2018-06-19 City Council - Full Agenda-2125Agenda
Edmonds City Council
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JUNE 19, 2018, 7:00 PM
Edmonds City Council Agenda
June 19, 2018
Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation Honoring Geoff Bennett (5 min)
2. Housing Snohomish County Project Report (20 min)
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2018
2. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2018
3. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2018
4. Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
5. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages by Frontier Communications (amount
undetermined).
6. April 2018 Monthly Financial Report
7. Job description - Building Inspector (updated)
8. Job Descriptions (updates) - Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager
9. Job Description -Senior Accountant (Finance)
10. Development Services Fee Adjustments
11. Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Stantec Consulting
12. Utility Easement for a new ground water monitoring well at 16116 72nd Ave
13. Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Murraysmith for the Five
Corners Reservoir Recoating Project
14. Final Acceptance and report on final construction costs for the 2017 Sanitary Sewer
Replacement Project
15. Supplemental Agreement with KBA for the 76th Ave and 212th St Intersection Improvements
Project
16. 238th St. SW No Parking Ordinance
7. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan (45 min)
8. ACTION ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Agenda
June 19, 2018
Page 2
1. Ordinance Approving the Vacation of Unopened Right-of-Way Adjacent to the Southern
Boundaries of 10410 and 10430 231st St. SW (PLN20170052) (10 min)
2. Job Descriptions -Public Works Senior Accountant (10 min)
3. Edmonds Youth Commission Ordinance (30 min)
9. STUDY ITEMS
1. Council 2019 Budget Goals Discussion (45 min)
10. REPORTS ON COUNCIL COMMITTEES
1. Council Committee Reports and Minutes (10 min)
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(I).
14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
15. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURN
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Proclamation Honoring Geoff Bennett
Staff Lead: Mayor Earling
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
Geoff Bennett has been the Assistant Principal of Edmonds-Woodway High School for 20 years and had
been teaching in Snohomish County since 1975. He grew up in Edmonds graduating from Edmonds High
School in 1970.
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
Mr. Bennett will retire from the Edmonds School District on June 29, 2018. Mayor Earling will honor Mr.
Bennett for his many years of dedication to the Edmonds community with a proclamation.
Attachments:
20180614160924
4.1
Packet Pg. 3
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: 20180614160924 (Proclamation Honoring Geoff Bennett)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Housing Snohomish County Project Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Preparer: Denise Nelson
Background/History
The mission of the Housing Coalition of Everett and Snohomish County is "to provide strategic leadership
in crafting programs and policy solutions to affordable housing challenges in Snohomish County." The
organization is a non-profit that works with housing developers, service providers, and other public and
private partners .
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Housing Coalition of Everett and Snohomish County (HCESC) has developed a report that gives a
comprehensive overview of affordable housing in the Snohomish County area. (The full report is online
at: http://housingsnohomish.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/HousingSnohomishCountyProject.pdf.)
Highlights from the report will be presented by Mark Smith, HCESC Executive Director, at the City
Council's June 19 meeting.
4.2
Packet Pg. 5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Approval of Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2018
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
06-09-2018 Draft Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2018
6.1
Packet Pg. 6
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
June 9, 2018
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
DRAFT MINUTES
June 9, 2018
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor (9:47 – 10:25 a.m.)
Michael Nelson, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. INTRODUCTIONS AND GREETINGS (Includes purpose of this meeting as well as intended
outcomes)
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 9:04 p.m. by Council President Nelson in Room
302, Frances Anderson Center, 700 Main Street, Edmonds.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mike Bailey introduced himself and described his background. Councilmembers introduced themselves.
Council President Nelson explained this was an opportunity to get together as a Council, narrow the scope
of the retreat to the budget and determine whether the Council was interested in introducing budget ideas
earlier, rethinking the Council’s role in the budget and having influence on the budget. His hope for the
retreat outcome was to look at the budget differently and collectively and to increase the Council’s role in
the budget. He anticipated there would be a future public meeting with Council, administration and staff.
Discussion followed regarding the Council’s responsibility for the budget, how the budget has been
developed in the past, funding the Mayor identified in the 2018 budget address for Civic Park that had not
been allocated via the budget process, “surprises” that occur due to the Council presenting its priorities after
the budget is presented, and the need for long range financial planning for roads, capital projects, etc. in
addition to operating.
