 $88,643 $102,617 $102,612 $11,472 $22,124 $110,170 $122,239 $136,213 $1,184 $111,354 $123,423 $137,397
Court Administrator Bothell, City of $73,548 $83,526 $93,504 $10,454 $23,859 $107,861 $117,839 $127,817 $6,204 $114,064 $124,042 $134,020
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Court Administrator Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Court Administrator Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
Court Administrator Lynnwood, City of $96,480 $109,278 $122,076 $13,648 $25,411 $135,539 $148,337 $161,135 $0 $135,539 $148,337 $161,135
Court Administrator Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$86,700 $96,036 $105,372 Median:$122,560 $131,896 $141,232
Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,574 $88,643 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$111,354 $123,423 $137,397
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Salary Range $76,574 $88,643 $102,617
Range 13
Packet Page 381 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $137,520 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Community Dev. Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Community Dev. Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Development Serv. Director Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $18,792 $25,904 $176,408 $194,594 $212,780 $34,425 $210,833 $229,019 $247,205
Comm. Dev. Director Lynnwood, City of $106,140 $120,222 $134,304 $15,015 $25,411 $146,566 $160,648 $174,730 $0 $146,566 $160,648 $174,730
Development Serv. Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Director of Comm. Dev.Sammamish, City of $110,256 $135,708 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,758 $179,210 $204,662 $3,099 $156,857 $182,309 $207,761
Planning and DSD University Place, City of $100,800 $116,724 $132,648 $14,830 $24,914 $140,544 $156,468 $172,392 $2,551 $143,095 $159,019 $174,943
Median:$110,256 $130,920 $143,652 Median:$156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
1.023286 1.049619 0.9948751 1.046559 1.016334 0.9774597
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 382 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 3 (UNFUNDED/UNFILLED)$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $1,243 $117,992 $130,665 $145,336
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $93,612 $106,542 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $132,873 $145,803 $158,733 $21,015 $153,888 $166,818 $179,748
Development Svcs. Supv.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
Engineering Services Mgr.Puyallup, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,332 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889 $0 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889
Development Review Eng.Sammamish, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,484 $124,205 $137,123 $150,041 $2,154 $126,360 $139,278 $152,196
Asst City Engineer University Place, City of $81,192 $94,014 $106,836 $11,944 $24,914 $118,050 $130,872 $143,694 $2,055 $120,105 $132,927 $145,749
Median:$86,196 $99,114 $112,032 Median:$124,053 $136,971 $149,889
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$117,992 $130,665 $145,336
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 383 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 2 (UNFUNDED/UNFILLED)$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(-5 Senior Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $73,801 $83,813 $93,826 $10,490 $23,859 $108,150 $118,162 $128,174 $6,225 $114,375 $124,387 $134,399
Civil Engineer III Bremerton, City of $76,740 $83,376 $90,012 $10,063 $22,981 $109,784 $116,420 $123,056 $3,900 $113,685 $120,321 $126,957
(-5 Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $75,605 $83,756 $91,907 $10,275 $22,981 $108,861 $117,012 $125,163 $0 $108,861 $117,012 $125,163
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
(-5 Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $90,710 $107,291 $123,872 $13,849 $25,904 $130,463 $147,044 $163,625 $21,657 $152,120 $168,701 $185,282
NO MATCH Lacey, City of -----------
(-1 Dev. Services Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $67,785 $76,775 $85,766 $9,589 $25,411 $102,785 $111,775 $120,765 $0 $102,785 $111,775 $120,765
(-5 Engr Services Mgr Puyallup, City of $81,886 $94,158 $106,430 $11,899 $25,332 $119,117 $131,389 $143,661 $0 $119,117 $131,389 $143,661
(-5 Project Engineer - Dev Srvs Sammamish, City of $66,092 $78,272 $90,452 $10,113 $25,484 $101,689 $113,869 $126,049 $1,739 $103,428 $115,608 $127,788
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$75,605 $83,756 $91,907 Median:$113,685 $120,321 $127,788
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 384 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 1 PE may be required $66,147 $76,574 $88,643 $88,644 $9,910 $24,300 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853 $0 $100,357 $110,784 $122,853
Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $67,092 $76,194 $85,296 $9,536 $23,859 $100,487 $109,589 $118,691 $5,659 $106,146 $115,248 $124,350
PE Civil Engineer Burien, City of $72,060 $79,848 $87,636 $9,798 $22,585 $104,443 $112,231 $120,019 $0 $104,443 $112,231 $120,019
Civil Engineer I Des Moines, City of $71,940 $79,698 $87,456 $9,778 $24,079 $105,797 $113,555 $121,313 $0 $105,797 $113,555 $121,313
NO MATCH Issaquah, City of -----------
Civil Engineer I Lynnwood, City of $54,392 $61,589 $68,786 $7,690 $25,411 $87,493 $94,690 $101,887 $0 $87,493 $94,690 $101,887
Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $71,760 $82,512 $93,264 $10,427 $25,332 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023 $0 $107,519 $118,271 $129,023
Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $69,564 $82,386 $95,208 $10,644 $25,484 $105,692 $118,514 $131,336 $1,831 $107,523 $120,345 $133,167
Project Engineer University Place, City of $64,800 $75,036 $85,272 $9,533 $24,914 $99,247 $109,483 $119,719 $1,640 $100,887 $111,123 $121,359
Median:$70,662 $79,773 $87,546 Median:$105,797 $113,555 $121,359
Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643 Current Edmonds Base Range:$100,357 $110,784 $122,853
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$66,147 $76,574 $88,643
Range 10
Packet Page 385 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT - CONFIDENTIAL $57,141 $66,147 $76,574 $66,144 $8,561 $24,300 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435 $0 $90,002 $99,008 $109,435
Executive Assistant Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
City Manager Executive Assistant Burien, City of $57,732 $63,954 $70,176 $7,846 $22,585 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607 $0 $88,536 $94,758 $100,980
City Manager Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $59,136 $65,508 $71,880 $8,036 $24,079 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995 $0 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995
Executive Assistant- Police Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Mayor Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $59,925 $67,870 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,812 $101,758 $109,703 $0 $93,812 $101,758 $109,703
City Manager Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $51,384 $59,088 $66,792 $7,467 $25,332 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591 $0 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591
City Manager Executive Assistant Sammamish, City of $57,108 $67,632 $78,156 $8,738 $25,484 $91,330 $101,854 $112,378 $1,503 $92,833 $103,357 $113,881
City Manager Executive Assistant University Place, City of $55,272 $64,002 $72,732 $8,131 $24,914 $88,317 $97,047 $105,777 $1,399 $89,716 $98,446 $107,176
Median:$58,434 $66,570 $74,274 Median:$92,042 $100,102 $108,440
Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574 Current Edmonds Base Range:$90,002 $99,008 $109,435
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed salary range:$57,141 $66,147 $76,574
Range 7
Packet Page 386 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR $59,998 $69,455 $80,403 $80,400 $8,989 $24,300 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692 $0 $93,287 $102,744 $113,692
Executive Assistant Bothell, City of $61,872 $70,272 $78,672 $8,796 $23,859 $94,527 $102,927 $111,327 $5,220 $99,746 $108,146 $116,546
City Manager Executive Assistant Burien, City of $57,732 $63,954 $70,176 $7,846 $22,585 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607 $0 $88,163 $94,385 $100,607
City Manager Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $59,136 $65,508 $71,880 $8,036 $24,079 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995 $0 $91,251 $97,623 $103,995
City Manager Executive Assistant Issaquah, City of $69,864 $79,494 $89,124 $9,964 $25,904 $105,732 $115,362 $124,992 $16,592 $122,324 $131,954 $141,584
Mayor Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $59,916 $67,866 $75,816 $8,476 $25,411 $93,803 $101,753 $109,703 $0 $93,803 $101,753 $109,703
City Manager Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $51,384 $59,088 $66,792 $7,467 $25,332 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591 $0 $84,183 $91,887 $99,591
Executive Assistant Sammamish, City of $57,108 $67,632 $78,156 $8,738 $25,484 $91,330 $101,854 $112,378 $1,503 $92,833 $103,357 $113,881
Asst to the Mayor University Place, City of $55,272 $64,002 $72,732 $8,131 $24,914 $88,317 $97,047 $105,777 $1,399 $89,716 $98,446 $107,176
Median:$58,434 $66,570 $74,274 Median:$92,833 $101,753 $109,703
Current Edmonds Base Range:$59,998 $69,455 $80,403 Current Edmonds Base Range:$93,287 $102,744 $113,692
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Salary Range $59,998 $69,455 $80,403
Range 8
Packet Page 387 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
FINANCE DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $124,728 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Finance Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
Finance Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Finance Director Des Moines, City of $115,080 $127,488 $139,896 $15,640 $24,079 $154,799 $167,207 $179,615 #REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Finance Director Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $18,792 $25,904 $176,408 $194,594 $212,780 $34,425 $210,833 $229,019 $247,205
Finance Director Lynnwood, City of $117,811 $133,442 $149,074 $16,666 $25,411 $159,889 $175,520 $191,151 $0 $159,889 $175,520 $191,151
Finance Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Finance Director Sammamish, City of $110,263 $135,714 $161,164 $18,018 $25,484 $153,765 $179,216 $204,666 $3,099 $156,864 $182,315 $207,765
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$117,576 $133,442 $149,074 Median:#REF!#REF!#REF!
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 388 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $84,423 $97,730 $113,135 $107,747 $12,648 $24,300 $121,371 $134,678 $150,083 $1,305 $122,677 $135,984 $151,389
-HR Director Bothell, City of $111,697 126,854 $142,010 $15,877 $23,859 $151,433 $166,589 $181,745 $9,422 $160,855 $176,011 $191,167
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
HR Manager Des Moines, City of $86,700 $96,036 $105,372 $11,781 $24,079 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232 $0 $122,560 $131,896 $141,232
HR Manager Issaquah, City of $98,292 $111,864 $125,436 $14,024 $25,904 $138,220 $151,792 $165,364 $21,885 $160,104 $173,676 $187,248
-HR Director Lynnwood, City of $90,750 $102,790 $114,830 $12,838 $25,411 $128,999 $141,039 $153,079 $0 $128,999 $141,039 $153,079
HR Director Puyallup, City of $93,062 $100,827 $108,592 $12,141 $25,332 $130,535 $138,300 $146,064 $0 $130,535 $138,300 $146,064
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Human Resources Manager University Place, City of $77,364 $89,586 $101,808 $11,382 $24,914 $113,660 $125,882 $138,104 $1,958 $115,618 $127,840 $140,062
Median:$91,906 $101,808 $111,711 Median:$129,767 $139,669 $149,572
Current Edmonds Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135 Current Edmonds Base Range:$122,677 $135,984 $151,389
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$84,423 $97,730 $113,135
Range 15
Packet Page 389 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
IT SUPERVISOR $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $93,072 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $0 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956
(-)IS Manager Bothell, City of $80,654 $91,595 $102,535 $11,463 $23,859 $115,977 $126,917 $137,858 $6,803 $122,780 $133,720 $144,660
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
-IT Manager Des Moines, City of $78,030 $86,432 $94,835 $10,603 $24,079 $112,712 $121,114 $129,516 $0 $112,712 $121,114 $129,516
-IS Manager Issaquah, City of $84,251 $95,888 $107,525 $12,021 $25,904 $122,176 $133,813 $145,450 $19,274 $141,450 $153,087 $164,724
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
-IT Manager Puyallup, City of $67,738 $77,906 $88,074 $9,847 $25,332 $102,916 $113,084 $123,253 $0 $102,916 $113,084 $123,253
-Information Sys Mgr.Sammamish, City of $76,276 $90,333 $104,389 $11,671 $25,484 $113,431 $127,487 $141,544 $2,007 $115,438 $129,495 $143,551
-IT Manager University Place, City of $73,440 $85,039 $96,638 $10,804 $24,914 $109,158 $120,757 $132,357 $1,858 $111,017 $122,616 $134,215
Median:$77,153 $88,382 $99,587 Median:$114,075 $126,055 $138,883
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$108,154 $119,649 $132,956
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 390 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PARKS, RECREATION & CULUTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR $107,747 $124,731 $144,392 $144,392 $16,143 $24,300 $148,190 $165,174 $184,835 $1,666 $149,856 $166,840 $186,501
Parks & Rec Director Bothell, City of $103,920 $118,026 $132,132 $14,772 $23,859 $142,551 $156,657 $170,763 $8,766 $151,318 $165,424 $179,530
Parks, Rec & Cultural Svcs. DBurien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Parks & Rec & Senior Svc. D Des Moines, City of $110,652 $122,574 $134,496 $15,037 $24,079 $149,768 $161,690 $173,612 $0 $149,768 $161,690 $173,612
Parks & Rec Director Issaquah, City of $125,436 $142,764 $160,092 $17,898 $25,904 $169,238 $186,566 $203,894 $32,788 $202,026 $219,354 $236,682
Parks, Rec & Cultural Arts Lynnwood, City of $117,816 $133,446 $149,076 $16,667 $25,411 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154 $0 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154
Parks & Recreation Dir.Puyallup, City of $86,196 $99,114 $112,032 $12,525 $25,332 $124,053 $136,971 $149,889 $862 $124,915 $137,833 $150,751
Director of Parks & Rec Sammamish, City of $110,263 $135,712 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,765 $179,213 $204,662 $3,099 $156,864 $182,312 $207,761
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$110,652 $130,920 $143,652 Median:$156,833 $169,565 $182,297
Current Edmonds Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392 Current Edmonds Base Range:$149,856 $166,840 $186,501
1.0269613 1.0496 0.9948751 1.046559 1.016334 0.9774597
Proposed Base Range:$107,747 $124,731 $144,392
Range 20
Packet Page 391 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PLANNING MANAGER $88,643 $102,617 $118,791 $118,788 $13,281 $24,300 $126,224 $140,198 $156,372 $1,371 $127,594 $141,568 $157,742
Planning Manager Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Community Dev. Manager Des Moines, City of $93,780 $103,884 $113,988 $12,744 $24,079 $130,603 $140,707 $150,811 $0 $130,603 $140,707 $150,811
Land Dev. Manager Issaquah, City of $103,212 $117,462 $131,712 $14,725 $25,904 $143,841 $158,091 $172,341 $22,800 $166,641 $180,891 $195,141
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
Deputy Dir of Comm Dev Sammamish, City of $96,660 $114,474 $132,288 $14,790 $25,484 $136,934 $154,748 $172,562 $2,544 $139,478 $157,292 $175,106
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$95,220 $109,179 $122,850 Median:$136,624 $151,609 $166,594
Current Edmonds Base Range:$88,643 $102,617 $118,791 Current Edmonds Base Range:$127,594 $141,568 $157,742
1.0741965 $1 1.0341693 1.07077 $1 1.0561156
Proposed Base Range:$88,643 $102,617 $118,791
Range 16
Packet Page 392 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
POLICE CHIEF $118,791 $137,516 $159,192 $159,192 $8,326 $24,300 $151,417 $170,142 $191,818 $2,587 $154,004 $172,729 $194,405
Police Chief Bothell, City of $126,612 $143,796 $160,980 $8,419 $23,859 $158,890 $176,074 $193,258 $11,144 $170,035 $187,219 $204,403
NO MATCH Burien, City of -----------
Police Chief Des Moines, City of $119,688 $132,588 $145,488 $7,609 $24,079 $151,376 $164,276 $177,176 $2,238 $153,614 $166,514 $179,414
Police Chief Issaquah, City of $131,712 $149,898 $168,084 $8,791 $25,904 $166,407 $184,593 $202,779 $34,425 $200,832 $219,018 $237,204
Police Chief Lynnwood, City of $119,472 $135,324 $151,176 $7,907 $25,411 $152,790 $168,642 $184,494 $30,364 $183,154 $199,006 $214,858
Police Chief Puyallup, City of $119,292 $137,184 $155,076 $8,110 $25,332 $152,734 $170,626 $188,518 $6,563 $159,298 $177,190 $195,082
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$119,688 $137,184 $155,076 Median:$170,035 $187,219 $204,403
Current Edmonds Base Range:$118,791 $137,516 $159,192 Current Edmonds Base Range:$154,004 $172,729 $194,405
1.0075511 0.99759 0.9741444 1.104096 1.083889 105.14%
Proposed Base Range:$118,971 $137,516 $159,192
Range 22
Packet Page 393 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES DIRECTOR $113,135 $130,968 $151,611 $151,609 $16,950 $24,300 $154,385 $172,218 $192,861 $1,749 $156,134 $173,967 $194,610
PW Director Bothell, City of $117,576 $133,530 $149,484 $16,712 $23,859 $158,147 $174,101 $190,055 $9,918 $168,065 $184,019 $199,973
PW Director Burien, City of $118,188 $130,920 $143,652 $16,060 $22,585 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297 $0 $156,833 $169,565 $182,297
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Director of PW Operations Issaquah, City of $125,436 $142,764 $160,092 $17,898 $25,904 $169,238 $186,566 $203,894 $32,788 $202,026 $219,354 $236,682
PW Director/City Engineer Lynnwood, City of $117,816 $133,446 $149,076 $16,667 $25,411 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154 $0 $159,894 $175,524 $191,154
Public Works Director Puyallup, City of $103,116 $118,590 $134,064 $14,988 $25,332 $143,436 $158,910 $174,384 $1,031 $144,468 $159,942 $175,416
Director of PW Sammamish, City of $110,256 $135,708 $161,160 $18,018 $25,484 $153,758 $179,210 $204,662 $3,099 $156,857 $182,309 $207,761
PW & Parks Dir University Place, City of $100,800 $116,724 $132,648 $14,830 $24,914 $140,544 $156,468 $172,392 $2,551 $143,095 $159,019 $174,943
Median:$117,576 $133,446 $149,076 Median:$156,857 $175,524 $191,154
Current Edmonds Base Range:$113,135 $130,968 $151,611 Current Edmonds Base Range:$156,134 $173,967 $194,610
1.039254 1.01892 0.9832796 1.004627 1.008946 0.9822375
Proposed Base Range:$113,135 $130,968 $151,611
Range 21
Packet Page 394 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
RECREATION SERVICES MANAGER $72,928 $84,423 $97,730 $97,730 $10,926 $24,300 $108,154 $119,649 $132,956 $1,128 $109,282 $120,777 $134,084
Rec & Park Planning Mgr. Bothell, City of $81,180 92,196 $103,212 $11,539 $23,859 $116,578 $127,594.10 $138,610 $6,848 $123,426 $145,458 $145,458
Recreation Manager Burien, City of $77,640 86,010 $94,380 $10,552 $22,856 $111,048 $119,417.68 $127,788 $0 $111,048 $127,788 $127,788
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Recreation Manager Issaquah, City of $89,124 $101,448 $113,772 $12,720 $25,904 $127,748 $140,072 $152,396 $20,184 $147,932 $160,256 $172,580
Recreation Supt.Lynnwood, City of $79,747 $90,324 $100,901 $11,281 $25,411 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593 $0 $116,439 $127,016 $137,593
NO MATCH Puyallup, City of -----------
NO MATCH Sammamish, City of -----------
Recreation Manager University Place, City of $67,200 $77,814 $88,428 $9,886 $24,914 $102,000 $112,614 $123,228 $1,701 $103,701 $114,315 $124,929
Median:$79,747 $90,324 $100,901 Median:$116,439 $127,788 $137,593
Current Edmonds Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730 Current Edmonds Base Range:$109,282 $120,777 $134,084
1.0935032 1.069898 1.0324465 1.06549 1.058048 1.0261692
Proposed Base Range:$72,928 $84,423 $97,730
Range 12
Packet Page 395 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
SENIOR PLANNER $69,455 $80,403 $93,076 $93,072 $10,406 $24,300 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782 $0 $104,161 $115,109 $127,782
Senior Planner Bothell, City of $68,760 $78,096 $87,432 $9,775 $23,859 $102,394 $111,730 $121,066 $0 $102,394 $111,730 $121,066
Senior Planner Burien, City of $70,344 $77,922 $85,500 $9,559 $22,585 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644 $0 $102,488 $110,066 $117,644
Senior Planner Des Moines, City of $71,256 $78,936 $86,616 $9,684 $24,079 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379 $0 $105,019 $112,699 $120,379
Senior Planner Issaquah, City of $77,004 $87,648 $98,292 $10,989 $25,904 $113,897 $124,541 $135,185 $17,928 $131,825 $142,469 $153,113
Senior Planner Lynnwood, City of $63,440 $71,854 $80,267 $8,974 $25,411 $97,825 $106,238 $114,652 $0 $97,825 $106,238 $114,652
Senior Planner Puyallup, City of $63,576 $73,104 $82,632 $9,238 $25,332 $98,146 $107,674 $117,202 $0 $98,146 $107,674 $117,202
Senior Planner Sammamish, City of $65,142 $77,147 $89,151 $9,967 $25,484 $100,593 $112,598 $124,602 $1,714 $102,308 $114,312 $126,317
Principal Planner University Place, City of $77,364 $89,586 $101,808 $11,382 $24,914 $113,660 $125,882 $138,104 $1,958 $115,618 $127,840 $140,062
Median:$69,552 $78,009 $87,024 Median:$102,441 $112,214 $120,722
Current Edmonds Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076 Current Edmonds Base Range:$104,161 $115,109 $127,782
#REF!#REF!#REF!
Proposed Base Range:$69,455 $80,403 $93,076
Range 11
Packet Page 396 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $107,747 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $0 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093
(-)Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $80,654 $91,595 $102,535 $11,463 $23,859 $115,977 $126,917 $137,858 $6,803 $122,780 $133,720 $144,660
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -----------
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $84,972 $102,222 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $124,233 $141,483 $158,733 $21,015 $145,248 $162,498 $179,748
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Civil Engineer - Senior Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Senior Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $79,356 $93,978 $108,600 $12,141 $25,484 $116,981 $131,603 $146,225 $2,088 $119,070 $133,692 $148,314
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$80,556 $92,634 $104,712 Median:$119,070 $133,692 $144,660
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,749 $129,422 $144,093
1.0019029 0.99525 0.9718322 1.019879 1.032991 100.39%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 397 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
STORMWATER ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $107,747 $12,035 $24,300 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082 $0 $116,738 $129,411 $144,082
Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $89,616 $101,772 $113,928 $12,737 $23,859 $126,212 $138,368 $150,524 $7,559 $133,771 $145,927 $158,083
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
Stormwater Engineer Des Moines, City of $101,436 $112,362 $123,288 $13,784 $24,079 $139,299 $150,225 $161,151 $0 $139,299 $150,225 $161,151
Senior Engineer Issaquah, City of $84,972 $102,222 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $124,233 $141,483 $158,733 $21,015 $145,248 $162,498 $179,748
NO MATCH Lynnwood, City of -----------
Civil Engineer - Senior Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Sr. Stormwater PM Sammamish, City of $84,751 $100,370 $115,988 $12,967 $25,484 $123,202 $138,821 $154,439 $2,231 $125,433 $141,051 $156,670
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$84,862 $101,071 $114,958 Median:$129,602 $143,489 $157,376
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,738 $129,411 $144,082
1.0554519 1.08589 1.0669253 1.110192 1.108784 109.23%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 398 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS'
FY 2015 Compensation Survey - Snohomish, King Pierce Counties
MIN MID MAX
Retiree
(11.18%
PERS) or
(5.23%
LEOFF)
Health
Insurance
* (family
of four)
MIN MID MAX MIN MID MAX
Edmonds
Job Class Survey Job Class Participant
Organization
ANNUAL
Edmonds'
Current
Actual Pay
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
(includes medical and cash
compensation from comparator
cities)
Employer Paid
Benefits & Total
Cash
Compensation
TOTAL SALARY RANGE
TOTAL
Additional
Cash
Compensation
& Retiree
Benefits
(Comparator
Cities)
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER $80,403 $93,076 $107,747 $102,591 $12,046 $24,300 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093 $0 $116,749 $129,422 $144,093
Transportation Engineer Bothell, City of $77,796 $88,356 $98,916 $11,059 $23,859 $112,714 $123,274 $133,834 $0 $112,714 $123,274 $133,834
Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $79,584 $88,164 $96,744 $10,816 $22,585 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145 $0 $112,985 $121,565 $130,145
NO MATCH Des Moines, City of -------$0 ---
Traffic Signal Oper. Eng Issaquah, City of $93,612 $106,542 $119,472 $13,357 $25,904 $132,873 $145,803 $158,733 $3,600 $136,473 $149,403 $162,333
Traffic Engineer Lynnwood, City of $87,714 $99,351 $110,989 $12,409 $25,411 $125,533 $137,171 $148,808 $0 $125,533 $137,171 $148,808
Traffic Engineer Puyallup, City of $80,556 $92,634 $104,712 $11,707 $25,332 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751 $0 $117,595 $129,673 $141,751
Traffic Engineer Sammamish, City of $79,355 $93,979 $108,603 $12,142 $25,484 $116,981 $131,605 $146,229 $0 $116,981 $131,605 $146,229
NO MATCH University Place, City of -----------
Median:$80,070 $93,307 $106,658 Median:$117,288 $130,639 $143,990
Current Edmonds Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747 Current Edmonds Base Range:$116,749 $129,422 $144,093
0.9958584 1.00248 0.9898883 1.004614 1.009401 99.93%
Proposed Base Range:$80,403 $93,076 $107,747
Range 14
Packet Page 399 of 549
AM-8158 6. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Potential Action regarding Future of Citizens Economic Development Commission
Recommendation
Forward to 12/01/15 Council Meeting for further discussion and action.
Previous Council Action
On June 2, 2009, the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance 3735, creating the Citizens Economic
Development Commission (CEDC), with a sunset date of 12/31/10. By Ordinance 3808, passed on
10/5/10, the sunset date was extended till 12/31/11. By Ordinance 3868, passed on 12/20/11, the sunset
date was extended till 4/29/12. Finally Ordinance No. 3876, passed on 3/20/12, established a sunset date
for the Commission of 12/31/15.
Narrative
At the 2015 City Council Retreat a study subgroup was called for to study and discuss the CEDC, its
purpose, usefulness, meeting format, subgroups, and whether to extend the Commission or allow it to
sunset. This subgroup, comprised of Councilmembers Bloom, Mesaros and Petso, met informally in
October and discussed these issues, offering several observations and/or recommendations to be shared
with full Council to inform decision-making on these issues.
A detailed summary of the issues raised during those discussions is included in the attached "Memo to
Council on EDC Options."
The Options offered for consideration by the Council subgroup are as follows:
1. Extend the Commission as is:
a. Without sunset clause
b. With sunset clause. Number of years till sunset to be determined.
2. Extend the Commission as is:
a. With terms of appointees since 2014 extended till 12/31/16; others to be reappointees or new
appointees.
b. All members being reappointed or newly appointed.
c. With term limits
d. Without term limits
Packet Page 400 of 549
3. Extend the Commission as is:
a. With set number and purpose of subgroups. If so, two or three subgroups:
i. If two subgroups:
1. Tourism
2. Business Growth & Revitalization
ii. If three subgroups:
1. Tourism
2. Business Growth & Revitalization
3. Strategic Action Plan (for items assigned to the EDC or Economic Development Department or
for stewardship of future public engagement processes)
b. Allowing the Commission to set and determine subgroups as needed, within the scope of their role per
code
4. Extend the Commission as 9 members only
5. Sunset the Commission but create two or three new commissions:
a. If two:
i. Tourism
ii. Business Growth & Revitalization
b. If three:
i. Tourism
ii. Business Growth & Revitalization
iii. Strategic Action Plan
6. Related to Commission subgroups, if they exist:
a. Require public notice and meeting summaries
b. Do not require public notice, yet require meeting summaries
Attached for your information are:
Memo to Council on EDC Options
Ordinance 3735 - Original EDC Charter
Comprehensive Plan 2015 Economic Element
MSchindler PPT to Council with Economic Development Definition
EDC Minutes January - October 2015
These options were presented to the City Council on 11/24/15.
Attachments
Ord_3735 - Original EDC Charter
Comp Plan 2015 Eco Dev Element
MSchindler PPT to Council Eco Dev Definition
EDC Minutes Jan-Oct 2015
Memo to Council on EDC Options
EDC Subgroup 2016 Draft Ideas
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 11/25/2015 10:05 AM
Packet Page 401 of 549
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 402 of 549
Packet Page 403 of 549
Packet Page 404 of 549
Packet Page 405 of 549
Packet Page 406 of 549
Packet Page 407 of 549
Packet Page 408 of 549
Economic Development 97
Economic Development Element
Introduction and Discussion of Economic Development
The purpose of the Economic Development Element is to state the city’s economic development
policies clearly in one place, thereby guiding local policymakers and informing the public about
issues relating to the local economy.
The chapter is divided into five major sections: Introduction and Discussion of Economic
Development, The Edmonds Economy, Economic Development SWOT Analysis, Economic
Development Goals and Policies, and Implementation.
Why is economic development important?
The International Economic Development Council provides the following general objective regarding
economic development:
“Improving the economic wellbeing of a community through efforts that entail job creation, job
retention, tax base enhancements and quality of life.”
In simple terms, economic development has traditionally been thought of as meaning encouraging
“growth.” In recent years, many communities have focused more on how economic development fits
within a general framework of community sustainability. This framework attempts to integrate
economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, social and political equity, and cultural
engagement as the constituent parts of the community’s overall health.
With similar objectives in mind economic development in Edmonds can be defined as “the city’s
goals, policies and strategies for growing the local economy in order to enhance the quality of life.”
Economic development is essential to preserving the existing level of service and attaining long-range
goals for sustainable growth and community vitality.
In general, economic development programs and activities affect the local economy by broadening
and strengthening the local tax base, providing a greater range of goods and services for local
residents, and by providing meaningful employment and entrepreneurial opportunities.
Economic development priorities vary widely from community to community, but Edmonds’
priorities have historically coincided with those of many other Puget Sound area communities,
including: creating affordable housing, adding employment, downtown and business district
revitalization, small business assistance, expansion of existing businesses, new business recruitment
and site selection assistance, community marketing, historic preservation, tourism generation, public
relations, streamlining permit processes, and special development or streetscape projects (including
public art).
While the state of the economy may change greatly as boom and bust cycles come and go with each
passing decade, these economic development priorities seem to stand the test of time. Greater or
lesser emphasis may be placed on specific priorities, but for communities in Washington, including
Edmonds, these are the main economic development activities to continue to pursue.
Packet Page 409 of 549
Economic Development 98
The Edmonds Economy
A solid understanding of the local economy helps a community to effectively guide policies,
investments, staff resources, and future plans. The following analysis provides a background of the
fundamentals of the Edmonds economy, local household and business characteristics, and their
impact on municipal revenues.
The Edmonds economy can best be understood by analyzing local demographics and household
characteristics, local employment data, and local sales activity.
Population
The US Census Bureau’s 2013 estimate lists 40,381 residents in Edmonds. That is a 1.7 percent
increase since the official 2010 census, lagging behind both the Snohomish County and Washington
State growth figures of 2.9 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively, during that period.
Of further note in understanding the local economy are the following additional demographic factors:
Average age. The 2013 estimated average age in Edmonds is 48.1 years, substantially older than the
countywide average age of 37.5, indicating a sizeable retiree population. Several conclusions can be
drawn from the relatively older population of Edmonds.
x The size of the labor force is smaller in Edmonds than a similar-sized city with a lower
average age.
x While the retiree population includes a segment on fixed incomes, the city’s higher-than-
average household income figures suggest that there is a sizable segment of retirees who
have discretionary income. Coupled with greater free time, these retirees constitute a
demographic cohort that is able to engage in leisure activities and associated spending
that creates economic activity.
x The housing stock occupied by the older adults and couples may start to see a turn-over
in the next decade, potentially providing more housing for younger adults, couples and
young families. If this occurs, it could increase the size of the labor force population and
increase demand for certain household and personal goods and services, as well as
eating/drinking establishments.
Packet Page 410 of 549
Economic Development 99
x Conversely, if the average age continues to increase, it could mean that fewer younger
families and workers will reside in Edmonds. This could have a range of economic impacts
that would need to be monitored.
Ethnic make-up. Edmonds and greater Snohomish County exhibit a lesser degree of racial or ethnic
diversity than the State as a whole or many parts of the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett metropolitan area.
With nearly 80 percent of residents listed as “white,” Edmonds is less ethnically/racially diverse than
the following nearby cities:
Figure 30: Percentage of Residents Listed as "White" in US Census
Source: American Community Survey 3-yr, 2011-2013
Households. Of the 17,381 households, the degree of home ownership (69 percent) in Edmonds is
substantially greater than many nearby cities.
Figure 31: Percentage of Owner-Occupied Households
Source: American Community Survey 3-yr, 2011-2013
City Percentage of Residents listed
as "white" in the US Census
Edmonds 79.7
Kirkland 74.3
Mill Creek 66.9
Shoreline 66.8
Seattle 66.7
Everett 66.0
Redmond 58.7
Bellevue 58.2
Lynnwood 56.8
City Percentage Owner-Occupied
Households
Edmonds 69%
Shoreline 65%
Mill Creek 63%
Kirkland 57%
Redmond 54%
Lynnwood 53%
Bellevue 53%
Seattle 48%
Everett 45%
Packet Page 411 of 549
Economic Development 100
Household income. As would be expected by the high percentage of owner-occupied homes in
Edmonds, the average household income levels are also higher than regional averages and generally,
although not exclusively, higher than other nearby cities. During the period from 2011-2013, the
Edmonds’ median household income was $67,228 per year, compared with a Snohomish Countywide
average of $67,192 and a King Countywide average of $70,998.
Conclusions that can be made from the preceding data regarding ethnic make-up, home ownership
and household income include the following:
x With a generally more affluent population, Edmonds residents create demand for a wide
variety of goods, services and activities. While nearby communities vie with Edmonds
for market share to meet this demand, this fact should be kept in mind when pursuing
economic development strategies.
x Edmonds’ very robust services sector (see below) provides many related jobs. However,
often services-sector jobs pay lower wages than average. Consequently, with higher
home prices and rents in Edmonds, services-sector employees may have fewer housing
options here. This may create demand for more affordable housing development.
Labor Force. Of the city’s total 2013 population of 40,381 the US Census estimates the civilian labor
force to be 21,174. This is an important figure to keep in mind when considering the number of jobs
in Edmonds. While jobs per capita is often used as an econometric measure, it is can be more
insightful to consider jobs per labor force population, which portrays more accurately the availability
of jobs for working Edmonds residents.
Employment
The Edmonds economy is diverse and includes employment in the full range of business sectors:
construction, finance/insurance/real estate, retail, services, warehousing/utilities/transportation,
government, education, and a small amount of manufacturing.
With 13,232 jobs in 2013, Edmonds exhibits a ratio of 0.325 jobs per capita. However, this equates
to 0.625 jobs per person in the civilian labor force. The substantial disparity between these two ratios
reflects the relatively large amount of Edmonds residents who are retirees and no longer in the labor
force.
The following Figure 32 provides a quick comparison of jobs, population and jobs per capita in
Edmonds and other Snohomish and King County communities. As can be seen, Edmonds provides a
relatively lower number of jobs per capita (0.325) than several other nearby cities. However, as
mentioned above, when compared with the 21,174 Edmonds residents in the labor force, the Edmonds
economy provides 13,232 jobs – a ratio of 0.62 per Edmonds worker. Nevertheless, according to US
Census data, Edmonds-based jobs employ only about 20 percent (approximately 4,200) of these
Edmonds labor-force residents. That is to say, up to 80 percent (approximately 17,000) of Edmonds
workers travel elsewhere to work. Given that Edmonds households exhibit relatively higher median
incomes, while predominately working elsewhere; this seems to suggest that the Edmonds economy
does not provide a sufficient supply of higher-wage jobs.
Packet Page 412 of 549
Economic Development 101
Figure 32: Jobs per Persons in Civilian Labor Force
Jobs by Sector
It is also of interest to analyze the break-down of jobs by sector. By far the largest single source of
employment is the “services” sector, comprised of jobs in such areas as health care, accommodations
and food service, arts and entertainment, professional services, etc. Swedish-Edmonds and the
numerous health care-related businesses in its vicinity provide a significant portion of these jobs in
the “services” sector. In summary, this sector comprises nearly 70 percent of Edmonds jobs –
substantially above the averages of Snohomish County and several nearby cities:
Figure 33: Edmonds Employment by Sector
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, “Covered Employment Estimates,” 2013
County City Total Jobs Population
# Jobs per
Capita Labor Force
# Jobs per
Persons in
Civilian Labor
Force
King Redmond 79,649 57,530 1.384 32,593 2.444
King Bellevue 126,425 133,992 0.944 72,726 1.738
Snohomish Everett
91,310 105,370 0.867 54,725 1.669
King Seattle 499,946 652,405 0.766 393,184 1.272
King/Snohomish Bothell
26,886 35,576 0.756 19,550 1.375
Snohomish Lynnwood
25,474 36,485 0.698 19,019 1.339
King Issaquah 22,310 33,566 0.665 18,236 1.223
King Renton 59,697 97,003 0.615 54,325 1.099
King Kirkland 41,091 84,430 0.487 48,170 0.853
Snohomish Mountlake Terrace
7,201 20,674 0.348 12,516 0.575
Snohomish Edmonds
13,232 40,727 0.325 21,174 0.625
King Shoreline 15,819 54,790 0.289 29,773 0.531
Snohomish Marysville 12,409 63,269 0.196 32,448 0.382
King Kenmore 3,556 21,611 0.165 10,998 0.323
Snohomish Lake Stevens
4,451 29,949 0.149 15,444 0.288
King Total 1,183,811 2,044,449 0.579 1,128,768 1.049
Snohomish Total 264,844 745,913 0.355 391,151 0.677
Sources: Puget Sound Regional Council; American Community Survey 3-yr, 2011-2013
Packet Page 413 of 549
Economic Development 102
Figure 34: Percentage of Jobs in Service Sector
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, “Covered Employment Estimates,” 2013
The second largest employment sector is retail, comprising 12.3 percent of all jobs. While this
percentage is generally in line with countywide averages, it is notable that Lynnwood, with its
regional shopping mall and nearby shopping centers, exhibits a substantially larger percentage of
retail jobs, at 28 percent.
Notwithstanding several major employers, including Swedish-Edmonds, the Edmonds School
District, major assisted-living/rehab centers, larger restaurants, major auto dealers and large grocery
store outlets, among others, much of Edmonds’ employment base is comprised of small businesses.
Among these small businesses figure retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, professional
services firms, personal services establishments, and many home-based businesses.
The manufacturing sector, in contrast, provides only 87 jobs and constitutes a substantially minor
employment sector, which is similar to many suburban Snohomish and King County communities.
Conversely, Everett and some areas of unincorporated Snohomish County provide a large number of
manufacturing jobs.
x Based on the foregoing snapshot of the Edmonds employment base, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
x The services sector will continue to dominate the Edmonds employment base, with
continued growth expected, especially in the health care sector.
x While competition exists from nearby communities, the retail sector provides a
significant opportunity for additional employment growth.
x The following sectors will likely remain stable: education; government; finance,
insurance, real estate; wholesale, transportation, utilities.
x The construction sector is likely to see an upturn as additional commercial, multifamily
and mixed-use development occurs throughout the City.
City Percentage of Jobs
in Service Sector
Edmonds 70%
Mill Creek 59%
Shoreline 46%
Lynnwood 45%
Snohomish County 35%
Packet Page 414 of 549
Economic Development 103
x The manufacturing sector will likely remain small, but growth is likely to increase in the
artisanal industries, such as food, beer, spirits and other products, as well as low-impact,
specialty manufacturing, such as software, electronics, green technology, etc.
x A substantial gap exists between Edmonds residents in the labor force and Edmonds-
based jobs. Additional, higher-paying jobs in all sectors in Edmonds would likely help
reduce this gap. Additionally, this would help increase quality of life, reduce regional
commuting, and increase the City’s tax revenue.
x Conversely, a substantial number of jobs in Edmonds are occupied by residents of other
outside communities. Additional housing within a greater distribution along the
affordability spectrum could help capture the latent housing demand of many Edmonds
workers.