Councilmembers and Mr. Bailey identified and discussed the following topics of interest:
Biennial budget cycle
Fund balance (labels)
The plan - communicate
o The “official” budget
Admin flexibility
Fund within a fund
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 06-09-2018 Draft Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2018 (Approval of Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
June 9, 2018
Page 2
2. BUDGET BASICS – ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
“Budgeting is A Team Sport”
Mr. Bailey explained the budget is one of the Council’s responsibility in partnership with other team
members. Adopting a budget is more than sources and uses of money, it is managing the day to day as well
as figuring out how to get from where we are today to where we want to be at a certain point and remaining
financially responsible during that journey. A long range financial plan is more than numbers on a page, it
is a strategy for what we want to accomplish – services, facilities, etc. – in the coming budget year and
beyond. Discussion included establishing and reviewing budget goals as part of the budget process,
budgeting by priorities, and tensions that occurred during the 2018 budget process.
Legislative and Administration Roles for A Successful Outcome
Policies
Mr. Bailey commented on establishing policies related to fund balance, investments, etc., and characterized
financial policies as “guardrails." He relayed the Government Financial Officers Association’s (GFOA)
policy regarding fund balance is a minimum of two months but it should be based on a city’s circumstances.
For example, Redmond’s fund balance policy is 8.5% (catastrophic loss reserve) + 4 (economic
stabilization) = 12.5%. He described the Council’s responsibility for:
1) Financial policies
Policy is more about the “what” and less about the “how”
It is important to write down policies and to reach the right policy for the City at the time
Council begins the budget process by reviewing policies; revisiting policies reminds everyone
they exist
When an issue arises, make a note that a policy needs to be developed regarding that issue and
go back to it later
2) Goals (direction, service levels)
Creating a target allows evaluation of whether/how it was achieved
Budget is what, why and for who
Start with broad goals
Administration will have goals as well
Council comments and discussion included the Finance Committee’s efforts to update the City’s financial
policies, the City’s current fund balance policy, Councilmembers’ disagreement regarding the fund balance
policy, the need for a capital plan to address roads and buildings, admin/staff’s implementation of Council
goals, the budget as a team process, ensuring goals are reasonable, how Council goals are introduced, and
what happens when there is disagreement between Council and administration with regard to goals.
Mr. Bailey provided a sample budget chronology (months in parenthesis are Redmond’s practice):
1. Council: Review financial policies (March)
a. Fund structure
b. Develop and adopt a budget calendar (March)
i. Staff also develops a calendar and Finance has an internal calendar
2. Goals
a. Council (April/May) – informs development of budget
b. Admin (April/May)
3. Administration: Prepares budget utilizing budget instructions that include Council goals
a. Proposed preliminary budget - initial estimate (July-September)
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 06-09-2018 Draft Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2018 (Approval of Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
June 9, 2018
Page 3
i. Includes how budget responds to Council goals
ii. Required by RCW to be filed with City Clerk by a certain date (Mr. Bailey recalled it
was September; RCW35.33.051 states on or before the first business day in the third
month prior to the beginning of the fiscal year of a city)
b. Council and Administration: Preliminary budget – balanced (November 1)
4. Council Workshops
a. Opportunity for Council to familiarize themselves with budget
b. Opportunity for Council to identify goals not addressed in preliminary budget
c. Balance Council requests for funding
5. Council: Adopt a budget (appropriations and FTEs)
6. Council and Administration: Review
With regard to budgeting in response to Council goals, Mr. Bailey suggested one option is to establish goals
and identify which departments respond to them (via a decision package) using a matrix:
Goal Department
Parks Public Works Mayor Dev Serv Police Etc.
ABC X X
XYZ X
123 X
456 X X
Mr. Bailey relayed Renton holds two retreats, 1) the leadership team develops ideas which are shared with
the Council, and 2) Council and the leadership team finalizes the ideas into joint goals. Renton has six goals
with objectives under each; the goals are displayed throughout City Hall. The goals are used to inform the
budget as well as the Comprehensive Plan, CIP/CFP, etc.
Mr. Bailey described the requirements for a biennial budget: 1) adopt a policy (ordinance) by mid-year of
the prior year, 2) mid-biennium review (includes amendments), and 3) the first year must be an odd year.
He explained once everyone is comfortable with the process, a biennial budget allows everyone to think
about “the plan” over a two-year period, goals are two year, and it saves time.
Discussion included the process of establishing goals, the number of goals that can reasonably be
established, developing a financial policy that describes how project under-expenditures and/or unused
management reserves are used, the biennial budget process, pros and cons of a biennial budget, opportunity
to do capital planning in the off-budget year in a biennial budget, and administrative support required for
biennial budget process.
4. LUNCH – Working Lunch – 11:30
Policies (con’t)
Mr. Bailey continued his review of the Council’s responsibilities:
3) Appropriation
Via ordinance adopting the budget
o When adopted at fund level, allows for admin flexibility
o Can include provisos/policy direction
4) Review - how does budget achieve goals
Financial
Programmatic
Tool for asking staff how goals are being achieved
1-2 times/year schedule review of goals on agenda
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 06-09-2018 Draft Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2018 (Approval of Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
June 9, 2018
Page 4
Discussion included how to fund Council goals, examples of admin flexibility, balancing Council requests
at the time of Council workshops, ways to fund new requests such as a youth commission, Council
allocation of FTEs and positions, set aside in the budget via the Mayor’s budget message for Civic Park
(fund within a fund), establishing appropriation levels, establishing a structure for sharing information to
ensure Councilmembers feel informed about amendments to the preliminary budget, identifying in the
budget calendar a date by which Councilmembers must propose amendments, (Redmond requires
Councilmember propose amendments by the second budget workshop), informing administration of the
Council’s priorities and asking administration to propose how to fund (i.e. a youth commission), ability for
the Council to amend a job description to include a function but preference for a dialogue with
administration regarding how to fund/staff a function, understanding reasons/aspects of projects where cost
increases occur, and establishing a financial policy regarding how unexpended funds in a project are used.
Mr. Taraday suggested the Council consider a comprehensive re-adoption of all fund proposes.
3. HOW WERE PAST STRATEGIC PLANNING/BUDGET EFFORTS RECEIVED BY THE
COUNCIL?
Councilmembers Put Forth Budget Items That Each Member Would Like to Pursue
(Includes Short and Long-Term Projects)
Exercise: Councilmembers were asked to identify goals they would ask the administration to respond to in
preparing the preliminary budget for Council consideration (project, process oriented, service level, etc.):
Capital investment to address homelessness in Edmonds
Pedestrian Safety – Admiral Way Crosswalk
Edmonds school safety
Civic Field construction
Arts Corridor construction
Reserve Fund fully funded
High priority - short walkways
Design and implement 4th Ave Cultural Corridor
Restore ecological function of the Edmonds Marsh
Create historic district for downtown Edmonds
Focus on the development code
More focus on diversity education
More focus on the environment
South County Mayor Homelessness Project
Add 10 hours/month contract staff for Diversity Commission to get work done
New budget process
Create a new budget calendar approved by Council
Community/senior center funded
Meet renewable energy goals
Safer streets for pedestrians and vehicles
Start Hwy 99 improvements
Maintain or improve tree canopy
Restore salmon runs
Protect stream corridors
Review budget funds
Street safety projects
Attract additional high-tech businesses
Single use plastic reduction
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 06-09-2018 Draft Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2018 (Approval of Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
June 9, 2018
Page 5
Additional off leash dog park
Rebuild waterfront center parking lot
North and east Edmonds branding program
Yost Pool replacement
Art district designation application completed
Protect our neighborhoods (land use)
Mr. Bailey suggested a future meeting to develop 3-4 succinct goals to provide to administration to be
addressed in the budget, noting the creation of goals provides the ability to assess progress on those goals.
He also suggested the Council adopt the goals via resolution with a statement for each describing the result
the Council wants to achieve. Capital projects are addressed via a similar but separate process. Redmond
presents and adopts a capital budget prior to the budget process.
The above goals were preliminarily grouped as follows:
Environment
Pedestrian Safety
Improve fiscal management budget process
Land Use
Next steps:
Study session to flesh out goals
Draft and adopt resolution with goals
Adopt Council budget calendar.
Discussion included Council versus staff’s role in budgeting, developing a budget calendar, Finance
Committee discussing the process of converting to a biennial budget, ordinance language versus financial
policies, providing enough specificity in the goal statement about results the Council wants to see on goals,
Councilmembers submitting sample results statements, developing a draft resolution, issues to be addressed
in financial policies, and Renton’s budget as a good example.
Council President Nelson thanked Mr. Bailey for helping guide the Council to a successful future budget
process.