Retail Sales
An analysis of overall retail sales is also very insightful in understanding the Edmonds economy.
Comparison with other nearby communities yields an understanding of strengths and weaknesses in
local components of retail sales, indicating potential sources of sales “leakage.”
Figure 35 shows the top (over $10,000,000) retail sales sectors (by NAICS title) in 2013 of the 50
sectors reporting.
Figure 35: Top Retail Sectors in Edmonds, 2013
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, “Covered Employment Estimates,” 2013
As presented in the table, automobiles and other vehicles are the top retail sales category by a wide
margin. At just over half of the car-sales figure, the food and drink sector is also substantial.
Another important data set to consider is retail sales per capita, especially as it compares with other
nearby communities.
Retail Sector (NAICS title)Taxable Retail Sales
(in millions)
Cars & Other Vehicle Dealers 152.2$
Food Service, Caterers, Bars 87.0$
Food/Beer/Wine/Liquor Stores 29.4$
Construction (new housing)25.0$
Apparel/Accessories/Jewelry Stores 22.8$
Health Care and Social Assistance 17.3$
Auto/Personal/Household Goods Repair 16.2$
Used Merchandise/Pet/Art/Gift/Office Stores 14.3$
Construction (exterior, finishing, equipment)10.9$
Pharmacies/Beauty/Personal Care Stores 10.5$
Packet Page 415 of 549
Economic Development 104
Figure 36: Taxable Retail Sales per Capita in 2013
Source: American Community Survey 3-yr, 2011-2013
As shown in Figure 36, the city of Lynnwood, with its regional mall and associated shopping centers,
captures a great deal of retail sales, with the highest retail sales per capita – approaching four times
the amount in Edmonds. Kirkland, a similar-sized city in King County, captures modestly more retail
sales, while neighboring Shoreline sees almost the same per-capita sales.
Even more insightful is an estimate of sales per capita within key retail categories as a function of
per-capita income, compared with Western US standards. This exercise provides an estimate of the
“leakage” of retail sales to other communities that could potentially be captured by Edmonds
residents within Edmonds.
One starts by using standards provided by the US Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the
Washington Department of Revenue, which indicate that the portion of annual per-capita income
routinely spent by Western US residents on the main retail categories listed below is 19.94 percent.
Based on the City’s per-capita income and population, one can determine the total income anticipated
to be spent by Edmonds’ residents. Applying the aforementioned 19.94 percent retail sales
expenditure rate to the City’s total income, one arrives at the anticipated total retail sales by
Edmonds’ residents, otherwise known as “demand” for these retail categories. By analyzing the
City’s actual retail sales receipts for these categories, one can quantify both the total retail sales
“leakage” and the relative gap within each retail category. The following figures break down this
analysis:
Figure 37: Edmonds Actual Aggregate Retail Sales as a Percentage of Potential Sales
Source: US Census; American Community Survey 3-yr, 2011-2013; Bureau of Labor Statistics; WA Department of
Revenue
CITY TAXABLE RETAIL
SALES
Lynnwood 57,289$
Kirkland 23,199$
Shoreline 15,582$
Edmonds 15,198$
Mukilteo 11,203$
Mountlake Terrace 9,522$
Total
40,381
40,892$
19.94%
8,152$
1,651,259,852$
329,201,769$
279,092,756$
Expected Expenditures by City's Residents for Selected Categories
Estimated Taxable Retail Sales
Description
City Population, 2013 Census estimate
Per Capita Income, 3-yr ACS 2011-2013
Total % of CU Income Spent on Categories Listed (Western US Avg.)
Avg. Retail Spending Per Capita for Selected Categories (Edmonds)
Total Income of City's Residents
Packet Page 416 of 549
Economic Development 105
Figure 38: Edmonds Actual Retail Sales by Category as Percentage of Potential Sales
Source: US Census; American Community Survey 3-yr, 2011-2013; Bureau of Labor Statistics; WA Department of
Revenue
**Note: A ratio of 1:1 would signify a 100 percent capture in Edmonds of Edmonds’ latent
demand for that category. A ratio under 1 signifies a greater capture of market demand for a
category than Edmonds demand. A ratio over 1 signifies uncaptured demand or a retail sales
“leakage” to other communities.
The principal conclusions to be drawn from the foregoing analysis of retail sales in Edmonds are as
follows:
x Among the main retail sales categories, Edmonds captures approximately 84 percent of
the total retail sales that would be expected from Edmonds residents, based on Western
US average retail sales rates, with up to $57,929,741 of potential spending going
elsewhere.
x This figure, however, is skewed substantially by vehicle sales, because the rate of capture
in Edmonds is higher than average and the value of vehicle sales is high. Extracting
vehicle sales from the equation, Edmonds captures approximately 51 percent of retail
sales that would be expected from Edmonds residents, based on Western US average
retail sales rates.
x Consequently, there is an almost 50 percent “leakage” of potential nonvehicle-related
retail sales from Edmonds – an amount that could total as high as $125,000,000 annually.
x In addition, while the vehicle sales sector is valuable to the Edmonds economy, the
remaining major retail sectors are providing substantially less than Edmonds residents’
demand for such goods and services.
% of CU Income
Spent on
Category
(Western US
Avg.)
Est. Demand for
Category by
City's Residents
(2013)
Edmonds
Taxable Retail
Sales for
Category (2013)
Ratio of Total
Consumed to
Total
Demanded -
the "Gap"
4.39% 72,417,652$ 85,776,628$ 0.844
0.22% 3,627,818$ 1,040,569$ 3.486
0.63% 10,343,492$ 481,624$ 21.476
0.04% 606,012$ 1,101,342$ 0.550
0.39% 6,408,539$ -$
2.71% 44,787,121$ 20,189,446$ 2.218
0.52% 8,513,896$ 1,055,428$ 8.067
0.37% 6,179,014$ 1,529,057$ 4.041
4.68% 77,234,377$ 148,878,789$ 0.519
3.89% 64,262,080$ 5,220,946$ 12.309
0.77% 12,684,978$ 2,044,641$ 6.204
0.27% 4,408,864$ 1,354,332$ 3.255
1.07%17,727,926$ 10,419,954$ 1.701
19.94% 329,201,769$ 279,092,756$ 1.180
Gasoline
Pet Supply
Toys, Hobbies, and Playground Equipment
Personal Care Products
Total
Floor Coverings
Major Appliances
Apparel and Services
Footwear
Other Apparel and Services
Vehicle Purchases
Category
Eating and Drinking Places
Household Textiles
Furniture
Packet Page 417 of 549
Economic Development 106
x This all points out that, given the volatility and size of the vehicle sales sector, growth in
the other sectors could help protect against an over reliance on that sector. In 2013,
vehicle sales made up 32.4 percent of the total taxable retail sales for businesses with
locations in Edmonds.
City Revenues and Sustainability
Economic development is an important issue not only because it addresses jobs, availability of goods
and services and quality of life, but also for its role in supporting city revenues on a sustainable basis.
Of the City’s annual tax revenues, property tax comprises 38.9 percent, utility tax 18.4 percent and
sales tax 16.9 percent, for a combined total of almost 75 percent of municipal deriving from taxes.
Economic vitality is key to ensuring the continued sustainability of these tax revenue sources in order
to ensure continued support of valuable city services and the quality of life enjoyed by residents and
businesses.
Figure 39: Edmonds General Revenues by Source
Source: City of Edmonds Adopted 2015 Budget
Services
Quality
of Life
Q
Revenue
Packet Page 418 of 549
Economic Development 107
The following figure compares Edmonds against other nearby communities in terms of percentage
contributions from sales and property taxes to municipal revenue:
Figure 40: Percentage Contribution of Sales and Property Tax
Source: Budget documents from corresponding cities
As one can see, Lynnwood relies substantially more than Edmonds and other nearby communities on
retail sales tax, given the presence of the regional shopping mall and associated shopping centers in
that community. Edmonds and several other communities rely to a greater degree on property tax
revenues. While this is often a more stable continued source of revenue than sales tax revenue, the
State-imposed limit of no more than one-percent annual growth in property tax revenue (absent a
voter-approved levy) does not keep up with inflation and has transformed this source into more of a
revenue baseline rather than a source of growth. In the face of inflationary pressures and increased
demands for services, municipalities like Edmonds must seek revenue growth from other sources.
Additionally, in the case of Edmonds, in light of the substantial “leakage” of potential retail sales to
other communities, recapture of even a modest amount of this leakage could yield much-needed
additional sales tax revenue.
While it is simple to establish a goal of increasing sales tax revenues, it is more difficult to determine
how to implement that goal. Many cities have focused on new development because of its potentially
positive impact on both sales and property taxes.
Appropriately sited and sized development/redevelopment projects increase:
x Property tax receipts through the “new construction” provision that captures new
construction value-based property tax for the first year a project is brought on line and
adds that value to the city’s future property tax baseline.
x Sales tax revenue from construction materials and activity.
x Sales tax revenue from both personal and business spending accruing from new residents,
workers and businesses within newly developed buildings.
x Utility tax revenue from a greater number of utility customers.
Development opportunities in Edmonds are generally limited to redevelopment in the business
districts where under-developed parcels may still be found. This does not imply a need for wholesale
redevelopment of entire districts, but rather an emphasis on appropriately sited and sized residential,
City Sales Tax Property Tax
Edmonds 17% 39%
Lynnwood 28% 17%
Mukilteo 20% 34%
Mill Creek 21% 49%
Bothell 14% 14%
Kirkland 12% 18%
Packet Page 419 of 549
Economic Development 108
mixed-use and commercial projects in key locations, such as the Highway 99 corridor, Westgate, Five
Corners and select locations in and near Downtown.
Consequently, this chapter includes goals and policies that reflect the need to accommodate
appropriate development/redevelopment throughout the various business districts in Edmonds.
Lastly, another source of potential growth in retail sales and the resulting municipal tax revenue could
lie in achieving greater energy efficiency in Edmonds’ homes and businesses. A 2010 study
conducted by Sustainable Edmonds reported that utility consumption just from electricity and natural
gas constituted on the order of $35-40 million annually in the 2008-2009 period. While that figure
can vary considerably as energy prices vary, a figure on the order of $30+ million suffices for
planning purposes. Sustainable Edmonds has further identified that through relatively modest energy-
saving interventions on existing homes and businesses, approximately 10 percent savings can be
achieved, which could free up approximately $3 million dollars in additional discretionary income
among Edmonds residents.
Economic Development SWOT Analysis
Edmonds’ current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) relating to economic
development
As a companion to of the foregoing analysis of the fundamentals of the Edmonds economy, the
following “SWOT” analysis assists in preparation of the goals and policies for economic development
in Edmonds.
Strengths:
x Amenity-rich community with high quality of life
o Picturesque waterfront setting, with publicly
accessible waterfront and rich variety of
parks and recreational activities
o Traditional downtown with array of
specialty retailers, food and drink
establishments, entertainment and services,
complemented by free parking
o Distinctive neighborhoods and business districts
o Regionally renowned events and festivals
o Historic character
x Intermodal transit connections
x Port of Edmonds’ role in economic vitality, especially as
anchor to strong, growing maritime business sector
Packet Page 420 of 549
Economic Development 109
x Publicly accessible fiber optic network in the Downtown area
x Strong, prominent and regionally recognized arts community
x Burgeoning health services sector, anchored by Swedish-Edmonds
x Strong and prominent educational infrastructure from public and private K-12 institutions
to Edmonds Community College
x International business community, offering diverse array of goods and services, both in
Highway 99 “International District” and throughout the City
x Strong social capital and community pride
x High degree of home ownership
x Low rates of unemployment and poverty
Weaknesses:
x Limited retail trade area due to geographical constraints (Puget Sound to the west,
distance from I-5) and prominence of major regional retail centers and lifestyle centers in
nearby communities
x Potentially restrictive land use and parking regulations in the business districts compared
with other communities
x Lack of large, regularly shaped parcels to accommodate redevelopment in commercial
areas outside the downtown BC zone
x Limited amusement/family entertainment establishments relative to surrounding
communities.
x Shortage of tourism infrastructure, such as full range of accommodations, public
restrooms, way-finding signage, etc.
x Shortage of affordable housing opportunities
x Substantial portion of resident labor force commutes away for work, while large number
of workers commute in to town for work
Opportunities:
x Location, “character” and natural assets can leverage additional economic development
by nurturing existing businesses for growth and expansion and recruiting new,
complementary businesses that seek those assets.
x Existing and planned intermodal transit connections can leverage transit-oriented
development.
Packet Page 421 of 549
Economic Development 110
x Through enhanced connectivity, opportunities exist to maximize the synergy and
economic impact of the Edmonds Center for the Arts with the Downtown business
community,.
x The burgeoning arts community can leverage
greater tourism, artisanal manufacturing and
associated business.
x Highly skilled, educated workforce provides
opportunities for businesses to locate in
Edmonds that offer high-paying jobs
x Continued growth in the emerging business
sectors of artisanal and craft producers,
including microbreweries, distilleries,
specialty foods, and low-impact, specialty
manufacturing.
x Telecommunication/technology assets can provide better service for existing business
customers and attract new business.
x Infrastructure improvements around the business districts can enhance their attractiveness
for investment and viability of commercial and mixed-use development.
x Downtown and the Highway 99 corridor near the medical services node around Swedish-
Edmonds offer opportunities for additional hospitality facilities.
x Underdeveloped sites in the City’s business districts (e.g., Westgate, Fiver Corners,
Highway 99 corridor, etc.) offer opportunities for appropriate commercial and/or mixed-
use redevelopment projects. Additional population density in business districts can add
market demand for goods and services and employee base for new and growing
businesses.
x Large numbers of workers who commute to Edmonds create additional demand for
affordable housing
x Travelers through Edmonds via the Washington State Ferry system offer potential for
greater business activity.
x Senior, more affluent residents provide opportunities for businesses related to that
demographic cohort.
x Increased energy efficiency in homes and businesses could free up discretionary income
to support more local spending
Packet Page 422 of 549
Economic Development 111
Threats:
x Retail “leakage” (i.e. loss of potential local sales activity to areas outside of the City
of Edmonds)
x Wider variety and availability of housing options and commercial space elsewhere
x Concerns over the long-term fiscal sustainability of City of Edmonds services and
infrastructure without additional significant business sector growth
x Increasing volumes of train traffic, with resulting increase in blockage of at-grade
crossings, could threaten economic vitality of the waterfront community.
Economic Development Goals & Policies
Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, “D”).
Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal
and a sequential number (for example, “D.2”)
Economic Development Goal A. Foster a healthy business community that encourages
appropriately scaled growth and investment that offers a wide range of goods and services,
provides employment, and enhances municipal revenue.
A.1 Continually strive to offer an efficient, timely and predictable regulatory
environment within the framework of a strong customer service approach.
A.2 Develop or maintain business recruitment programs, including a tool box of
possible incentives, to encourage a wide range of new business development,
including retail, service, artisanal manufacturing and professional services sectors.
A.3 Foster business expansion and retention through existing and enhanced programs.
A.4 Prioritize purchasing from local businesses while balancing a concern for cost
containment.
A.5 Promote local business through enhanced public awareness campaigns, events,
awards programs and other activities.
A.6 Promote emerging business sectors such as artisanal and craft producers, including
microbreweries, distilleries, specialty foods, etc., as well as low-impact, specialty
manufacturing, including software, electronics, green technology, etc
A.7 Continue to partner with business leaders, organizations and community members,
such as the Port of Edmonds, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, etc., to leverage
business opportunities and to solicit and address feedback to enhance the business
environment.
A.8 Leverage business opportunities related to travelers to/from Edmonds using the
Washington State Ferry system.
Packet Page 423 of 549
Economic Development 112
A.9 Pursue greater energy efficiency in homes and businesses to free up discretionary
income for more local spending.
Economic Development Goal B. Revitalize and enhance the city’s business districts, balancing
the needs for housing, commerce and employment development with neighborhood character,
amenities and scale.
B.1. Adopt land use policies, zoning, and design guidelines that are supportive of
economic development, while recognizing neighborhood character, context and
impacts.
B.2 Monitor and potentially revise parking requirements in business districts to
encourage business development, while reasonably accommodating parking
demand.
B.3. Pursue strategic planning efforts and/or develop land use regulations that will
encourage viable, appropriately scaled commercial and mixed-use redevelopment
of key properties in the City’s business districts.
B.4. Continue to foster and enhance the economic vitality of Downtown Edmonds,
including retention and growth of existing businesses, attraction of new businesses,
and promotion of appropriate in-fill redevelopment. Monitor and enhance the
Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District in its efforts to fund business
promotion, marketing, improvement projects, beautification, etc.
B.5. Provide staff support to businesses wishing to explore the potential of additional
Business Improvement Districts in other commercial areas to help fund business
promotion, marketing, improvement projects, beautification, etc., in a sustainable
fashion.
B.6. Promote enhanced connectivity between the Edmonds Center of the Arts and the
Downtown business community to maximize synergy and economic impacts.
B.7. Continue to support an historic preservation program that works to identify and
preserve historic architectural, archeological and cultural resources for future
generations. This can include use of available incentives and the historic
preservation building code to encourage property owners to register eligible
historic buildings.
B.8. Work to “brand” and promote distinct business districts where there is a natural
identity, such as the Highway 99 International District, Westgate, the Swedish
Hospital Medical District, and the waterfront, among others.
B.9. Work with property owners, developers and investors to seek appropriate
redevelopment in underdeveloped and/or emerging business districts, such as the
Highway 99 medical services district, Five Corners, etc. Ensure that
redevelopment in business districts provide a quality environment with character,
walkability and amenities for patrons and residents to enjoy.
Packet Page 424 of 549
Economic Development 113
B.10. Implement regulations and/or design guidelines that will ensure the development of
quality retail and commercial space that can physically accommodate a variety of
future uses.
B.11. Implement infrastructure and technology improvements around business districts to
provide enhanced service, retain and attract business.
Economic Development Goal C. Diversify and grow the City’s economic make-up to reduce
sales leakage, attract spending from nearby communities, enhance local employment, and
increase municipal tax revenues to support local services.
C.1. Identify under-represented business sectors and work with partners, property
owners and/or developers to recruit new businesses that help fill under-met market
demand.
C.2. Leverage technology assets, such as existing fiber connections, to support
technology-based businesses and potentially to pursue new revenue streams.
C.3. Focus on recruitment and “buy local” community marketing on consumer spending
segments in which there is significant “leakage” and also a strong possibility of
recapturing spending.
C.4. Employ strategic marketing opportunities to attract consumer spending from
beyond Edmonds.
C.5. Pursue available incentives to foster appropriate redevelopment, where possible.
C.6. Encourage longer hours of business operation and/or more evening uses in the
business districts to add options during “peak” hours of consumer spending.
Economic Development Goal D. Support and enhance the community’s quality of life for
residents, workers and visitors in order to sustain and attract business and investment, and
enhance economic vitality.
D.1. In concert with the Housing Element’s Goals and Policies, pursue a housing
strategy that seeks to accommodate a wide variety of housing options, both in
design and affordability, to meet the demands of the full range of the working
population, retirees, students, artists, et al.
D.2. Recognizing the value of a progressive community in retaining and attracting
business, continue to foster an open and accepting community culture that respects
diversity.
D.3. Support and enhance social, cultural, artistic, recreational and other learning
activities for residents, workers and visitors.
D.4. Pursue efforts to communicate with the public about the value of economic vitality
in sustaining the City’s quality of life, services and amenities.
Packet Page 425 of 549
Economic Development 114
D.5. Integrate programs and activities related to economic prosperity with objectives
related to environmental sustainability, social and political equity, and cultural
engagement.
Economic Development Goal E. Expand and enhance the tourism sector to attract outside
spending to help fuel the local economy.
E.1 Continue to support existing, and provide support to new, events and festivals that
attract visitors.
E.2. Continue to support and enhance the arts/culture sector and the visitors that
arts/culture events and activities attract.
E.3. Support and enhance sporting, nature, and other outdoor events and activities that
attract visitors.
E.4. Strategically employ marketing media and resources to attract visitors. An overall
marketing strategy should include a variety of traditional marketing, online
marketing, earned media presence and use of social media.
E.5. Market Edmonds as a year-round destination for its waterfront location, historic
downtown, arts community and venues, eating and drinking establishments,
international shopping and dining, natural amenities, gardens and flower displays,
parks and recreational assets, etc.
E.6. Support the tourism infrastructure, including visitor amenities such as public
restrooms, the visitors’ center, way-finding signage, enhanced waterfront
accessibility etc.
E.7. Support efforts to enhance the hospitality infrastructure, including potential for an
increased number and/or wider range of lodging establishments Downtown, in the
medical services district on Highway 99, and/or in other business districts.
Implementation
The policies in this document were constructed to provide a supportive foundation for future
economic development projects, legislation and decisions. Implementing the city’s policies will
require cooperative involvement on the part of the City, other public entities, and business and
community organizations.
As stated throughout this chapter, economic development in Edmonds could require a variety of
measures on the part of the City and other entities, including such measures as:
x Staff support, outreach and actions in support of business attraction and expansion, as
well as promotion of investment and development
x Legislative actions (such as decisions related to zoning, incentives, fees and taxes,
permit/business requirements, etc.)
Packet Page 426 of 549
Economic Development 115
x City expenditures on such things as amenities and infrastructure, and potential property
acquisition
x Actions by the Port of Edmonds to attract and expand marine-related business and
activity
x Programs provided by Edmonds Community College that support work-force
development, job readiness, job placement, etc.
x Collaborative efforts between the Chamber, City and other entities to create and enhance
a positive, business-friendly environment
In addition, as part of a larger regional economy, the City of Edmonds and its partners must continue
to work actively with regional economic development organizations such as the Economic Alliance of
Snohomish County, the Snohomish County Economic Development Department, the Greater Seattle
Trade Alliance, the Washington Economic Development Association, the Puget Sound Regional
Council, the Prosperity Partnership, and the Washington State Department of Commerce, among
others.
Strategic Action Plan
After approximately two years of work on the part of staff, consultants, the Economic Development
Commission, and Councilmembers, together with substantial public involvement, on April 2, 2013
the Edmonds City Council approved the City’s Strategic Action Plan (SAP). The plan identifies both
short-term (3-5 years) and mid-term (5-10 years) community strategic objectives, as well as specific
action tasks and responsible participants, schedules and performance measures to achieve them.
The SAP is organized into five general strategic objectives:
1. Create economic health, vitality and sustainability
2. Maintain, enhance and create a sustainable environment
3. Maintain and enhance Edmonds’ community character and quality of life
4. Develop and maintain a transportation and infrastructure system to meet current and
future demand
5. Provide responsible, accountable, and responsive government
Each strategic objective is further subdivided into 88 specific action items to achieve implementation.
Strategic Objective 1, as mentioned above, is most directly involved with economic development
through a series of action items related to general economic sustainability, marketing of business
districts, promotion of business development, business outreach and development and a series of land
use standards and design guidelines intended to foster investment and appropriately scaled
redevelopment.
Packet Page 427 of 549
Economic Development 116
However, additional action items (for a total of 22) related to economic development can be found
throughout the SAP, illustrating the importance of economic development in the City’s strategic
direction.
As mentioned above, the SAP spans action items that can be worked on immediately to those that
may take many years. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on all participants to begin the process of
implementation.
Implementation is scheduled to begin in 2015 pursuant to a Council-approved implementation plan.
Notwithstanding all the above, the SAP does not enshrine the totality of economic development
activities to be pursued by the City and its partners. Strategic economic development initiatives, in
response to the bulleted items stated earlier will need to be pursued on an on-going basis. These
initiatives will in many cases be complementary to action items identified in the SAP.
Performance Measures
Economic development is a tireless activity in pursuit of enhanced economic vitality that is often
more influenced by exogenous economic factors than local actions. For this reason it is difficult to
measure on a year-to-year basis the performance of the actions of a local agency and its partners on a
community’s economic health. Did an increase in business activity, home starts or jobs result from
local programs, incentives and/or outreach or would those economic successes have arisen otherwise
in a booming economy? Conversely, do lower sales, higher unemployment and a sagging
construction sector reflect on unsuccessful local economic development programs or more respond to
a regional, national or even global economic down-turn?
Whether or not economic success or failure can be attributed to any local actions, it is insightful and
informative to monitor the local economy’s performance and to attempt to steer economic
development strategies in response.
To this end, one of the two most basic performance measures related to a local community’s
economic health is growth or decline in overall employment.
What’s more, in its adopted planning growth targets Snohomish County has allocated 2,269 new jobs
to the City of Edmonds for the planning horizon of 2035. While job growth does not follow a straight
line year over year, this 20-year planning target provides a good index to gauge annual job growth in
Edmonds.
The Comprehensive Plan contains a small number performance measures (no more than one per
element) that can be used to monitor and annually report on the implementation and effectiveness of
the Comprehensive Plan. Performance measures, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, are
specific, meaningful, and easily obtainable items that relate to sustainability and can be reported on an
annual basis. They are intended to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and policy
direction of each major Comprehensive Plan element. {Note: The measure identified below is
specifically called out as matching the above criteria and being important to economic development
goals and will be reported annually, along with performance measures for other Comprehensive Plan
elements. It is not intended to be the only measure that the City may use for economic development
purposes.
Packet Page 428 of 549
Economic Development 117
Performance Measure: Report the number of jobs within the City each year with a goal of
reaching 13,948 jobs, excluding jobs within the resource and construction sectors, by
2035. This would require adding approximately 95 jobs annually from 2011 to 2035.
Packet Page 429 of 549
Wh
a
t
i
s
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
?
Ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C ou
n
c
i
l
,
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
:
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
w
e
l
l
b
e
i
n
g
o
f
a
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
th
r
o
u
g
h
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
t
h
a
t
e
n
t
a
i
l
j
o
b
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
j
o
b
r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
,
t
a
x
ba
s
e
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
l
i
f
e
.
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
c
a
n
b
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
a
s
“t
h
e
c
i
t
y
’
s
g
o
a
l
s
,
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
f
o
r
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
lo
c
a
l
e
c
o
n
o
m
y
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
l
i
f
e
.
”
Packet Page 430 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
January 21, 2015
The Citizens Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair
Witenberg in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Bruce Witenberg, Chair
Kevin Garrett, Vice Chair
Jenny Antilla
John Dewhirst
Darrol Haug
Jamie Reece (arrived 6:09 p.m.)
John Rubenkonig
Michael Schindler
Rich Senderoff
Darlene Stern
Douglas Swartz
Teresa Wippel
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Roger Hertrich
Nicole Hughes
Debbie Matteson
PLANNING BOARD LIAISON
Phil Lovell
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Councilmember Joan Bloom
STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Cindi Cruz, Program Coordinator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. OPENING REMARKS
Chair Witenberg reported Commissioner Matteson has an excused absence. He reported the Council has
tentatively scheduled interviews for the vacant Council position on February 17 and 18. Recognizing that
Commissioners may want to apply for the vacancy or attend the interviews, the February 18 CEDC
meeting was tentatively rescheduled to Monday, February 23.
2. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA – None
3. APPROVAL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17,
2014
COMMISSIONER DEWHIRST MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RUBENKONIG,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 2014. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Commissioner Reece was not present for the vote.)
4. ELECTION OF 2015 CHAIR & VICE CHAIR
Chair Witenberg described the procedures for election of Chair and Vice Chair, advising those elected
will serve a one year term commencing with the conclusions of this meeting and lasting until the
conclusion of the January 2016 meeting, assuming the Council extends the current December 31, 2015
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
January 21, 2015
Page 1
Packet Page 431 of 549
sunset date of the CEDC. He advised neither he nor Vice Chair Garrett would accept a nomination as
Chair or Vice Chair. He opened nominations for the position of Chair.
COMMISSIONER GARRETT NOMINATED MICHAEL SCHINDLER AS CHAIR. COMMISSIONER
STERN SECONDED THE NOMINATION.
There were no further nominations and Chair Witenberg closed nominations for Chair.
NOMINATION OF MICHAEL SCHINDLER AS CHAIR CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair Witenberg opened nominations for Vice Chair.
Commissioner Haug thanked Vice Chair Garrett and Chair Witenberg for their leadership during the past
year.
COMMISSIONER HAUG NOMINATED JOHN RUBENKONIG AS VICE CHAIR. COMMISSIONER
GARRETT SECONDED THE NOMINATION.
There were no further nominations and Chair Witenberg closed nominations for Vice Chair.
NOMINATION OF JOHN RUBENKONIG AS VICE CHAIR CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. STATUS OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS UPDATES INCLUDING HOUSING, LAND
USE, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Comprehensive Plan update is due mid-2015.
Due to limited time and resources, the intent is to be focused and concise and not create a new plan but to
improve, update and modify the existing plan where appropriate. The process is an element by element
review, providing opportunity for public input, and ultimately all the elements will be considered together
along with public hearings prior to final adoption. The Sustainability, Housing, and Land Use Elements
have been reviewed so far; the Economic Development element is the next element to be reviewed. She
advised of an open house on the Comprehensive Plan update on February 25.
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained this draft follows the
same format as the existing Economic Development Element. The goals and policies have been updated
based on input from staff, a CEDC subcommittee, and the CEDC. He updated the narrative to reflect
current demographics such as income, sales, jobs, etc. as well as updated the implementation section to
reference the Strategic Action Plan. The performance measure is related to employment; Snohomish
County has allocated 2,269 new jobs to Edmonds for the planning horizon of 2035. The final draft of the
element that incorporates the CEDC’s comments will go to the Planning Board next Wednesday and to
the City Council in February.
Mr. Doherty and Ms. Hope responded to questions and discussion ensued regarding how the Economic
Development Element is implemented, plans for an annual report on implementation, revisions to the
Comprehensive Plan limited to once a year with minimal exceptions, required Comprehensive Plan
update every 8 years, examples of implementation, actions by the Port to attract business activity,
tracking/measuring how code changes affect business inquiries, how City services affect quality of life,
revenue generated by the hospital, sales tax generated by car sales, new car dealerships’ trade areas,
volatility of revenue from vehicle sales revenue, retail leakage, and available parcels in Edmonds’ portion
of Highway 99.
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
January 21, 2015
Page 2
Packet Page 432 of 549
Mr. Doherty commended the CEDC on the great process to review the Economic Development Element.
Vice Chair Garrett asked staff to keep the Commission informed regarding the Planning Board’s and City
Council’s review of the element.
6. HIGHWAY 99 TASK FORCE UPDATE
Commissioner Rubenkonig explained the Highway 99 Task Force has been meeting for several years; he
is a newcomer to the group. A short length of Highway 99 is located within City; the hospital district at
the north end and Burlington Coat Factory property at the south and smaller parcels in between. The Task
Force discusses topics such as the likelihood of a new tenant at Top Foods and updates on the hospital
and the Burlington property. Council President Fraley-Monillas also attends the meetings.
Mr. Doherty referred to two key properties, the Burlington Coat Factory property and the Behar property
at 220th. The two uses on the Burlington property occupy less than half the site. There are plans for a new
restaurant at the corner of the Behar property and conceptual plans for the remainder of the site.
Tomorrow Finance Director Scott James and he are meeting with Carl Zapora, Verdant, to discuss plans
for their property.
Ms. Hope added the Task Force also discussed funds appropriated by the City Council for a Highway 99
Plan which will begin in late 2015. Discussion followed regarding the potential sale of the Edmonds
Conference Center, ownership of the Conference Center by Edmonds Community College, whether the
Edmonds Conference Center is required to be available for public use, and interest in having the building
continue to be a community resource.
7. BUSINESS DISTRICTS ENHANCEMENT SUB-GROUP UPDATE
Commissioner Rubenkonig reported the subgroup’s recent meeting included discussion regarding:
• Draft Economic Development Element
• Westgate and what area of the City to consider next; the most likely being Five Corners.
o Five Corners is relatively close to the Hospital District. What could be done in Five Corners
to provide housing that would be more affordable for hospital employees
• Requiring frontage improvements, roads, utilities when properties develop/redevelop
• Developing a business website
The Commission discussed how to move forward with a plan for Five Corners, Commissioners
familiarizing themselves with the UW Green Future Lab’s proposal for Five Corners, the City’s current
reactive versus proactive approach to planning, next step in the process for Five Corners and developing a
vision and plan for Five Corners to attract developers.
8. TOURISM & VISITORS SUB GROUP UPDATE
Commissioner Dewhirst reported the sub group’s February 3 meeting will include discussion regarding
projects for 2015, past activities/accomplishments, and updates on projects such as downtown restrooms.
The sub group is seeking new members and he invited Commissioners to inform him of ideas for
potential projects. He has heard some interesting things when inquiring in the community about ways to
enhance Edmonds for visitors and residents.
Chair Witenberg referred to an email from Greg Urban, Chamber of Commerce, and his offer for their
Economic Development Committee to provide a quarterly report to the CEDC to coordinate efforts.
Mr. Doherty reported lodging tax funds must be used to promote tourism, events and advertising. The
City contracted with Ellen Hyatt to assist with the Strategic Plan and this week she delivered a strategic
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
January 21, 2015
Page 3
Packet Page 433 of 549
advertising plan. That plan and staff’s research found the need for not only a regional presence to attract
day trippers but to attract visitors from further away such as Canada. He also reported:
• The new tourism website and Facebook page have been up since early December
• The tourism website contains a new, more concise video narrated by Rick Steves
• Edmonds was not selected to host the Washington State Historic Conference in May; he will
continue to attract them in the future unless the reason is not enough hotel rooms
• An investment group is interested in building a boutique hotel in downtown Edmonds
• Cindi Cruz and Ellen Hyatt plan to a presentation to Canadian organizations that bring charter
buses and shoppers to Edmonds
A brief discussion followed regarding ability for Canadians to take the train to Edmonds, and the outlet
mall attracting visitors from Canada.
9. CONTINUE BRAINSTORMING IDEAS TO CONSIDER FOR 2015
Commissioners who were not present at the December 17 meeting suggested the following topics:
• Public restrooms downtown
• Sculptures throughout the City
• Tackle items on Strategic Action Plan
• Car rental company – Zip Car, Car-to-Go
Discussion followed regarding the Tourist Sub Group’s efforts regarding downtown restrooms, cost of
maintaining public restrooms, partnering with other organizations on maintenance, offering provision of
public restrooms to a developer as an incentive, Council decision not to fund temporary restrooms, and
inclusion of restrooms in the CIP.
Chair Witenberg requested subgroups identify what they wanted to work on in 2015 and report at the next
CEDC meeting.
9. CEDC COMMISSIONERS/LIAISON/STAFF
10. COUNCIL LIAISONS' COMMENTS
Councilmember Bloom reported Councilmembers Petso and Mesaros are the new liaisons to the CEDC;
she is filling in for Councilmember Petso.
11. PLANNING BOARD UPDATE
Phil Lovell Planning Board reported on the Planning Board’s activities:
• Continue to review Comprehensive Plan elements. Staff is doing an incredible job providing
edited and clean copy of the update.
• Planning Board also acts as Parks & Recreation Board; Ms. Hite recently provided highlights
regarding parks:
o Five Corners artwork installed
o Edmonds Marsh received $157,000 grant to create 60% design and to begin permitting for
daylighting Willow Creek, outfall in Marina Beach and developing Marina Beach Master
Plan
o Yost Pool had an excellent year
Replaced boiler
YMCA operated the pool during the 2014 season; consideration being given to expanding
that partnership
o City Park volunteer effort to install new playground
o City Park spray park redesigned
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
January 21, 2015
Page 4
Packet Page 434 of 549
Will have a water treatment/recirculating system
Construction this spring
o Fields at the former Woodway High School
Cost: $4.2 million
Cooperating with Edmonds School District (ESD) on development
Design in place for two multiuse turf fields and track
Construction begins in the spring
Partnership with ESD for maintenance.
o Civic Stadium
City in discussion with ESD, the current owner, about acquiring the property including
Boys & Girls Club building
A Master Plan will likely be created
o Veterans’ Plaza
Council approved a plan Tuesday night
Will need to coordinate with the Garden Market
o A subcommittee has been discussing the potential of a Metropolitan Parks District (MPD), a
separate taxing district that would fund and operate parks and recreation
o Over 90% of park levies in surrounding cities have passed in recent years
Discussion followed regarding how the fields at the old Woodway High School could enhance sports
tourism and attract tournaments.
11. PORT OF EDMONDS UPDATE – None
12. MISCELLANEOUS
Commissioner Reece suggested contacting blogs that list places to go and request the inclusion of sites in
Edmonds such as Marina Park and City Park. Mr. Doherty described a feature on the new website that
lists top five things to do under many headings.
Commissioner Antilla suggested a brass band competition at various parks.
Commissioner Haug explained the CEDC serves at the pleasure of the Council and direction is provided
via the ordinance. The Council revised the sunset clause once; the CEDC is due to sunset again at the end
of 2015. He suggested initiating discussion with Council, possibly via the new Council liaisons, regarding
the role of the CEDC, what the Council wants the Commission to do this year and what they envision if
the sunset clause were removed.
Chair Witenberg acknowledged the support he and the CEDC has received from current and former staff
members. He thanked Vice Chair Garrett and Commissioners for their hard work, perseverance and
dedication to economic development issues facing the community. He acknowledged the support and
encouragement Commissioners have provided him in the last 2½ years during his leadership role. He
expressed his confidence in Mike Schindler and John Rubenkonig.
13. AUDIENCE COMMENTS – None
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
January 21, 2015
Page 5
Packet Page 435 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Special Meeting
February 23, 2015
The Citizens Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair
Schindler in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Michael Schindler, Chair
John Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Jenny Anttila
John Dewhirst
Darrol Haug
Roger Hertrich (arrived 7:06 p.m.)
Debbie Matteson
Jamie Reece
Rich Senderoff
Darlene Stern
Douglas Swartz
Teresa Wippel
Bruce Witenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Julaine Fleetwood
Kevin Garrett
Nicole Hughes
PLANNING BOARD LIAISON
Phil Lovell
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Councilmember Lora Petso
PORT OF EDMONDS LIAISON
Bruce Faires
STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
PUBLIC PRESENT
Ron Wambolt
Stephen Clifton
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS PRESENT
Chair Schindler advised Commissioners Garrett and Fleetwood have excused absences.
2. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Chair Schindler requested the agenda be amended so that Item 15 followed Item 5.
3. APPROVAL OF EDC MINUTES
COMMISSIONER STERN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTESON, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 2015. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Commissioner Hertrich was not present for the vote.)
4. OPENING COMMENTS FROM CHAIR MIKE SCHINDLER
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
February 23, 2015
Page 1
Packet Page 436 of 549
Chair Schindler relayed Julaine Fleetwood was appointed to the EDC by Council President Fraley-
Monillas. He thanked Commissioners Witenberg and Garrett for their foundational work over the past 18
months as Chair and Vice Chair. The EDC has 10 months to make it apparent to the City Council why the
EDC exists, what its purpose is and what it can offer the Council and the City. Subcommittees will be
providing pulse reports at each EDC meeting; he urged Commissioners to take their positions seriously
and put in the necessary hard work. In response to his inquiry, the Council liaisons have shared their
thoughts about the purpose of the EDC. He summarized the EDC has 10 months to give the Council a
reason to keep the EDC in place.
5. COMMENTS FROM CO-CHAIR JOHN RUBENKONIG
Vice Chair Rubenkonig thanked Commissioners for serving and encouraged them to present ideas; if their
voices are not heard, the opportunity provided by serving on the Commission is wasted. Commissioners
are also ambassadors to citizens; a way to bring information to the City. If Commissioners believe the
EDC should be extended beyond the sunset date, he encouraged them inform Councilmembers that the
EDC is worthwhile.