5. CONTINUE DISCUSSION ON COUNCIL RECOMMENDED BUDGET ITEMS
Begin Prioritizing Budget Items
6. CONTINUE COSTING EXERCISE FOR PRIORITIZED BUDGET ITEMS
7. DRILLING DOWN TO WHAT COUNCIL WANTS TO COMMUNICATE TO THE
ADMINISTRATION AS IT RELATES TO THE UPCOMING BUDGET
8. WRAP-UP/NEXT STEPS
Communicating out on This Meeting
9. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council retreat was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
6.1.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 06-09-2018 Draft Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2018 (Approval of Council Retreat Special Meeting Minutes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2018
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
06-12-2018 Draft Council Special Meeting Mintues
6.2
Packet Pg. 12
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 12, 2018
Page 1
+
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
JUNE 12, 2018
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Mike Nelson, Council President
Tom Mesaros, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Earling, Mayor
Other
Mark Bucklin, Attorney
Elected Officials Absent
none
1. CALL TO ORDER/CONVENE IN JURY MEETING ROOM
At 6:40 p.m., the City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(I).
The City Council then adjourned in executive session in the Jury Meeting Room to discuss pending
or potential litigation.
ADJOURN
At 6:55 p.m., the executive session concluded and the meeting was adjourned.
6.2.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 06-12-2018 Draft Council Special Meeting Mintues (Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2018
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
06-12-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
6.3
Packet Pg. 14
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 12, 2018
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
June 12, 2018
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Michael Nelson, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Noal Leonetti, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Leif Bjorback, Building Official
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(d)
At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.110(1)(d). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 5 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas,
Buckshnis, Teitzel, Tibbott, Mesaros and Nelson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, and
Human Resources Director Mary Ann Hardie. The executive session concluded at 7:08 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:09 p.m.
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PRESENTATION
6.3.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 06-12-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 12, 2018
Page 2
1. RESOLUTIONS COMMENDING STUDENT VOLUNTEERS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1413, A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS
CITY COUNCIL COMMENDING NOAL LEONETTI FOR HIS SERVICE AS A STUDENT
REPRESENTATIVE ON THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL; AND RESOLUTION NO. 1414, A
RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL COMMENDING EMILY MCLAUGHLIN
STA. MARIA FOR HER SERVICE AS PRESIDENT OF THE STUDENTS SAVING SALMON
CLUB AT EDMONDS-WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Nelson gave a personal shout-out to Noal for his work on Taming Bigfoot as well as his
vocal concern on the increase in gun violence and its impact on youth. Council President Nelson read a
resolution recognizing Noal for his service as Student Representative from September 12, 2017 to June 12,
2018.
Student Representative Leonetti said he was honored to serve as the Council Representative and thankful
for opportunity to assist with the Taming Bigfoot project. He learned a lot about the legislative process and
working with the community and was excited to use that knowledge and skills in his adult life.
Council President Nelson read a resolution recognizing Emily McLaughlin Sta. Maria, President, Students
Saving Salmon. Emily thanked Joe Scordino who oversees Students Saving Salmon, and her biology
teacher, David Millette, for helping and supporting her in her pursuit of science and biology.
Councilmember Johnson thanked Noal and Emily for their contributions to Edmonds and observed both
were graduating from high school this Saturday and attending college in the fall, Noal at Bowdoin College
and Emily at Reed College. She congratulated both and wished them a wonderful future.
6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 2018
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 2018
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
4. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM STATE FARM
($7.042.26)
7. ADJOURN TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned to committee meetings at 7:17 p.m. (Parks &
Public Works Committee in Council Chambers, Finance Committee in the Jury Meeting Room and Public
Safety, Personnel & Planning Committee in the Police Training Room.)
6.3.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 06-12-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #231676 through #231797 dated June 14, 2018 for $288,555.38 (re-issued
check #231747 $224.40). Approval of wire payment on June 14, 2018 of $30,135.19.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claim cks 06-14-18
wire 06-14-18
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18
6.4
Packet Pg. 17
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231676 6/14/2018065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 404425WWTP: 6/8/18 PEST CONTROL SERVICEPest Control Service423.000.76.535.80.41.00 73.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.52Total :80.52231677 6/14/2018061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 618275P&R LEAGUE SHIRTSP&R LEAGUE SHIRTS001.000.64.571.25.31.00 50.3410.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.571.25.31.00 5.24Total :55.58231678 6/14/2018001528 AM TEST INC 105064WWTP: 503 METALS TEST SAMPLE 18-A008330503 METALS TEST SAMPLE 18-A008330423.000.76.535.80.41.00 110.00Total :110.00231679 6/14/2018073573 ANIXTER 23K187790FAC MAINT - LOCK SUPPLIESFac Maint - Lock Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.9610.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.54FAC MAINT - LOCK SUPPLIES23K189815Fac Maint - Lock Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 63.2010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.51Total :86.21231680 6/14/2018065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH 7013466015SEWER - MOTOR FOR BLOWERSewer - Motor for Blower423.000.75.535.80.31.00 240.26Freight1Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 18Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231680 6/14/2018(Continued)065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH423.000.75.535.80.31.00 21.8910.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 27.00Total :289.15231681 6/14/2018069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1990724718PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICEPARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.86FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1990724719FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS001.000.66.518.30.24.00 32.5710.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.35FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1990735079FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS001.000.66.518.30.24.00 32.5710.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.35WWTP: 6/618 UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATS1990745347Mats/Towels423.000.76.535.80.41.00 106.38Uniforms423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.9610.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1990745348PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.86FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1990745349FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS001.000.66.518.30.24.00 32.5710.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.352Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 19Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231681 6/14/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICESPUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1990749184PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.3310.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6610.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6610.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6610.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6610.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.34FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1990749185FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.68FLEET DIVISION MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 18.4010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.5910.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.893Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 20Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :404.68231681 6/14/2018 069751 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES231682 6/14/2018 001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC INV260520PS - SUPPLIESPS - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 54.9410.1 % Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.55Total :60.49231683 6/14/2018070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 101089OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLSUB Outsourcing area Printing #500422.000.72.531.90.49.00 36.91UB Outsourcing area Printing #500421.000.74.534.80.49.00 36.91UB Outsourcing area Printing #500423.000.75.535.80.49.00 38.04UB Outsourcing area Postage #500421.000.74.534.80.42.00 134.09UB Outsourcing area Postage #500423.000.75.535.80.42.00 134.0910.1 % Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.7310.1 % Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.7310.1 % Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.84OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS101247UB Outsourcing area Printing #600422.000.72.531.90.49.00 34.57UB Outsourcing area Printing #600421.000.74.534.80.49.00 34.57UB Outsourcing area Printing #600423.000.75.535.80.49.00 35.61UB Outsourcing area Postage #600421.000.74.534.80.42.00 130.59UB Outsourcing area Postage #6004Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 21Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231683 6/14/2018(Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER423.000.75.535.80.42.00 130.5910.1 % Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.4910.1 % Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.4910.1 % Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.60OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS101393UB