15. PORT OF EDMONDS UPDATE
Port Commissioner Bruce Faires reported the Channel Marker is moving to Harbor Square Building 2
(formerly occupied by the Mexican restaurant) and will open in March. They are making considerable
improvements, enlarging the space and have signed a long lease. Mike Echelbarger made a presentation
to the Port Commission regarding the plans for the old Safeway property; he encouraged the EDC to have
Mr. Echelbarger make a presentation as their plans have an economic impact.
Mr. Faires reported moorage at the Port is fully occupied; there are spaces available in dry storage. The
Port and the Executive Director are members of the Snohomish County Tourism Bureau. After the
legislature’s decision several years ago to curtailed all funding for tourism promotion, a group developed
a proposal that is now in the form of House and Senate bills that would establish an organization funded
privately from all businesses in the State that are impacted by tourism; funds will be prioritized and spent
by the private organization and are outside the control of the legislature. Under the current proposal, the
State Department of Revenue will collect the funds that will be passed onto the private organization. If the
bill passes, it would initially generate approximately $10 million and $20 million in the future to be spent
on tourism promotion in the State.
With regard to the limited time to demonstrate that the EDC is worthwhile, Mr. Faires encouraged the
EDC to look at the original mission statement and criteria for EDC activities.
6. ESTABLISH MEETING DECORUM AND REVIEW ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER
Chair Schindler relayed the EDC will use modified Roberts Rules of Order. To provide some semblance
of order and allow voices to be heard, he asked commissioners to be recognized by the chair before
speaking.
7. PRESENTATION BY DOUG SPEE ON POST OFFICE PROPERTY
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained Mr. Spee’s building is a great example of mixed
use in the downtown area and incorporates things the EDC, City Council and public are interested in. She
acknowledged it was not easy to develop a design for the site.
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
February 23, 2015
Page 2
Packet Page 437 of 549
Doug Spee explained he came to Edmonds 1992, bought a couple houses on 3rd and Bell Streets and built
a mixed use building in 2001; it took him 3 years to get permit. When he learned the post office was for
sale, he made an offer and purchased the site and began discussing a lease agreement with the post office
due to their desire to reduce the post office from 8,000 to 4,000 square feet. As the development code
required commercial, his original permit was a classic mixed use in phase 1 with only the post office as a
commercial tenant. The site is very commercial on Main Street but morphs mid-block into residential.
He discussed potential code amendments with the Planning Board so that the first phase would make
more sense. After approximately a year, the Council approved three of the five amendments including
extending the designated street frontage into BD2. As a result the post office will be located where the
designated street frontage is required on the ground level and there will be ground level residential near
Bell Street where there is a more residential feel.
When the development code changes were approved, a process that took two years, he submitted an
application. Their initial design was 34 feet because his architect thought the additional height would be
approved because they were keeping the post office in the same location. When that design was rejected,
the structure was changed to concrete floors and wood on the top floor to fit within the 30-foot height
limit. There are no deviations from the development code.
He considered a hotel for phase 2; one of the hotel chains provided him their design template and work
began on a concept. When bad press spread about the design, he stopped working on it for a while. A few
months ago his architect began working on a phase 2 design that is within code; a classic mixed use
building, sharing the garage opening but with separate parking for commercial and residential, 26
apartments, and 3 commercial tenants approximately 2,600 square feet each including a restaurant on the
Main Street side with garage-type doors that open onto sidewalk. An Irish pub, Paddy Coins, is a
potential tenant.
He displayed a preliminary Main Street elevation where there is a 6-foot slope, 2 floors of residential
above commercial and an open seating area. He noted the City’s height limits result in boxy cubes; his
goal was modulation to create interest and avoid empty storefronts. This building will also have concrete
floors and cantilevered decks. He anticipated a March 1, 2016 opening. With regard to a hotel, he
reported the Hotel Group in Edmonds said he needed another floor in order for a brand name, 65-room
hotel to pencil. He provided the following information in response to Commission questions:
• Phase 1: 42 units, 850-1500 square feet, similar to the building at 3rd & Bell
• Phase 2: 26 units, some smaller units so more affordable, 700-1900 square feet, nice mix of
tenants. Did not want to do Ballard/Redmond tiny apartments.
• No water table issues in underground parking
• Main Street elevation has 6-foot slope to the corner
• Described how restaurant relates to sidewalk
• 17 commercial parking stalls in phase 1 which is more than the code requires, 24-25 total when
phase 2 completed.
• Separate parking for residential and commercial. Secure residential building and parking
• Mail drop off on passenger side
• Phase 1 will take 18 months, phase 2 will take 15 months
• Do not know who the commercial tenants will be except for the restaurant
• His next project will be reactivating a project in Redmond
• This is an example of how a 3-story building can be built within code but it is expensive
• With concrete structure, all walls are non-bearing, can change configuration within units (with the
exception of the top floor)
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
February 23, 2015
Page 3
Packet Page 438 of 549
• Differences between Edmonds and Redmond: Redmond allows 85 feet and provides developers
an opportunity to discuss a project with a planner to determine whether it meets code; that process
does not exist in Edmonds. He recommended the City giving planners more authority to sit down
with a developer and have an open discussion. Preliminary drawings are very expensive. Impact
fees are very high in Redmond, $10,000/unit.
Commissioners expressed appreciation for Mr. Spee’s long term view and his tenacity, and said his
building will be a great addition to the City. Mr. Spee invited Commissioners to contact him at
Edmonds2020@gmail.com or visit BUS Construction at 3rd and Bell. He summarized his experience with
City staff has great once he had a permit.
8. REVIEW THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained as an appointed
body, Commissioners are all officials of the City and are required to have Open Public Meetings Act
(OPMA) training. One of the biggest issues is a quorum of the group engaging in discussion outside a
noticed meeting which is a violation of the OPMA. He clarified “meeting” also includes email and
cautioned Commissioners not to reply-all to emails they receive to avoid entering into a dialogue. He will
email the PowerPoint created by the State and he requested Commissioners email him or Ms. Cruz when
they have completed the training.
Chair Schindler explained the powers and duties of the EDC are contained in the Board and
Commission’s section of the City’s website. In June 2009 the City Council passed Ordinance 3735,
which amended the Edmonds City Code, Title 10, adding a new Chapter 10.75 Citizens Economic
Development Commission. The Commission is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the
Mayor and City Council, and as appropriate to the Planning Commission, Architectural Design Board or
other Boards or Commissions of the City on such matters as may be specifically referred to the
Commission by the Mayor or City Council including but not limited to:
• Determining new strategies for economic development within the City of Edmonds
• Identifying new sources of revenue as a direct result of economic development projects for the
consideration of the City Council
The Commission shall deliver an annual report to the City Council in written and oral form on or about
the first meeting in December of every year.
Chair Schindler advised the final draft of annual report was prepared by Commissioners Witenberg and
Garrett and will be presented to the Council in March. Commissioner Haug asked whether the report
would be circulated for input by Commissioners. Chair Schindler answered no, it will be available to
view but not for comment. He said the subcommittees’ pulse reports would be used in the future to
prepare the final report. Commissioner Senderoff cautioned against the report including any editorialized
comments that did not reflect the entire Commission’s view.
9. REVIEW OF SUBCOMMITTEE PURPOSES
Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled the subcommittees have been modified over the years. The current
subcommittees are:
• Tourism and Visitor Services
• Business Districts Enhancement (originally Land Use and Business Incentives)
• Strategic Action Plan Implementation
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
February 23, 2015
Page 4
Packet Page 439 of 549
Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred to the list of subcommittee assignments. He cautioned against more than
seven Commissioners serving on any one subcommittee because that constitutes a quorum and requires
the meeting be noticed as a public meeting.
Mr. Doherty cautioned about Commissioners visiting a subcommittee meeting due to the quorum issue.
He suggested Commissioners email staff before attending an another subcommittee’s meeting.
Commissioner Matteson requested a list of EDC members, phone and emails.
Commissioner Witenberg described the Business Districts Enhance Subcommittee’s purview: land use,
business incentives, areas that are prime for redevelopment, input regarding the Comprehensive Plan
Economic Development Element, and streamlining the permitting process. In response to Mr. Spee’s
comments, Commissioner Senderoff suggested the subcommittee discuss the role of the Planning
Department in the concept development stage.
Commission Dewhirst described the Tourism and Visitor Service Subcommittee’s role: 1) identify and
study activities and services that bring visitors to Edmonds and expand activities/services for residents so
they spend more time in the City and in the process spend more money, 2) since the EDC has no money,
identify ways to accomplish things such as partnerships, and 3) advertise Edmonds.
Commissioner Haug explained the idea of Strategic Action Plan originated with the EDC. With the
assistance of a consultant, the City Council, Planning Board and EDC reviewed information and refined
the plan that was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The City hired a consultant who is working with
the leads to identify issues, what is moving forward/stalled, etc. The consultant will provide a report next
month that will be the foundation for moving forward. The City Council also approved funding for
software to track SAP elements. The SAP Implementation Subcommittee will reflect on what the
consultant did, roadblocks/opportunity, what is moving forward/stalled and begin to assess the EDC’s
role.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig summarized the duties of the subcommittees include:
• Writing white papers
• Researching merits of new sources of revenue
• Lobbying on official and endorsed EDC proposed sources to Council
• Being an ambassador, seek out potential for new actions to pursue or merits of ideas
• Exploring ideas, determining if they are worthwhile to pursue and if so, presenting them at the
monthly EDC meeting.
10. SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Chair Schindler advised Commissioners who were not previously on a committee were assigned to a
subcommittee. Commissioners interested in changing subcommittees were invited to inform Vice Chair
Rubenkonig or him.
11. THREE AREAS OF FOCUS FOR COMMISSION AS A WHOLE
Chair Schindler relayed the three areas of focus for the EDC:
• Tourism
• Redevelopment (identifying under-performing properties and assisting with improving
performance)
• Attracting new business
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
February 23, 2015
Page 5
Packet Page 440 of 549
The EDC’s primary goal is the economic sustainability of Edmonds – what can the EDC
present/advise/suggest that will add to the economic sustainability of Edmonds.
12. REVIEW OF COMMISSIONER ASSIGNMENTS FOR MARCH
Chair Schindler urged Commissioners to complete their assignments:
• Commissioners to identify a Student Representative for the Commission per Code 10.03
o Age 18-25 live in Edmonds or attend an Edmonds School.
o Submit student name to Mayor’s office
• Subcommittees identify their top two projects, what generational demographics they are
targeting, and plan to report in March
• Answer at March meeting how subcommittee projects will improve, 1) tourism, 2) economic
sustainability, and/or 3) attract new/retain existing businesses to Edmonds
• Speakers or topics like to see
o Chamber will make a presentation in March
• Business Districts Enhancements (BDE) and Tourism Subcommittees identify how or what
projects the Implementation Subcommittee can assist with and get that to the subcommittee by
month end
Discussion followed regarding the importance of giving the Student Representative an assignment/task
and encouraging him/her to interact with the EDC, economic development that targets the 18-30 age
group who have money to spend, inviting a high school DECA group/service group to talk to the EDC
about what is missing in Edmonds, inviting a high school class to think about sustainability and make a
presentation to the EDC, engaging the 18-25 demographic in the redevelopment of senior center into
community center via the SAP Implementation Subcommittee, and doing the legwork now for a high
school project next year.
13. COUNCIL LIAISONS’ COMMENTS
Councilmember Petso reported:
1. The EDC’s annual report is due the first meeting in December. If the Council extends the
Commission’s sunset date, she suggested changing the annual report due date to March 1 as the
Council is very busy in December with the budget, etc.
2. Citizens have expressed concern about noticing of subcommittee meetings. She read from the
Attorney General’s website: “While an argument can be made that committee may be required to
give notice only for those meetings where it takes testimony or public comment or exercises
decision making authority for the governing body, it would be prudent for committees to conduct
all their business in open meetings.” She suggested an easy way to address the issue of a quorum
and complying with OPMA was to notice all subcommittee meetings.
3. The Council will be discussing the Economic Development Element during a study session
tomorrow. Comprehensive Plan Elements are usually very general concepts; she relayed concern
the Economic Development Element seems like a work plan. As the Economic Development
Element is not a required element, she suggested the Commission consider whether to include it
in the Comprehensive Plan or to adopt an Economic Development Action Plan.
14. PLANNING BOARD UPDATE
Planning Board Chair Phil Lovell provided an update on the Planning Board’s activities:
• January 28 – No meeting due to lack of a quorum
• February 11 meeting
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
February 23, 2015
Page 6
Packet Page 441 of 549
o Reviewed Economic Development Element
Tendency by Planning Board Members to include things in the element that would be
more appropriate for the Strategic Action Plan
The goal is to make the Comprehensive Plan general, conceptual, universal and a basis
for more detailed plans.
Discussed improving the City’s economic sustainability by reducing energy costs. There
is a growing awareness that a lot of the City’s economic sustainability is dependent on its
physical status –facilities, buildings, land use and infrastructure
o Discussed Transportation Plan including its relationship with the CIP and CFP
• Extended agenda
o February 25 – Open house on Comprehensive Plan in the Brackett Room
o Future meetings will include discussion regarding the Tree Code, Cultural and Urban Design
Elements, Critical Areas Ordinance, and continued review of the Transportation, Economic
Development and Land Use Elements
o June 10 – Planning Board public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan
16. MISCELLANEOUS
Commissioner Anttila inquired about the Tree Code. Mr. Doherty explained the Tree Board made a
recommendation regarding the Tree Code. Review and recommendation by the Planning Board is
required for any change to City’s development regulations.
Commissioner Senderoff remarked a lot of trees are being cut in his neighborhood and he wondered if it
was due to fear of upcoming changes in the Tree Code.
17. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, reported he attended the Council interviews for the vacant Council position.
Councilmember Petso asked for suggestions about reducing retail leakage; there were few good answers.
Big box stores in surrounding communities and the internet make it difficult for small businesses. He
noted the change in 2009 to designation sales tax collection was beneficial to the City; the City receives
the sales tax for products that are ordered on the internet and delivered. The City’s Finance Director has
assured him the City is receiving the tax from those items. Mr. Wambolt suggested items that cannot be
purchased in the City be purchased and delivered by a business operating elsewhere in Washington so that
the City collects the sales tax. In response to a question, Mr. Doherty clarified the sales tax on vehicles is
collected where the paperwork is signed.
18. ADJOURN
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
February 23, 2015
Page 7
Packet Page 442 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
March 18, 2015
The Citizens Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair
Schindler in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Michael Schindler, Chair
John Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Jenny Anttila
John Dewhirst
Julaine Fleetwood
Randy Hayden
Roger Hertrich
Nicole Hughes (arrived 6:04 p.m.)
Debbie Matteson (arrived 6:07 p.m.)
Darlene Stern
Douglas Swartz
Bruce Witenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Kevin Garrett
Darrol Haug
Jamie Reece
Rich Senderoff
Teresa Wippel
PLANNING BOARD LIAISON
Phil Lovell
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Councilmember Lora Petso
PORT OF EDMONDS LIAISON
Bruce Faires
STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Cindi Cruz, Program Coordinator
Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. OPENING REMARKS
Chair Schindler advised that Commissioners Garrett, Wippel, Senderoff and Haug had excuses absences.
2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS PRESENT
3. APPROVAL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23,
2015
COMMISSIONER WITENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STERN, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2015. MOTION CARRIED (10-0-1),
COMMISSIONER HAYDEN ABSTAINED. (Commissioners Hughes and Matteson were not present
for the vote.)
4. WELCOME NEW COMMISSIONERS: JULAINE FLEETWOOD AND RANDY HAYDEN
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
March 18, 2015
Page 1
Packet Page 443 of 549
Chair Schindler welcomed Commissioners Hayden and Fleetwood and they described their backgrounds
and interest in economic development.
Chair Schindler reminded Commissioners to use their City email for Commission business and to check it
periodically.
5. DISCUSSION AND UPDATE ON EDMONDS SENIOR AND COMMUNITY CENTER
Senior Center Executive Director Farrell Fleming introduced John Osterhaug, Senior Center President,
and Alma Ohtomo, Treasurer. He recognized Roger Hertrich, Board Member and Phil Lovell, Vice Chair,
Strategic Planning Committee. He introduced Daniel Johnson, recently hired Campaign Director, and
described his involvement with Kingston’s Village Green project which includes a Senior Center, Boys &
Girls Club, Library and Community Center. Kingston’s project has a similar size budget and square
footage and with a population of 2,000, has already raised $6 million of the $8 million budget. Following
a selection process, the Senior Center Board chose Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Fleming provided the ESC’s mission, To enrich the social, physical, and intellectual well-being of
seniors and vision, To develop the full potential of every senior while connecting and strengthening our
community. He explained the community center is a gift from the Edmonds Senior Center (ESC) to the
Edmonds Community. What is unique about the development is the seniors are taking it on; the
membership very supportive of a community center.
He reviewed the ESC’s history and looking ahead:
• 1967 South County Senior Center begins offering programs
• 1971 HUD recognizes the Center as a national model for its multi-purpose approach
• 1972 City owns no waterfront property
• 1973 City acquires waterfront property (2 buildings) via HUD grant and City match
• 1980 Major grant allows construction to connect the two buildings
• 2007 Structural study finds it would be cost prohibitive to retrofit existing building ($3 M+)
• 2008 Governance overhaul empowering membership
• 2014 City of Edmonds endorses (via resolution) ESC to demolish existing building and
construct community center
• 2017 50th anniversary and proposed date to break ground/open new community center
He described the need
• Aging population trend
o Over 65
19.1% Edmonds
10.3% Snohomish County
12.3% State of Washington
o Median Age
46.3 Edmonds
37.1 Snohomish County
37.3 State of Washington
• Structural issues with current building
• Preserve rare waterfront property for public use
• Limited space for vital programming in Edmonds
He reviewed project goals:
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
March 18, 2015
Page 2
Packet Page 444 of 549
1. Construct a new state of the art, sustainable, model community facility that serves citizens of all
ages. Intent is for the building to function as a senior during the day (8 a.m. – 4 p.m.) and a
community center in the late afternoon/evening (4 – 10 p.m.)
2. Offer a range of dynamic & engaging programs emphasizing health and wellness
3. Protect and preserve the rare waterfront property
He displayed a conceptual site plan and floor plan (prepared by two architects) that includes a hall that
will seat 240 (tremendous potential for rentals). The community center will offer a variety of dynamic
health and wellness, recreation and education programs for seniors and the community including the
Bastyr Clinic, UW Healthy Brain Initiative, and regional cold weather shelter for the homeless.
Mr. Fleming described shoreline protection:
• Meet/exceed Shoreline Management Program
• Setbacks
• 30% view corridor
• Maintain height guidelines
• Possible bulkhead realignment – enable beach access at high tide
Mr. Johnson reviewed estimated costs (vetted numbers):
Construction $8,820,000
Development $ 715,000
Other Costs $ 415,000
Total $9,950,000
He described fundraising:
Sector Goal
Leadership (individuals) $2,350,000
Board $400,000
Government $4,500,000
Foundations $2,050,000
Business $400,000
Community Campaign $300,000
Total $10,000,000
He displayed a $10 million Gift Chart that listed the gift range, number of gifts required, number of
prospects required, subtotal, cumulative total and cumulative percentage.
Mr. Fleming reviewed milestones achieved:
• Edmonds City Council and Snohomish County unanimous Resolutions support new center
construction on existing site
• Rose Cantwell and Diane Buckshnis sign on to co-chair capital campaign
• Campaign staff hired
• Board campaign launched
• City of Edmonds signs Option to Lease: 40/55-year Ground Lease for new building
He described public benefits of the project:
• Services for seniors provided by private nonprofit – saves taxpayers money (typically government
operated)
• New community center for residents of all ages built by ESC
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
March 18, 2015
Page 3
Packet Page 445 of 549
• New community amenities – meeting and event space
• Improved beach access
• Construction jobs
• Increased jobs for expanded programs
• Additional tax revenue from construction and ongoing
• Economic development in downtown
• Increased property values
• Will attract people and businesses to downtown
• Increased rental income
Mr. Fleming summarized reasons the time is now:
• Respected history
• Engaged membership
• Compelling need
• Extraordinary site
• Partnership with City
• Vision to serve citizens of all ages
• Improved economy
• Leadership – campaign co-chairs- Rose Cantwell and Diane Buckshnis
Mr. Fleming and Mr. Johnson responded to Commission questions regarding Edmonds Community
College’s projected use of the facilities due to their sale of the conference center on 4th & Bell, bricks as a
fundraiser during the public phase of the campaign, conceptual design, site constraints that dictate a
rectangular building, public process on the preliminary building design, intent for a design with a
Northwest flavor with a lot of glass to take advantage of the views, funds in the budget for maintenance,
City maintenance of the grounds, engaging youth in the design of the space and providing input regarding
programs, how the building fits into the grand scheme of waterfront development, utilizing the site as a
more effective resource for the community, ensuring the center continues to be welcoming for seniors,
continued programming during the year the senior center is off site, guarantee provided by the Option to
Lease and Ground Lease that the ESC will not be moved, the existing lease with the City and continuing
the $10/year ground lease with the City.
6. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: 1) AREA OF FOCUS; 2) TARGET DEMOGRAPHICS; 3) HOW IT
IMPROVES TOURISM, ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY, OR ATTRACTS NEW BUSINESS
a. Tourism
Commissioner Dewhirst reported the subgroup will not meet until next month so the following comments
have not been vetted by them but reflect what has been discussed in the past.
• Areas of Focus
1. Infrastructure (downtown restrooms)
2. Building on existing events and diversifying, primarily the arts and increasing activity on the
waterfront
3. How to attract people to Edmonds, make Edmonds stand out as a place to visit, spend the
day.
• Target demographics for the above three:
1. Everyone
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
March 18, 2015
Page 4
Packet Page 446 of 549
2. Edmonds is located between the two biggest tourist attractions in Washington – Seattle and
Boeing – need to get them off the freeway and into Edmonds. Focus is day trippers until more
hotel facilities are available.
• How it improves tourism, economic sustainability or attracts new business:
o Once get people to come to Edmonds, how to get them to stay longer and how to increase the
number of regional visits.
Port Commissioner Bruce Faires reported on a bill in the legislature that would create a mechanism
whereby a privately controlled enterprise, using the State revenue system, will assess tourism-related
businesses and the revenue generated will fund a tourism marketing campaign. The House Finance
Committee is considering SHB 1938, the bill that creates this mechanism. He encouraged Commissioners
to contact their legislators; Representative Cindy Ryu is on the House Finance Committee. Mr. Doherty
reported the City’s lobbyist has been directed to support that bill.
Mr. Faires reported the Port has signed a contract with Puget Sound Express to operate daily whale
watching tours for 50-60 people/boat from the Port. The Port of Seattle will market whale watching tours
out of Edmonds to national and international tourists. He estimated people going on the tour will eat one
meal in Edmonds. Chair Schindler suggested the Tourism Subgroup talk with the Port. A comment
followed regarding the number of entities working on tourism such as BID, City, Port, Chamber and the
Tourism Subgroup and a suggestion to consolidate their efforts.
Mr. Doherty reported the majority of tourism related activities are covered by the lodging tax, augmented
with limited funds from the Economic Development Department. Those expenditures are recommended
by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC). This year those funds are used for advertising, support
of events, and a consultant to prepare a strategic marketing plan to identify the audience and the best way
to reach them. In addition to advertising in specific locations, the LTAC authorized $21,000 for general
advertising. Recognizing with limited lodging, there is more potential for growing day trippers during the
shoulder seasons (spring and early fall) from places such as Vancouver BC, Seattle-Bellevue, etc.
With regard to restrooms, Mr. Doherty reported staff is actively researching the cost of a facility and
M&O including contacting other cities that have downtown restrooms. He noted downtown restrooms
have higher use and a higher expectation with regard to appearance, cleanliness, etc.
b. Strategic Action Plan (SAP)
Commissioner Stern advised a 2-page report will be distributed by Ms. Cruz. She provided an overview
of the SAP:
• Contains 88 items and is a roadmap for Edmonds
• Was approved by Council in 2013
• Understood to be a living document
• Report from consultant indicates 84 of the 88 action items have primary leads, 6 have been
completed, 70 are in motion and 12 have not started
• Some action items are very complicated, long term, financially challenging
• City purchased software to track progress, subgroup looking forward to software demo
• Important to keep the public informed regarding progress
• Request the Council delay approval of the SAP until the subgroup has an opportunity to review
the changes
• SAP includes senior center
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
March 18, 2015
Page 5
Packet Page 447 of 549
Mr. Doherty advised the report the consultant presented to the Council last week identified language that
needed to be clarified, implementation and worksheets for primary leads. The Council requested
additional time for review and continued discussion is tentatively scheduled for the April 7 Council
meeting. One of the consultant’s recommendations was to strike the language regarding relocating the
senior center due to language in the recently approved PROS Plan as well as the Option to Lease and
Ground Lease. Ms. Chapin clarified the public process to update the PROS Plan which started in June
2013, following the SAP, indicated residents were not interested in moving the senior center.
c. Business District Enhancements (BDE)
Vice Chair Rubenkonig reported on topics discussed at the subgroup meeting (topic advocate in
parenthesis):
• Business incentives (Senderoff)
• Incubator for startups, a possible way to bring clean technology industry to the City with the
possibility of attracting younger demographic (Rubenkonig)
• Website improvements (Doherty)
o The City’s website is tentatively scheduled to be launched next week
• Revisit UW study on Five Corners (several advocates)
• What are the deliverables of the above topics
• There is a perceived gap between what we want and what we have to achieve our wants
• Trends from real estate and business as it relates to land use
Vice Chair Rubenkonig reported he, Chair Schindler, Mr. Doherty, and Tim Sadler, an architect with
experience with startups and incubators, met recently to discuss start-up incubators:
• Professional people working from home who could benefit from a place with meeting rooms,
printing facilities, etc.
• EdCC is a resource that is underused. For example, EdCC has a certificate program in energy
management
• Boeing and its various spinoffs
• Tech companies
• Could Edmonds leverage its fiber optics system to attract tech companies
Mr. Doherty relayed his experience in Federal Way; for the amount of effort, attracting a larger business
to locate in the City provided a better return than assisting startups.
(Commissioner Matteson left the meeting at 7:22 p.m.)
Port Commissioner Faires said Ports are one of the biggest incubator organizations; the Port of Edmonds’
research found businesses that incubate in Edmonds move away when they expand.
7. COUNCIL LIAISONS' COMMENTS
Councilmember Petso inquired whether she was being asked to communicate to the Council President
that the EDC was requesting the Council not approve the SAP until the subgroup has an opportunity to
review it. Commissioner Stern answered yes. [See formal action taken under Agenda Item 10.]
Councilmember Petso referred to a report that provides 2014 sales tax revenue by area of the City. Mr.
Doherty offered to distribute the report to Commissioners. Councilmember Petso said in the interest of
greater formality and transparency, she plans to research at what point subgroup meetings need to be
noticed and minutes taken. She reported on the following:
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
March 18, 2015
Page 6
Packet Page 448 of 549
• Council Retreat
o Top priority for both City Council and staff was long range financial planning
o A boutique hotel in the downtown area was a high staff priority
• Her personal opinion is few people come to Edmonds only once; most people who visit Edmonds,
regardless of the reason, return.
• Strategic Plan
o Do not assume the public wants everything in the Strategic Plan. Some items that scored very
low such as a trolley may be pursued by another entity without a great commitment of City
resources.
o Some items scored well with a stakeholder group such as the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor,
but did not score well with the general public.
o Although the SAP is a living document, she cautioned against viewing it as to-do list.
o It has been nearly three years since the voter survey that the document is was based was done.
Consider when to resurvey voters.
8. PLANNING BOARD UPDATE
Planning Board Vice Chair Phil Lovell provided an overview of activities in last five months:
Topic Action Taken
CIP/CFP Plan and projects review and public hearing
Board approved and forwarded to Council with
recommendation for approval
ECDC to ECC code adjustment re: Animal
Provisions
Approved resolution in support and forwarded to
Council with recommendation
Comprehensive Plan Update
Elements Discussed:
General Introduction and Land Use Element
Housing
Utilities
Economic Development
Transportation and LOS Update
Culture and Urban Design
Introductions to various elements and staff reviews
Statistics and demographic date updates
Board member discussion, and modifications to
draft language
Added supplemental language and/or points
Concurrent reviews of these elements by City
Council being undertaken in parallel with Planning
Board reviews
Parks Recreation and Cultural Services
6-month Report to Planning/Parks Board
24 Elements/Activities reported by Director Carrie
Hite. Board reviewed, discussed and forwarded to
Council with endorsement
Draft Tree Code Introduction and early discussion based on work of
Edmonds Tree Board and resultant code drafting
with assistance of City staff
Edmonds Development Code Updating Staff briefings on goals and objectives, funding for
sub-consultant and introductory session with
consultant (Makers Assoc.)
Extended agenda:
• Work Calendar
• Loss of Mike Nelson to City Council
• Planned retreat in June
He described factors being considered with respect to each element in the Comprehensive Plan:
1. Provide statistical and demographic data updating
2. Maintain and enhance sustainability of Edmonds
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
March 18, 2015
Page 7
Packet Page 449 of 549
o Appeal and character of the City
o Environmentally and economically
o Enable managed responsible long term growth
3. Avoid excessively specific goals
4. Introduce/define a sensible metric for each element within the Comprehensive Plan
• Example: For Economic Development Element, measure employment in Edmonds
Notable items in the Parks Recreation/Cultural Services Report provided to the Planning Board include:
Marsh/Marina Beach Master Plan – Currently in progress with public input and including
Willow Creek Daylight
Five Corners Roundabout Sculpture – Completed concurrent with overall construction
Yost Pool – Boiler replaced. Negotiating with YMCA for ongoing
management services
City Park – Playground complete with redesigned “spray park” to
be installed this spring
Former Woodway HS Site Development – Funding targets achieved, construction of two fields
this summer
Civic Stadium – Currently negotiating acquisition with ESD; hope for
transaction this year
Veteran’s Plaza – Design completed with public input
Recreation Programs – Remain strong, with revenues increasing
Next year: Further discussion on MPD
concepts and review of Park Naming
Policy
Mr. Lovell described the Planning Board’s focus regarding the Edmonds City Code and Community
Development Update:
• Update code first, processes as necessary afterward
• Complete clear and understandable definitions
• Recognize and preserve character of the city
• Recognize diversity of neighborhoods
• Enable responsible and appropriate growth and development
• Encourage and facilitate environmental sustainability
He provided the Planning Board’s extended agenda April - June:
• Continued work on Comprehensive Plan
o Transportation Element
o Capital Facilities Element
o Review proposed 2015 Comprehensive Plan update (target public hearing in June)
• Continue code update work
o Critical Area Code
o Draft Tree Code
o Development Code
• Other as referred by City Council and/or staff
9. PORT OF EDMONDS UPDATE
Mr. Faires announced the Port Commission’s annual retreat on April 1 at the Port. The primary focus of
the retreat will be the long term financial model for replacing physical assets. The Port is financially
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
March 18, 2015
Page 8
Packet Page 450 of 549
stable and there are no financial operational issues. A brief discussion followed regarding the setbacks
and buffers in the City’s Shoreline Master Program.
10. MISCELLANEOUS
Chair Schindler requested Commission action regarding Commissioner Stern’s request for the Council to
delay review of the SAP.
COMMISSIONER STERN MOVED TO ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER DELAYING
APPROVAL OF THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN UNTIL AFTER THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT. COMMISSIONER
DEWHIRST SECONDED THE MOTION.
Discussion followed regarding opportunity for input over the last year, opposition to further delay, and
the SAP Working Group that worked with the consultant to update the SAP.
MOTION FAILED (1-8-2), COMMISSIONER STERN VOTING YES, AND COMMISSIONERS
DEWHIRST AND FLEETWOOD ABSTAINED.
Mr. Doherty reported Ms. Chapin, Ms. Cruz and he are working on the City’s 125th anniversary; events
are planned on August 11. He invited anyone interested in assisting or being a sponsor to contact one of
them.
11. AUDIENCE COMMENT – None
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m.
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
March 18, 2015
Page 9
Packet Page 451 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
April 15, 2015
Page 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
April 15, 2015
The Citizens Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair
Schindler in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Michael Schindler, Chair
John Dewhirst
Julaine Fleetwood
Kevin Garrett
Darrol Haug
Randy Hayden
Roger Hertrich (arrived 6:02 p.m.)
Nicole Hughes
Jamie Reece
Rich Senderoff
Darlene Stern
Teresa Wippel
Bruce Witenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
John Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Jenny Anttila
Debbie Matteson
Douglas Schwartz
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Councilmember Lora Petso
PORT OF EDMONDS LIAISON
Bruce Faires
STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Cindi Cruz, Program Coordinator
Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
PUBLIC PRESENT – None
1. OPENING REMARKS
Chair Schindler commented the EDC is a powerhouse team of leadership and he wants to leverage
everyone’s input so that good recommendations can be made to City Council. He plans to add
Commissioner Comments as an agenda item; an opportunity for commissioners to identify issues for
discussion at a future meeting, etc.
2. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
The following amendments were made at Chair Schindler’s request:
• Following Item 4, update by Mr. Doherty regarding Strategic Action Plan and Westgate Plan
• Following Item 9, add Staff Update
• Following Staff Update, add Decorum Update by Commissioner Haug
3. APPROVAL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2015
The following amendment was requested:
• Change vote on motion on page 9 to read, Motion failed (1-8-2), Commissioner Stern voting yes
and Commissioners Dewhirst and Fleetwood abstaining.
Packet Page 452 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
April 15, 2015
Page 2
COMMISSIONER WITENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STERN, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2015 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE UPDATE
Ms. Cruz advised there has been one applicant for the position; all Commissioners were provided his
application. He was unable to attend tonight but will attend the May meeting. Chair Schindler requested
an interview be scheduled on the May meeting agenda. Commissioners were encouraged to invite others
students who are Edmonds residents to apply.
4A. UPDATE ON STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN AND WESTGATE PLAN
Strategic Action Plan (SAP)
Mr. Doherty reported the Council originally approved the SAP in April 2013. To assist with
implementation and fine tuning the plan, funds were included in the 2014 budget to hire a consultant to
assist with that effort. The SAP Working Group was established to work with staff and the consultant,
Cynthia Berne. Ms. Berne’s work included technical and clerical updates, identifying and getting a
commitment from the primary leads for the action items, and creating worksheets for each item. She also
created a roadmap for 2-3 select items as an example. The 2015 budget included funds for Envisio
software to track the SAP. Following clarifications made to the SAP as a result of issues raised at
presentations, the Council approved the updated report, accepted the consultant’s recommendations which
include beginning implementation and next year engaging in a more comprehensive public based process
to update the SAP. Several action items have been completed and many are underway.
Westgate Plan
Mr. Doherty explained when the City Council considered the Westgate Plan in the fall, it was tabled until
the SR-104 Transportation Study was completed. That study has been completed and the Westgate Plan
was again presented to Council last week. The Council approved amendments that established a uniform
setback of 16 feet from SR-104 and 100th (staff’s recommendation was 12-15 feet), lowered the maximum
height limit in the QFC quadrant to 3 stories, established a minimum 30 feet of space not occupied by
parking on the 1st floor in mixed use buildings, and established a parking ratio for commercial of 1 space
per 400 square feet.
Mr. Doherty summarized now that the Westgate Plan has been adopted, property owners can make their
plans accordingly. Many of the businesses will remain the same; Bartell as well as the owners of the
vacant parcel near the carwash have expressed interest in development/redevelopment. In response to a
Commission question, Mr. Doherty advised other issues raised during previous Council discussions were
incorporated into the Westgate Plan such as requiring amenities spaces to be public and allowing an
additional 5 feet of height as an incentive for large format retail.
Port of Edmonds Commissioner Faires remarked Westgate redevelopment under the new zoning
parameters is an important element of economic revitalization. He suggested the EDC discuss what steps
it could take to further activity at Westgate consistent with the new plan. Discussion followed regarding:
• Other areas where redevelopment could occur that were identified in the SAP and whether the
EDC should review those and how they could be advanced
• Having staff provide an update in a year of what has occurred at Westgate, whether it was what
was hoped would happen, any unexpected consequences, or whether something was inhibiting the
intended concepts
Packet Page 453 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
April 15, 2015
Page 3
• There are two audiences for Westgate Plan, 1) developers, which the EDC does not have much
impact on, and 2) the public, where there is an opportunity for advocacy and positive outreach
and lay the groundwork for plans for other business areas
• Whether an action item needs to be added to the SAP regarding implementation of the Westgate
Plan
Mr. Doherty said there are no progress benchmarks/milestones in the Westgate Plan. It was agreed to add
discussion regarding the Westgate Plan to the May agenda including staff comment on the EDC’s role
and other areas that are identified in the SAP.
5 SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: 1. Final Two Areas of Focus; 2. Final Target
Demographic; 3. How It Improves Tourism, Economic Stability, or Attracts New Business.
** What Help Do You Need from Other Commissioners/Staff to Complete Your Area of
Focus?
a. Tourism
Commissioner Wippel reported she spoke with Parks & Recreation Director Hite about ziplines, an idea
raised by Commissioner Senderoff a long time ago. Ms. Hite said the Parks Department has discussed
ziplines; in general they do not generate much revenue although they can generate tourists who in turn
impact the economy. There is some controversy about ziplines; she referred to the negative reaction of a
neighborhood in West Seattle in response to a proposed zipline. Ms. Hite indicated the only location in
Edmonds that was large enough would be Yost Park; limited parking and a bird habitat do not make that
an ideal location. Ms. Hite did not see a zipline as being feasible. The only other big space for zipline
would be a county park. The subcommittee concluded it was not feasible at this time.
Commissioner Dewhirst reported on areas of focus:
1. Infrastructure that support tourism and the general population
o Downtown restrooms
o Signage in/around Edmonds; there is a lot, some of it is difficult to see and it’s uncoordinated
o Target demographic: everyone
2. Building on existing events and diversifying and getting that information out
o Target demographic: Daytrippers from Seattle/Bellevue north and Vancouver BC south;
encourage them to make more trips or stay longer
Commissioner Dewhirst advised the Tourism Subcommittee has gotten superb support from staff; the
only thing missing from the initiatives is money. One of the subcommittee members plans to meet with
the Port about ways to enhance/support whale watching trips. Mr. Doherty advised whale watching trips
were added to the City’s tourism website.
Commissioner Reece inquired about the possibility of a mobile vendor for kayaks and paddle boards. Mr.
Faires reported 12 years ago such a business existed at the Port for about 3 months/year for 3 years, The
Port has had discussions with potential vendors to provide that amenity but no one has expressed interest
due to the open waters and liabilities. Ms. Chapin reported the City had a similar experience when
exploring concessions for the waterfront; variable conditions often make the water too rough. Mr. Faires
relayed sailing classes for kids has been deemed inappropriate in Puget Sound because water conditions
make the liability and risk too high. Commissioner Senderoff remarked that type of business only works
when it is adjunct to retail or restaurant.
Commissioner Senderoff recalled during brainstorming a suggestion was made to engage the International
Community in a Chinese New Year celebration. Ms. Chapin said that was discussed with a number of the
Packet Page 454 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
April 15, 2015
Page 4
business owners when the Highway 99 lighting project was dedicated in January but there was no further
response from them.
Commissioner Stern suggested installing dance steps on the sidewalk to create activity between Main
Street and Walnut Street. Public Works identified what needed to be done and she is working on it.
b. Strategic Action Plan Implementation
Commissioner Haug reported:
1. Goal of SAP subcommittee (Commissioners Matteson, Stern, Fleetwood and he) is to find ways
to help with the implementation of the SAP
2. EDC is a listed participant in 15 of the SAP elements
a. Review to determine our role on work items
b. Make recommendations of which EDC sub group will be accountable for each element.
3. Subcommittee did a demo of the tracking system Council funded.
a. Initial training of Cindi and Patrick is scheduled for April 16
b. Based on Council actions the tracking system will be updated.
4. Council accepted the consultant recommendation for a facilitation process.
a. Subcommittee will review the recommended tasks and make recommendation of how best
the SAP subcommittee, other EDC committees, or the EDC as a whole will fit into the tasks.
5. Need to get the “worksheets” produced by consultant that have not yet been made public and see
what the various leads have outlined as tasks and timing for all 88 elements.
6. Council and Staff outlined their priorities for 2015 at recent retreat and formed several working
committees.
a. Subcommittee will look at these priorities and committees to see how they match up with
SAP elements.
b. For items matching or supporting the SAP, subcommittee will review how the EDC can help
develop public input to the process
7. SAP subcommittee not likely to be able to do all the things so how do we broaden our efforts?
a. EDC involvement?
b. Public involvement?
8. Subcommittee will develop some ideas on how to keep the public informed of progress
a. Hold public meetings?
b. Post subcommittee meetings?
Commissioner Stern pointed out the importance of informing the public about progress on the SAP. Mr.
Doherty pointed one the SAP is the informational boxes on the City’s home page and has been updated
with the most recent information. He invited suggestions for information to include.
Commissioner Hughes advised the Business District Enhancement Subcommittee discussed non-
traditional ways to get the word out such as Twitter, Facebook, and other electronic means. She suggested
the next meeting include social media or non-traditional means of communication to reach those who may
not attend a public forum, visit the City’s website, etc. A brief discussion followed regarding moderation
that may be needed on social media.
c. Business Districts Enhancement
Commissioner Hughes reported the subcommittee identified several areas of focus (Five Corners, startup
incubators, business incentives, year round farmers market, promoting businesses at Salish Crossing,
Hospital District tie in to Five Corners) but agreed on the following primary areas of focus:
• Five Corners
Packet Page 455 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
April 15, 2015
Page 5
o Target demographic: citizens, Planning Board, City Council, potential developers and
businesses
o Has potential to attract new businesses, expand retail
o Lessons learned from the Westgate Plan to help message more effectively, ensure adequate
public input, etc.
• Startup incubators
o Target demographic: very small businesses, entrepreneurs and developers and business
owners to support incubator environment
o Has potential to tie individuals into Edmonds
o Seeded businesses will grow to position of strength
• Business incentives
o Target demographic: discount on taxes, incentives for offering services/goods, local
businesses, potential businesses and developers
o Provides additional opportunities for businesses considering locating in Edmonds, retail,
family entertainment, services
o Code and legal implications need to work with staff on
The subcommittee will make a decision at their May 4meeting regarding their top area of focus. She
invited feedback on additional ideas, priorities, etc.
6. EDC CHARTER/SUNSET CLAUSE DISCUSSION
a. Discuss EDC Potential Proposal to Council to Renew EDC Charter, Pros/Cons of
Asking for Formal Resolution and Vote By council to Renew EDC Charge by
September 1, 2015.
Chair Schindler reported the EDC is scheduled to sunset in December. The issue has been raised whether
there is value in developing a formal proposal to Council asking for a resolution and vote by Council by
September to renew the EDC charter to avoid what happened when the EDC was originally sunseted and
ten members were lost. Discussion followed regarding:
• A Council committee (Councilmembers Petso, Bloom, and Fraley-Monillas and Mr. Doherty, Ms.
Hope and Mr. James) is evaluating the role of EDC including whether to split it into different
groups, establishing a different focus, sunseting, etc. Another committee is discussing staffing for
boards and commission.
• Support for preparing a formal proposal so EDC members know how long the commission will
operate.
• Knowing whether the commission is sunseting will have a major effect on how much effort the
subcommittees invest. For example, the SAP subcommittee’s work will not be done by yearend.
• Approach to monitoring SAP implementation this year is to use staff, EDC SAP subcommittee,
and software as a project management team and next year engage the public and consider a more
robust project management team.
• EDC has been in existence for five years, has done incredible work/heavy lifting. At least three
dozen citizens have been involved over the years. Large, diverse group has worked reasonably
well together.
• EDC was the recommendation of the 60 member Citizen Levy Review Committee.
Councilmembers and Mayor have input into the membership. It is important the EDC continues
to exist and to get an answer regarding its future from the City Council by September.
• EDC has done significant things in the time it has existed.
• Determine whether the Council is interested in allowing the EDC to sunset and if so, why?
• The Council will do what they will do. The EDC has a job to do; it is not time efficient to discuss
justifying its existence. Time can be better spent doing things to justify its existence.
Packet Page 456 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
April 15, 2015
Page 6
• Continue doing job, let Council go through their process and assume the EDC will continue.
• Prime reason EDC was established was economic development to help address City’s revenue
shortfall. It was determined the City had a revenue shortfall not an expense problem.
• Make the EDC so valuable no one would want it to sunset. If the EDC is not doing enough of
value, allow to sunset.
• EDC formed as an outgrowth of the Levy Committee to look at economic development but also
to decide what economic development is appropriate for the community’s values.
• Better work product results from people who devote their time in a secure work environment
• Staff will research whether original commissioners are eligible to continue if the EDC is extended
beyond 2015.
Chair Schindler summarized the options were, 1) the EDC continue its work and see what the Council
does, and 2) submit a formal proposal to Council requesting a decision by September regarding extending
the EDC.
Councilmember Petso relayed Council consideration of the EDC sunset will be scheduled sometime
between now and the end of year. She did do not think there was a Council majority to terminate the EDC
without the willful and voluntary participation of the EDC. If the Council committee recommended
restructuring into separate committees such as long range finance, tourism and business recruitment, that
would be presented to the EDC but she did not think there currently was any consensus to do that. It may
merely be a result of one person’s observations this is a large group and possibly different focuses or
structure would be more efficient. She relayed the Finance Director is interested in forming a long range
finance committee and may be interested in members from this committee. She anticipated the committee
will make a recommendation over the summer; she suggested commissioners forward ideas to the
committee members.
COMMISSIONER REECE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAUG, TO HOLD OFF
ON ACTION RELATED TO RENEWAL OF THE EDC PENDING RECEIPT OF A REPORT
FROM THE COUNCIL’S EDC REVIEW COMMITTEE. MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO
PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO COUNCIL AND STAFF. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. COUNCIL LIAISONS' COMMENTS
Councilmember Petso reported the Council is halfway through approving a Diversity Commission. She
envisioned a Diversity Commission will provide economic development opportunity as they will be
sponsoring events.
8. PLANNING BOARD UPDATE – None
9. PORT OF EDMONDS UPDATE
Port Commissioner Faires agreed better discussion and information flow between the Port, the City and
the EDC’s Tourism Subcommittee regarding Puget Sound Express whale watching would be a good idea.
They are running a few whale watching tours now and will officially be scheduling trips in Puget Sound,
Saratoga Passage and the Straits beginning May 23. There is a link to their website on the Ports website.
Commissioners commented on trips they had taken with Puget Sound Express.
Mr. Faires relayed the Port Commission’s primary emphasis during the last month has been the annual
financial analysis. He encouraged the EDC to revisit the UW’s plan for Five Corners now that the
Westgate Plan has been adopted.
9A. STAFF UPDATE
Packet Page 457 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
April 15, 2015
Page 7
Mr. Doherty reported:
• Following approval of the Westgate Plan, he is reaching out to property owners to explain the
new regulations
• A conceptual proposal for a hotel with retail and medical office space is being discussed for a site
on Hwy 99 near the hospital
• Initial work has begun on an ad campaign for general economic development associated with
bringing business to Edmonds
• He is contacting vendors about a holiday/winter farmer’s market (mid-November to weekend
before Christmas) in the City’s surface parking lot as part of the City’s 125th anniversary. Five
have expressed interest, seeking eight before move forward, total number would be fifteen
• Sponsors are being sought for the August 11 street party and dance for City’s 125th celebration.
Will include performers, historic reenactments, refreshments, speeches, and Sister City
delegation.
Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin reported although the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor was
not a high priority in the SAP, it was an area of great interest in the Community Cultural Plan which
followed the SAP. An interim project is underway to create a sense of connection between the Edmonds
Center for the Arts (ECA) and Main Street. Three artists presented designs; one design was selected by a
selection committee and the Arts Commission recommended approval to the City Council. She described
the project, LED solar light elements that are set into the asphalt to create a pathway glow at night along
the road between the ECA and Main. A public hearing is scheduled at City Council on May 5. She noted
this is an example of something that was a low priority in the SAP but was pursued by a group of
interested, passionate people.
9B. DECORUM AT CITY COUNCIL
Commissioner Haug relayed his understanding that unless a commissioner is representing the official
viewpoint of the EDC when speaking with friends and family, to My Edmonds News, Edmonds Beacon,
statements/letters to Council, etc. they are not to state they are speaking for the EDC. He referred to
incidents in the last few days regarding remarks made in public. Chair Schindler agreed it was important
for the EDC to speak as a body. Commissioners making comments need to disclose they are members of
the EDC but that they are speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of the EDC.
Councilmember Petso clarified her comments at tonight’s meeting are her thoughts as a Councilmember
and are not representative of the Council. Mr. Doherty reminded that elected and appointed officials
should not comment on the City’s Facebook page to prevent an unintentional quorum. Commissioner
Senderoff advised a member can provide a dissenting opinion to Council regarding an EDC
recommendation
10. MISCELLANEOUS
Commissioner Haug welcomed Commissioner Hayden and thanked him for joining the EDC.
Ms. Cruz advised Commissioners Rubenkonig, Anttila and Matteson have excused absences.
Chair Schindler invited commissioners to contact him with topics for the May and/or June meetings.
11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS – None
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m.
Packet Page 458 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
May 20, 2015
Page 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
May 20, 2015
The Citizens Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair
Schindler in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Michael Schindler, Chair
John Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Jenny Anttila
Julaine Fleetwood
Darrol Haug
Randy Hayden
Debbie Matteson
Jamie Reece
Rich Senderoff
Darlene Stern
Teresa Wippel (arrived 6:03 p.m.)
Bruce Witenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
John Dewhirst
Roger Hertrich
Douglas Swartz
Nicole Hughes
PLANNING BOARD LIAISON
Phil Lovell
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Councilmember Lora Petso
PORT OF EDMONDS LIAISON
Bruce Faires
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Cindi Cruz, Program Coordinator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
ALSO PRESENT
Adam Khan, Student Representative
1. OPENING REMARKS
Program Coordinator Cindy Cruz advised Commissioners Dewhirst, Swartz and Hughes have excused
absences.
2. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA – None
3. APPROVAL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2015
COMMISSIONER WITENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTESON, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2015. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Commissioner Wippel was not present for the vote.)
4. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE INTRODUCTION
Chair Schindler advised Commissioners were provided Adam Khan’s resume. Mr. Kahn, a University of
Washington student, described his interest in the EDC and engaging youth in civic activities. He
responded to questions regarding what he was interested in accomplishing on the EDC, his plans after
Packet Page 459 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
May 20, 2015
Page 2
graduation, and what he thought could be done to lower the average age of voters. He was encouraged to
provide a young person’s perspective, speak candidly about what can be done to keep young people in
Edmonds and how make local government more attractive to young people, as well as to join one of the
EDC subgroups.
5. COMMISSION VOTE ON STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT
COMMISSIONER STERN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WITENBERG TO
APPOINT ADAM KHAN AS STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE EDC. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. REPORT FROM EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - GREG URBAN, PRESIDENT &
CEO
7. SUB-GROUP REPORTS: 1. Two areas of focus; 2. How it improves tourism, economic
sustainability, or attracts new business; 3. Essential task list moving forward (what are your next
executable action items to accomplishing your two areas of focus)
a. Tourism
Subgroup meets every other month, no meeting in May.
Commissioner Senderoff reported on the movement in street art similar to murals that includes sidewalk
art, whimsical phrases and poems. It would be relatively simple to implement and may be something the
Mural Society would be interested in pursuing. Commissioner Reece commented on hydrophobic paint
used to paint on sidewalks; the image is only visible when wet. Chair Schindler suggested the Tourism
Subgroup discuss this at their next meeting. It was noted City approval may be required to paint on
sidewalks.
Commissioner Stern suggested the arts community collaborate with the BID to create a rotational concept
to create activity and interest downtown as well as for the 3rd Thursday walks. Commissioner Anttila
suggested an artist chalk weekend. Commissioner Reece suggested a street art connection to the Cascadia
Art Museum at Salish Crossing.
b. Strategic Action Plan (SAP)
Commissioner Haug described the development of the SAP. He provided 1) a list of SAP items with leads
for each item, and 2) a list of SAP items for which the EDC is a participant. He suggested a future
discussion for how/whether the EDC should pursue those items. He reported on Invisio software and
reports it can produce such as progress on actions items for which the Economic Development &
Community Services Department is the lead.
Commissioner Haug reported the subgroup has been discussing:
1. What role the subgroup and EDC wants to have in the SAP and where and how to do it.
2. Communications to public on what has been done to date and what is next.
• Commissioner Matteson requested for next month’s EDC meeting each subgroup identify
what they are working on, what they have been accomplished and what their goals are. That
information can be published as a report card to the public in My Edmonds News and the
Beacon.
• Commissioner Stern suggested the EDC identify its focus on SAP items the EDC is the lead
on such as mixed use development standards for Five Corners, 4th Avenue Arts Corridor,
Civic Fields and economic incentives
3. Recommend Business District Incentives Subgroup
Packet Page 460 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
May 20, 2015
Page 3
a) Advance all land use items in SAP especially Five Corners
b) Continue work on business incentives
4. Civic Field Discussion
5. Arts opportunities – mentioned seven times in SAP, much as been done and can be a showcase
for Edmonds
6. Advanced Utility – Edmonds Fiber Network, what’s next?
Discussion followed regarding concern Council action is needed on land use items, the EDC’s role in
advancing SAP items, public outreach to create momentum for SAP items, subgroups
supporting/advancing other items in the SAP, whether the EDC’s role is oversight of the entire SAP or
only items where the EDC is identified as the lead, and the EDC’s charter to identify revenue-generating
efforts.
COMMISSIONER HAUG MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER REECE, THAT HE BE
AUTHORIZED TO APPROACH CITY STAFF ON BEHALF OF THE EDC TO DETERMINE
WHERE THE BUDGET DOLLARS ARE FOR A CONSULTANT REGARDING FIBER AND
WHAT PROGRESS IS BEING MADE REGARDING HIRING A CONSULTANT.
Commissioner Senderoff offered a friendly amendment to obtain an estimate of the value on the open
market of the fiber that has been purchased but not yet installed. Commissioner Haug said he could
provide that information.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
c. Business Districts Enhancements
Vice Chair Rubenkonig reported Mr. Doherty requested the subgroup’s assistance with providing a brief
written description of the districts in the City, photographs, description of 2-3 primary businesses, etc. to
update the City’s website and assist with recruitment of businesses.
Commission Senderoff explained each business district has unique attributes and new businesses may be
interested in locating near certain attributes and/or the City may be interested in recruiting businesses
synergistic with certain business districts. The subgroup discussed adding this information to the City’s
website as well as the possibility of this morphing into a separate website for business recruitment and
further dividing up some districts such as Highway 99. Commissioner Rubenkonig reported Mr. Doherty
also provided the subgroup information about business recruitment methods. Ms. Hope explained the
intent was to determine interim, practical things that can be done to help attract businesses and advertise
things unique to Edmonds.
Discussion followed regarding utilizing the website for business recruitment to reach a wider audience,
the City’s GIS capacity, adding information such as zoning and existing structures, starting small with
information on the City’s website, ease of implementing this concept, the City’s recent upgrade of the
website platform that improved staff’s ability to make changes in-house, ways to promote the City, and
additional information that can be added in the future such as GIS overlays. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said
business districts will be assigned to subgroup members at their next meeting; the district descriptions
they prepare will be reviewed by the subgroup at the following month.
Potential items for the EDC to Support
1. Arts Theme
2. Civic Fields
3. Five Corners
4. Economic incentives
Packet Page 461 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
May 20, 2015
Page 4
Chair Schindler requested the subgroups discuss and report in June how the above four apply to their
subgroup and whether these are the four items the EDC wants to support. He requested subgroups also
discuss ways to update the public. Discussion followed regarding reporting incremental progress being
made on SAP items to the public, ways to communicate to the public, and allowing adequate time on the
agenda for subgroup reports and discussion. Vice Chair Rubenkonig requested each subgroup submit a
one-page summary of their meeting at least week before the EDC meeting so it can be distributed with the
agenda. Chair Schindler encouraged Commissioners to identify agenda items for EDC meetings.
Commissioner Wippel suggested a periodic column in the Beacon, My Edmonds News, etc. regarding the
EDC’s efforts with links to the City’s website as appropriate and encouraging the public to attend EDC
meetings.
8. COUNCIL LIAISONS' COMMENTS
Councilmember Petso reported the Council is looking at the possibility of acquiring the Edmonds
Conference Center. She invited Commissioners to share their input with Council regarding whether to
pursue acquisition. The Council authorized submitting a letter of interest prior to the June 1 deadline and
then has 10 days to submit an offer.
9. PLANNING BOARD UPDATE
Planning Board Member Phil Lovell reported the Planning Board has been reviewing:
• Update of the Comprehensive Plan
• Update of the Edmond Community Development Code
• Tree Code – public hearing on May 27
o Planning Board will use public hearing to gauge the public’s interest in the Tree Code
o The draft Tree Code is an attachment to past Planning Board agendas on the website
• Marina Beach Master Plan which includes daylighting of Willow Creek
(Chair Schindler left the meeting at 7:33 p.m.)
10. PORT OF EDMONDS UPDATE
Port Commissioner Bruce Faires reported:
• Puget Sound Express begins whale watching tours this Saturday
o Further information available on their website, www.pugetsoundexpress.com
o Port is discussing promotion of this activity with the Port of Seattle
• SeaJazz and Artists in Action start in June on Wednesdays and Sundays
• The legislature did not pass legislation proposed by Washington Tourism Alliance (A privately
controlled enterprise, using the State’s revenue system, would assess tourism-related businesses
and the revenue generated would be used to fund a tourism marketing campaign)
o It will be proposed again next year
o The legislature needs to be encouraged to approve it
o Washington does not have a Tourism Bureau
o Washington State tourism up 5% in 2014 over 2013, surrounding states were up 11%
11. COMMISSIONERS' CORNER - TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION.
Commissioner Anttila reported on the opportunity the City has to purchase the Edmonds Conference
Center, and its importance for arts, restrooms, and the long term vision for Edmonds. She commented on
Packet Page 462 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
May 20, 2015
Page 5
the ability to increase marketing of the center and potential users. She encouraged Commissioners to
discuss it with friends and family.
Councilmember Petso said she contacted Mr. Dougherty and Chair Schindler to ask whether the Council
needed to allow time for the EDC to discuss acquisition. It was agreed there was not enough time to wait
for the EDC to take action at its next meeting. Discussion followed regarding the difficulty for the EDC to
vote on a position tonight, size of the building and property, pros and cons of purchasing the building, the
cost of repairs and future use of the property and/or building. Vice Chair Rubenkonig encouraged
Commissioners to provide input to the Council.
Commissioner Reece reported two co-op preschools are losing their facilities next year due to school
construction. He invited Commissioners to inform him of any low rent space.
Commissioner Hayden expressed support for a periodic report to the public.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested having an EDC information booth at upcoming festivals. He reported
Highway 99 Task Force Members are taking photographs of interesting/attractive streetscapes in other
cities. He suggested Commissioners do the same and submit them to Ms. Hope.
Commissioner Faires commented the zoning in Westgate and Firdale has been changed. He suggested the
Business Incentive Subgroup consider investigating what could be done to make redevelopment happen
faster so increased revenue can be realized.
Student Representative Khan said the meeting was very informative and he had learned a lot. He was
excited about being appointed and he looked forward to the future.
Planning Board Member Lovell suggested Mr. Doherty talk to the Firdale Village property owner; one
person owns the entire parcel. The property owner hired an architect to prepare a Master Plan which was
reviewed by the Planning Board and approved by the City Council.
Councilmember Petso reported the City has a Streetscape Plan in the Comprehensive Plan; the current
proposal is to remove it from the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Hope clarified the Streetscape Plan will
become an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan currently contains many
separate plans. The intent is for the Comprehensive Plan to include the elements required by GMA and a
few other important elements and for other important plans to supplemental to the Comprehensive Plan.
The Streetscape Plan needs to be updated; there is not time to do that by the mid-year deadline. Vice
Chair Rubenkonig suggested Commissioners email Ms. Hope their comments about this topic.
Following a brief discussion, it was agreed to have EDC meetings during the summer months.
12. AUDIENCE COMMENTS – None
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
Packet Page 463 of 549
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
July 15, 2015
Page 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
July 15, 2015
The Citizens Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair
Schindler in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Michael Schindler, Chair
John Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
John Dewhirst
Julaine Fleetwood
Darrol Haug
Randy Hayden
Roger Hertrich
Nicole Hughes
Debbie Matteson (arrived at 6:01 p.m.)
Rich Senderoff
Douglas Swartz
Bruce Witenberg
Teresa Wippel (arrived at 6:03 p.m.)
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Jenny Anttila
Jamie Reece
Darlene Stern
PLANNING BOARD LIAISON
Phil Lovell
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Councilmember Lora Petso
PORT OF EDMONDS LIAISON
Bruce Faires
STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Cindi Cruz, Program Coordinator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. OPENING REMARKS AND ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Ms. Cruz announced Commissioners Stern, Anttila and Reece have excused absences.
2. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA - NONE
3. APPROVAL OF EDC MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2015
COMMISSIONER WITENBERG MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SWARTZ, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2015. MOTION CARRIED (11-0-1) COMMISSIONER
DEWHIRST ABSTAINED.
4. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
Chair Schindler reported on the following:
• Quarterly Communication Plan
Packet Page 464 of 549
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
July 15, 2015
Page 2
o Subgroup chairs submit a paragraph describing items they are working on to him or Vice
Chair Rubenkonig who will submit information to My Edmonds News and other media
quarterly.
• Update on Meeting with Council President
o Vice Chair Rubenkonig and he met with Council President Fraley-Monillas to discuss the
EDC’s mission and goals and how to better align the EDC’s work with the City Council. He
and Vice Chair Rubenkonig will report at a future meeting on ideas they are developing.
• Purpose of Commissioners’ Corner
o An opportunity for commissioners to identify items for future discussion.
• Guidelines for Subgroup Drop-ins
o Commissioners are welcome to attend and observe, but will not necessarily be invited to
speak. Be aware of quorum issue.
o No opportunity for audience comment at subgroup meetings. If dropping in on a meeting and
want to speak, inform the chair prior to the meeting
• Rules on endorsing candidates
o Welcome to personally endorse candidates, cannot endorse candidates as a commissioner.
Goal of the EDC is to stay objective and bring objectivity to items that are presented to the
Council.
Commissioner Hertrich referred to the use of the terms “mixed use” and “mix of uses” in the
Comprehensive Plan and suggested the EDC agree on a meaning.
5. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: TWO AREAS SUBGROUP WANTS HIGHLIGHTED IN PUBLIC
COMMUNICATION PIECE
A. Tourism
Commissioner Dewhirst reported staff plans to include a proposal for downtown restrooms in the 2016
budget. He referred to a memo that he generated to the EDC informing that the Tourism and Visitor
Services Subcommittee will be taking a hiatus pending direction from Council. Chair Schindler clarified
the goal was to align with the Council’s objectives for the EDC to avoid the subgroup spinning its wheels.
Several members of the Commissioner were disappointed that the Tourism Subcommittee will be taking a
hiatus. Discussion followed regarding disappointment the Tourism Subgroup was disappearing when they
have done good work in the past; the EDC continuing to generate ideas; and concern some aspects of
tourism are already being addressed by other groups.
Discussion followed regarding tourism subgroup members visiting other subgroup meetings; purpose of
the EDC to gather ideas that are then shared with the Council; tourism as an integral part of the EDC; the
goal to create better communication between the EDC and City Council; projects that emanated from the
EDC such as the Strategic Action Plan, Westgate and Five Corners Plans; ideas the Commission has
identified but have not been pursued such as dancing footsteps and sidewalk art; ideas the tourism
subgroup has generated without any action due to lack of funds and ownership; need for the EDC to flush
out and champion the best ideas; having each subgroup identify two ideas that can be communicated to
the public via the media; concern one subgroup taking a hiatus gives Council fuel to disband the EDC;
work done by the Tourism Subgroup such as written reports on B&Bs, the Farmers Market, and the
economics of tourism, assistance with the tourism website, downtown restrooms. disappointment the
Tourism Subgroup was disappearing when they have done good work in the past; the EDC continuing to
generate ideas; and concern some aspects of tourism are already being addressed by other groups.
C. Business Districts Enhancements
Packet Page 465 of 549
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
July 15, 2015
Page 3
Vice Chair Rubenkonig reported the subgroup meets the first Monday of the month. The subgroup has
been discussing business districts; the six members are drafting summaries of each business district that
Mr. Doherty will edit and post on the City’s website. He circulated a sample. Discussion followed
regarding noticing/posting subgroup meetings to avoid the quorum issue, concern with expanding
attendance at subgroup meetings when there was already not enough time for discussion between
subgroup members, and the original intent for subgroups to working groups that could meet as often as
they wanted.
Commissioner Hughes explained subgroup members are developing descriptive overviews of each
business district that describe the character of the district that will be available to prospective businesses
on the City’s website. The goal is for the summary/overview to be complete by the subgroup’s next
meeting, August 3. The districts include Highway 99 (Medical, International and Mainline) Waterfront,
Firdale, Westgate, Downtown, Five Corners and Perrinville.
Mr. Doherty referred to a list of Edmonds’ assets from real estate brochures that could be included in the
summary such as demographics, average daily vehicle traffic, transit lines, accessibility, etc. He explained
this is the first month the City is doing business attraction advertising in addition to tourism advertising.
He circulated an ad in Seattle Business Monthly that includes the website, YourBizInEdmonds.com. The
intent of the website is to attract new businesses to Edmonds; the description of the business districts
allows a business to consider which district would be the best fit for them.
Discussion followed regarding marketing business district’s unique qualities, information included in ads,
how the ads’ success is measured, and data accumulated via that effort.
B. Strategic Action Plan
Commissioner Haug reported:
• Data has been input into the SAP tracking system
o Information will be added as information is received from leads which will allow reports and
timelines to be generated
• In 2005 Edmonds gained access to 23 strands of fiber from WSDOT as part of a Homeland
Security project with the ferry system
o Fiber currently used for City services, Municipal Court video arraignment, and leased to both
government and commercial customers
o Initial startup costs have been fully repaid with revenues and savings and City enjoys a net
savings and revenue of more than $50,000/year
o City does not have full redundancy or 24/7 support
o Revenue potential of $150,000/year if fiber used to its full potential
o Extending the network is costly and it may not be in the City’s best interest to pursue hiring a
consultant to produce a business and marketing plan
• SAP Item 1b.2, attracting high tech businesses using fiber optics
o On hold due to lack of funds for a consultant to prepare a business and marketing plan. Funds
in 2013 budget were not used and were reallocated to other projects; funds will have to be
budgeted.
o If SAP leads do not have any alternative ideas, this item may need to be removed from the
SAP
Discussion followed regarding the market value of the dry fiber, upgrades required to increase the
financial value of the fiber to the City, and the expense of extending fiber.
Packet Page 466 of 549
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
July 15, 2015
Page 4
6. STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN DISCUSSION & Q&A
Commissioner Haug referred to the Executive Summary from the 2009 EDC Report to the Council and
identified progress on the six elements.
1. Ensure that the City’s economic development position can devote full time to economic
development activities and adequately fund proposed programs and activities. A focus of this role
is to continue to define and promote Edmonds’ brand. Has not been pursued.
2. Commit to developing/reviewing/updating a strategic plan every year, ideally corresponding to
the City Council’s annual retreat; this includes setting goals and continually assessing progress
metrics. Accomplished.
3. Initiate Neighborhood Business Center plans for Five Corners (Neighborhood Center) and
Westgate (Neighborhood Community Center) in order to position these areas to attract
redevelopment. Westgate Plan has been adopted.
4. Support the process to redevelop Harbor Square with public involvement that ensures a balance
between generating revenue and addressing environmental concerns. Accomplished.
5. Initiate and fund a business/marketing plan for the City-owned fiber optic network. See Item 5.
6. Develop a community vision that addresses a balance between quality of life and growth
objectives while furthering Edmonds’ “green” initiatives. Has not been accomplished other than
some items in the SAP.
Commissioner Haug reviewed SAP subgroups suggested topics for EDC discussion:
1. Completed Items of SAP – how to best communicate to public
a. Mixed use on Highway 99 (1a7)
b. Mixed use at Firdale Village (1a12)
c. Formation of BID (1b9)
d. Long term financial plan for Yost Pool (3a6)
e. Effective public communication (5b2)
f. View Preservation (3a7)
2. EDC input element – list distributed, do we want to create formal inputs for these or other
elements of the SAP
3. Town Hall meetings to continue the public discussion of the elements of the SAP
a. Economic health, vitality and sustainability
b. Maintain, enhance and create a sustainable environment
c. Develop and maintain a transportation and infrastructure system to meet current and future
demand
d. Responsible, accountable and responsive government
4. When and how should we update the current SAP
5. Development of cost estimates (order of magnitude) for key elements of SAP
Mr. Doherty suggested adding a quarterly update on the SAP on the City’s homepage. In approving the
SAP, the City Council requested staff report back in a year and to engage the public in updating the SAP.
Staff will develop a menu of options for doing that. Commissioner Wippel suggested including the SAP
in the Mayor’s department updates that are published in My Edmonds News and the Beacon as well as in
the City newsletter.
Mr. Doherty referred to the Brief Update on Strategic Action Plan Items he prepared in anticipation of
tonight’s discussion. He explained of the 85-86 SAP items, only 9 do not have a lead; the remaining items
are underway in some way.
Packet Page 467 of 549
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
July 15, 2015
Page 5
Commission suggestions included identifying the benefit to the community when communicating SAP
items that have been accomplished; using social media to get information out to citizens; developing
information that EDC members can posted on their Facebook, Twitter, etc. with links to additional
information; identifying what has been done to date on a SAP goal versus identifying it as completed;
providing a status update on each item; increasing community discussion and visibility of the SAP;
posting information regarding the SAP on the City’s Facebook page, and utilizing a multifaceted
approach to communicating progress on the SAP.
7. COUNCIL LIAISONS' COMMENTS
Councilmember Petso provided materials from a presentation the Council received from the Snohomish
County Tourism Bureau. The presentation’s focus was on adults but there are many things in the area for
children. She suggested the EDC help strengthen the description of what makes Edmonds special in
Snohomish County.
With regard to communication on the SAP, Councilmember Petso raised questions about items identified
as completed and recommended including the Council in any announcements about completed items.
8. PLANNING BOARD UPDATE
Planning Board Member Phil Lovell reported:
• July 8 meeting included a public hearing and a lengthy discussion regarding the Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO).
• Development code update is underway with assistance from a consultant.
• A public hearing was held July 8 regarding code amendments to address irreconcilable
applications on the same property, a developer submitting a second application that is inconsistent
with a previous application.
• July 22 meeting will include continued discussion and recommendation regarding the CAO, a
discussion regarding the SR 104 Study, and a public hearing regarding the rezone of private
property.
• Major items next month include the Highway 99 subarea planning process, continued work on the
development code update and a public hearing on August 12 on the Marina Beach Park Master
Plan.
• A new (alternate) member was appointed, Nathan Monroe, who is a landscape architect.
9. PORT OF EDMONDS UPDATE
Port Commissioner Faires reported:
• Puget Sound Express whale watching is doing well; their two trips per day consistently see
whales. They have done a good job of marketing, particularly to groups such as retirement homes.
He expressed interest in any anecdotal information regarding the impact the tours have on the
community such visiting downtown stores or restaurants. Commissioners suggested downtown
restaurants partner with Puget Sound Express to offer a coupon.
• The Port’s budget process is beginning; a public hearing will be held in September
• Jacobsen Marine is ahead of forecast. He was interested in any anecdotal information regarding
their impact on the community
• New public restrooms in the mid-marina and at the south marina will be installed this winter.
Installation delayed due to issues with the City’s application process. He suggested the EDC
discuss that reality/perception.
Packet Page 468 of 549
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
July 15, 2015
Page 6
• To Commissioner Hertrich’s comment regarding mixed use versus mix of uses, the understanding
across the State is mixed use includes retail, commercial and residential; a mix of uses can mean
something different.
(Chair Schindler left the meeting at 7:42 p.m.)
10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS – None
11. COMMISSIONERS’ CORNER – TOPICS FOR POTENTIAL DISCUSSION FOR NEXT
MEETING
Commissioner Hayden commented the hiatus of the Tourism Subgroup leaves only two subgroups which
increases the possibility of a quorum at the remaining two subgroups’ meetings.
Commissioner Hertrich said in his earlier comment questioning the completion of the SAP item regarding
long term financial plan for Yost Pool, he assumed it was the future aquatic center; he now realized it was
repairs of the existing Yost Pool.
Commissioner Wippel, a member of the Tourism Subgroup, agreed the Tourism Subgroup struggled to
get traction on items. She was not present at the meeting where the hiatus was discussed. She hoped it
would be reconstituted in some form and offered to continue to serve on the subgroup.
Commissioner Matteson commented without the Tourism Subgroup, the EDC is a 2-legged stool.
Commissioner Haug commented there are two items in SAP regarding Yost Pool; the one that has been
completed is with regard to the existing pool. He recommended the EDC determine how the EDC can
guide completion of SAP items. For example, many of the items identified by the Tourism Subgroup fit
with SAP items. It may be a matter of packaging efforts and finding a way to communicate that
differently.
Commissioner Swartz, a member of the Tourism Subgroup, reported there was no further effort on many
of the items the Tourism Subgroup worked on due to the lack of a transition plan to staff.
Commissioner Rubenkonig asked whether Commissioners were available for an August meeting; a
sufficient number indicated they were available.
Mr. Doherty commented when the subgroups started, there was not necessarily staff to pursue ideas.
Since last year he, Ms. Cruz and the tourism promotion coordinator consultant have been implementing
items related to tourism. Staff feels very energized by ideas generated by the Tourism Subgroup and are
pursuing many of them. Today he spent three hours with the Snohomish County Tourism Bureau at the
first of several planning meetings for 2016.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Packet Page 469 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
August 19, 2015
Page 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
August 19, 2015
The Citizens Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair
Schindler in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Michael Schindler, Chair
John Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Julaine Fleetwood
Darrol Haug
Roger Hertrich
Nicole Hughes
Rich Senderoff
Darlene Stern
Douglas Swartz
Teresa Wippel
Bruce Witenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Jenny Anttila
John Dewhirst
Randy Hayden
Debbie Matteson
Jamie Reece
PLANNING BOARD LIAISON
Phil Lovell
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Councilmember Lora Petso
PORT OF EDMONDS LIAISON
Bob McChesney, Executive Director
STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Cindi Cruz, Program Coordinator
Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. ROLL CALL AND OPENING REMARKS
Program Coordinator Cindi Cruz advised Commissioners Dewhirst, Hayden and Anttila have excused
absences.
2. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA - None
3. APPROVAL OF JULY 15, 2015 EDC MINUTES
Commissioner Senderoff requested the Commission’s discussion regarding the Tourism Subgroup taking
a hiatus be expanded to reflect that the Commission was not fully supportive of that decision. The
following amendments were made to the minutes:
• Add to the first paragraph “Several members of the Commissioner were disappointed that the
Tourism Subcommittee will be taking a hiatus.”
• Move the phrases at the end of the second paragraph “disappointment the Tourism Subgroup was
disappearing when they have done good work in the past; the EDC continuing to generate ideas;
Packet Page 470 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
August 19, 2015
Page 2
concern some aspects of tourism are already being address by other groups” to the end of the first
paragraph.
• Revise the second sentence in the first paragraph to read, “He referred to a memo that he
generated to the EDC…”
• Attach Commissioner Dewhirst’s memo to the minutes
COMMISSIONER HAUG MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HUGHES, TO APPROVE
THE AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED (11-0-1) COMMISSIONER STERN ABSTAINING.
COMMISSIONER HUGHES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WITENBERG, TO
APPROVE THE JULY 15, 2015 MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED (11-0-1)
COMMISSIONER STERN ABSTAINING.
4. FIRST QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT ON STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN (SAP)
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty referred to the Progress Update
on the SAP document (also available on City’s website), explaining this is the result of the EDC’s
previous discussion about informing the community regarding progress on the SAP. He plans to update
the progress report quarterly. He welcomed Commissioners’ input regarding the progress report.
Chair Schindler asked whether the items the EDC is working on will also be highlighted on the City’s
website. Mr. Dougherty said this is strictly related to the SAP. Commissioner Stern suggested putting
information regarding the update on Channel 21 such as featuring one item and referring viewers to the
website for further information.
5 SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS:
a. Strategic Action Plan
Commissioner Haug reported the EDC had the highest attendance at the volunteer picnic; 75% of the
members attended. He thanked Mr. Doherty for his response to the EDC’s request for a quarterly update.
Now that information is available regarding progress on some SAP items, the question arises what else
can be done to inform the public such as articles in My Edmonds News, the Beacon or other form of
communication; just putting it on the City’s website may not be enough. He reviewed an EDC SAP
Subcommittee Discussion Guide and invited input on the following: 1) completed items of SAP – how
best to communicate to public, 2) EDC input elements, 3) Town Hall meetings to continue the public
discussion of the elements of SAP, 4) when and how to update the current SAP, and 5) development of
cost estimate for key elements of SAP. Commission suggestions included:
• Hold topical Town Halls such as regarding the SAP to review what has been done and Q&A
• Add progress on the SAP to another meeting such as the Mayor’s Town Hall
• Hold Town Hall meeting with an overall presentation on the SAP and breakouts on specific items
• Article in the newspaper featuring progress on one item in SAP
• The public does not care about SAP but they do care about topics
• Consider ways to educate the public about topics as well as how to engage in the process
• Describe opportunities for the public to engage
• Communicate with the public and get information out early in the process
Arts & Culture Program Manager Francis Chapin reported on a mini arts summit held in July regarding
the Community Cultural Plan that included presentations on the five topic areas of greatest interest
Packet Page 471 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
August 19, 2015
Page 3
followed by breakouts into smaller groups. Many of the people who attended the summit were not
involved in the process of developing the Community Cultural Plan.
Mr. Doherty reminded when the City Council approved the update to the SAP four months ago, it was
with the caveat that a public process occur next year to update the SAP. The draft 2016 budget includes a
placeholder for that public process.
b. Business Districts Enhancements
Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred to business district summaries that have been prepared for Westgate,
Downtown, Five Corners and Firdale; summaries for the Waterfront and the 76th Corridor are in the
process of being prepared. The intent is to have the summaries and photographs on the City’s website by
September. Mr. Doherty explained the business attraction advertising staff began in July includes a
rebranded URL for one of the City’s webpage, YourBizInEdmonds.com, that directs users to the Bring
Your Business to Edmonds webpage that will list business districts with links to the summaries and
photographs. The intent is to encapsulate the district’s character, highlight primary businesses, recent
enhancements/improvements, traffic volumes, examples of potential desirable and complementary
businesses, transit, etc.