Outsourcing area Printing #300422.000.72.531.90.49.00 150.22UB Outsourcing area Printing #300421.000.74.534.80.49.00 150.22UB Outsourcing area Printing #300423.000.75.535.80.49.00 154.76UB Outsourcing area Postage #300423.000.75.535.80.42.00 542.8110.1 % Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.49.00 15.1710.1 % Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.49.00 15.1710.1 % Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.49.00 15.64UB Outsourcing area Postage #300421.000.74.534.80.42.00 542.82Total :2,354.66231684 6/14/2018069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0518-2BACKGROUND CHECKS - MAY 2 OF 2BACKGROUND CHECKS - MAY 15-31001.000.22.518.10.41.00 144.00Total :144.00231685 6/14/2018076685 BAILEY, MICHAEL E 06/09/18COUNCIL RETREAT FACILITATORMike Bailey CPA - Budget Retreat001.000.11.511.60.41.00 750.005Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 22Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :750.00231685 6/14/2018 076685 076685 BAILEY, MICHAEL E231686 6/14/2018 072577 BAURECHT, MAGRIT 2018 CONCERT FLIER 2018 CONCERT FLIER DESIGN2018 CONCERT FLIER DESIGN117.100.64.573.20.41.00 440.00Total :440.00231687 6/14/2018074307 BLUE STAR GAS 1040095-INFLEET AUTO PROPANE 553.2 GALFLEET AUTO PROPANE 553.2 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.12 945.07FLEET AUTO PROPANE 502.9 GAL1040483-INFleet Auto Propane 502.9 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.12 859.91FLEET AUTO PROPANE 675.2 GAL1041372-INFleet Auto Propane 675.2 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,163.09Total :2,968.07231688 6/14/2018002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY 599724UNIT 23 - BRAKE PARTSUnit 23 - Brake Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 466.6210.1 % Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 47.13Total :513.75231689 6/14/2018002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC IM01194UNIT 19 - PARTUnit 19 - Part511.000.77.548.68.31.10 176.79Freight511.000.77.548.68.31.10 39.9010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 22.32Total :239.01231690 6/14/2018 069295 BROWN, CANDY 6659 BIRDS6659 BACKYARD BIRDS INSTRUCTION6659 BACKYARD BIRDS INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 261.806Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 23Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :261.80231690 6/14/2018 069295 069295 BROWN, CANDY231691 6/14/2018 074776 BUCKSHNIS, DIANE 061218WRIA 8 TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENTWRIA 8 Travel Reimbursement for Diane001.000.11.511.60.43.00 175.00Total :175.00231692 6/14/2018076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 5515890ROADWAY - ASPHALTRoadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 597.8710.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 59.79ROADWAY - ASPHALT5516337Roadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 372.3010.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 37.23ROADWAY - ASPHALT5517026Roadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 294.1910.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 29.42Total :1,390.80231693 6/14/2018075849 CARTER, JEANNE MAY 2018DIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR MADiversity commission administrative001.000.61.557.20.41.00 500.00Total :500.00231694 6/14/2018076651 CASTRO, JOHNATHAN JCASTRO-2018UNIFREIMWWTP: JOHNATHAN CASTRO PRO-JOHNATHAN CASTRO PRO-RATED UNIFORM423.000.76.535.80.24.00 115.47Total :115.47231695 6/14/2018 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 261277WATER - SUPPLIESWater - Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 49.107Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 24Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231695 6/14/2018(Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY10.4% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.10GYMNASTICS HELIUMRN05181005GYMNASTICS HELIUM001.000.64.571.28.45.00 16.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.571.28.45.00 1.65WWTP: 5/30/18 CYLINDER RENTAL+HAZMAT CHGRN05181006Cylinder rental & hazmat charge423.000.76.535.80.31.00 108.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 11.12Total :190.97231696 6/14/2018069457 CITY OF EDMONDS 6/12 SR CTR PERMITS 6/12 SR CTR PERMITSPERMIT# PLN20180039125.000.64.594.76.65.00 1,427.50PERMIT # PLN20180040125.000.64.594.76.65.00 910.00PERMIT # PLN20180041125.000.64.594.76.65.00 910.00PERMIT # PLN20180042125.000.64.594.76.65.00 1,245.00PERMIT # PLN20180043125.000.64.594.76.65.00 910.00PERMIT # CRA20180113125.000.64.594.76.65.00 50.00Total :5,452.50231697 6/14/2018064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 60323EDMONDS CITY CODE WEB UPDATE ORDINANCESEDMONDS CITY CODE WEB UPDATE CITY001.000.25.514.30.41.00 611.58Total :611.58231698 6/14/2018062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC 38023UNIT 411 - REPAIRS8Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 25Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231698 6/14/2018(Continued)062975 COLLISION CLINIC INCUnit 411 - Repairs511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,384.5210.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.48.00 142.61Total :1,527.13231699 6/14/2018075860 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO S8702465.001 WATER - METER BOXESWater - Meter Boxes421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,728.0810.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 178.00WATER - METER BOX COVERSS8702465.002Water - Meter Box Covers421.000.74.534.80.31.00 478.4010.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 49.28Total :2,433.76231700 6/14/2018076261 CONSTRUCTION GROUP INTL LLC 17411RECIVIC DEMO RETAINAGE RELEASECIVIC DEMO RETAINAGE RELEASE125.000.223.400 3,414.45Total :3,414.45231701 6/14/2018071417 CORE & MAIN LP I903908WATER - FIRE HYDRANT H7-A 300 ADMIRALWater - Fire Hydrant H7-A 300 Admiral421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,211.3010.