Discussed followed regarding potential additional districts such as the Port and Harbor Square, intent of
the district information to inform potential businesses and/or brokers about the districts, and adding
unique attributes of each district to the summaries. Commissioners were invited to contact subcommittee
members or Mr. Doherty with any changes/additions.
6. DISCUSSION ON UPCOMING MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL (SEPTEMBER 8)
a. Summarize Value of CEDC
Commissioners suggested the presentation include a review of the reason the EDC was created and what
the Council asked EDC to do (develop new strategies for economic development and identify new
sources of revenue) and whether the EDC is doing it. Commissioners brainstormed the following values
of the CEDC:
• Citizen think tank
• Diverse views and geography
• Lightning rod for ideas, cross pollination of ideas though discussion
• Conduit for input and ideas from citizens to EDC and then to staff and Council and vice versa
• Deep dive into topics that Council or staff do not have time to do
• Vetting feasibility of ideas, both positive and negative. EDC has investigated and determined
some strategies and revenue sources are not feasible
• Guest speakers – explore ideas/concepts/projects
o Chamber
o Doug Spee
o Swedish Edmonds
o Lindsey Echelbarger
o Snohomish County Tourism Bureau
o Roger Brooks
o Senior Center
o BID
• Networking with potential partners regarding economic development
• Extending conversation
Packet Page 472 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
August 19, 2015
Page 4
b. Summarize Accomplishments
Commissioners brainstormed the following accomplishments:
• Six Items from 2009 Report to Council
• Summarize past annual reports
• Development of various strategies leading to accomplishments
o Code for Westgate
o Ads in Puget Sound Business Journal
o Input on tourism website and sounding board
o Explore business incentives
o Year-round farmers market
o B&B research
• Sounding board
• Vetted fiber optics
o Revenue and cost savings
• Facilitated Westgate design and discussion
• Facilitated discussion regarding festival retail downtown
• Initiated and continue to support SAP
• Pursued and endorsed establishment of downtown restroom
c. Summarize Future Value (what we want to work on)
Commissioners brainstormed the following future values:
• Diversity
• Update of SAP
• Five Corners – revisit in light of Council action on Westgate
• Continue to explore strategies for Hwy 99
• Help to promote Edmonds as business location (website)
• Strategies to encourage walkable neighborhoods
• Hotel – Hwy 99 or boutique hotel downtown
• 4th Avenue Arts Corridor
• Sports tourism
Chair Schindler reported the presentation would be made by the Chair, Vice Chair and past Chair. He
requested one member from each subcommittee attend and be able to speak as well as one at-large
Commissioner.
7. COUNCIL LIAISONS' COMMENTS
Councilmember Petso advised the EDC’s September 8 report to the Council is scheduled for 45 minutes;
she recommended the presenters retain time for Council questions. She recalled being asked in January
what the Council wanted from the EDC; she suggested considering how Councilmembers’ responses fit
with the list of accomplishments.
Councilmember Petso reported the Council was provided an update regarding the Marina Beach Master
Plan. A representative of Washington State Ferries indicated the Edmonds Crossing project is not dead
which means there may be a ferry dock at Marina Beach in the distant future.
Packet Page 473 of 549
Approved Minutes
Economic Development Commission
August 19, 2015
Page 5
8. PLANNING BOARD UPDATE
Planning Board Member Phil Lovell reported the public hearing regarding the Marina Beach Master Plan
at the last Planning Board meeting revealed there is a great deal of public support. He distributed a
drawing of Marina Beach that includes the conceptual footprint of the Edmonds Crossing alignment. He
urged the Council to read the Planning Board meeting minutes that summarize the Board’s lengthy
discussion including the potential impact of a future Edmonds Crossing project. The Planning Board
recommended approval of the Marina Beach Master Plan. He read from a letter from WSDOT Ferries
Division dated June 19, 2015, “Unocal and its successors maintain the ownership of certain assets and an
easement that span the adjacent Burlington Northern Sante Fe railroad right-of-way. The Limited
Warrantee Deed granted Unocal and its successors (WSF) the right to demolish properties in the
easement, and construct the ferry terminal trestle and utilities necessary for the operation of the Edmonds
Crossing Ferry Terminal at the site.” The Master Plan is designed so that minimal infrastructure will be
impacted by Edmonds Crossing alignment.
Mr. Lovell pointed out the conceptual Edmonds Crossing alignment crosses Port property. He relayed the
WSF representative indicated their long range plan (a 10-year plan that includes projects for the next 30
years) will be updated next year and that he suspected the Edmonds Crossing project will be on project
list. A brief discussion followed regarding how the potential of Edmonds Crossing has affected
development of Edmonds.
9. PORT OF EDMONDS UPDATE
Bob McChesney reported the Port is having a very good year; the marina is full. Puget Sound Express
whale watching tours are having an economic impact including their purchase of approximately 300
gallons of fuel per day as well as bringing thousands of people to Edmond who otherwise may not have
visited. Harbor Square is also doing very well. In response to a question whether the whale watching tours
have resulted in an increase in overnight stays, Mr. McChesney was uncertain how much could be
attributed to the whale watching tours but Harbor Inn has been full all summer. Puget Sound Express has
booking arrangements with various tour groups in Seattle and Snohomish County that bring busloads of
people to Edmonds. He summarized it was a good illustration of the power of tourism and economic
development. He thanked Mr. Doherty for his assistance with bringing them to the Port.
10. COMMISSIONERS’ CORNER – TOPICS FOR POTENTIAL DISCUSSION FOR NEXT
MEETING – None
11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS – None
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m.
Packet Page 474 of 549
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
October 21, 2015
Page 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
October 21, 2015
The Citizens Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Vice Chair
Rubenkonig in the Brackett Room, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
John Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Jenny Anttila
John Dewhirst
Julaine Fleetwood
Nicole Hughes
Jamie Reece
Darlene Stern
Douglas Swartz
Teresa Wippel
Bruce Witenberg
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Michael Schindler, Chair
Darrol Haug
Randy Hayden
Roger Hertrich
Debbie Matteson
Rich Senderoff
PLANNING BOARD LIAISON
Phil Lovell
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Councilmember Lora Petso
PORT OF EDMONDS LIAISON
Bruce Faires
STAFF PRESENT
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Cindi Cruz, Program Coordinator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
ALSO PRESENT
Adam Khan, Student Rep
1. OPENING REMARKS AND ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Rubenkonig announced Chair Schindler was out of town on business.
2. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Economic Development & Community Services Director Doherty suggested adding to the end of the
agenda a discussion about the date of the next EDC meeting.
3. APPROVAL OF EDC MINUTES OF 8/19/15
COMMISSIONER WIPPEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SWARTZ TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 8/19/15. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENTS IF EDC IS EXTENDED
Mr. Doherty explained the EDC has a sunset date of December 31, 2015. With regard to whether the
terms of Commissioners would also be extended if the EDC were extend, the code states all terms expire
commensurate with the sunset date. Therefore, if the EDC is extended by Council, new and/or
Packet Page 475 of 549
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
October 21, 2015
Page 2
reappointments would need to be made. He explained the Council could allow the EDC to sunset or
extend the EDC with or without changes to its composition.
Councilmember Petso reported she and Councilmembers Bloom and Mesaros met with Mr. Doherty and
Development Services Director Shane Hope today to discuss the EDC and plan to meet again next
Thursday. They will gather data and bring information to the Council for further discussion. She
encouraged Commissioners to share suggestions, concerns, comments with all Councilmembers regarding
whether and how the EDC should be extended.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig explained there have been discussions by the EDC, Council and staff regarding
several options related to the EDC, 1) allow it to sunset because it has served its purpose, 2) alter the
structure, 3) extend as is, 4) split into three group along the lines of the current subgroups, or 5) other
possibilities. He encouraged Commissioners to provide input to Councilmembers, Mr. Doherty, Chair
Schindler or him.
Mr. Doherty recalled at the Council retreat the Council identified several issues they wanted to study in a
smaller group; the EDC was one of those issues. Those groups have met 2-3 times and provided reports to
the full Council with either a recommendation or issues they identified.
5. OVERVIEW OF 2016 GOALS AND 2016 LEADERSHIP
Vice Chair Rubenkonig explained each subgroup has developed goals for 2016+. A representative from
each subgroup will present. He encouraged Commissioners to consider how the goals overlap or leave
gaps. Presentations and discussion will occur tonight and a decision will be made at the next meeting
about adopting goals for 2016. Assuming the EDC is extended, these would be the goals to work toward.
This effort is in response to concern the EDC and subgroups did not have a clear direction. He also
encouraged Commissioners to think about their own position on the EDC and whether they were
interested in a leadership role because if the EDC is extended, new leadership will be elected in 2016.
6. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: Two Areas Subgroups Want to Focus on for 2016
a. Strategic Action Plan
Commissioner Stern relayed:
• Council approved the EDC’s original request to create a SAP in March 2010
• Council approved the SAP in April 2013 by a vote of 6 to 1.
• Council approved the revision of the SAP in April 2015 by a vote of 5 to 2.
• Council is moving toward updating the public input to the SAP in 2016. With staff’s help we
have made progress in showing the public the progress on many SAP items. With staff’s
resources already stretched, the EDC can help with getting things updated and ready for more
public input.
• The 2016 budget will likely have enough resources to add staff. The SAP consultant has
recommended additional staff to assist in the implementation of the SAP. The EDC can help
outline the best ways to proceed.
• The EDC is due to sunset in about 90 days. This may be the last opportunity to communicate with
Council before they decide what new tasks they will give to the EDC for 2016
• The SAP subcommittee has completed its initial work and is asking the EDC to help pass along
suggestions to Council for further action
• These suggestions are intended to respond to Council’s stated wishes about the SAP and show
Council our willingness to work on various elements of the SAP to provide added input. The
EDC is listed as a participant and can offer ideas on those and other elements to the leads to
advance the work on each element before formulating a public input process to update the SAP.
Packet Page 476 of 549
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
October 21, 2015
Page 3
She reviewed a list of potential motions related to the EDC formally communicating to the Council its
willingness to work on elements of the SAP.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented the most valuable thing the EDC offers is Commissioners’
involvement in other groups and sharing the EDC’s ideas with those other groups.
b. Business Districts Enhancements
Commissioner Reece reviewed the subgroup’s 2016 priorities:
• Collaboration
o Cultivate and refine ideas through robust discussion while finding synergies to further the
goals of the Travel & Tourism and Strategic Action Plan subcommittees as well as the
Commission at large.
o Work with the Council and staff on topics that they collectively identify as EDC study areas
• Five Corners and Hospital District
o Leverage ongoing development of Hospital District through exploration of concepts to
enhance the Five Corners, 212th Street and 76th Avenue corridors
• Revitalizing Highway 99
• Esperance Annexation Opportunities
o Business implications
o Effect of Snohomish County zoning on Edmonds
• Firdale & Perrinville
o Consider broader discussion with residential and business stakeholders in these communities
• Hotel Accommodations
o Collaborate with Travel & Tourism Subcommittee to grow the available capacity of rooms
Discussion followed regarding areas of Perrinville that are in Edmonds and in Lynnwood, ways to
enhance business districts, how to attract new businesses and/or expand existing businesses, information
available on the City’s website regarding business districts, and assistance the EDC provides to economic
development staff.
c. Tourism
Commissioner Dewhirst highlighted the following ideas and suggestions for future projects:
• Tourism for ferry users and commuters, may include whale-watching tours
o How to get people to stop in Edmonds
• Tourism ideas along the Hwy 99 corridor
• Ideas for tourism infrastructure
o Connections
o Hotels
o Transportation
o Signage
o Parking downtown and waterfront
o Enhance current facilities, places, events
Regional sports
Tournaments
• Renewed focus on downtown public restrooms if it does not survive the budget process
• Challenges: A lot of ideas, but without budget, need to get others involved
d. Discussion on Items Presented
Vice Chair Rubenkonig invited Commissioners to comment on gaps, things that are important to
individual Commissioners, issues that overlap, issues completely overlooked, etc.:
Packet Page 477 of 549
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
October 21, 2015
Page 4
• Need to identify a solution to downtown and waterfront parking
o BID is also considering parking
• Need to develop a unified signage program
• EDC needs to identify #1 priority
o Limited resources
o Low hanging fruit has been done, harder issues rising to surface
o Identify 1-3 priorities that everyone works on
• Highway 99 could be a top priority
o Council approved funds in 2015 budget for planning process for Hwy 99 corridor and
anticipate additional funds in 2016 budget. In process of hiring consultant.
o Funds the legislature allocated for physical improvements on Hwy 99 are in the later years of
a 16-year capital budget; working with lobbyist to move that up.
o Major impetuses for Hwy 99 study are commercial/retail aspects of corridor, enhance
commercial with housing, hospital zone and making the area more walkable.
o Major challenges include the area that is in unincorporated Snohomish County (Esperance)
and consultants need to consult with property owners on Hwy 99.
• Priorities are identified in the SAP
o EDC review SAP for items subgroups could assist with
o Many of SAP items are bigger, longer term issues
• Collaborate with nongovernmental organization in Edmonds such as Chamber and BID
o Build on scarecrow festival with Octoberfest, Harvest Festival, etc.
o Use other organization’s resources to pursue EDC’s ideas
• Coordinate the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) with the SAP
• Esperance annexation
o Time may be right to revisit due to residents’ concern with Snohomish County’s planning
policies
o Primarily residential, requires a lot of City services
o Recent changes to GMA makes it easier to annex islands
o Balance cost of residential with advantages of annexing Hwy 99 properties
o Be aware of burden of annexed areas due to lack of stormwater, infrastructure, parks, etc.
o Consider how future development of commercially zoned parcels in Esperance effects the
economic value of the business district
o Quality of life issues for Edmonds neighborhoods bordered by Esperance due to effect of
Snohomish County’s more liberal codes
o Need to analyze additional costs, revenue potential from redevelopment on Hwy 99
o Hwy 99 also borders SR-104, could enhance character of Edmonds, provide visual gateway
• Hwy 99 is Edmonds’ adult entertainment district, look at uses that could raise revenue
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked the three subgroups to discuss their goals again in view of tonight’s
discussion. The subgroups’ goals will be briefly discussed again at the next meeting and a determination
made regarding what to adopt as the EDC’s 2016 goals.
7. COUNCIL LIAISONS' COMMENTS
Councilmember Petso reiterated now is a good time for Commissioners to contact all Councilmembers
regarding the future of the EDC.
8. PLANNING BOARD UPDATE
Planning Board Member Lovell reported the Planning Board held a public hearing on the CFP and the
CIP; there were no citizen comments. The plans are very robust and include City funds as well as grants.
The Planning Board was also provided an introduction to the Hwy 99 Study. At the remaining 2015
Packet Page 478 of 549
Draft Minutes
Economic Development Commission
October 21, 2015
Page 5
meetings, the Board will continue discussing the Hwy 99 Study, be provided an update on the
development code update, and discuss potential amendments to the residential parking code.
9. PORT OF EDMONDS UPDATE
Port Commissioner Bruce Faires reported the Commission’s primary focus is the 2016 budget and the
capital spending plan. The Port’s budget is $8 million/year, the majority from boat tenants and rental
tenants. The marina was rebuilt in 1995/1996; the Commission’s goal is to ensure the residents of the Port
District do not have to pay for future improvements, that revenue from tenants provides funds/resources
to rebuild the marina in the future. The Port recently changed the insurance requirement for all tenants,
requiring all tenants to have $500,000 liability. He reported the intent to have new prefab restroom
buildings in the mid marina and the south marina open by year end. Funds were included in the budget to
renovate the landscaping at the southwest corner of Dayton & SR 104.
From the Port’s perspective, Commissioner Faires said it makes sense for the EDC to focus its efforts on
elements of the SAP that are material to the economic wellbeing of community and suggested using that
as a guideline for the EDC’s efforts. A brief discussion followed regarding prohibiting public access to
restrooms in south marina, the City providing restrooms at Marina Beach, and other public restrooms on
the waterfront.
10. COMMISSIONERS’ CORNER – TOPICS FOR POTENTIAL DISCUSSION FOR NEXT METING
Topics for next meeting:
• Mr. Doherty provide an update on the SAP at the November meeting
• Discuss and vote on 2016 goals
Comments included:
• Commissioner Dewhirst advised he was stepping down as the Chair of the Tourism Subgroup.
• Commissioner Reece suggested the EDC sign a letter of recommendation for Student
Representative Kahn.
• Commissioner Hughes said it feels like the EDC is moving again and she was glad goals and
forward process were being identified regardless of whether the EDC sunsets. If the EDC changes
or does not exist, that work and those priorities will still be in front of the City Council and
community.
• Port Commissioner Faires recommended the current EDC membership be retained. He did not
support dividing the EDC into separate groups as that would weaken its advocacy role and may
result in missing opportunities in the future.
• Mr. Doherty reported the Holiday Market will be open 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. November 21 through
December 19 in the parking lot next to City Hall. He invited Commissioners to take posters.
• Mr. Doherty reported the Planning Board has rescheduled its meeting to November 18. It was
agreed the EDC’s next meeting will remain on November 18.
11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS – None
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
Next Meeting: November 18, 2015 6:00 p.m.
Packet Page 479 of 549
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: PATRICK DOHERTY, DIRECTOR,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OPTIONS FOR 2016 AND BEYOND
DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2015
_____________________________________________________________________________________
On June 2, 2009, the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance 3735, creating the Citizens
Economic Development Commission (CEDC), with a sunset date of 12/31/10. By Ordinance
3808, passed on 10/5/10, the sunset date was extended till 12/31/11. By Ordinance 3868,
passed on 12/20/11, the sunset date was extended till 4/29/12. Finally Ordinance No. 3876,
passed on 3/20/12, established a sunset date for the Commission of 12/31/15.
Enshrined in the Edmonds City Code at Chapter 10.75, the CEDC’s Powers and Duties are laid
out in Section 10.75.030, as follows:
A. The commission is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the
mayor and city council, and as appropriate to the planning commission,
architectural design board or other boards or commissions of the city on such
matters as may be specifically referred to the commission by the mayor or city
council, including but not limited to:
1. Determining new strategies for economic development within the city of
Edmonds;
2. Identifying new sources of revenue as a direct result of economic
development projects for the consideration of the city council.
B. The commission shall deliver an annual report to the city council in written and
oral form on or about the first meeting in December of every year, and when
appropriate, during other times as directed by the mayor or council.
C. The Edmonds economic development commission may from time to time
provide its reports and recommendations regarding strategies for economic
development and other matters that will improve commercial viability, tourist
development and activity within the city. The planning board and economic
development commission shall make joint recommendations on such subjects to
the city council on or about the first meeting in December.
Packet Page 480 of 549
At the 2015 City Council Retreat a study subgroup was called for to study and discuss the CEDC,
its purpose, usefulness, meeting format, subgroups, and whether to extend the Commission or
allow it to sunset. This subgroup, comprised of Councilmembers Bloom, Mesaros and Petso,
met informally in October and discussed these issues, offering several observations and/or
recommendations to be shared with full Council to inform decision-making on these issues.
Issues raised during the discussions:
• Understanding clear purpose and charter for the Commission as well as its subgroups
(recently: tourism, business district enhancement and Strategic Action Plan [SAP]). Is
there a commonly held and clearly articulated definition of economic development
shared by the Commissioners?
• Costs associated with staffing the Commission and its subgroups. Currently staff times
runs on the order of 15 hours/month in staff time (valued at approximately
$1,000/month although not an additional expenditure, more of an “opportunity cost”),
plus direct expenditure of approximately $133/month for meeting support (meeting
summary-taker and door monitor). Additional meeting notice, summary-taking and/or
door monitor time (associated with subgroups and/or greater number of commissions)
would incur similar monthly direct expenditure costs, in addition to staff time to prepare
and post notices (not direct expenditure; “opportunity cost”).
• Potential overlap with other commissions/groups on certain issues, such as land-use-
related discussions potentially overlapping with Planning Board jurisdiction, or
Downtown parking issues overlapping with the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (BID), e.g.
• Transparency of subgroup discussions, and whether the subgroup meetings should be
provided public notice and meeting summaries taken. A related issue was whether
subgroups should be determined by City Council or should be created by the
Commission either as set subgroups or ad hoc, issue-specific subgroups.
• The number of Commissioners (17). Does the large membership provide a broad
spectrum of expertise, interest, experience and perspective? Does it create an
environment that is/is not conducive to group discussion on important issues?
• Whether the Commission should be broken up into two or three separate commissions,
more directly focused on subject matters such as those currently under the purview of
the subgroups (i.e., tourism, business district enhancement, SAP)?
• Whether the Commission meeting format is conducive to fruitful discussions.
Packet Page 481 of 549
• Whether the Commission should be allowed to sunset or be extended. If extended, will
there be another sunset clause or will it be extended indefinitely? (It was noted that no
other City commission has a sunset clause.)
Options offered by the City Council study subgroup members:
1. Extend the Commission as is:
a. Without sunset clause
b. With sunset clause. Number of years till sunset to be determined.
2. Extend the Commission as is:
a. With terms of appointees since 2014 extended to run two full years till since
appointment; others to be reappointees or new appointees.
b. All members being reappointed or newly appointed.
c. With term limits
d. Without term limits
3. Extend the Commission as is:
a. With set number and purpose of subgroups. If so, two or three subgroups:
i. If two subgroups:
1. Tourism
2. Business Growth & Revitalization
ii. If three subgroups:
1. Tourism
2. Business Growth & Revitalization
3. Strategic Action Plan (for items assigned to the EDC or Economic
Development Department OR for stewardship of future public
engagement processes)
b. Allowing the Commission to set and determine subgroups as needed, within the
scope of their role per code
4. Extend the Commission as 9 members only
5. Sunset the Commission but create two or three new commissions:
a. If two:
i. Tourism
ii. Business Growth & Revitalization
b. If three:
i. Tourism
ii. Business Growth & Revitalization
iii. Strategic Action Plan
Packet Page 482 of 549
6. Related to Commission subgroups, if they exist:
a. Require public notice and meeting summaries
b. Do not require public notice, yet require meeting summaries
Packet Page 483 of 549
Packet Page 484 of 549
Packet Page 485 of 549
Packet Page 486 of 549
Packet Page 487 of 549
AM-8145 7. A.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Sarah Mager
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
October 2015 Monthly Financial Report
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Attachments
October 2015 Monthly Financial Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 11/23/2015 11:19 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/23/2015 11:34 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/23/2015 11:39 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/23/2015 11:53 AM
Form Started By: Sarah Mager Started On: 11/23/2015 08:32 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/23/2015
Packet Page 488 of 549
CITY OF EDMONDS
MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
OCTOBER 2015
Packet Page 489 of 549
1
Page 1 of 1
Fund
No.Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Revenues
10/31/2015
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
001 GENERAL FUND 1 36,995,841$ 30,077,234$ 28,691,238$ 8,304,603$ 78%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 276,200 298,534 140,891 135,309 51%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 1,180 772 7,070 (5,890) 599%
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 19,800 17,172 33,082 (13,282) 167%
013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - 111 396 (396) 0%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 9,500 3 6,434 3,066 68%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2 708,000 195,883 253,162 454,838 36%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 43,000 19,879 11,352 31,648 26%
111 STREET FUND 1,729,030 1,460,574 1,399,480 329,550 81%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2 8,301,935 2,474,077 4,288,607 4,013,328 52%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 101,559 72,167 98,326 3,233 97%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 61 53 126 (65) 206%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 67,675 58,317 65,718 1,957 97%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 20,564 11,862 9,909 10,655 48%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,240 213 907 333 73%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 22,900 19,770 22,164 736 97%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 3 904,000 813,305 1,176,905 (272,905) 130%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 3 902,000 811,424 1,174,843 (272,843) 130%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 54,478 25,858 46,354 8,124 85%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - 48,617 269 (269) 0%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 164,500 148,759 153,799 10,701 93%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2 5,498,765 329,491 596,686 4,902,079 11%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 533 522 1,068 (535) 200%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 11,970 18,418 20,908 (8,938) 175%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,212 4,127 3,920 6,292 38%
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 650,000 569,375 585,887 64,113 90%
140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 78,793 71,450 (71,450) 0%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,600 29,699 28,378 (5,778) 126%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 28,627 47 - 28,627 0%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 667,693 84,010 75,464 592,229 11%
232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 925,310 9,211 9,201 916,109 1%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 238,758 75,156 (75,156) 0%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 4 13,326,074 6,102,778 12,148,232 1,177,842 91%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4 7,572,032 3,134,597 7,127,287 444,745 94%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 4 19,573,656 8,283,686 17,606,513 1,967,143 90%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,345,759 340,409 337,211 1,008,548 25%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,519,185 1,270,309 1,393,014 126,171 92%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 65,350 50,303 57,336 8,014 88%
101,541,229$ 57,099,116$ 77,718,742$ 23,822,487$ 77%
4 Differences between 2014 and 2015 are due to 2015 Revenue Bond Proceeds.
3 Real Estate Excise Tax for both funds 125 and 126 is up a total of $727,019 from 2014.
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
1 Difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to the $2.7M from bond refund in February of 2014.
2 Differences between 2014 and 2015 are due to a difference in grant funds received.
Packet Page 490 of 549
2
Page 1 of 1
Fund
No.Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 39,294,271$ 30,161,608$ 29,998,394$ 9,295,877$ 76%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 361,825 239,045 239,036 122,789 66%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - 71,528 (71,528) 0%
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 5 800,000 - 3,246,447 (2,446,447) 406%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 9,900 - 7,500 2,400 76%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 793,800 74,683 155,218 638,582 20%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 76,033 42,872 46,895 29,138 62%
111 STREET FUND 1,703,419 1,312,718 1,389,184 314,235 82%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6 8,421,704 2,570,609 3,600,502 4,821,202 43%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 152,775 83,158 81,321 71,454 53%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 0%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 70,000 34,618 50,226 19,774 72%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,871 - 404 26,467 2%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 1,658 1,787 1,213 60%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 21,500 6,846 11,616 9,884 54%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,515,000 121,309 167,101 2,347,899 7%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 943,400 40,893 32,845 910,555 3%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 51,795 3,429 20,742 31,053 40%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - 17,469 - - 0%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 171,784 120,348 133,925 37,859 78%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 7 6,005,443 201,474 1,195,417 4,810,027 20%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - - 0%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,400 4,992 4,987 5,413 48%
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 650,000 569,375 613,821 36,179 94%
140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRCIT - 45,700 42,491 (42,491) 0%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 28,567 - - 28,567 0%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - - 0%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 667,693 84,614 75,464 592,229 11%
232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 925,310 9,211 9,201 916,109 1%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 8 10,682,593 5,836,439 6,772,283 3,910,310 63%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 7,137,109 3,080,386 2,490,070 4,647,039 35%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 15,836,228 8,815,223 8,426,492 7,409,736 53%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,344,102 340,408 337,261 1,006,841 25%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,717,825 787,759 1,313,521 404,304 76%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 77,629 45,462 41,574 36,055 54%
100,499,976$ 54,652,307$ 60,577,254$ 39,922,722$ 60%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
8 Differences between 2014 and 2015 are due to an increase in Construction Projects in 2015.
5 Differences between 2014 and 2015 are due to Interfund Loans to funds 112 and 014 in 2015.
6 Differences between 2014 and 2015 are due to increase in Professional Services and Construction Projects in 2015.
7 Differences between 2014 and 2015 are due to the City Spray and Play Park Project in 2015.
Packet Page 491 of 549
3
Page 1 of 3
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Revenues
10/31/2015
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9 9,999,850$ 5,845,250$ 6,025,102$ 3,974,748$ 60%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 9 3,395,376 1,814,638 2,045,951 1,349,425 60%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 925,309 563,190 558,567 366,742 60%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 10 5,627,000 4,803,894 5,529,730 97,270 98%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 9,700 8,897 5,153 4,547 53%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 586,500 502,155 525,729 60,771 90%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,533,800 1,353,054 1,321,572 212,228 86%
GAS UTILITY TAX 743,700 577,044 517,806 225,894 70%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 301,500 257,331 246,096 55,404 82%
WATER UTILITY TAX 1,115,209 867,773 956,191 159,018 86%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 524,200 434,640 476,020 48,180 91%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 323,210 258,550 271,550 51,660 84%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 819,100 688,978 710,066 109,034 87%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,371,800 1,127,973 1,108,655 263,145 81%
PULLTABS TAX 45,200 45,580 49,393 (4,193) 109%
AMUSEMENT GAMES 150 37 - 150 0%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 231,200 175,128 187,006 44,194 81%
27,552,804 19,324,114 20,534,586 7,018,218 75%
LICENSES AND PERMITS:
FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,210 230 375 4,835 7%
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 300 560 470 (170) 157%
PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 630 630 330 300 52%
AMUSEMENTS 4,740 4,675 4,325 415 91%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 683,400 689,382 711,199 (27,799) 104%
FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 33,560 36,207 37,544 (3,984) 112%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 91,500 93,795 75,190 16,310 82%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 18,100 17,064 16,827 1,273 93%
FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO 5,000 - - 5,000 0%
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 261,930 274,689 293,783 (31,853) 112%
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 110,600 106,459 97,322 13,278 88%
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 37,200 37,095 41,190 (3,990) 111%
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 66,300 41,550 37,050 29,250 56%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,870 - 5,388 4,482 55%
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 543,000 588,892 554,271 (11,271) 102%
ANIMAL LICENSES 38,800 9,161 18,197 20,603 47%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT 40,300 77,326 31,117 9,183 77%
OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 10,100 13,002 11,878 (1,778) 118%
1,960,540 1,990,716 1,936,455 24,085 99%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
FEDERAL GRANTS-BUDGET ONLY 20,000 - - 20,000 0%
DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 3,970 794 3,018 952 76%
ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT 6,000 - 3,750 2,250 63%
ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE II 6,000 - 5,250 750 88%
TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 7,500 4,216 11,634 (4,134) 155%
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 3,000 3,560 - 3,000 0%
DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE - 1,834 492 (492) 0%
WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT - - 413 (413) 0%
2014 COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT - 10,000 1,000 (1,000) 0%
WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT - - - - 0%
WATERFRONT ANALYSIS GRANT 150,000 - - 150,000 0%
NORTHWEST SOLAR COMMUNITIES GRANT - 18,500 - - 0%
SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - - - - 0%
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 187,470 - 194,479 (7,009) 104%
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 9,980 10,287 10,675 (695) 107%
JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 12,630 12,376 16,423 (3,793) 130%
CRIMINAL JUSTICE-SPECIAL PROGRAMS 36,890 38,062 39,113 (2,223) 106%
DUI - CITIES 7,220 7,193 6,052 1,168 84%
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 65,000 75,069 108,766 (43,766) 167%
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 356,890 266,319 262,569 94,321 74%
MISCELLANEOUS INTERLOCAL REVENUE - - 111 (111) 0%
INTERLOCAL GRANTS - - 30,000 (30,000) 0%
VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 2,000 41,513 2,000 - 100%
874,550 489,723 695,745 178,805 80%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
9 2015 Real Personal and EMS Property Taxes are up a total of $411,163 higher than 2014 revenues.
10 2015 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax revenues are $725,836 higher than 2014 revenues. Please also see pages 18 & 19.
Packet Page 492 of 549
4
Page 2 of 3
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Revenues
10/31/2015
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS - 1,128 1,430 (1,430) 0%
CIVIL PROBATE FILINGS - - - - 0%
ATM SURCHARGE FEES - - 444 (444) 0%
COURT RECORD SERVICES 1,200 - - 1,200 0%
D/M COURT REC SER 200 27 73 127 37%
SHARED COURT COSTS 500 - - 500 0%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 200 520 342 (142) 171%
SALE MAPS & BOOKS 100 20 - 100 0%
CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 25,086 - - 25,086 0%
BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 100 - - 100 0%
PHOTOCOPIES 2,000 1,709 1,671 329 84%
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,000 3,329 3,399 601 85%
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 272,000 304,819 169,854 102,146 62%
ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
SNO-ISLE 58,000 57,369 60,986 (2,986) 105%
GENERAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES - - - - 0%
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 11,000 16,350 15,560 (4,560) 141%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 30,223 24,653 1,347 95%
OCDETF OVERTIME 5,500 11,784 - 5,500 0%
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.12,300 3,011 3,782 8,518 31%
WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 39,500 41,175 42,290 (2,790) 107%
DRE REIMBURSEABLE - - - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 1,500 3,657 - 1,500 0%
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 300 176 - 300 0%
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 45,000 52,730 46,928 (1,928) 104%
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 50,000 58,524 53,087 (3,087) 106%
ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI - - - - 0%
BOOKING FEES 6,000 5,495 5,179 821 86%
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 8,000 15,024 19,091 (11,091) 239%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 18,000 13,607 9,321 8,679 52%
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 11 800,000 863,361 631,009 168,991 79%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI - - - - 0%
CRIM CONV FEE CT - 2,533 - - 0%
CRIM CONV FEE CN - 858 - - 0%
FIBER SERVICES 14,880 7,780 7,650 7,230 51%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,200 6,000 6,000 1,200 83%
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 1,000 1,265 1,752 (752) 175%
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,000 3,650 2,226 3,774 37%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 75,000 52,240 90,120 (15,120) 120%
PLAN CHECKING FEES 334,000 428,046 418,119 (84,119) 125%
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,160 7,115 9,225 (7,065) 427%
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 900 1,336 939 (39) 104%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 2,925 8,765 (3,765) 175%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY 15,000 21,065 16,275 (1,275) 109%
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,000 7,237 7,911 2,089 79%
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES - 59,372 - - 0%
GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 4,800 4,822 6,929 (2,129) 144%
LOCKER FEES - 424 - - 0%
SWIM CLASS FEES - 31,009 - - 0%
PROGRAM FEES 825,000 698,879 686,677 138,323 83%
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 110,000 104,092 106,066 3,934 96%
SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM - 34,266 - - 0%
WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES - - 1,600 (1,600) 0%
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 950 930 1,244 (294) 131%
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 1,969,500 1,717,044 1,761,691 207,809 89%
4,768,876 4,676,922 4,222,289 546,587 89%
11 Difference due to late board approval; payment expected in November in an amount of $186,202.
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
Packet Page 493 of 549
5
Page 3 of 3
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Revenues
10/31/2015
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
FINES AND FORFEITURES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 11,100 6,860 5,076 6,024 46%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 25,300 22,470 67,340 (42,040) 266%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 289,400 219,197 194,109 95,291 67%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)24,100 17,758 20,112 3,988 83%
SPEEDING DOUBLE - 38 - - 0%
NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 1,200 25,704 14,180 (12,980) 1182%
OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 1,000 708 863 137 86%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 40,200 43,997 33,660 6,540 84%
PARK/INDDISZONE 500 789 1,556 (1,056) 311%
DWI PENALTIES 6,000 6,112 4,709 1,291 78%
DUI - DP ACCT 1,800 2,191 2,464 (664) 137%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI - 554 424 (424) 0%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 50 70 - 50 0%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 38,200 28,683 26,055 12,145 68%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 500 1,729 2,097 (1,597) 419%
CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,000 - 1,476 2,524 37%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 100 29 94 6 94%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 5,000 5,823 12,937 (7,937) 259%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,500 1,157 910 590 61%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 400 964 1,371 (971) 343%
CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,200 - 632 568 53%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 115,600 70,812 44,538 71,062 39%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 30,200 25,624 24,529 5,671 81%
COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 100 227 271 (171) 271%
BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 4,000 4,840 12,810 (8,810) 320%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,000 250 1,450 (450) 145%
602,450 486,586 473,662 128,788 79%
MISCELLANEOUS:
INVESTMENT INTEREST 10,600 14,093 27,367 (16,767) 258%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,200 512 2,835 (1,635) 236%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,000 5,720 4,706 294 94%
PARKING 10,300 10,418 13,220 (2,920) 128%
SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 120,000 123,032 121,805 (1,805) 102%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 6,520 3,840 1,160 77%
LEASES LONG-TERM 166,772 142,511 145,944 20,828 88%
VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 49,000 10,397 49,465 (465) 101%
OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 3,600 8,168 3,300 300 92%
DONATION/CONTRIBUTION - - - - 0%
PARKS DONATIONS 15,777 11,541 14,060 1,717 89%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 950 1,652 1,950 (1,000) 205%
125TH ANNIVERSARY CONTRIBUTIONS - - 3,700 (3,700) 0%
VOLUNTEER PICNIC CONTRIBUTIONS - - 500 (500) 0%
POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 1,000 - 1,200 (200) 120%
PARKS GRANTS - PRIVATE SOURCES - - - - 0%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 150 110 - 150 0%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 2,000 2,649 1,781 219 89%
CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 2,000 - - 2,000 0%
OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 2,000 2,867 83 1,917 4%
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 200 984 30 170 15%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - 164 (667) 667 0%
OTHER MISC REVENUES 13,707 2,331 16,129 (2,422) 118%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT 50 29 18 32 36%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 120 120 30 90 25%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 800 482 296 504 37%
NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - - - - -
FLEX-PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES 1,010 - - 1,010 -
US BANK REBATE 3,210 1,557 5,822 (2,612) 181%
414,446 345,859 417,414 (2,968) 101%
TRANSFERS-IN:
PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT - 2,763,314 - - 0%
INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - - 0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 012 800,000 - 400,000 400,000 50%
INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 104 - - - - 0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 22,175 - 11,088 11,088 50%
822,175 2,763,314 411,088 411,088 50%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 36,995,841$ 30,077,234$ 28,691,238$ 8,304,603$ 78%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 494 of 549
6
Page 1 of 6
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
SALARIES AND WAGES 13,252,007$ 10,159,892$ 10,678,192$ 2,573,815$ 81%
OVERTIME 428,622 348,708 434,346 (5,724) 101%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK 209,198 2,409 3,174 206,024 2%
BENEFITS 5,008,978 3,793,386 3,996,457 1,012,521 80%
UNIFORMS 65,610 42,236 56,697 8,913 86%
SUPPLIES 372,120 331,385 276,092 96,028 74%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 184,275 259,301 117,079 67,196 64%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,942,159 1,630,736 1,846,017 1,096,142 63%
COMMUNICATIONS 209,127 131,678 139,134 69,993 67%
TRAVEL 36,845 20,246 28,893 7,952 78%
EXCISE TAXES 6,500 5,152 4,026 2,474 62%
ADVERTISING - 21,171 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 906,410 776,584 761,368 145,042 84%
INSURANCE 423,600 383,906 418,367 5,233 99%
UTILITIES 457,800 371,413 383,992 73,808 84%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 394,609 249,302 315,935 78,674 80%
MISCELLANEOUS 438,397 223,777 270,410 167,987 62%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 12 10,114,042 7,737,747 9,591,215 522,827 95%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 180,000 - - 180,000 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,219,785 650,145 526,556 2,693,229 16%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 53,800 131,140 57,600 (3,800) 107%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 160,821 2,720,000 - 160,821 0%
CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 65,298 64,654 65,297 1 100%
OTHER DEBT 110,000 479 87 109,913 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 54,268 55,016 27,460 26,808 51%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS - 16,481 - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - 34,663 - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0%
39,294,271$ 30,161,608$ 29,998,394$ 9,295,877$ 76%
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009)
BENEFITS 229,575$ 167,012$ 150,215$ 79,360$ 65%
IN HOME LTC CLAIMS 125,000 71,758 81,904 43,097 66%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 - 6,643 357 95%
MISCELLANEOUS 250 275 275 (25) 110%
361,825$ 239,045$ 239,036$ 122,789$ 66%
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011)
INTERFUND LOAN -$ -$ -$ -$ 0%
MISCELLANEOUS - - 71,528 (71,528) 0%
-$ -$ 71,528$ (71,528)$ 0%
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND (012)
INTERFUND LOAN -$ -$ 2,846,447$ (2,846,447)$ 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 800,000 -$ 400,000 400,000 50%
800,000$ -$ 3,246,447$ (2,446,447)$ 406%
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014)
SUPPLIES 100$ -$ -$ 100$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,700 - 7,500 200 97%
ADVERTISING - - - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 - - 2,100 0%
9,900$ -$ 7,500$ 2,400$ 76%
BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016)
SUPPLIES -$ 914$ 11,410$ (11,410)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 236,400 11,721 92,546 143,854 39%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE 362,400 61,653 50,956 311,444 14%
MISCELLANEOUS - 395 - - 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 195,000 - 307 194,693 0%
793,800$ 74,683$ 155,218$ 638,582$ 20%
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND (104)
FUEL CONSUMED 3,000$ 5,072$ 1,273$ 1,727$ 42%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 800 800 4,200 16%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 2,325 1,652 581 74%
REPAIR/MAINT 800 - - 800 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 50%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 45,000 29,676 33,170 11,830 74%
76,033$ 42,872$ 46,895$ 29,138$ 62%
12 Difference between years is due to increase in the annual Fire District 1 contract, as well as Retro billings for past years.
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 495 of 549
7
Page 2 of 6
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
STREET FUND (111)
SALARIES AND WAGES 526,484$ 464,274$ 469,863$ 56,621$ 89%
OVERTIME 18,400 20,163 17,046 1,354 93%
BENEFITS 250,539 222,929 241,265 9,274 96%
UNIFORMS 6,000 4,041 5,002 998 83%
SUPPLIES 240,000 144,911 131,193 108,807 55%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 8,332 9,462 16,538 36%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,050 5,741 6,649 7,401 47%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 3,585 3,297 203 94%
TRAVEL 1,000 110 300 700 30%
ADVERTISING - - - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 191,244 152,738 159,959 31,285 84%
INSURANCE 82,400 74,683 81,386 1,014 99%
UTILITIES 270,170 190,987 208,897 61,273 77%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 13,998 40,725 4,275 90%
MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 3,006 1,357 6,643 17%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 3,000 1,956 2,031 969 68%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - 282
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - 9,828 2,672 79%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,283 - - 3,283 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1,849 982 925 924 50%
1,703,419$ 1,312,718$ 1,389,184$ 314,235$ 82%
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE (112)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,248,947$ 506,457$ 1,231,592$ 1,017,355$ 55%
MISCELLANEOUS - - - - 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 114,006 41,301 313,084 (199,078) 275%
LAND 792,500 336,437 96,051 696,449 12%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,190,290 1,331,438 1,884,129 3,306,161 36%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,203 72,201 72,201 2 100%
INTEREST 3,758 4,118 3,444 314 92%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 278,656 - - 0%
8,421,704$ 2,570,609$ 3,600,502$ 4,821,202$ 43%
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117)
SUPPLIES 4,400$ 2,794$ 3,232$ 1,168$ 73%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,500 130 815 685 54%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 138,500 71,598 74,028 64,472 53%
TRAVEL 75 11 - 75 0%
ADVERTISING - 2,555 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,599 - 2,000 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - 140 160 47%
MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 4,472 3,106 2,894 52%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - - 0%
152,775$ 83,158$ 81,321$ 71,454$ 53%
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 65,500$ 7,912$ 47,645$ 17,855$ 73%
ADVERTISING - 24,707 - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 500 - 582 (82) 116%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - - 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 4,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 50%
70,000$ 34,618$ 50,226$ 19,774$ 72%
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121)
SUPPLIES 1,785$ -$ 404$ 1,381$ 23%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - - 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,086 - - 25,086 0%
26,871$ -$ 404$ 26,467$ 2%
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122)
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000$ 1,658$ 1,787$ 1,213$ 60%
3,000$ 1,658$ 1,787$ 1,213$ 60%
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17,000$ 800$ 10,343$ 6,657$ 61%
ADVERTISING - 2,475 - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,500 3,571 1,273 3,227 28%
21,500$ 6,846$ 11,616$ 9,884$ 54%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 496 of 549
8
Page 3 of 6
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 (125)
SUPPLIES 21,000$ 49,278$ 35,347$ (14,347)$ 168%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 507,000 21,631 116,332 390,668 23%
ADVERTISING - - - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE - 11,492 - - 0%
UTILITIES - 2,358 - - 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 120,000 36,271 15,423 104,577 13%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,867,000 279 - 1,867,000 0%
2,515,000$ 121,309$ 167,101$ 2,347,899$ 7%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 0%
MISCELLANEOUS - 2,500 1,200 (1,200) 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 141,525 22,204 18,263 123,263 13%
LAND 400,000 10,473 8,000 392,000 2%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 222,000 - - 222,000 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 119,110 - - 119,110 0%
INTEREST 10,765 5,717 5,382 5,383 50%
943,400$ 40,893$ 32,845$ 910,555$ 3%
GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127)
SUPPLIES 11,620$ 929$ 9,240$ 2,380$ 80%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,000 - 415 17,585 2%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 22,175 2,500 11,088 11,088 50%
51,795$ 3,429$ 20,742$ 31,053$ 40%
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ -$ -$ -$ 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - 17,469 - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0%
-$ 17,469$ -$ -$ 0%
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT (130)
SALARIES AND WAGES 82,776$ 58,160$ 69,484$ 13,292$ 84%
OVERTIME 3,500 3,403 2,046 1,454 58%
BENEFITS 33,110 26,544 28,847 4,263 87%
UNIFORMS 1,000 - 197 803 20%
SUPPLIES 7,000 2,366 1,844 5,156 26%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 15,609 11,451 8,549 57%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,200 200 6,684 (2,484) 159%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 1,257 1,059 353 75%
TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0%
ADVERTISING - 1,717 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 9,986 7,680 8,320 1,666 83%
UTILITIES 3,800 554 733 3,067 19%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,861 3,260 740 82%
171,784$ 120,348$ 133,925$ 37,859$ 78%
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132)
SUPPLIES -$ 427$ 25$ (25)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 123,343 111,983 133,672 (10,329) 108%
LAND 3,400,000 - - 3,400,000 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,477,900 89,064 1,057,520 1,420,380 43%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 4,200 - 4,200 - 100%
6,005,443$ 201,474$ 1,195,417$ 4,810,027$ 20%
SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138)
SUPPLIES 1,500$ 99$ 59$ 1,441$ 4%
TRAVEL 4,200 3,256 3,359 841 80%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,700 1,637 1,569 3,131 33%
10,400$ 4,992$ 4,987$ 5,413$ 48%
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ -$ 3,828$ (3,828)$ 0%
INSURANCE 5,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 50%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 645,000 566,875 607,494 37,506 94%
650,000$ 569,375$ 613,821$ 36,179$ 94%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 497 of 549
9
Page 4 of 6
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (140)
SUPPLIES -$ 2,032$ 14,842$ (14,842)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 41,110 27,283 (27,283) 0%
ADVERTISING - - - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS - 2,558 367 (367) 0%
-$ 45,700$ 42,491$ (42,491)$ 0%
LID FUND CONTROL (211)
INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,567$ -$ -$ 28,567$ 0%
28,567$ -$ -$ 28,567$ 0%
2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 516,265$ -$ -$ 516,265$ 0%
INTEREST 150,928 84,010 75,464 75,464 50%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 500 604 - 500 0%
667,693$ 84,614$ 75,464$ 592,229$ 11%
2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND (232)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 906,908$ -$ -$ 906,908$ 0%
INTEREST 18,402 9,211 9,201 9,201 50%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0%
925,310$ 9,211$ 9,201$ 916,109$ 1%
WATER FUND (421)
SALARIES AND WAGES 760,901$ 609,585$ 610,943$ 149,958$ 80%
OVERTIME 24,180 12,847 13,350 10,830 55%
BENEFITS 375,728 276,781 278,814 96,914 74%
UNIFORMS 4,000 3,060 2,202 1,798 55%
SUPPLIES 150,000 103,261 106,893 43,107 71%
FUEL CONSUMED - - - - 0%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,600,000 1,183,848 1,384,727 215,273 87%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 143,000 108,659 101,327 41,673 71%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 11,000 15,167 9,759 1,241 89%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,400,480 242,811 853,271 547,209 61%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 23,790 25,091 4,909 84%
TRAVEL 200 65 - 200 0%
EXCISE TAXES 13 - - 304,732 (304,732) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 98,107 89,492 79,336 18,771 81%
INSURANCE 85,000 74,689 70,904 14,096 83%
UTILITIES 40,000 23,598 17,215 22,785 43%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,000 11,586 20,186 (3,186) 119%
MISCELLANEOUS 13 381,400 323,794 54,886 326,514 14%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 30,000 26,306 30,693 (693) 102%
INTERFUND TAXES 1,115,209 867,773 956,191 159,018 86%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 447,416 120,415 121,300 326,116 27%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - 19,261 (6,761) 154%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,229,920 1,139,389 1,434,806 1,795,114 44%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 2,205 - - 2,205 0%
REVENUE BONDS 315,277 - - 315,277 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 45,839 45,839 45,839 0 100%
INTEREST 266,524 138,667 133,799 132,725 50%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 96,707 - 96,726 (19) 100%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 327 31 (31) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 394,690 - - 0%
INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT - - - - 0%
10,682,593$ 5,836,439$ 6,772,283$ 3,910,310$ 63%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
13 Difference between years is due to Excise Taxes being broken out starting in 2015. Please also see page 10.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 498 of 549
10
Page 5 of 6
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
STORM FUND (422)
SALARIES AND WAGES 588,544$ 389,093$ 380,797$ 207,747$ 65%
OVERTIME 6,000 10,997 12,342 (6,342) 206%
BENEFITS 275,010 180,188 189,165 85,845 69%
UNIFORMS 6,500 4,493 4,850 1,650 75%
SUPPLIES 45,500 24,749 28,014 17,486 62%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 965 1,510 2,490 38%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,449,270 548,427 882,307 1,566,963 36%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 2,731 2,614 586 82%
TRAVEL 4,300 - - 4,300 0%
EXCISE TAXES 13 - - 54,053 (54,053) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 217,333 174,099 177,431 39,902 82%
INSURANCE 8,089 36,035 39,269 (31,180) 485%
UTILITES 10,500 7,138 7,075 3,425 67%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 13,000 7,301 11,587 1,413 89%
MISCELLANEOUS 13 120,500 82,156 51,518 68,982 43%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 85,000 104,056 86,392 (1,392) 102%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 323,210 258,550 271,550 51,660 84%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 153,292 22,304 25,585 127,707 17%
LAND 11,900 - - 11,900 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 12,500 - 9,828 2,672 79%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,294,832 598,363 70,500 2,224,332 3%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 80,507 - - 80,507 0%
REVENUE BONDS 154,054 - - 154,054 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,063 32,063 32,063 1 100%
INTEREST 174,142 91,970 87,739 86,403 50%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 63,863 - - 63,863 0%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 165 63,881 (63,881) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 504,545 - - 0%
7,137,109$ 3,080,386$ 2,490,070$ 4,647,039$ 35%
SEWER FUND (423)
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,690,580$ 1,356,110$ 1,394,104$ 296,476$ 82%
OVERTIME 81,000 68,946 84,793 (3,793) 105%
BENEFITS 763,707 621,523 614,873 148,834 81%
UNIFORMS 9,000 7,061 5,794 3,206 64%
SUPPLIES 350,000 200,303 190,476 159,524 54%
FUEL CONSUMED 140,000 75,687 49,050 90,950 35%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 4,000 3,600 - 4,000 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 46,000 36,877 18,258 27,742 40%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,858,745 621,311 1,331,453 527,292 72%
COMMUNICATIONS 40,000 32,314 34,360 5,640 86%
TRAVEL 5,000 893 - 5,000 0%
EXCISE TAXES 13 60,000 - 128,459 (68,459) 214%
RENTAL/LEASE 200,978 122,413 166,571 34,407 83%
INSURANCE 156,955 128,938 140,834 16,121 90%
UTILITIES 1,055,350 831,635 753,979 301,371 71%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 255,000 146,706 280,935 (25,935) 110%
MISCELLANEOUS 13 193,400 187,193 54,704 138,696 28%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 408,889 97,902 130,022 278,867 32%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 524,200 434,640 476,020 48,180 91%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,516,742 573,188 630,989 885,753 42%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 542,000 21,270 31,629 510,371 6%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,232,233 2,471,801 1,505,571 3,726,662 29%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 126,147 - - 126,147 0%
REVENUE BONDS 70,669 - - 70,669 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 203,621 162,736 169,990 33,631 83%
INTEREST 143,224 64,958 68,751 74,473 48%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 158,788 - 158,765 23 100%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 1,280 6,114 (6,114) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 545,938 - - 0%
15,836,228$ 8,815,223$ 8,426,492$ 7,409,736$ 53%
BOND RESERVE FUND (424)
REVENUE BONDS 170,000$ -$ -$ 170,000$ 0%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 205,000 - - 205,000 0%
INTEREST 674,416 340,408 337,208 337,209 50%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 294,686 - 54 294,632 0%
1,344,102$ 340,408$ 337,261$ 1,006,841$ 25%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 499 of 549
11
Page 6 of 6
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511)
SALARIES AND WAGES 207,189$ 160,963$ 175,720$ 31,469$ 85%
OVERTIME 2,000 2,309 949 1,051 47%
BENEFITS 96,603 74,403 80,771 15,832 84%
UNIFORMS 1,000 925 1,118 (118) 112%
SUPPLIES 98,000 69,001 78,742 19,258 80%
FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 708 106 894 11%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 315,200 181,206 125,775 189,425 40%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,306 12,555 21,411 (1,105) 105%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,000 715 1,092 9,908 10%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,689 1,809 1,191 60%
TRAVEL 3,300 - 2,935 365 89%
RENTAL/LEASE 15,118 11,482 12,359 2,759 82%
INSURANCE 32,701 37,376 40,605 (7,904) 124%
UTILITIES 14,000 9,135 9,041 4,959 65%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 48,604 29,841 30,159 50%
MISCELLANEOUS 7,190 4,441 6,411 779 89%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 2,408 1,195 1,305 48%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 827,718 163,749 723,639 104,079 87%
INTERFUND RENTAL - 6,089 - - 0%
1,717,825$ 787,759$ 1,313,521$ 404,304$ 76%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
BENEFITS 37,633$ 21,762$ 18,608$ 19,025$ 49%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 38,796 23,700 21,859 16,937 56%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 - 1,107 93 92%
77,629$ 45,462$ 41,574$ 36,055$ 54%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 100,499,976$ 54,652,307$ 60,577,254$ 39,922,722$ 60%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 500 of 549
12
Page 1 of 1
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL 256,160$ 181,581$ 179,125$ 77,035$ 70%
OFFICE OF MAYOR 257,113 203,639 208,188 48,925 81%
HUMAN RESOURCES 399,688 274,401 295,874 103,814 74%
MUNICIPAL COURT 883,826 652,008 711,635 172,191 81%
CITY CLERK 595,274 428,531 471,900 123,374 79%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,686,495 1,384,236 1,311,053 375,442 78%
CITY ATTORNEY 664,180 453,910 552,021 112,159 83%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 15,106,961 11,971,534 10,998,910 4,108,051 73%
POLICE SERVICES 9,099,094 7,019,012 7,257,133 1,841,961 80%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV.453,296 348,588 341,167 112,129 75%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,441,763 1,505,679 1,790,912 650,851 73%
PARKS & RECREATION 3,684,696 2,931,567 2,920,692 764,004 79%
PUBLIC WORKS 2,303,055 1,634,296 1,748,657 554,398 76%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,462,670 1,172,625 1,211,126 251,544 83%
39,294,271$ 30,161,608$ 29,998,394$ 9,295,877$ 76%
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
WATER UTILITY FUND 10,682,593$ 5,836,439$ 6,772,283$ 3,910,310$ 63%
STORM UTILITY FUND 7,137,109 3,080,386 2,490,070 4,647,039 35%
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 15,836,228 8,815,223 8,426,492 7,409,736 53%
BOND RESERVE FUND 1,344,102 340,408 337,261 1,006,841 25%
35,000,032$ 18,072,455$ 18,026,106$ 16,973,926$ 52%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 501 of 549
13
Page 1 of 4
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES 132,908$ 103,489$ 104,059$ 28,849$ 78%
OVERTIME 2,000 124 - 2,000 0%
BENEFITS 74,512 62,589 62,960 11,552 84%
SUPPLIES 2,000 487 1,145 855 57%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - 1,005 832 (832) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000 521 5,481 4,519 55%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,408 2,701 299 90%
TRAVEL 2,500 1,431 933 1,567 37%
RENTAL/LEASE 490 426 484 6 99%
REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 1,500 - - 1,500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 27,250 9,101 531 26,719 2%
256,160$ 181,581$ 179,125$ 77,035$ 70%
OFFICE OF MAYOR
SALARIES 196,512$ 159,512$ 164,434$ 32,078$ 84%
BENEFITS 46,801 37,354 37,944 8,857 81%
SUPPLIES 2,000 603 641 1,359 32%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 1,154 908 1,092 45%
COMMUNICATION 1,400 565 360 1,040 26%
TRAVEL 2,500 438 188 2,312 8%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 1,996 1,788 612 74%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 2,017 1,925 1,075 64%
257,113$ 203,639$ 208,188$ 48,925$ 81%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES 198,913$ 160,799$ 174,437$ 24,476$ 88%
BENEFITS 75,651 54,640 57,798 17,853 76%
SUPPLIES 2,300 2,866 1,521 779 66%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 337 107 193 36%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 83,776 41,031 54,924 28,852 66%
COMMUNICATIONS 700 764 859 (159) 123%
TRAVEL 500 - 757 (257) 151%
ADVERTISING - 3,438 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 1,998 1,646 554 75%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 6,000 6,119 7,793 (1,793) 130%
MISCELLANEOUS 14 29,348 2,411 (3,968) 33,316 -14%
399,688$ 274,401$ 295,874$ 103,814$ 74%
MUNICIPAL COURT
SALARIES 538,864$ 430,221$ 454,774$ 84,090$ 84%
OVERTIME 600 2,590 2,301 (1,701) 383%
BENEFITS 202,532 141,396 160,682 41,850 79%
SUPPLIES 9,930 9,909 10,676 (746) 108%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 240 1,631 1,169 58%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 64,000 48,181 63,084 916 99%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,400 2,373 1,714 1,686 50%
TRAVEL 2,500 2,690 2,971 (471) 119%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,400 1,063 304 1,096 22%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,600 3,242 941 659 59%
MISCELLANEOUS 56,200 10,104 12,557 43,643 22%
883,826$ 652,008$ 711,635$ 172,191$ 81%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
14 A budget amendment will be completed to account for the credit.
Packet Page 502 of 549
14
Page 2 of 4
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES 334,612$ 253,392$ 277,304$ 57,308$ 83%
OVERTIME - 1,206 1,397 (1,397) 0%
BENEFITS 129,143 85,758 100,430 28,713 78%
SUPPLIES 10,237 6,161 6,577 3,660 64%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 602 (602) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,307 17,833 22,039 6,268 78%
COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 33,200 32,533 17,467 65%
TRAVEL 1,000 204 423 577 42%
ADVERTISING - 1,505 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 15,677 17,322 2,678 87%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,975 10,426 9,796 8,179 54%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 3,168 3,477 523 87%
595,274$ 428,531$ 471,900$ 123,374$ 79%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES 801,002$ 613,597$ 658,996$ 142,006$ 82%
OVERTIME 6,667 6,140 1,408 5,259 21%
BENEFITS 303,881 212,541 222,044 81,837 73%
SUPPLIES 36,050 63,021 7,971 28,079 22%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 125,627 167,391 62,512 63,115 50%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 88,900 27,037 58,365 30,535 66%
COMMUNICATIONS 61,500 31,400 39,128 22,372 64%
TRAVEL 1,750 960 1,722 28 98%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,998 6,701 8,850 (852) 111%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 15 202,620 117,627 158,643 43,977 78%
MISCELLANEOUS 15 10,500 22,403 47,177 (36,677) 449%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 115,419 44,236 (4,236) 111%
1,686,495$ 1,384,236$ 1,311,053$ 375,442$ 78%
CITY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 664,180$ 453,860$ 552,021$ 112,159$ 83%
MISCELLANEOUS - 50 - - 0%
664,180$ 453,910$ 552,021$ 112,159$ 83%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES 110,279$ -$ -$ 110,279$ 0%
BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 25,000 12,410 5,981 19,019 24%
SUPPLIES 3,000 1,429 6,097 (3,097) 203%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 637,350 268,945 337,344 300,006 53%
EXCISE TAXES 6,500 5,152 4,026 2,474 62%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 100%
INSURANCE 423,600 383,906 418,367 5,233 99%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE - - - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 74,350 57,960 62,426 11,924 84%
INTERGOVT SERVICES 16 10,033,110 7,696,694 9,541,670 491,440 95%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT 180,000 - - 180,000 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,219,785 650,145 526,556 2,693,229 16%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 160,821 2,720,000 - 160,821 0%
INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 65,298 64,654 65,297 1 100%
OTHER DEBT 110,000 - - 110,000 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 54,268 55,016 27,460 26,808 51%
DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS - 16,481 - - 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 479 87 (87) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - 34,663 - - 0%
15,106,961$ 11,971,534$ 10,998,910$ 4,108,051$ 73%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
15 Differences between 2014 and 2015 are due primarily to software license "true up" and fiber redundancy expenses.
16 Difference between years is due to an increase in the annual Fire District 1 contract, as well as Retro billings for past years.
Packet Page 503 of 549
15
Page 3 of 4
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
POLICE SERVICES
SALARIES 5,457,913$ 4,271,820$ 4,366,576$ 1,091,337$ 80%
OVERTIME 400,355 317,430 415,255 (14,900) 104%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK 209,198 2,409 3,174 206,024 2%
BENEFITS 2,051,907 1,646,128 1,694,205 357,702 83%
UNIFORMS 56,910 34,413 47,973 8,937 84%
SUPPLIES 87,500 59,015 62,324 25,176 71%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 33,330 29,783 19,736 13,594 59%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,662 83,362 84,808 29,854 74%
COMMUNICATIONS 26,207 19,798 19,668 6,539 75%
TRAVEL 14,300 10,501 17,592 (3,292) 123%
ADVERTISING - 40 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 575,500 505,518 477,395 98,105 83%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 16,115 5,531 10,763 5,352 67%
MISCELLANEOUS 44,960 28,147 27,119 17,841 60%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,237 5,119 10,546 (309) 103%
INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0%
9,099,094$ 7,019,012$ 7,257,133$ 1,841,961$ 80%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV.
SALARIES 222,050$ 189,724$ 184,398$ 37,652$ 83%
BENEFITS 67,056 48,521 53,571 13,485 80%
SUPPLIES 2,281 6,232 2,763 (482) 121%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - 326 474 41%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 135,700 90,244 92,370 43,330 68%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 625 821 669 55%
TRAVEL 2,000 6 179 1,821 9%
ADVERTISING - 8,477 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,819 1,998 1,646 1,173 58%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 18,600 2,760 5,092 13,508 27%
453,296$ 348,588$ 341,167$ 112,129$ 75%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES 1,349,115$ 939,192$ 1,119,836$ 229,279$ 83%
OVERTIME 1,300 5,044 528 772 41%
BENEFITS 505,727 338,615 400,026 105,701 79%
UNIFORMS 500 120 - 500 0%
SUPPLIES 13,100 13,255 11,251 1,849 86%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,050 7,130 6,474 (1,424) 128%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 454,437 142,730 162,242 292,195 36%
COMMUNICATIONS 6,100 3,587 3,677 2,423 60%
TRAVEL 4,250 1,899 2,397 1,853 56%
ADVERTISING - 4,539 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 35,234 31,819 30,698 4,536 87%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 5,700 620 6,612 (912) 116%
MISCELLANEOUS 61,250 17,128 47,170 14,080 77%
2,441,763$ 1,505,679$ 1,790,912$ 650,851$ 73%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES 1,245,433$ 914,823$ 1,029,447$ 215,986$ 83%
OVERTIME 5,000 505 946 4,054 19%
BENEFITS 511,018 361,810 407,650 103,368 80%
UNIFORMS 360 109 - 360 0%
SUPPLIES - - 20 (20) 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 2,052 644 1,556 29%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 145,000 36,886 - 145,000 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 10,500 5,434 6,705 3,796 64%
TRAVEL 600 86 21 579 4%
ADVERTISING - - - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 14,881 15,410 12,400 2,481 83%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,800 699 - 1,800 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 16,000 12,118 8,843 7,157 55%
1,952,792$ 1,349,933$ 1,466,676$ 486,116$ 75%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 504 of 549
16
Page 4 of 4
Title
2015 Amended
Budget
10/31/2014
Expenditures
10/31/2015
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
PARKS & RECREATION
SALARIES 1,786,934$ 1,393,235$ 1,425,063$ 361,871$ 80%
OVERTIME 10,000 13,361 8,999 1,001 90%
BENEFITS 683,023 505,442 521,535 161,488 76%
UNIFORMS 5,340 4,985 5,740 (400) 107%
SUPPLIES 109,122 99,978 102,758 6,364 94%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,168 42,658 9,205 963 91%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 468,647 416,772 361,002 107,645 77%
COMMUNICATIONS 29,980 18,510 18,987 10,993 63%
TRAVEL 4,445 2,005 1,709 2,736 38%
ADVERTISING - 3,172 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 179,804 143,434 156,176 23,628 87%
PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 140,472 166,906 8,094 95%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 50,799 45,055 37,710 13,089 74%
MISCELLANEOUS 86,939 50,833 52,538 34,401 60%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 13,800 15,721 13,364 436 97%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,695 35,934 39,000 31,695 55%
3,684,696$ 2,931,567$ 2,920,692$ 764,004$ 79%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES 247,982$ 208,305$ 205,682$ 42,300$ 83%
OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0%
BENEFITS 76,327 61,797 60,460 15,867 79%
SUPPLIES 7,600 4,167 3,656 3,944 48%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 583 1,479 (479) 148%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 154 2,083 (1,883) 1042%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 627 500 850 37%
TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,404 5,201 4,921 2,483 66%
PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 1,878 1,862 938 67%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,900 1,651 1,338 2,562 34%
350,263$ 284,363$ 281,981$ 68,282$ 81%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES 629,490 521,785 513,185 116,305 82%
OVERTIME 2,500 2,309 3,512 (1,012) 140%
BENEFITS 256,400 224,385 211,172 45,228 82%
UNIFORMS 2,500 2,607 2,984 (484) 119%
SUPPLIES 87,000 64,261 58,692 28,308 67%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 8,122 13,530 (10,530) 451%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45,000 2,026 49,344 (4,344) 110%
COMMUNICATIONS 13,500 12,387 11,483 2,017 85%
TRAVEL - 27 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 52,680 41,744 44,138 8,542 84%
PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 229,062 215,225 64,776 77%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 88,500 59,983 83,678 4,822 95%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 3,926 4,185 (2,085) 199%
1,462,670$ 1,172,625$ 1,211,126$ 251,544$ 83%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 39,294,271$ 30,161,608$ 29,998,394$ 9,295,877$ 76%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 505 of 549
17
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 1,832,688$ 1,832,688$ 1,782,532$ -2.74%
February 4,370,788 2,538,100 4,043,011 -7.50%
March 6,518,104 2,147,316 6,234,620 -4.35%
April 9,870,095 3,351,991 9,527,417 -3.47%
May 17,582,276 7,712,180 16,760,751 -4.67%
June 19,387,167 1,804,891 18,922,673 -2.40%
July 21,390,864 2,003,697 20,889,506 -2.34%
August 23,243,306 1,852,441 23,846,578 2.60%
September 25,104,749 1,861,444 25,793,100 2.74%
October 28,088,137 2,983,388 28,691,238 2.15%
November 35,228,930 7,140,793 35,985,357 2.15%
December 36,995,841 1,766,911 37,790,206 2.15%
Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 161,706$ 161,706$ 172,194$ 6.49%
February 266,037 104,331 283,606 6.60%
March 393,162 127,125 451,493 14.84%
April 541,849 148,687 624,086 15.18%
May 674,058 132,209 837,146 24.19%
June 827,021 152,963 1,049,078 26.85%
July 1,014,970 187,948 1,633,753 60.97%
August 1,208,327 193,357 1,885,812 56.07%
September 1,376,530 168,203 2,121,081 54.09%
October 1,537,028 160,499 2,327,019 51.40%
November 1,688,556 151,528 2,556,428 51.40%
December 1,800,000 111,444 2,725,151 51.40%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax
0
8,000,000
16,000,000
24,000,000
32,000,000
40,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 506 of 549
18
Retail Eating & Drinking
658,786
Health & Personal Care
82,056
Contractors 1,154,174
Wholesale Trade 233,141 Communications 194,862
Misc Retail Trade 622,343
Accommodation 37,988
Business Services 333,362
Amusement & Recreation
53,643
Retail Food Stores 176,218
Others 269,155
Clothing and Accessories
173,273
Retail Automotive 1,351,212
Automotive Repair 160,477
Gasoline Stations 29,041
Sales Tax Analysis By Category
Current Period: October 2015
Year-to-Date
Total $5,529,730
($100,000)$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000
Retail Food Stores
Amusement & Recreation
Gasoline Stations
Accommodation
Health & Personal Care
Clothing and Accessories
Business Services
Communications
Others
Automotive Repair
Wholesale Trade
Misc Retail Trade
Retail Eating & Drinking
Retail Automotive
Contractors
Total
($37,734)
($5,266)
($262)
$4,453
$3,789
$4,084
$8,469
$16,277
$24,436
$29,317
$42,288
$54,643
$54,678
$79,278
$447,386
$725,838
Change in Sales Tax Revenue:
October 2015 compared to
October 2014
Packet Page 507 of 549
19
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 435,694$ 435,694$ 499,246$ 14.59%
February 975,847 540,153 1,134,685 16.28%
March 1,391,087 415,240 1,605,365 15.40%
April 1,791,264 400,176 2,047,828 14.32%
May 2,291,242 499,978 2,604,373 13.67%
June 2,734,170 442,928 3,140,830 14.87%
July 3,180,829 446,659 3,704,663 16.47%
August 3,672,197 491,368 4,328,398 17.87%
September 4,144,571 472,374 4,937,480 19.13%
October 4,628,198 483,627 5,529,730 19.48%
November 5,157,791 529,593 6,162,483 19.48%
December 5,627,000 469,209 6,723,089 19.48%
Gas Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 106,130$ 106,130$ 84,288$ -20.58%
February 216,919 110,788 181,842 -16.17%
March 311,490 94,571 252,457 -18.95%
April 394,636 83,146 321,196 -18.61%
May 462,784 68,148 373,735 -19.24%
June 509,747 46,963 413,611 -18.86%
July 548,655 38,908 442,408 -19.36%
August 576,833 28,179 465,494 -19.30%
September 602,307 25,474 488,445 -18.90%
October 629,657 27,350 517,806 -17.76%
November 672,464 42,807 553,009 -17.76%
December 743,700 71,236 611,591 -17.76%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Gas Utility Tax
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Sales and Use Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Gas Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 508 of 549
20
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 123,352$ 123,352$ 139,353$ 12.97%
February 224,347 100,994 240,490 7.20%
March 346,461 122,114 358,530 3.48%
April 464,141 117,681 465,785 0.35%
May 589,261 125,119 564,946 -4.13%
June 702,776 113,515 664,312 -5.47%
July 813,739 110,963 768,922 -5.51%
August 924,614 110,875 876,407 -5.21%
September 1,034,622 110,008 998,872 -3.46%
October 1,144,101 109,479 1,108,655 -3.10%
November 1,246,216 102,116 1,207,607 -3.10%
December 1,371,800 125,584 1,329,300 -3.10%
Electric Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 166,797$ 166,797$ 163,683$ -1.87%
February 333,580 166,783 327,208 -1.91%
March 496,789 163,209 466,770 -6.04%
April 655,116 158,327 625,378 -4.54%
May 800,868 145,752 763,075 -4.72%
June 913,622 112,754 871,282 -4.63%
July 1,021,749 108,127 980,692 -4.02%
August 1,120,601 98,852 1,080,841 -3.55%
September 1,223,250 102,649 1,181,169 -3.44%
October 1,313,426 90,176 1,321,572 0.62%
November 1,424,495 111,069 1,433,329 0.62%
December 1,533,800 109,305 1,543,312 0.62%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Electric Utility Tax
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Telephone Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Electric Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 509 of 549
21
Meter Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 520,277$ 520,277$ 519,477$ -0.15%
February 883,891 363,614 874,540 -1.06%
March 1,398,367 514,476 1,371,848 -1.90%
April 1,750,133 351,766 1,711,250 -2.22%
May 2,266,493 516,360 2,221,102 -2.00%
June 2,648,184 381,692 2,636,962 -0.42%
July 3,236,847 588,662 3,294,801 1.79%
August 3,746,386 509,539 3,876,774 3.48%
September 4,463,965 717,579 4,632,977 3.79%
October 4,978,111 514,146 5,113,234 2.71%
November 5,584,869 606,758 5,736,462 2.71%
December 5,964,343 379,474 6,126,236 2.71%
Storm Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 223,883$ 223,883$ 226,620$ -1.87%
February 705,681 481,798 715,253 -1.91%
March 929,860 224,179 941,830 -6.04%
April 1,129,150 199,290 1,142,961 -4.54%
May 1,353,703 224,553 1,369,794 -4.72%
June 1,552,980 199,277 1,571,805 -4.63%
July 1,778,558 225,578 1,798,663 1.13%
August 2,268,142 489,584 2,289,982 0.96%
September 2,497,209 229,067 2,514,518 0.69%
October 2,699,606 202,397 2,715,448 0.59%
November 2,927,436 227,830 2,944,615 0.59%
December 3,130,447 203,011 3,148,818 0.59%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Meter Water Sales
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Storm Water Sales
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Meter Water Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Storm Water Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 510 of 549
22
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 517,721$ 517,721$ 520,708$ 0.58%
February 936,104 418,382 940,945 0.52%
March 1,453,283 517,179 1,448,413 -0.34%
April 1,871,624 418,341 1,875,395 0.20%
May 2,393,060 521,437 2,392,477 -0.02%
June 2,815,270 422,210 2,829,634 0.51%
July 3,344,959 529,688 3,360,598 0.47%
August 3,771,751 426,792 3,792,545 0.55%
September 4,309,599 537,849 4,331,229 0.50%
October 4,738,355 428,756 4,763,507 0.53%
November 5,266,018 527,663 5,293,972 0.53%
December 5,692,773 426,755 5,722,992 0.53%
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales
2015
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 511 of 549
23
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 4,290,818$ 4,290,818$ 4,797,714$ 11.81%
February 6,907,462 2,616,643 6,730,834 -2.56%
March 9,971,896 3,064,435 8,883,278 -10.92%
April 13,907,084 3,935,188 12,838,447 -7.68%
May 15,981,615 2,074,530 14,813,377 -7.31%
June 19,223,089 3,241,474 19,452,503 1.19%
July 22,715,444 3,492,355 21,504,246 -5.33%
August 25,719,078 3,003,634 25,640,346 -0.31%
September 29,563,367 3,844,289 27,925,951 -5.54%
October 32,023,109 2,459,741 29,998,394 -6.32%
November 35,254,547 3,231,438 33,025,519 -6.32%
December 39,294,271 4,039,724 36,809,825 -6.32%
Non-Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 2,583,549$ 2,583,549$ 2,944,421$ 13.97%
February 3,245,124 661,576 2,984,442 -8.03%
March 4,360,005 1,114,880 3,261,415 -25.20%
April 6,385,279 2,025,274 5,406,181 -15.33%
May 6,542,161 156,882 5,563,278 -14.96%
June 7,763,258 1,221,097 8,369,406 7.81%
July 9,209,089 1,445,831 8,463,703 -8.09%
August 10,055,577 846,488 10,573,039 5.15%
September 11,943,556 1,887,979 10,917,365 -8.59%
October 12,398,351 454,795 10,998,910 -11.29%
November 13,324,507 926,156 11,820,528 -11.29%
December 15,106,961 1,782,454 13,401,790 -11.29%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-General Fund
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Non-Departmental
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
3,000,000
6,000,000
9,000,000
12,000,000
15,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Non-Departmental
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 512 of 549
24
City Council
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 18,624$ 18,624$ 15,644$ -16.00%
February 39,658 21,034 32,177 -18.86%
March 59,398 19,740 54,262 -8.65%
April 79,090 19,692 73,069 -7.61%
May 98,664 19,574 90,440 -8.34%
June 121,960 23,296 107,828 -11.59%
July 145,588 23,628 125,175 -14.02%
August 166,249 20,661 143,789 -13.51%
September 186,786 20,536 161,353 -13.62%
October 207,853 21,068 179,125 -13.82%
November 230,147 22,294 198,338 -13.82%
December 256,160 26,013 220,755 -13.82%
Office of Mayor
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 21,864$ 21,864$ 20,447$ -6.48%
February 43,742 21,879 41,879 -4.26%
March 64,861 21,119 62,160 -4.16%
April 85,648 20,787 82,654 -3.50%
May 106,706 21,058 102,832 -3.63%
June 127,891 21,185 123,379 -3.53%
July 150,093 22,202 145,515 -3.05%
August 171,201 21,108 166,555 -2.71%
September 191,760 20,559 187,585 -2.18%
October 214,972 23,213 208,188 -3.16%
November 236,760 21,787 229,288 -3.16%
December 257,113 20,353 248,999 -3.16%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Council
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Office of Mayor
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Council
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0.00
50,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
250,000.00
300,000.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Office of Mayor
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 513 of 549
25
Community Services/Economic Development
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 26,114$ 26,114$ 25,947$ -0.64%
February 68,895 42,782 55,912 -18.85%
March 104,251 35,356 90,926 -12.78%
April 149,111 44,859 129,520 -13.14%
May 183,482 34,372 156,258 -14.84%
June 214,894 31,411 188,019 -12.51%
July 260,155 45,261 223,086 -14.25%
August 293,627 33,472 263,436 -10.28%
September 330,069 36,441 303,816 -7.95%
October 367,830 37,761 341,167 -7.25%
November 404,907 37,078 375,557 -7.25%
December 453,296 48,389 420,438 -7.25%
City Clerk
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 44,885$ 44,885$ 69,874$ 55.68%
February 92,515 47,631 113,771 22.97%
March 143,001 50,486 151,490 5.94%
April 189,686 46,685 202,117 6.55%
May 235,271 45,585 243,300 3.41%
June 286,525 51,254 285,114 -0.49%
July 335,371 48,846 332,476 -0.86%
August 386,689 51,318 373,253 -3.47%
September 439,532 52,843 413,948 -5.82%
October 494,623 55,091 471,900 -4.59%
November 545,767 51,144 520,694 -4.59%
December 595,274 49,507 567,927 -4.59%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Community Services/Economic Development
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Community Services/Economic Development
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Clerk
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 514 of 549
26
Human Resources
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 30,379$ 30,379$ 23,208$ -23.61%
February 61,342 30,962 58,245 -5.05%
March 96,964 35,622 97,488 0.54%
April 129,280 32,316 118,354 -8.45%
May 164,325 35,045 142,753 -13.13%
June 196,050 31,725 177,419 -9.50%
July 229,771 33,721 203,528 -11.42%
August 260,922 31,151 232,558 -10.87%
September 296,920 35,998 260,353 -12.32%
October 327,404 30,483 295,874 -9.63%
November 356,366 28,962 322,047 -9.63%
December 399,688 43,322 361,197 -9.63%
Municipal Court
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 65,765$ 65,765$ 64,786$ -1.49%
February 137,555 71,791 131,534 -4.38%
March 214,280 76,725 199,177 -7.05%
April 288,496 74,215 262,806 -8.90%
May 357,762 69,267 335,527 -6.22%
June 432,214 74,451 400,792 -7.27%
July 504,854 72,640 473,213 -6.27%
August 578,153 73,300 552,079 -4.51%
September 650,848 72,694 622,277 -4.39%
October 725,572 74,725 711,635 -1.92%
November 800,045 74,472 784,676 -1.92%
December 883,826 83,781 866,848 -1.92%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Municipal Court
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Human Resources
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Municipal Court
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 515 of 549
27
Information Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 65,374$ 65,374$ 118,077$ 80.62%
February 143,513 78,139 220,041 53.32%
March 203,645 60,132 265,742 30.49%
April 257,305 53,660 315,850 22.75%
May 309,335 52,030 351,842 13.74%
June 357,815 48,480 401,221 12.13%
July 421,827 64,012 436,373 3.45%
August 487,733 65,906 478,267 -1.94%
September 534,262 46,529 579,168 8.41%
October 584,987 50,725 625,468 6.92%
November 660,726 75,739 706,448 6.92%
December 822,765 162,039 879,700 6.92%
Finance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 91,283$ 91,283$ 61,363$ -32.78%
February 153,886 62,604 162,931 5.88%
March 223,819 69,933 230,381 2.93%
April 298,102 74,283 292,317 -1.94%
May 365,464 67,361 356,315 -2.50%
June 435,396 69,932 416,897 -4.25%
July 502,682 67,286 479,148 -4.68%
August 570,422 67,740 545,052 -4.45%
September 641,081 70,659 611,177 -4.66%
October 716,184 75,102 685,585 -4.27%
November 786,158 69,974 752,570 -4.27%
December 863,730 77,572 826,828 -4.27%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Information Services
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Finance
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Information Services
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Finance
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 516 of 549
28
City Attorney
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 55,348$ 55,348$ 41,000$ -25.92%
February 110,697 55,348 109,902 -0.72%
March 166,045 55,348 164,833 -0.73%
April 221,393 55,348 219,764 -0.74%
May 276,742 55,348 274,735 -0.73%
June 332,090 55,348 329,666 -0.73%
July 387,438 55,348 385,025 -0.62%
August 442,786 55,348 440,856 -0.44%
September 498,135 55,348 481,960 -3.25%
October 553,483 55,348 552,021 -0.26%
November 608,831 55,348 607,224 -0.26%
December 664,180 55,348 662,426 -0.26%
Police
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 701,191$ 701,191$ 722,157$ 2.99%
February 1,408,302 707,112 1,439,842 2.24%
March 2,143,908 735,605 2,171,600 1.29%
April 2,860,467 716,559 2,874,990 0.51%
May 3,564,614 704,147 3,599,927 0.99%
June 4,335,602 770,988 4,329,129 -0.15%
July 5,062,314 726,712 5,029,065 -0.66%
August 5,787,554 725,240 5,768,314 -0.33%
September 6,548,946 761,392 6,488,421 -0.92%
October 7,285,121 736,175 7,257,133 -0.38%
November 8,282,816 997,695 8,250,996 -0.38%
December 9,099,094 816,278 9,064,137 -0.38%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Police
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Attorney
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Police
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 517 of 549
29
Development Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 192,233$ 192,233$ 168,772$ -12.20%
February 384,614 192,381 336,679 -12.46%
March 588,012 203,398 538,490 -8.42%
April 780,942 192,930 709,939 -9.09%
May 978,026 197,084 888,971 -9.11%
June 1,167,168 189,142 1,059,255 -9.25%
July 1,371,007 203,839 1,222,591 -10.83%
August 1,580,178 209,171 1,396,951 -11.60%
September 1,785,290 205,113 1,576,660 -11.69%
October 2,006,497 221,207 1,790,912 -10.74%
November 2,215,904 209,407 1,977,820 -10.74%
December 2,441,763 225,859 2,179,412 -10.74%
Parks & Recreation
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 234,525$ 234,525$ 230,892$ -1.55%
February 491,322 256,797 470,482 -4.24%
March 760,561 269,239 729,804 -4.04%
April 1,029,448 268,887 986,966 -4.13%
May 1,321,037 291,589 1,260,011 -4.62%
June 1,641,439 320,402 1,528,030 -6.91%
July 2,061,948 420,509 1,899,573 -7.87%
August 2,497,012 435,064 2,346,584 -6.02%
September 2,817,096 320,084 2,653,025 -5.82%
October 3,096,024 278,928 2,920,692 -5.66%
November 3,352,462 256,438 3,162,608 -5.66%
December 3,684,696 332,234 3,476,026 -5.66%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Development Services
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Parks & Recreation
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Development Services
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Parks & Recreation
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 518 of 549
30
Public Works
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 28,448$ 28,448$ 28,516$ 0.24%
February 56,173 27,725 58,648 4.41%
March 84,122 27,949 87,405 3.90%
April 111,864 27,741 116,105 3.79%
May 140,136 28,273 144,875 3.38%
June 168,982 28,845 174,245 3.11%
July 207,749 38,768 203,782 -1.91%
August 235,654 27,905 230,701 -2.10%
September 263,562 27,908 253,436 -3.84%
October 292,666 29,104 281,981 -3.65%
November 318,921 26,255 307,278 -3.65%
December 350,263 31,342 337,475 -3.65%
Facilities Maintenance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 113,211$ 113,211$ 117,139$ 3.47%
February 237,061 123,850 224,792 -5.18%
March 366,160 129,099 344,860 -5.82%
April 485,233 119,073 470,418 -3.05%
May 601,657 116,424 578,920 -3.78%
June 718,330 116,673 694,660 -3.30%
July 838,190 119,860 867,487 3.50%
August 950,657 112,468 964,498 1.46%
September 1,076,486 125,828 1,102,245 2.39%
October 1,188,234 111,748 1,211,126 1.93%
November 1,312,945 124,712 1,338,240 1.93%
December 1,462,670 149,725 1,490,850 1.93%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Public Works
2015
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Facilities Maintenance
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Public Works
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Facilities Maintenance
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 519 of 549
31
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 157,953$ 157,953$ 145,471$ -7.90%
February 318,573 160,620 289,558 -9.11%
March 477,882 159,309 433,246 -9.34%
April 635,671 157,789 577,397 -9.17%
May 797,603 161,931 723,392 -9.30%
June 957,206 159,603 867,442 -9.38%
July 1,114,848 157,643 1,014,506 -9.00%
August 1,274,057 159,208 1,164,415 -8.61%
September 1,438,040 163,983 1,313,164 -8.68%
October 1,610,943 172,903 1,466,676 -8.96%
November 1,777,884 166,940 1,618,666 -8.96%
December 1,952,792 174,908 1,777,911 -8.96%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Engineering
2015
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Engineering
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 520 of 549
32
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
(a)
Term Purchase Purchase Maturity Yield to Weighted
Agency / Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average
Washington State Local
Government Investment Pool
Investment Pool Various 20,100,841$ Various 0.187% 0.063%
Snohomish County
Investment Pool
Investment Pool Various 35,359,257$ Various 0.74% 0.438%
FHLMC Bonds 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 12/28/2017 0.90% 0.015%
FHLMC Bonds 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2017 0.75% 0.013%
FNMA Bonds 60 9/19/2014 1,000,000 9/19/2019 1.87% 0.031%
FICO Bonds 33 9/19/2014 1,027,000 6/6/2017 0.96% 0.017%
TOTAL 59,487,098$ 0.58%0.577%
Investment Mix % of Total
State Investment Pool 33.8% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.23%
Bonds 6.8% Current State Pool rate 0.19%
Snohomish County
Investment Pool 59.4% Blended Edmonds rate 0.58%
100.0%
(a) To maturity.