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 124.77Total :1,336.07231702 6/14/2018065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING MAY 2018DRY CLEANING APR/MAY - EDMONDS PDCLEANING/LAUNDRY APR/MAY 2018001.000.41.521.22.24.00 705.42Total :705.429Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 26Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231703 6/14/2018006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3337562BUSINESS RECRUITMENT ADS MAY 2018Business recruitment ads May 2018001.000.61.558.70.41.40 500.00Total :500.00231704 6/14/2018076013 DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP 70528PROF. SERV. EDMONDS URBAN FORESTProf. Serv. Edmonds Urban Forest001.000.62.558.60.41.00 2,950.00Total :2,950.00231705 6/14/2018061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 460687INV#460687 - EDMONDS PDPARTS - GHD-14989 GENESIS DIRECTIONAL001.000.41.521.22.48.00 193.17TECH SERVICES001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00INBOUND SHIPPING001.000.41.521.22.48.00 25.00Freight001.000.41.521.22.48.00 18.179.7% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.48.00 29.71Total :336.05231706 6/14/2018047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2018050039CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 SWV#0098113-06Scan Services for May 2018512.000.31.518.88.42.00 285.00Total :285.00231707 6/14/2018064531 DINES, JEANNIE IN#18-3852IN#18-3852 - EDMONDS PDTRANSCRIPTION IA CASES #18-001 & #001.000.41.521.10.41.00 292.40TRANSCRIPTION CASE #13-03321 (MORRISON)001.000.41.521.21.41.00 115.60TRANSCRIPTION CASE #18-8566 (MEHL)001.000.41.521.21.41.00 122.40TRANSCRIPTION CASE #18-8566 (MEHL) DOUG10Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 27Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds11 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231707 6/14/2018(Continued)064531 DINES, JEANNIE001.000.41.521.21.41.00 30.60TRANSCRIPTION CASE #18-8566 (MEHL)001.000.41.521.21.41.00 68.00TRANSCRIPTION CASE #18-11446 (TRYKAR)001.000.41.521.21.41.00 71.40TRANSCRIPTION CASES IA #18-001 & #001.000.41.521.10.41.00 23.80TRANSCRIPTION CASES IA #18-001 &001.000.41.521.10.41.00 13.60Total :737.80231708 6/14/2018007253 DUNN LUMBER 408900PM: E000027 ORIG INV 5570263 RETURN ZMAXPM: ZMAX RETURN001.000.64.576.80.31.00 -30.49PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E0000275570263PM: LUMBER, ZMAX001.000.64.576.80.31.00 296.94PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E0000275580030PM: HEX BOLTS, SCREWS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 31.94Total :298.39231709 6/14/2018068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 18-16436WATER QUALITY - TESTING / MONITORINGWater Quality - Testing / Monitoring421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,110.00Total :1,110.00231710 6/14/2018076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 1058PM: LEADER HOSEPM: LEADER HOSE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.5910.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.88PM: BATTERIES1059PM: BATTERIES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.9811Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 28Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds12 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231710 6/14/2018(Continued)076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE10.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.23PM: CLIP GRIP, TENSION, BIKE HOOK, U1060PM: CLIP GRIP, TENSION, BIKE HOOK, U001.000.64.576.80.31.00 26.7010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.75SEWER - SUPPLIES403Sewer - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 19.9810.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.06Total :74.17231711 6/14/2018069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 6555 BURDEN6555 SEANIYAH BURDEN YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP6555 SEANIYAH BURDEN YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP122.000.64.571.20.49.00 54.006581 NOAH GIRMAY YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP6581 GIRMAY6581 NOAH GIRMAY YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP122.000.64.571.20.49.00 65.00Total :119.00231712 6/14/2018038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2018-06-0106/18 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE06/18 Recreation Services Contract Fee001.000.39.569.10.41.00 6,250.00Total :6,250.00231713 6/14/2018008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 247925INV#247925 - CLIENT #308 - EDMONDS PDEXAMINATION - HOBBS 308-10, MEDICAL001.000.41.521.26.41.00 57.00GABAPENTIN 300 MG CAPSULES (28)001.000.41.521.26.31.00 18.91RIMADYL CHEWS 100 MG (28)001.000.41.521.26.31.00 70.9910.3% Sales Tax12Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 29Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds13 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231713 6/14/2018(Continued)008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL001.000.41.521.26.31.00 9.26Total :156.16231714 6/14/2018008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0136164-ININV#0136164-IN ACCT#0011847 - EDMONDS PD150-11847-2 EDMONDS PD 150 PL STTS001.000.41.521.10.31.00 72.00151-11847-1 EDMONDS PD 151 CARLTONE001.000.41.521.10.31.00 104.00PACKAGE INSURANCE001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.00PACKAGING / HANDLING FEES001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.50Freight001.000.41.521.10.31.00 16.00Total :201.50231715 6/14/2018 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH810350LEGAL DESCRIP: PLN20180032Legal Descrip: PLN20180032001.000.62.558.60.41.40 63.64LEGAL DESCRIP: HPC PUBLIC HEARINGEDH810509Legal Descrip: HPC Public Hearing001.000.62.558.60.41.40 55.04CITY NOTICES PROP URBAN FOREEDH810700CITY NOTICES - PROP URBAN FOREST001.000.25.514.30.41.40 44.72Total :163.40231716 6/14/2018066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU49231 UNIT 19 SUPPLIESUnit 19 Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.10 40.0410.