Investment interest through October of 2015 is $275,598, whereas interest through October of 2014 was $128,261; difference of $147,337.
Rate Comparison
City of Edmonds
Investment Portfolio Summary
As of October 31, 2015
Packet Page 521 of 549
33
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
12/31/2014 9/30/2015 10/31/2015 Q3 YTD
001-General Fund 6,446,380$ 4,313,529$ 5,139,224$ (1,603,020)$ (1,307,156)$
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 539,044 469,161 440,899 (71,112) (98,145)
011-Risk Management Fund 1,024,822 960,933 960,364 (68,174) (64,458)
012-Contingency Reserve Fund 5,445,337 2,231,014 2,231,972 (2,836,917) (3,213,365)
013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 56,023 56,395 56,419 138 396
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,066 - 0 2,681 (1,066)
016-Building Maintenance 141,146 243,755 239,090 (38,937) 97,944
Total General Fund 13,653,818$ 8,274,787$ 9,067,968$ (4,615,342)$ (4,585,850)$
GENERAL
FUND
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$13.65
$8.27 $9.07
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Dec 2014 Sept 2015 Oct 2015
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General Fund
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 522 of 549
34
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2014 9/30/2015 10/31/2015 Q3 YTD
General Fund 13,653,818$ 8,274,787$ 9,067,968$ (4,615,342)$ (4,585,850)$
Special Revenue 6,515,938 8,731,319 8,851,350 1,324,688 2,335,412
Debt Service 86,412 114,790 114,790 18,715 28,378
Total Governmental Funds 20,256,168$ 17,120,897$ 18,034,109$ (3,271,940)$ (2,222,059)$
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$13.65
$8.27
$9.07
$6.52
$8.73 $8.85
$0.09 $0.11 $0.11 -
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Dec 2014 Sept 2015 Oct 2015
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General
Fund
Special
Revenue
Debt
Service
Governmental Fund Balances-By Fund GroupGovernmentalFund Balances-By Fund Group
$20.26
$17.12 $18.03
-
6
12
18
24
Dec 2014 Sept 2015 Oct 2015
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Governmental Fund
Balances - Combined
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 523 of 549
35
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2014 9/30/2015 10/31/2015 Q3 YTD
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 55,159$ 30,555$ 19,616$ (17,624)$ (35,543)$
111 - Street Fund 327,150 384,846 337,446 (23,653) 10,296
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 209,915 667,256 898,020 551,705 688,105
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 440,605 462,462 457,610 11,144 17,005
118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,772 17,890 17,898 44 126
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 133,991 154,681 149,482 15,241 15,491
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 64,344 73,543 73,849 601 9,505
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 14,452 13,710 13,572 410 (880)
123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 77,645 86,410 88,193 3,864 10,548
125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,531,385 2,457,938 2,541,189 508,553 1,009,804
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 1,166,954 2,209,068 2,308,952 540,881 1,141,998
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 247,886 275,758 273,498 5,965 25,612
129 - Special Projects Fund 38,078 38,331 38,347 94 269
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 108,243 127,769 128,117 (2,425) 19,874
132 - Parks Construction Fund 995,136 630,529 396,405 (272,555) (598,731)
136 - Parks Trust Fund 150,999 152,001 152,067 371 1,068
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 860,229 879,319 881,137 6,999 20,908
138 - Sister City Commission 1,703 636 636 (4,669) (1,067)
139 - Transportation Benefit District 27,935 - 0 - (27,935)
140 - Business Improvement Disrict 46,357 68,618 75,316 (258) 28,959
Total Special Revenue 6,515,938$ 8,731,319$ 8,851,350$ 1,324,688$ 2,335,412$
GOVERNMENTAL
Special Revenue
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$6.52
$8.73 $8.85
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Dec 2014 Sept 2015 Oct 2015
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Special
Revenue
Special Revenue Funds
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 524 of 549
36
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2014 9/30/2015 10/31/2015 Q3 YTD
421 - Water Utility Fund 16,284,671$ 21,726,224$ 21,660,620$ 5,009,083$ 5,375,949$
422 - Storm Utility Fund 10,121,795 14,790,228 14,759,011 3,686,118 4,637,216
423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 43,896,784 52,954,424 53,076,805 7,884,704 9,180,021
424 - Bond Reserve Fund 843,961 843,910 843,911 864,962 (50)
411 - Combined Utility Operation - 63,875 75,156 50,995 75,156
Total Enterprise Funds 71,147,211$ 90,378,661$ 90,415,504$ 17,495,863$ 19,268,293$
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$75,156
$21,660,620
$14,759,011
$53,076,805
$843,911
$-
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
Combined Utility Water Storm Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve
Enterprise Fund Balances as of October 31, 2015
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 525 of 549
37
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
12/31/2014 9/30/2015 10/31/2015 Q3 YTD
Governmental Funds 20,256,168$ 17,120,897$ 18,034,109$ (3,271,940)$ (2,222,059)$
Enterprise Funds 71,147,211 90,378,661 90,415,504 17,495,863 19,268,293
Internal Services Fund 7,245,160 7,716,199 7,324,653 227,797 79,493
Agency Funds 188,872 208,006 204,634 (12,809) 15,762
Total City-wide Total 98,837,411$ 115,423,762$ 115,978,899$ 14,438,910$ 17,141,489$
CITY-WIDE
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$204,634
$7,324,653
$76,568
$38,222
$75,316
$636
$881,137
$152,067
$396,405
$128,117
$38,347
$273,498
$2,308,952
$2,541,189
$88,193
$13,572
$73,849
$149,482
$17,898
$457,610
$898,020
$337,446
$19,616
$9,067,968
$1 $20,000,000
Firemen's Pension Fund
Equipment Rental Fund
2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund $ (0)
L.I.D. Guaranty Fund
L.I.D. Fund Control
Business Improvement District
Transportation Benefit District $ (0)
Sister City Commission
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
Parks Trust Fund
Parks Construction Fund
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
Special Projects Fund
Gifts Catalog Fund
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
Youth Scholarship Fund
Employee Parking Permit Fund
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
Memorial Street Fund
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
Combined Street Const/Improve Fund
Street Fund
Drug Enforcement Fund
General Fund
Governmental Fund Balances as of October 31, 2015
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 526 of 549
38
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2014 9/30/2015 10/31/2015 Q3 YTD
511 - Equipment Rental Fund 7,245,160$ 7,716,199$ 7,324,653$ 227,797$ 79,493$
Total Internal Service Funds 7,245,160$ 7,716,199$ 7,324,653$ 227,797$ 79,493$
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$7.25
$7.72 $7.32
-
2
4
6
8
10
Dec 2014 Sept 2015 Oct 2015
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
511 - Equipment Rental Fund
Internal Service Fund Balances
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 527 of 549
AM-8144 7. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:12/01/2015
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted For:Shane Hope, Director Submitted By:Shane Hope
Department:Development Services
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Continued Discussion of City Options for Addressing Crumb Rubber
Recommendation
Provide direction on next steps.
Note: If the City Council provides direction moving toward a ban by ordinance, a 3-year sunset is
recommended, so that any new studies can be considered and the ban renewed or changed in some
manner at that time.
Previous Council Action
On November 10, 2015, the City Council discussed options for addressing future crumb rubber uses.
Narrative
BACKGROUND
For background information, see the relevant November 10 agenda memo and the attached section of the
City Council's November 10 minutes. After public input, the Council discussion focused on whether the
City should ban the future use of crumb rubber and if so, where and how. (Review of the literature on
crumb rubber related to health/safety was not part of the discussion.).
WHERE THE NOV. 10 DISCUSSION LEFT OFF
At the November 10 meeting, certain key issues and options for addressing crumb rubber remained for
further discussion and conclusions. Below is a brief summary of where the discussion was left and what,
if anything has been done or could be done next on the issue.
--Actions by Other Local Jurisdictions
No other local jurisdictions in the U.S. are known to have banned crumb rubber for all uses. However,
some jurisdictions, such as Montgomery County, Maryland, have passed resolutions to limit or prohibit
the material for their own use. (See attached table.)
--Alternative Infill Material
Questions remained about alternative infill materials that would allow use of fields year-round and for
Packet Page 528 of 549
more hours during the day, compared to grass. Since then, a summary from a professional landscape firm
has been provided as an attachment to this memo. If Council desires, a professional landscape
representative who is versed in all the alternatives, could come to a future City Council work/study
meeting and present information or answer questions.
--Option for City Resolution on Natural Materials
One Councilmember suggested adopting a resolution to limit the use of playfield materials on
City-owned properties to natural materials. If the City Council desires to use this option, it should clarify
whether only grass and dirt would be allowed on City sports/play fields or also natural but
non-native-type products, such as from coconut hulls. (Presumably, it would exclude "Nike grind".) The
Council may want to have a time-limit on the resolution so that reviewing future studies will be built into
the process.
--Whether to Take Emergency Action
A question was raised about whether, if the Council wanted an ordinance to ban crumb rubber, this could
be done on an emergency basis (no public hearing and no waiting period before a ban takes effect). The
answer was that it probably could but did not appear necessary, since no proposals for using crumb
rubber during this next year are known to be under consideration. In addition, the emergency option may
create other issues, compared to just using the regular public process for adopting ordinances.
--Sunset date for any ordinance
If an ordinance banning crumb rubber is to prepared, the general concurrence seemed to include a 3-year
sunset so that the results of more studies could be considered at that time and the ban could be extended,
made permanent, or otherwise changed.
--Option for Ordinance Banning All Forms of Crumb Rubber Completely
The option for banning crumb rubber completely for all uses--including at playgrounds when part of an
ADA surface--was touched on, but there did not seem general concurrence by the Council that the City
had enough evidence of risk to justify this extensive of a ban. This option would impact not only the
City, but all public agencies and private parties, including private schools, religious facilities, businesses,
and homes.
--Option for Ordinance Banning Crumb Rubber on Playfields
Another proposal was for an ordinance that would ban crumb rubber in one of the following ways:
(a) For use on all City-owned playfields;
(b) For use on all publicly-owned playfields (including properties of school districts, as well as the City);
or
(c) For use on any playfield in the City, including those owned by the City, any public agency, or a
private party (e.g., a private school, commercial recreation facility, religious facility, or private residence).
--Option for Demonstration Project
The option for partnering on a future playfield that would use an alternative material (not crumb rubber)
was mentioned in the presentation but not discussed. Partnering could include financial assistance or
some other form of participation.
--Impacts of Potential Ban
Not much was discussed about the impacts of a City ban on crumb rubber (and perhaps other materials).
For example, would it mean that children and adults would have much fewer hours and places where they
could play sports than otherwise? If so, is that a reasonable trade-off to address the concerns that have
been raised? People can probably think of arguments on both sides. The issue of impacts and level of
risk could be discussed further if the Council wishes.
Packet Page 529 of 549
--Legal Questions regarding Ban
A question was raised about whether a ban could be legally upheld on property owned by the school
district or others. The Edmonds School District had sent a letter challenging whether a ban could legally
apply to school district properties. At the November 10 meeting, the City Attorney indicated he
thought a ban could probably be upheld but that he would research the issue further.
NEXT STEPS
The December 1 meeting is planned to have a short presentation, followed by City Council discussion
and direction on any future action. Actions may include one or more of the following:
(a) Another work/study session to obtain specific information or have more discussion.
(b) Direction to the City Attorney to draft an ordinance or resolution that would be considered for
adoption in the near future. To do this, the Attorney would need enough direction from the Council
about which options to include in the ordinance or resolution.
NOTE:
No final decision is expected at the December 1 meeting, but the City Council may provide direction on
next steps.
ATTACHMENTS
-- Relevant minutes from November 10 meeting
-- Government examples
-- Memo on alternative materials
Attachments
Att. 1 Council Draft Minutes 11.10.15
Att. 2 Government Examples
Att. 3 Alternatives to Crumb Rubber
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 11/25/2015 12:54 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 11/25/2015 01:22 PM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 11/25/2015 01:24 PM
Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 11/20/2015 11:13 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/25/2015
Packet Page 530 of 549
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2015
Page 8
of emergency service that citizens expect. Mayor Earling advised the three Councilmembers are
Buckshnis and Petso and Council President Fraley-Monillas.
Councilmember Nelson expressed interest in more traffic enforcement, specifically an additional traffic
enforcement officer. He observed the Police Department budget currently includes four full-time traffic
enforcement officers and asked if that number has been the same over the last decade or has it fluctuated.
Police Chief Al Compaan responded for several years there was a sergeant and two motorcycle officers;
at some point two traffic officers were added to conduct nighttime traffic enforcement with an emphasis
on DUIs. The current budgeted staffing is four plus the sergeant; one position is currently open due to a
retirement but a new officer is being trained and will be on his own soon.
Councilmember Nelson observed there are two nighttime traffic officers primarily dedicated to DUI
enforcement, and two dedicated to speed and other traffic enforcement. Chief Compaan assured the
nighttime traffic cars conduct other enforcement in addition to DUI. The primary focus of the two
motorcycle officers who work primarily during daytime hours is traffic collision investigation and speed
and rules of the road enforcement. Councilmember Nelson asked whether an additional traffic
enforcement officer would be beneficial to the Police Department. Chief Compaan said he would not turn
down additional staff; certainly the department could make use of the position, but he has other requests
that need to be discussed.
Councilmember Bloom referred to DP #45, Waterfront Access At-Grade Crossing Study $450,000. She
recalled the Council allocated $100,000 in 2015 and questioned whether the decision package was a
request for an additional $450,000. Public Works Director Phil Williams answered $450,000 is the
expense budget for that study in 2016; of that amount $383,000 will come from the legislative
appropriation and the balance of $67,000 from the previously approved $100,000. Councilmember Bloom
relayed her understanding $450,000 is the total amount for next year. Mr. Williams agreed.
Councilmember Johnson referred to DP #9; the narrative describes intent to engage in an RFQ process for
prosecution services for the Municipal Court. She asked who will do that work and whether it would
require additional funds. Ms. Hite answered funds are included in the budget for a public defense
supervisor; his scope of work would include working with the police department, prosecutor and public
defender on court efficiencies that may be achieved. There are also funds in the professional services
budget, not part of the decision package, to hire someone to assist with drafting an RFQ and vetting of
that process, similar to the public defense.
Council President Fraley-Monillas inquired about the projected 21% increase in Hotel/Motel Tax. Mr.
Doherty explained it was substantially under-projected in 2015. When the 2015 budget was prepared,
2014 was trending up but in an effort to be conservative, not a great deal of growth was budgeted for
2015. During the first three quarters of 2015 Hotel/Motel Tax is significantly ahead of 2014. The Lodging
Tax Advisory Committee recommended budgeting a 4% growth over 2015. The 21% increase includes
this year’s increase plus the 4% as well as reflects higher room nights and higher rates. He noted this is
not just the downtown hotel; there have also been increases in hotels citywide. Council President Fraley-
Monillas observed there are 6-7 hotels outside the downtown area. Mr. Doherty commented the 2 larger
hotels on Highway 99 are also doing better.
F. CITY OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING CRUMB RUBBER
Development Services Director Shane Hope said she is not a scientist and is not an expert on artificial turf
although she has learned a lot in the process. Her role is to provide information and facilitate the
discussion. She displayed several comments regarding crumb rubber:
• Edmonds parents start turf war over synthetic playing fields” – KOMO News
• “Crumb-rubber turf stirs outcry in Edmonds” – Seattle Times
D R A F T
Packet Page 531 of 549
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2015
Page 9
• The decision to use crumb rubber represents “the best and most prudent use of taxpayer dollars to
construct fields with demonstrated sustainability over time.” – Diana White, Edmonds School
Board President (email to Council President Fraley-Monillas, July 29, 2015)
• “chemical levels found in FieldTurf SBR and GeoTurf infill do not present a risk to people
playing on or using the fields with these products.” – Michael Peterson, Senior Toxicologist,
Gradient Turf Report
She explained policies and regulations did not exist at federal, state or local level to clearly provide for
the City to prohibit crumb rubber or other materials after the application was submitted. She listed a series
of questions for the Council:
• Whether to ban crumb rubber for future use – and if so:
1. Where and how ban would apply; and
2. What type of action should be taken to implement the decision
She displayed pictures of the current popular infill products, SBR Crumb Rubber, Nike Grind and
GEOTurf, and provided information regarding each:
SBR Crumb Rubber Nike Grind GEOTurf
100% post-consumer recycled
material
Pre and post-consumer recycled
material
100% pre-consumer recycled
material
Made from used car tires
Includes raw materials made
from used athletic shoes and
manufacturing byproducts
Coconut fiber is from coconut
processing
Less control over raw material More difficult to obtain Cork is the leftover from making
wine bottle corks
Less expensive Requires more ongoing
maintenance
SBR Crumb Rubber has gotten the most questions of infill materials:
• Since SBR crumb rubber is made from recycled materials, concentrations of chemicals of
potential concern (COPCs) vary between products even among batches from the same
manufacturer
• Publicity around the product is largely negative despite the lack of peer-reviewed scientific
research linking SBR crumb rubber to health issues
• Product traps heat and can increase temperatures on the playing field
Ms. Hope referred to the following state law: “Every school board of directors shall consider the purchase
of playground matting manufactured from shredded waste tires in undertaking construction or
maintenance of playgrounds” - RCW 28a.335.300
She listed considerations with regard to whether to ban or not to ban:
• If a ban, on what?
o Product type
o Specific chemical
o Combination of chemicals
• If a ban, where?
o Projects for which the City is a funding partner, regardless of location?
o Who owns the property?
a) City owned lands
b) Publicly owned lands
c) All land
o Specific to sports fields and playfields or also other facilities such as playgrounds?
D R A F T
Packet Page 532 of 549
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2015
Page 10
She described what others have done to address crumb rubber:
• 2008: NYC Parks Department discontinued the use of crumb rubber as an infill material in favor
of carpet-style or alternative infill after discovering lead in one of the city’s 136 athletic fields
using synthetic infill. The reason for banning the material was primarily attributed to the infill’s
heat performance
o In addition, they implemented protocols to inspect, test, and replace any existing synthetic
turf that may age or deteriorate.
o Other measures include posting public signage at all athletic fields about potential heat-
related risks involving synthetic turf and adopting stringent procurement protocols for
materials selection
• 2009: Los Angeles Unified School District discontinued the use of crumb rubber infill, citing
lead contamination at some sites and issues with melting fields.
• February 2015: Montgomery County, MD – County Council approves only the use of plant-
derived infill materials for new artificial turf playing fields in projects the county funds or
contracts.
• May 2015: California State – State Senate Bill 47 sought to ban the use of crumb rubber for two
years until the state conducts a comprehensive study on health effects. Note: SB 47 died in
California Senate Committee on Appropriations.
• June 2015: Long Beach, CA – the Parks & Recreation Commission approved a recommendation
to the city manager for the use of GeoTurf, an organic material primarily made from coconut
fiber, rice husks and cork, as the standard choice for all future synthetic field projects in the city.
• August 2015: Middletown, Community Transit – The Common Council voted to amend the $37
million bond ordinance on park improvements to ensure that the money could not be used to
install artificial turf on city fields.
Ms. Hope described other factors to be considered:
• Time -limit or sunset on any ban
• Whether ban is likely to be upheld in court
o No other cities have imposed a broad ban
• Expectation that a limit on crumb rubber could not be retroactive
• Any unintended consequences
• Any exceptions to ban
She identified key options:
1. Gather specific information and discuss before directing next action
2. Direct attorney to prepare resolution:
a. Pledging to not use crumb rubber (or equivalent) in City-funded projects
b. Encouraging partners to avoid crumb rubber use
3. Direct attorney to prepare ordinance that identifies:
a) Ban on crumb rubber? Or particular chemicals?
b) Apply to play/sports fields? Or other facilities too?
c) Apply to City-owned properties? All public properties? All properties in City?
d) Apply to all projects with City partnership, even if outside city limits?
4. Pledge (by motion or resolution) to help fund demonstration project with alternative materials
5. Decide to take no action until more scientific studies are done
She reviewed considerations if the Council chose to adopt an ordinance:
• Emergency moratorium?
• Part of development code?
• 3 or 5 year sunset to allow further review?
D R A F T
Packet Page 533 of 549
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2015
Page 11
• No sunset?
Ms. Hope relayed if the Council decides to move toward a ban by ordinance, a sunset clause is
recommended so that any new information can be considered and the ban renewed or changed in some
manner at that time. Next steps may include one or more of following:
• Have another City Council work session to continue the discussion and come to a conclusion
• Ask the Planning Board to provide recommendation
• Direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance or resolution and if possible, provide direction on
what the ordinance or resolution should cover
• Hold a public hearing on any proposed ordinance or resolution
• Make decision
Mayor Earling expressed his appreciation for Ms. Hope’s efforts to identify options for the Council.
Public Comment
David Harvey, Booster President, Meadowdale High School, parent of two active boys, said he sees see
crumb rubber in his car every day. He has coached on crumb rubber and has played on it for about 30
years including currently playing in a men’s soccer league. He appreciated the efforts to research crumb
rubber, agreeing it is a messy substance and more due diligence is necessary. Information available on the
internet is all over the board including Earth 911, ScienceNews.org, and the turf company websites. The
majority of turf companies provide synthetic, natural and crumb rubber infill. The most important factor
with regard to turf material in the Pacific NW is the use; a ban or limitation on artificial turf fields would
limit the ability for kids to participate in sports. Play can occur on artificial turf fields for 10+ hours a day
versus 4-6 hours on grass fields with 2 day’s rest as well as the need for water, fertilizer, and
maintenance. Although he understood some have concerns, he pointed out the difference between what
has been scientifically proven versus concern and speculation. Professional athletes have played on
artificial turf fields for over 30 years, from grade school to their professional careers; a lineman basically
eats the turf with their hands all the time. If there were problems, there would be more of an epidemic and
more scientific evidence. He urged the Council to look at the evidence and a timeline that would allow
more research to better understand the concerns and implications before making a decision.
Erin Zachey, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to move forward on a citywide ban on crumb rubber.
She expressed continued support for children especially but everyone should be playing on and
surrounded by natural materials such as grass and mud. Knowing the potential for this product and how it
may be used on new playgrounds and possibly new fields in the City limits, as a citizen she would feel
safer knowing alternatives are being used in lieu of toxic turf. Many Edmonds parks and properties are in
zoned critical area such as City Park and the Civic Field. Toxins already enter the waterways from runoff,
polluting aquatic life as well as their food sources and local native vegetation. Pollutants such as zinc, a
known contaminant in crumb rubber fields from their own testing of the existing fields in Edmonds, and
petroleum-based derived compounds repress salmon immune systems and growth rates in juvenile salmon
and many other species of aquatic life. One method of reducing the human impact on the natural world is
to reduce pollution at the source which could be done by banning tires on playfields. She was proud of the
Council for hearing the concerns of hundreds citizens, responding to petitions and letters, and 3-minute
blurbs of information on this topic for the past many months. She was encouraged to be part of a national
movement of awareness on the safe of this product and making better public health and environmental
decisions. She concluded with a Dr. Seuss quote, “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
nothing’s going to get better, it’s just not.”
Ruth Blakey shared a story of what happened to son who transferred as a freshman from Meadowdale
High School to Edmonds Heights. On the first day of school he was invited to play football with other
students. The new fields had not yet opened and they played on the space between the playground and
buildings. Her son has asthma and finds it difficult to be active so she was happy he was included and
D R A F T
Packet Page 534 of 549
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2015
Page 12
wrote the 45 minutes of football a day into his learning plan for PE. A couple weeks later the fields
opened and after playing on the fields for about 15-20 minutes, he had to leave the field to get his inhaler.
At the end of the day when relaying the experience to her, they discovered crumb rubber in his shoes and
socks. The next day, instead of playing on the new fields, he was alone reading in the library. She
concluded the crumb rubber field put a wall up between her son and his ability to play at lunch. She
requested one of the two fields planned be non-toxic so her son and others can have an option. She
recognized the fields were designed to improve activity levels; for some they actually eliminate the
opportunity to be active.
Cathy Hamilton, Edmonds, commented everyone knows that crumb rubber contains carcinogens; the
debate is whether the levels are high enough to cause cancer and other ill effects; more studies are needed.
She pointed out children are particularly receptive to carcinogens because they are developing, their DNA
is replicating and all it takes is a few misreads to create a problem. She did not want the community used
as subjects in an uncontrolled experiment. Crumb rubber also impacts the natural environment, forever
removing a natural habitat for birds and insects and also leaching zinc and other metals. Zinc is
detrimental to plants and aquatic life at elevated levels. The State has labeled fields such as those installed
at the former Woodway High School as pollution-generating impervious surfaces in the 2012 Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Unfortunately the application used the 2005
standards; any subsequent applicants should adhere to the 2012 manual. She summarized there were too
many risks and concerns with crumb rubber infill. She encouraged the Council to attend the seminary on
Thursday sponsored by Senator Maralyn Chase as well as to do the right thing and practice the
precautionary principle.
Isaac Carrigan, Edmonds, commented he is a kid who wishes to make a difference. He recommended
banning crumb rubber. He thanked the Council for their time and those who want to ban crumb rubber.
Jen Carrigan, Edmonds, commented many questions have been raised in the City over the past eight
months and increasingly nationally. The City Council, School Board Members, Parks & Recreation and
parents who want to keep kids healthy and active have sought honest answers to questions. The limited
and turf industry-funded studies appear to state crumb rubber is “safe to use.” In response to an NBC
investigative report and questioning from members of Congress, the EPA announced yesterday that
current studies on the impact of crumb rubber on children’s health are not adequate. In addition to all that
is known about toxins and carcinogens contained in tires, the EPA’s announcement gives this community
the information and direction needed to make the choice to follow the precautionary principle, to protect
children and to ban crumb rubber in Edmonds. In addition to concerns with children’s health, there have
been concerns shared regarding impacts of runoff into creeks and Puget Sound. She provided written
information which the City Clerk distributed to Councilmembers from Washington State Department of
Ecology regarding controlling toxic chemicals in Puget Sound, the harmful effects of certain chemicals of
concern including the buildup of these substances in the tissues of organisms that pass through the food
chain, harming fish and possibly humans. Crumb rubber contains more than one of the chemicals of
concern including zinc which can kill young and adult salmon, PAHs, and fire retardants which can affect
development, reproduction and survival of many species. Knowing what we do, she said we cannot
continue to pour shredded tire product on fields and think it will not have a harmful impact on health,
wildlife and environment. Non-toxic infill options are available; she asked the Council to do the right
thing and ban the use of crumb rubber in Edmonds.
Keely Keef, Edmonds, an 11-day resident of Edmonds, explained when she was looking at her house,
she liked the abundant trees and one day saw a raven fly over. After purchasing the house, she learned it
is under the former Woodway High School where crumb rubber has been installed. She previously lived
in Seattle Magnuson where park crumb rubber fields were installed a few years ago. During her daily
walks in Magnuson Park, she noticed crumb rubber does not stay on the fields, it gets into the grass, onto
walkways, and into the wetland/wildlife area. There is also a noticeable odor. Migratory and resident
D R A F T
Packet Page 535 of 549
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2015
Page 13
birds need green spaces; she questioned the effect on birds of ingesting crumb rubber. She also questioned
the impact of crumb rubber getting on dogs paws. She agreed open space and play spaces were important
for humans and animals; but both can be provided with less impact on the environment. She questioned
what was wrong with grass and if this is for children, they need to be taught to enjoy nature or they will
never learn to respect it. Natural green spaces are one of reasons she bought a house in Edmonds and she
urged the Council to consider a natural option.
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, thanked the Council for listening to almost 1000 petitioners who asked for a
ban on crumb rubber and for working toward providing protective measures for citizens. The EPA no
longer stands behind the safety of crumb rubber and says more testing needs to be done but it is currently
a state and local issue. On Monday the EPA spokesperson summed up the concerns, stating current
studies are inadequate and new science is needed to answer the questions about turf safety and that
existing studies do not comprehensively address the recently raised concerns about children’s health risk
from exposure to tire crumbs. She encouraged the Council to place a moratorium on the use of crumb
rubber, specifically shredded or crumbed SBR on athletic playfields and playgrounds and to further
mandate that no City funds will be used toward projects that use crumb rubber until results from future
comprehensive, independent studies have determined its safety. She urged the Council not to take a wait
and see approach; children should not be used as a science experiment. Her son would love to go back to
playing lacrosse, so she would appreciate fields in Edmonds where he could play. She referred to the
industry report from Shaw Sports Turf regarding advantages and disadvantages of alternatives and
requested the Council consider it as one of their sources but to also obtain additional, independent
information on the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives. She provided an informational pamphlet
they developed to help educate the public on this issue.
Christi Davis, PhD, Brier, said the Kentucky Department of Health and Environmental Protection has
declared there are no large scale national studies on the possible health issues associated with inhalation,
ingestion or contact with crumb rubber. Research to date has been inconclusive, contradictory, and
limited in scope. The Consumer Products Safety Commission has dropped the safe to play on
endorsement of artificial turf. In congressional testimony, Chairman Kaye has also stated that its previous
endorsement did not reflect the technical staff’s view and was a product of an unspecified political effort.
Dr. Benoit, the lead investigator of a recent Yale University study on crumb rubber, commented not
surprisingly shredded tires contain a veritable witch’s brew of toxic substances. It seems irresponsible to
market a hazardous waste as a consumer product. This is what these companies have done and the EPA
promoted it. She agreed it was irresponsible to market the product in first place and now that student
athletes are developing cancer and there is a suspicious that these toxin filled crumb rubber may be
causing the cancer, it would be absolute reprehensible to continue using this product without proof the
toxin filled crumbs are not the cause. She referred to her two children, pointing out they are not guinea
pigs to perform lab experiments on. She asked the City Council to take a stand, to tell the industry it is not
acceptable to poison children and if they want to sell products for use for children and those products
contain known carcinogens, the burden is on industry to prove the products are safe. Children’s health and
safety is the number one priority, not industry profits. She asked the Council to ban crumb rubber in
Edmonds and ban the use of City funds on crumb rubber products.
David Anderson PhD in toxicology from the University of Washington, explained he conducted research
on multiple toxins in nuclear power plant effluent so he is familiar with multiple toxins. He is here tonight
because Senator Chase, who has grandchildren in the School District, asked him to review the District’s
information including the Gradient report. Returning to the basics, he said synthetic turf is desirable
because it works in the rain and crumb rubber provides padding. He suggested simply using a different
pad. Recently Los Angeles specified the type of field they wanted, more fiber and less crumb rubber; a
new synthetic turf made by AstroTurf is being installed in Los Angeles with padding underneath. He
acknowledged there may still be some toxins in the artificial turf. He concluded there are field turf options
that do not contain crumb rubber that should be considered by the City. One of issues soccer goalies have
D R A F T
Packet Page 536 of 549
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2015
Page 14
is they are not standing all the time; they dive into the turf which provides a different kind of exposure,
different even than football players. On fields with grass, the grass is often worn off where the goalie
stands. He referred to the Yale study that stated there is a cocktail of carcinogens, reiterating there are
other options that do not have carcinogens. He urged the Council to get back to basics, it’s just padding.
Andrew Markel, Brier, provided a quote from the company where he buys tires, “Certain chemicals
added to new tires allow rubber to stay soft and flexible longer. Over time and as air migrates through the
tire, the chemical’s effectiveness weakens, causing rubber to become more brittle and lose strength.” He
explained tires are designed to be tires, not playground equipment. All tire manufactures have an
incentive to continually improve the tires, and are continuously putting new chemicals and processes into
the tires so they can function better as tires. Even if every single turf field ever made is safe, there is still
no guarantee the next one is safe because tires manufactures continually add new toxic chemicals to their
tires to make them better. It is ridiculous to turn a product that is used for tires into a children’s product,
particularly when they contain toxic chemicals. With regard to finances, he recalled the total budget of the
Woodway fields was $4 million and the cost difference between the crumb rubber infill and the other
infill choices ranged between $250,000 and $500,000, 10% of the total cost. He questioned the cost of
guaranteeing a safer and more appropriate surface for children. The concern everyone has raised is the
potential health impacts of crumb rubber, particularly on children because not only are they more
affected, they do not have the same choices as adults. Whatever action the Council takes, it needs to apply
to where children play so it must include playgrounds, parks and schools.
Senator Maralyn Chase appreciated the Council time, was impressed the Council was engaged and
listening to the public, and appreciated the well balance presentation by staff. She invited the Council to
the Edmonds Senior Center on Thursday for a one-hour presentation by scientists on crumb rubber. She
was particularly interested in this issue due to her grandson and recognized many of the parents involved
in this issue have a vested interest in children. A bill has been tentatively drafted for a statewide
moratorium. Although there are a lot of scientific studies and precautionary statements by the EPA, there
is not an authoritative statement by the CPSC. She acknowledged children can be persuasive and her
grandson plays goalie on these fields. In her experience, the crumb rubber does not stay on the fields;
there are environmental reasons to keep it on the fields. She was hopeful there could be a moratorium on
crumb rubber until there was good, solid science. She found it ironic, people want to be green and not put
tires in landfills; instead, they are ground up and put on children’s playfields. She commented on reports
of tires illegally dumped in two places in Edmonds.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented the Council has a chance to be leaders in the health of children,
Puget Sound other waterways. He referred to the list of options staff provided and recommended crumb
rubber be banned citywide with no exceptions, included in the building code and a time limit established.
Citizens will remember whether the City Council was concerned about the public health or making the
School District feel better. He anticipated as there will be more restrictions on this product, the School
District will experience public pressure. He agreed children need fields to play on; for the coach who
spoke tonight he urged the Council to make it easy on him by finding another option for infill. He
summarized the issue is public health.
Mike McCarthy stated his opposition to crumb rubber. He said this issue started after someone came up
with the idea of turf and using tires and the EPA went along with it 15 years ago but it was never tested
for safety. He referred to the E:60 show regarding turf that reported 187 athletes, 150 soccer players, 95
of them goal keepers are getting the same kind of cancer. He suggested providing a different material in
the area where the goalies play would eliminate half the cancer cases. His research online for an organic
infill found GreenPlay natural organic infill. He spoke with the company owner today; the product is dirt,
coconut fiber and cork. The cost is $0.60/pound but 1 pound of their product covers the same area as 2-3
pounds of crumb rubber. He concluded the cost is the same and it is safe; the School District should have
looked at the study cited by E:60 and realized the problem.
D R A F T
Packet Page 537 of 549
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2015
Page 15
At Mayor Earling’s request, it was the consensus of the Council to move Item 6C next on agenda as the
City’s lobbyist is present. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the difference between an emergency moratorium and a moratorium.
Ms. Hope answered typically a moratorium is considered an emergency; it can be adopted without
holding public hearing but a subsequent public hearing must be held. A moratorium is usually for six
months; it can be longer under certain circumstances, and it can be extended. City Attorney Jeff Taraday
explained an emergency ordinance goes in effect immediately versus a non-emergency ordinance which
goes into effect 5 days after publication or, depending on the nature of the ordinance, in 30 days. Often
when a moratorium is imposed on certain types of development and there is worry an application will be
submit and vested, immediate effectiveness is preferred. Councilmember Buckshnis concluded the term
emergency moratorium and moratorium are the same. Mr. Taraday clarified there is a difference; under
the GMA, a moratorium can be adopted without it becoming effective immediately.
Council President Fraley-Monillas inquired about the environmental, health impacts, etc. of any of the
other infill materials. Ms. Hope answered there are several other infill materials; she knows only a little
and could bring back more information. Council President Fraley-Monillas assumed Nike Grind would
have fewer chemicals than tires. Ms. Hope agreed that would be the assumption because it was processed
for human wear versus a byproduct of another product. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the
environmental impact of SBR, Nike Grind and GEOTurf. Ms. Hope answered not a huge amount is
know; tires, especially used tires, have been exposed to a lot more chemicals and toxins than Nike Grind
and other materials. Nike Grind or an equivalent is also not a pollution generating material Council
President Fraley-Monillas asked whether stormwater runoff from a field with Nike Grind would include
chemicals. Ms. Hope answered there are chemicals in nearly everything but it would not have the same
level of chemicals as used tires. Council President Fraley-Monillas appreciated Ms. Hope’s work on the
presentation; it provided very objective information.
Councilmember Mesaros observed Ms. Hope’s presentation referred to State law that requires every
school board of directors shall consider the purchase of playground matter manufactured from shredded
waste tires and asked how that would impact the Council’s decision. Mr. Taraday answered not at all.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to a letter the City Council and the Mayor received from Perkins Coie
representing the Edmonds School District with regard to a crumb rubber ban. Mr. Taraday said he has
seen the letter but has not had an opportunity to scrutinize it. Councilmember Mesaros looked forward to
Mr. Taraday’s opinion before the Council made its decision. Councilmember Mesaros recalled the City
Council took a leadership role in banning plastic bags in the City. He asked whether the City had imposed
any other bans via ordinance. Mr. Taraday did not recall any; pointing out whether other cities have done
it before is not the test the courts will apply.
Councilmember Johnson observed the information presented tonight addresses primarily infill. There are
other components to artificial turf that include the turf grass itself and the underlayment and padding
which is typically also made from tires. One of options she wanted staff to consider was a resolution
affirming that only natural grass and earthen materials would be used for sports fields in Edmonds.
Natural systems are the safest and the best for environment although she acknowledged there were
components to natural systems as well. She did not think there was 100% agreement regarding which was
the best playing field which was why the Mariners have grass and the Seahawks have artificial turf.
Councilmember Petso asked whether Councilmember Johnson meant resolution or ordinance.
Councilmember Johnson answered she said resolution but perhaps she did not mean that. Councilmember
Petso inquired about the effect of a resolution versus an ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered ordinances are
laws; resolutions are policies. Resolutions are used to establish policy for internal City purposes such not
D R A F T
Packet Page 538 of 549
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2015
Page 16
spending City funds on crumb rubber. If the Council wanted to affect other parties’ behavior, an
ordinance would be required.
Councilmember Petso expressed support for an emergency ordinance to provide the advantage of it taking
immediate effect and then going to the Planning Board. If the Council moves forward with an ordinance,
the typical path would be for the matter to go to the Planning Board for several months before they
provide a recommendation.
Councilmember Johnson said she did mean a resolution; she preferred a policy for only City owned
property. The ability to affect change on private property is limited and it is too late to make any changes
with regard to existing crumb rubber fields.
Councilmember Petso agreed at this point it would be difficult make changes to newly redone fields but
she suggested an ordinance apply to new and substantially renovated fields. This would prevent additional
tire dumps on public property but would allow the fields that were just installed to run their natural 10-
year course absent scientific reasons that would require the crumb rubber to be vacuumed up. She
recommended the ban apply to public properties. If the Council chose a 3-year sunset, there would be
time for a great deal of new science to inform the Council’s decision.
Councilmember Mesaros asked Councilmember Petso her definition of public property. Councilmember
Petso answered it would be land owned by a public entity including the City, the School District, the Port,
the Hospital District and various public entities.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested getting more information regarding field options,
recognizing there were more than just the three Ms. Hope described. Ms. Hope agreed there were several
others; she could gather information for future discussion. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested
hiring a person to work for the City to provide that information, not someone who reports to the School
District, Verdant, etc.
Councilmember Buckshnis said an emergency ordinance was not needed as she did not consider this an
emergency. The Council agrees about crumb rubber and needs to be pragmatic about it. If the City
decided to ban crumb rubber, the City could no longer partner with the School District and Lynnwood on
the Meadowdale fields. She recommended the Council consider all alternatives. Although the City may
not want crumb rubber, it is the School District’s property. She felt it was an inappropriate application of
democracy for the City to ban the School District’s use of crumb rubber and the result may be the City
does not have any fields for citizens’ use. She was in favor of a moratorium, an ordinance or a resolution
but not on all public property.
Councilmember Bloom agreed wholeheartedly with Councilmember Petso that a ban should be on all
public property. She pointed out the School District does not own the property; it belongs to the public
because the School District is supported by the taxpayers and the Council has every right to regulate all
public and private property within the City’s jurisdiction. She did not recommend the City regulate the
use of crumb rubber on private property at this point but supported a ban on the use of crumb rubber on
all public property. She supported adopting an emergency ordinance to allow the process to begin
immediately and to have it expedited through the Planning Board so that regulations could be in place as
soon as possible. With regard to further research regarding organic alternatives, she said that was beside
the point; the Council has a great deal of information and can easily get more. Directing staff to gather
information would just delay what the Council must do, ban crumb rubber for the safety and health of
children.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented if the School District property belonged to the public, why
hadn’t the public stopped the School District from putting crumb rubber on the fields. She expressed
D R A F T
Packet Page 539 of 549
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2015
Page 17
concern with government interfering with private property rights, whether it was individual citizens, the
Hospital District, etc. She would not allow her child to play on crumb rubber; that is a choice as a parent
she can make. Because of her concern with interfering with private property rights, she will vote for
property rights but would support a ban on crumb rubber on all City property due to the unknowns. She
pointed out there are citizens who have turf in their yards. She looked forward to what the EPA says, Ms.
Chase’s bill and what the state decides, but until then she was opposed to banning crumb rubber on any
property other than City-owned property.
Councilmember Nelson asked what latitude Council had in exercising its police powers to protect the
health and safety of citizens. Mr. Taraday answered the City has very broad police power authority; he
referred to Article 11 Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution that allows the city to make and
enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations that are not in conflict with
general laws; RCW 35a.01.010 gives the City the broadest powers of local self-government consistent
with the constitution of the state. That has been interpreted very broadly in a number of instances; there is
no case law locally or nationally with regard to the ability to ban crumb rubber but he believed the City
had the power to do that if it wanted to.
Councilmember Mesaros commented he was not a fan of crumb rubber and did not think there was a
place for it in the City but he was concerned with the Council overreaching it bounds and jeopardizing the
City’s assets. He was interested in Mr. Taraday comments regarding the letter from the School District’s
attorney. There is still debate about crumb rubber and although he preferred to fall on the side of caution,
a moratorium seems to be the right path so that that debate can occur to determine if the anticipated cause
and effect is true. He was in favor of a moratorium on the use of crumb rubber in the City to the fullest
extent that can be done and not jeopardize the City’s position in any future liability.
Councilmember Bloom expressed support for Councilmember Johnson’s resolution to use only grass on
future fields grass. She suggested a ban and a resolution regarding the use of grass could be done
simultaneously. She was hopeful Mr. Taraday would return soon with draft ordinances for Council
discussion, perhaps next week.
Student Representative Girouard said grass fields would be somewhat realistic for City property as there
are no City fields with turf and would show good leadership. She viewed a ban on crumb rubber as a long
term issue because the field at Edmonds-Woodway High School was just replaced. The Edmonds-
Woodway High School field is used by schools through the School District which includes Lynnwood
and Mountlake Terrace High Schools so a grass field would not allow daily use. She suggested the
Council consider how much use the City-owned fields get.
Mr. Taraday said he did not have enough direction to draft anything yet. As Ms. Hope pointed out in her
presentation, there are myriad permutations of what the Council could do via an ordinance or resolution;
requesting he provide drafts was too broad as he had no idea what the Council’s direction was.
Councilmember Petso relayed it sounds as though the Council was in agreement on an ordinance and/or a
moratorium; the primary area of disagreement is whether it would apply to City property only or to all
public property within the City. The product to be banned would be SBR crumb rubber on parks,
playfields and playgrounds, it would be revisited in a 3-year interval, and it would not apply to existing
fields, only new or fields that are substantially renovated in the future. The only thing still to be
researched is the extent of the legal ability and/or desire to regulate non-City owned property.
Councilmember Mesaros asked for clarification regarding playground and playfields, commenting there
are many playgrounds that are not on public property. Councilmember Petso said the extent of the
coverage, whether City property or all public property would be left for further discussion because she not
heard from all Councilmembers.
D R A F T
Packet Page 540 of 549
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2015
Page 18
Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding some playground surfaces have tires in them
but the intent was to make playgrounds more ADA accessible. She noted it is very difficult to push a
wheelchair through rocks or sawdust. She was nervous about formulating ideas without sufficient
information. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained playgrounds across the nation have a
newer product, poured-in-place rubber, that provides fall protection for playground equipment. All the
City’s playgrounds have wood chips. One of the issues in the PROS Plan update last year was increasing
the accessibility of playgrounds. This is one of only products that does that and also provides fall
protection. She recalled one citizen who was very involved in that discussion during the PROS Plan
process. One of the goals is to add a poured-in-place playground in one of the City’s community parks so
that at least one park offered accessible options. She offered to provide more information on the poured-
in-place material; it includes crumb rubber but it is not pulverized and with a layer on top to encase the
rubber. That goal is included in the Comprehensive Plan and would need to be changed if the Council
adopted a ban on crumb rubber in playgrounds.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented without that surface ADA accessibility would be limited.
Ms. Hite explained the manufactured woodchips the City uses are considered accessible; they are easy to
walk on but a wheelchair cannot be pushed on the woodchips. As many pathways as possible are provided
to/from a playground to make them close in proximity to accessible routes but a person in a wheelchair
would need to be carried from their wheelchair to, for example, a swing. That is not an issue when
children are small; the citizen involved in the PROS Plan process has a 12-year old son and she cannot
physically him carry from his wheelchair to a swing. That citizen specifically asked the City to consider
this product and she had a great deal of public support. Council President Fraley-Monillas pointed out it
would provide accessibility for wheelchairs as well as people using walkers.
Councilmember Petso suggested it would be simpler to only refer to playfields in the ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested another study session before making a decision as she still has
questions about the infill, the timing and the impact of all the activities that are occurring and how a ban
would limit the City’s ability to provide fields for adults.
Councilmember Petso asked Ms. Hite to comment on the affect a moratorium on SBR playfield materials
would have on scheduling. Ms. Hite commented inherent in Councilmember Buckshnis’ question was
reference to Meadowdale as well as the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with the School District for the
Woodway Fields. Councilmember Petso said she was no aware the Council was specifically addressing
Meadowdale tonight, only what would be done within the Edmonds city limits. Ms. Hite said one of
options being discussed was not financially supporting crumb rubber inside or outside the City. That
would impact the project in the Comprehensive Plan and PROS Plan to continue the partnership at
Meadowdale Playfields with Lynnwood, Snohomish County and the Edmonds School District. Lynnwood
is currently taking the lead on the project as it lies within their boundaries, beginning to write grants and
put together funding to rehab the fields. The first phase is the soccer fields which Edmonds does not use.
The second phase is the softball fields; Edmonds has a robust adult softball league at Meadowdale. If the
City was not able to be at the table financially, it is likely the ILA with the School District for use of the
Meadowdale fields would be terminated. Edmonds does not play youth sports at Meadowdale fields;
Lynnwood does. The impact on the ILA with the School District on the Woodway Fields would be the
City would not schedule or maintain the fields. The fields are complete and the School District is
scheduling them and the community has access. The School District’s rental rates are significantly higher
than the City’s rates which impacts access for nonprofit sports leagues.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if the City sponsors leagues that play on the Woodway fields. Ms. Hite
answered not at this time; the City has been approached about sponsoring lacrosse and ultimate leagues.
D R A F T
Packet Page 541 of 549
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 10, 2015
Page 19
Ms. Hite was uncertain whether the ban would include programming; the City could still program and
rent the fields from the School District.
Council President Fraley-Monillas inquired about the status of the ILA for the Woodway fields. Ms. Hite
said Mr. Taraday sent the ILA to the School District and it was in their court for a long time. The School
District’s attorney finally sent the ILA to Mr. Taraday; the changes the School District made were limited
to the current fields and not any future fields. Staff is crafting language to push back on that to allow
some decision-making on future fields.
Mayor Earling summarized it appears there are still unanswered questions and more discussion may be
needed. He suggested scheduling a meeting specifically on this issue on Thursday, November 19. Two
Councilmembers indicated they were unable to attend on November 19. It was the consensus of the
Council to schedule further discussion on December 1 and a decision on December 8.
C. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF DRAFT 2016 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Economic Development and Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained Lobbyist Jennifer
Ziegler will provide an overview and expectations for the upcoming 2016 legislative session which has
informed the City’s agenda. Mayor Earling recognized the yeoman’s work Ms. Ziegler did during the past
legislative session.
Ms. Ziegler described things that happened in the election that will impact the legislative session:
• A republican beat the democrat in the 31st District which reduces the House democratic majority
by one, a 50-48 split between democrats and republicans in the House
• Passage of I-1366
o Initiatives have passed in the past that require any tax increase by the legislature be adopted
with a super majority vote or referred to the people. In several instances, the Supreme Court
has said those initiatives are not constitutional; the State Constitution has a process for
adopting taxes and changing that process requires an amendment to the State Constitution
o I-1366 stated if the legislature does not send a constitutional amendment to the people to
require a super majority vote, it will trigger a decrease in the state sales tax rate. The impact
of the state sales tax decrease is about $1.5 billion/year.
o Things to watch include:
Whether opponents of the initiative who have filed court challenges will go back to King
County Superior Court
Whether there will be a push for immediate consideration by the State Supreme Court
who declined to consider it before in reference to the initiative process
Whether there won’t be a court action prior to the start of the legislative session and the
legislature will grabble with this super majority requirement
A couple senators intend to introduce the constitutional amendment proposal on the super
majority
She reviewed challenges in a short 60 day session, expecting it will 60 day session, not a marathon
session like last year:
• There is still a significant education issue and it will be a dominant conversation topic during
the session. The legislature provided significant additional funding for basic education at the
end of the last legislative session
o Upon adjournment the Supreme Court said it was not enough, there was not a sufficient
plan for how the state planned to fully fund basic education and the Court issued fines for
the legislature beginning at that time of $100,000/day
o Groups of legislators have met with the Governor and public meetings have been held on
education funding needs
D R A F T
Packet Page 542 of 549
Jurisdiction/Organization Action Detail
Montgomery County, MD Resolution Council approves only the use of plant-derived infill materials for new artificial turf
playing fields in projects the county funds or contracts. (Adopted Feb. 10th, 2015)
California State Senate Senate Bill
Senate Bill 47 sought to ban the use of crumb rubber for two-years until the state
cunducts a comprehensive study on health effects. SB 47 died in California Senate
Committee on Appropriations (May 28, 2015)
New York City Parks & Recreation
Department
Organizational
Policy
NYC Park Department has issued a statement that they will use carpet -style or
alternative infill materials, rather than crumb rubber, on all new fields. (2008)
Los Angeles Unified School District Organizational
Policy
LAUSD discontinued the use of crumb rubber as an infill material on athletic fields
after discovering lead in some previously installed fields. (2009)
Long Beach, CA Recommendation
On June 16, 2015, the Parks and Recreation Commission decided to approve a
recommendation to the city manager for the use of GeoTurf, an organic material
primarily made from coconut fiber, rice husks and cork, as the standard choice for
all future synthetic field projects in the city.
Middletown, CT Bond Ordinance
The Common Council voted to amend the $37M bond ordinance on park
improvements to ensure that the money could not be used to install artificial turf
on city fields. (August, 2015)
Examples of Jurisdictions/Organizations Addressing Crumb Rubber
Packet Page 543 of 549
D.A. Hogan & Associates, Inc. (206) 285-0400 Tel
119 1st Avenue South, Suite 110 (206) 285-0480 Fax
Seattle, WA 98104
MEMORANDUM
To: Carrie Hite, Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Edmonds
From: Robert Harding, D.A. Hogan & Associates, Inc.
Date: July 30, 2015
Re: Infills evaluated for use
Former Woodway HS Athletic Field Improvements
Carrie,
As a follow up to numerous questions regarding infill options alternate to SBR, I have prepared a brief
summary of all of the various options that were reviewed with you and Rich Lindsey on December 10,
2014, and subsequently discussed and reviewed by the Edmonds School Board.
1. Infill Composition of Other Fields: All of the Edmonds School District’s synthetic turf fields, including
(3) at Lynnwood HS; (2) at Mountlake Terrace HS; (1) at Edmonds-Woodway HS (Central Stadium);
and (1) at Meadowdale HS are fields with crumb rubber infill (SBR). Further, virtually all of the
other fields installed in Western Washington are also include crumb rubber. To my knowledge there
are only several fields in Western Washington with infills that are not SBR including:
a. Northwest School, Seattle: This is a private high school, with a rooftop field of approximately
6,000 SF. It includes TPE (Thermoplastic) infill. There is no other outdoor play area on the
campus and the field area was constructed as a lightweight solution to limit tracking of materials
across a gymnasium floor below the field.
b. John F. Kennedy HS, Burien: This is a private Catholic school, and not part of any park and
recreation department. The City of Burien had no review role or authority over the infill
selected for use. This privately funded field is infilled with a combination of Nike Grind infill and
sand, and is installed over a Brock shock attenuation/drainage pad. It is approximately 75,000
SF. Installed in October 2014, and infill was completed in June, 2015.
c. Pacific Cascade Middle School, Issaquah School District, King County, WA: This is a public
middle school field of approximately 80,000 SF, and includes a combination of sand and Nike
Grind infill, over a paved in place elastic layer pad. This was installed/completed in April, 2015.
d. Beaver Lake Middle School, Issaquah School District, King County, WA: This is a public middle
school of approximately 80,000 SF, and includes a combination of sand and Nike Grind infill,
over a paved in place elastic layer pad. This was installed/completed in February, 2015.
e. There are 3 other school fields in construction that will use alternate infills. They include:
i. Liberty HS, Issaquah School District, King County, WA: This is a public school stadium field of
approximately 78,000 SF, and includes a combination of sand and green coated rubber over
a paved in place elastic layer pad. This will be completed in August 2015.
ii. Eastlake HS, Lake Washington School District, Sammamish, WA: This is a public school
stadium field of approximately 78,000 SF, and includes a combination of sand and green
coated rubber over a paved in place elastic layer pad. This will be completed in August
2015.
Packet Page 544 of 549
Carrie Hite
City of Edmonds
July 30, 2015
Former Woodway High School Field Improvements
PAGE 2 OF 5
iii. South Kitsap High School: South Kitsap School District, Port Orchard, WA: This is a public
school stadium field of approximately 80,000 SF, and includes an organic infill over a paved
in place elastic layer pad. This will be completed in August 2015, with approximately 50%
privately funded contribution.
2. What other materials were considered: Use of alternate infill materials were reviewed during a “Turf
101”. Alternate infill materials reviewed included:
a. SBR
b. “Nike” grind, ground up tennis shoe rubber (the components of which are not known);
c. Coated SBR rubber (acrylic coating encapsulating SBR rubber);
d. TPE (Plastic);
e. Organic infills (combination of cork, coconut fibers and rice hulls). These alternate products all
have higher cost, with different impacts on both performance and maintenance. A summary of
those infills is as follows:
f. Coated sands; and
g. EPDM
SBR Infill:
This is the most common synthetic turf infill, beginning in the late 1990’s. SBR crumb rubber infill
materials are used on the overwhelming majority of the 1000 +/- synthetic turf fields that have been
installed each year since then.
There have been many studies commissioned by various agencies relative to SBR infill and synthetic
turf. As noted in these studies, there are heavy metals and other carcinogenic materials that are in
the chemical make-up of the SBR material but these are essentially “locked” into the material and
are typically not considered as being bio-available.
Nike Grind:
This material includes ground rubber from either residual material from the shoe manufacturing
process or presumably from recycled (used) shoes. This material is multi-colored but has similar
physical characteristics (size, shape, and resiliency) to SBR materials. Current pricing for this
material is approximately $0.60 per lb. or $0.45 per lb. more expensive than SBR. Here is a link to
additional Nike Grind material information:
http://www.nike.com/us/en_us/c/better-world/reuse-a-shoe
http://www.sole-
revolution.com/system/files/1/original/Sole_Revolution_Specifications_Sheet.pdf?1290182575
We have requested more detailed health and environmental information on this material.
However, their product literature says that this material does not include any heavy metals.
Coated Rubber:
This material includes SBR rubber with a supplemental acrylic coating, and an additional clear
coating. Product is sold in several colors – Green and Tan, and has an 8 year warranty matching the
Packet Page 545 of 549
Carrie Hite
City of Edmonds
July 30, 2015
Former Woodway High School Field Improvements
PAGE 3 OF 5
typical turf warranty. Current pricing for this material is approximately $.45 per lb. or $.30 per lb.
more expensive than SBR. Here is a link to more product information:
www.Cushionfallsport.com
TPE Infill:
TPE is an acronym for Thermo Plastic Elastomer. This infill material has been used more extensively
in Europe but has also been used on a number of fields in North America. It is our understanding
that this material does not contain any chemicals or substances that are on the State of California
Proposition 65 list of known carcinogenic materials (A listing of over 900 materials known by the
State of California to cause cancer in humans). This material is typically green or tan in color and will
often result in somewhat lower field surface temperatures during periods of warm or hot weather.
This material is expensive but can be re-used on future turf replacements. Current pricing for this
material is approximately $1.20 per lb. or $1.05 per lb. more expensive than SBR. Here is a link to
more product information:
http://www.ttiionline.com/products/pro-max-37-tpe-infill/
This infill was installed at the roof top field at The Northwest School as infill migration into the new
gym was a big concern and the TPE has a smoother shape and less static cling and would therefore
not be as susceptible to being tracked off the field.
Using a reliable source for this material is critical. Nine fields installed for the Los Angeles Unified
School District and a number of others that used TPE infill manufactured in Asia have failed. With
high surface temperatures, the TPE infill melted and clumped together. This melting and
conglomeration may impact safety of users, playability and impact attenuation.
Organic Infill:
These are granulated plant derived materials that include coconut husks, cork, and rice husks. We
strongly recommend that fields with this infill should include a supplemental pad system as the
organic materials could/will break down over time resulting in a loss of resiliency. Fields with this
infill have not been installed on a wide spread basis and those that are installed are typically in much
drier climates. They will require regular irrigation as well during any periods of dry weather even
when they are not in use (to keep the material weighted and in place). Vendors of the product
suggest maintaining at least 20% moisture level.
It is our further opinion that additional study should be completed to insure that the MRSA studies
previously performed on fields with SBR infill would apply to fields with organic infill. Cleanup
procedures after any bleeding or vomiting on the field surface would likely be more extensive with
organic infill materials.
Whereas these infills have been used more extensively in Italy and other warmer and drier climates,
there is more limited and short term experience in wetter and cooler climates. Boston College
recently installed a field with organic infill but we are not familiar with any others in similar climatic
conditions to the Puget Sound region. With high levels of moisture and moderate temperatures,
Packet Page 546 of 549
Carrie Hite
City of Edmonds
July 30, 2015
Former Woodway High School Field Improvements
PAGE 4 OF 5
resistance of the organic infill material to mold growth should also be confirmed. As an organic
product, the material will tend to deteriorate over time, and vendors recommend scarification and
replenishment of the infill every two years.
As these are somewhat un-proven in our climate, looking at the Geofill as furnished by Shaw Sports
Product may be warranted as they should be able to provide a very strong warranty (as they are a
subsidiary or holding of Berkshire Hathaway). Here are some links to organic infill options:
From Shaw (including the field on the Google corporate campus)
http://www.shawsportsturf.com/geofill/
From Limonta (two recent installations in the Bay Area at a park and elementary school):
http://www.geoturfusa.com/
Hellas Construction has become the Western US distributor of Geoplus infill. This product will have
the initial installation in the Pacific NW in August, 2015. There is limited information about pricing,
however it is anticipated the increase in cost will be approximately $1.50 per SF of installed field
surface. There is not a product sheet available for the exact components, but limited information
can be found at:
http://www.hellasconstruction.com/Products/Turf/
Cork:
There are several variations of cork infill. One version has been typically used as a topping, replacing
the surface .25” depth of SBR infill, primarily for heat remediation. The vendor advises this is
sustainably harvested, but as a lightweight material, it will tend to migrate to the surface, and
require regular irrigation/watering to keep in place on the surface.
An alternate cork infill combines natural cork and polyurethane into a liquid, which is then extruded
and trimmed into small particle sizes. This product is new in the marketplace.
Both of these products are available from only one vendor. Based upon current information, cost
increases will range from $.50/SF of field surface (cork topping) to over $3.00 SF (full depth infill).
Coated Sand Materials:
There are a number of different infill products comprised of coated sand materials. Some of these
include resilient coatings and others include harder coatings and rely on the geometry of the
individual sand particles to result in displacement to absorb impacts. The resilient coatings include
FlexSand. However, this material no longer listed on the manufacturer’s website and may have had
some ongoing performance issues (unconfirmed). We are trying to confirm anecdotal information
that there may have been problems. When we previously reviewed samples under a scope, the
resilient coating around the sand was far from uniform and appeared to be easily worn off. Also,
there is not much health/environmental information available on the coating itself. With the harder
Packet Page 547 of 549
Carrie Hite
City of Edmonds
July 30, 2015
Former Woodway High School Field Improvements
PAGE 5 OF 5
coatings, it has been our experience with previous generations of synthetic turf systems that
included 100% sand infill was that the sand particles tended to lock together over time resulting in a
fairly hard and compact surface.
EPDM:
EDPM is a manufactured rubber product typically used as the wearing course on running tracks as
well as the colored fall protection areas below playground equipment. Current pricing for this
material is approximately $1.00 per lb. or $0.85 per lb. more expensive than SBR. There have been a
number of issues with the EPDM (track rubber) fields where it has either gummed up or reacted
with the turf fiber resulting is a color change. Melos & Gezolan are typically the only sources we
pre-approve for tracks although Melos sourced some of their product from Eastern Europe and it
failed on some tracks (Stanford among a few others). Again, there is less study and data on this
material than the SBR material and given the high price point, TPE may offer a better option at a
similar price point.
3. Current projects and limitations were reviewed from other areas and projects by DA Hogan. A
current project at UCLA totaling over 300,000 SF were evaluated by University staff, and risk
management, given the current SBR concerns. The specific field will be used for international Special
Olympics competition in summer 2015, and the conclusion of that University was to use SBR.
4. Use of options for natural grass were also reviewed. It is possible to develop a high performance
natural turf field. However, the field would be likely worn and damaged through extensive use
during winter months when natural turf does not grow, which will impact play and usability
throughout the year – and require periods of non-use while the field is restored. There is no “magic
cultivar” that is equal to the amount of use that a synthetic turf field can support. Maintenance
requirements for a high performance natural turf field could likely not be staffed or supported by
district resources. Should a high performance natural turf field be installed, regular mowing,
fertilization, watering and maintenance of a drainage system will be required.
I have included a summary chart with additional information regarding the various infill materials.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about the information provided.
Thank you
Packet Page 548 of 549
PLAYING FIELD TURF INFILL ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY Former Woodway High School Community Sports Fields
Prepared By: Robert Harding, Principal Approximate Field Area 160,000 Sq.Ft.
D.A. Hogan & Associates Inc.
7/30/15
Turf Infill Name Description Installation History Availability Colors Available Life Span
Minimum Infill
Cost per Field
with Supplemental
Pad
Minimum Infill
Cost per Field
without
Supplemental Pad
Net Temperature Impact Irrigation Requirements
SBR & Sand Recycled crumb rubber from car & truck tires More than 95% of the fields Generally unlimited supply from
varoius sources of recycled tires.Black
1-2 turf
cycles (10-
20 yr)
0.15 lb 2.2 lb/sf $0.33 per sf 3 lb/sf $0.45 per sf $52,800.00 $72,000.00
Direct sunlight on the fibers is what generates the heat/temperature difference on
a field, and not the infill. The infill may extend/carry heat a short period of time
after direct sunlight is removed (clouds/sunset). Since the fiber is what gets
warm, changing the infill has only minor impact, typically with light reflection.
The organic infills require water, and it is the humidity in the water which typcally
provides the temperature mitigation. Turf/fiber without infills will result in the
same temperature increases under direct sunlight as fiber with infills.
Temperature increases vary dependent upon ambient air temperatures, but
increases of up to 40 F are not uncommon, depending upon the sun angle.
Ranges from none, to minimal for clean up (ie. on demand/quick coupler system
via hoses)or occaisional use for cooling, depending upon infrastructure available.
Irrigation spray system for cooling can accomplish short term cooling based upon
water temperature. However the temperature reduction is short lived (1-2 hours
max), resulting in increased humidity during evaporation. Typical fields in the
Pacific NW do not require spray irrigation systems for cooling.
Coated SBR & Sand Acrylic coating encapsulating recycled crumb
rubber granules
Multiple fields, including several
pending at Eastlake HS Stadium in
Samamamish and Liberty HS Stadium
in Renton
Generally unlilmited supply from west
coast provders Green & Tan
Min 1 turf
cycle (8-
10 year)
$0.45 lb 2.2 lb/sf $0.99 per sf 3 lb/sf $1.35 per sf $158,400.00 $216,000.00 Net reduction of 5%-10%. i.e. 145 F potentially reduces to 130 F.
Ranges from none, to minimal for clean up (ie. on demand/quick coupler system
via hoses)or occaisional use for cooling, depending upon infrastructure available.
Irrigation spray system for cooling can accomplish short term cooling based upon
water temperature. However the temperature reduction is short lived (1-2 hours
max), resulting in increased humidity during evaporation. Typical fields in the
Pacific NW do not require spray irrigation systems for cooling.
Nike Grind & Sand Recycled shoe rubber
Multiple fields in Washington inclduing
Beaver Lake MS; Pacific Cascade MS;
and Kennedy Catholic HS
Generally limited supply, with
materials generated overseas.
Multi-color mix
(red, green, blue,
orange, white,
etc.). Single
colors are not
available.
Min 1 turf
cycle (8-
10 year)
$0.60 lb 2.2 lb/sf $1.32 per sf 3 lb/sf $1.80 per sf $211,200.00 $288,000.00 Documentation not Available
Ranges from none, to minimal for clean up (ie. on demand/quick coupler system
via hoses)or occaisional use for cooling, depending upon infrastructure available.
Irrigation spray system for cooling can accomplish short term cooling based upon
water temperature. However the temperature reduction is short lived (1-2 hours
max), resulting in increased humidity during evaporation. Typical fields in the
Pacific NW do not require spray irrigation systems for cooling.
EPDM & Sand Manufactured track rubber Many fields in Europe No known supply limitiations
Wide Range
(black, blue,
orange, gold, tan,
brown, etc.)
1-2 turf
cycles (10-
20 yr)
$1.00 lb 2.2 lb/sf $2.20 per sf 3 lb/sf $3.00 per sf $352,000.00 $480,000.00 Documentation not Available
Ranges from none, to minimal for clean up (ie. on demand/quick coupler system
via hoses)or occaisional use for cooling, depending upon infrastructure available.
Irrigation spray system for cooling can accomplish short term cooling based upon
water temperature. However the temperature reduction is short lived (1-2 hours
max), resulting in increased humidity during evaporation. Typical fields in the
Pacific NW do not require spray irrigation systems for cooling.
TPE & Sand Thermoplastic compliant with CA Prop 65
Multiple fields in Europe. One rooftop
field of 6,000 SF at Northwest School
in Seattle
No known supply limitations Generally tan and
green. Other
colors may be
available.
1-2 turf
cycles (10-
20 yr)
$1.20 lb 2.2 lb/sf $2.64 per sf 3 lb/sf $3.60 per sf $422,400.00 $576,000.00 Documentation not Available
Ranges from none, to minimal for clean up (ie. on demand/quick coupler system
via hoses)or occaisional use for cooling, depending upon infrastructure available.
Irrigation spray system for cooling can accomplish short term cooling based upon
water temperature. However the temperature reduction is short lived (1-2 hours
max), resulting in increased humidity during evaporation. Typical fields in the
Pacific NW do not require spray irrigation systems for cooling.
Cork Top Coating Natural Cork used in lieu of final SBR lift. Multiple fields in US
Some limitations on supply,
depending upon seasonal
instalallation commitments
Tan
Min 1 turf
cycle (8-
10 year)
$1.75 lb 0.4 lb/sf $0.70 per sf 0.4 lb/sf $0.70 per sf
$56,000 added to
the basic cost of
infill.
$56,000 added to
the basic cost of
infill.
Net reduction 10% +
Ranges from none, to minimal for clean up (ie. on demand/quick coupler system
via hoses)or occaisional use for cooling, depending upon infrastructure available.
Irrigation spray system for cooling can accomplish short term cooling based upon
water temperature. However the temperature reduction is short lived (1-2 hours
max), resulting in increased humidity during evaporation. Typical field in coastal
zone such as Long Beach with benefit of afternoon on shore breeze typically do
not have spray irrigation systems for cooling. Regular irrigation will help to settle
top cork layer as it will "float" to the surface.
GeoFill* & Sand Coconut Fiber Multiple fields in Italy & Google
Corporate Campus No known supply limitations Tan/brown Unknown $1.25 lb 1.5 lb/sf $1.88 per sf Not
Recommended
lb/sf per sf $300,000.00 Not Recommended Net reduction 10% +
Requires daily irrigation and annual top dressing. Cost of infill does not include the
anticipated cost of irrigation system infrastructure (capital expense), or cost of
water (operation expense).
GeoTurf*Coconut Fiber, Cork, & Rice Husks Multiple fields in Italy & Two fields in
Bay Area No known supply limitations Tan/brown Unknown $1.40 lb 1.5 lb/sf $2.10 per sf
Not
Recommended
lb/sf per sf $336,000.00 Not Recommended Net reduction 10% +
Requires daily irrigation and annual top dressing to maintain min. 20% moisture.
Anticipate daily irrigation during summer months and at least 2-3X week during
remainder of year. Cost of infill does not include the anticipated cost of irrigation
system infrastructure (capital expense), or cost of water (operations expense).
* GeoFill/Geo Turf is not recommended for fields without a supplemental pad system.
Notes Regarding infill products lifespan Regarding additional costs Regarding infill Weight of Organic Infills
Some products lifespan beyond initial installation
period is not known. A typical turf life span is 8-10
years, and traditionally the infill materials have been
removed and subsequently recycled/discarded in
favor of new infill materials. There are some efforts
in progress to clean and reprocess "used" infill
materials in turf, but they are not yet universally
avaialable. It is likely within the next 10 years new
techniques and measures will be developed to
reclaim and re-use infill materials. The organic
materials need to be replenished every several
years, and the long term viability is not yet known.
Use of SBR rubber infill is the
standard, and therefore the baseline
from which all other infill products are
compared. Typically, SBR infill will
cost $.015/lb. Therefore the cost for
infill on a typical field is approximately
$26,400.
Due to their volume, the cost per unit
for organic infills is not typically
measured in weight, but in volume. I
have attempted to complete a
correlation.
Notes Regarding Heat/Temperature on Fields Regarding Supplemental Pad
Direct sunlight on the fibers is what generates the
heat/temperature difference on a field, and not the
infill. The infill may extend/carry heat a short period
of time after direct sunlight is removed
(clouds/sunset). Since the fiber is what gets warm,
changing the infill has only minor impact, typically
with light reflection. The organic infills require
water, and it is the humidity in the water which
typcally provides the temperature mitigation.
Turf/fiber without infills will result in the same
temperature increases under direct sunlight as fiber
with infills. Temperature increases vary dependent
upon ambient air temperatures, but increases of up
to 40 F are not uncommon, depending upon the sun
angle.
A Supplemental Pad (shock
attenuation layer) is a long term
impact attenuation reduction that will
typically have a life cycle over multiple
field replacements. A supplemental
pad will allow reduction in pile height,
and a resultant reduction in cost for the
synthetic turf product. Typical
supplemental pad cost range from $1-
$2 per SF, depending upon the type,
technique, and materials used. A
paved in place elastic layer pad will
likely last 30-40 years, or 4-5 turf
replacement cycles, allowing the cost
to be amortized over time.
Min. Infill Weight
Assuming use of a
Supplemental Pad
System
Min. Unit Total
Min. Infill Weight
Without Use of
Supplemental Pad
System
Unit Total Unit Cost
Packet Page 549 of 549