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.12PM: SUPPLIESWAMOU49301PM: SUPPLIES001.000.64.576.81.31.00 276.7513Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 30Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds14 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231716 6/14/2018(Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY10.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.81.31.00 28.51PM: SUPPLIESWAMOU49316PM: SUPPLIES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 53.6110.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.52PM: SUPPLIESWAMOU49350PM: SUPPLIES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 36.6010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.77Total :448.92231717 6/14/2018071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD 443-25007TAGS CORNER PARK & FLOWER BASKETTAGS CORNER PARK & FLOWER BASKET127.000.64.575.50.31.00 49.4010.4% Sales Tax127.000.64.575.50.31.00 5.14Total :54.54231718 6/14/2018 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0655321WATER METER - #2034 M-METEROMNI-01.5-030Water Meter - #2034 M-METEROMNI-01.5-030421.000.74.534.80.34.30 3,972.9010.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.34.30 409.21WATER - METER RADIOS0658562Water - Meter Radios421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,512.0010.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 155.74Total :6,049.85231719 6/14/2018076340 FIRSTTWO INC 1073INV#1073 - CUST ID#294 - EDMONDS PD1 YEAR FIRSTTWO 50 OFFICER AGENCY14Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 31Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds15 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231719 6/14/2018(Continued)076340 FIRSTTWO INC001.000.41.521.21.41.00 2,400.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.21.41.00 247.20Total :2,647.20231720 6/14/2018076624 FORAN, SHANNON 6657 ZUMBA 6657 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION6657 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 192.00Total :192.00231721 6/14/2018 071998 FOSTER, KELSEY BID-8354BID/ED! COPYWRITING FOR JUNE 18 ARTICLESBID/Ed! copywriting for June 18 articles140.000.61.558.70.41.00 600.00Total :600.00231722 6/14/2018075208 FRALEY-MONILLAS, ADRIENNE 061218REIMBURSEMENT FOR RETREAT REFRESHMENTSReimbursement for Council Retreat001.000.11.511.60.49.00 274.64Total :274.64231723 6/14/2018011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNTTELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT421.000.74.534.80.42.00 265.07TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT423.000.75.535.80.42.00 265.06LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES425-774-1031LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRADE SPECIAL423.000.75.535.80.42.00 47.47SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-776-1281SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE001.000.66.518.30.42.00 55.72LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE425-776-2742LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACCESS LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.40425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LINE425-776-531615Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 32Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds16 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231723 6/14/2018(Continued)011900 FRONTIER425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LINE001.000.64.576.80.42.00 102.50Total :762.22231724 6/14/2018076188 GARCIA, HELENA 6482 OIL PAINTING 6482 OIL PAINTING INSTRUCTION6482 OIL PAINTING INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 465.30Total :465.30231725 6/14/2018063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 145209UNIT 36 - 2 TIRESUnit 36 - 2 Tires511.000.77.548.68.34.30 248.14State Tire Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.30 2.0010.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.30 25.81Total :275.95231726 6/14/2018012199 GRAINGER 9787804591FS 17 - HOSE REELFS 17 - Hose Reel001.000.66.518.30.31.00 78.0210.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.03FAC - WATER VENT9794944794FAC - Water Vent001.000.66.518.30.31.00 174.8710.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.02Total :278.94231727 6/14/2018069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 200459/1WATER - PARTS AND SUPPLIESWater - Parts and supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2,185.4510.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 225.1016Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 33Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds17 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231727 6/14/2018(Continued)069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLCWATER INSTALL - 7508&7510 210TH ST SW -200677/1Water Install - 7508&7510 210th St SW -421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,120.40Water Inventory #0430 W-SETTER-01-012421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,005.36#0382 W-RESET-01-012421.000.74.534.80.34.20 892.6010.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 115.4010.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.34.20 195.49WATER - SUPPLIES201026/1Water - Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 992.0510.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 102.18Total :6,834.03231728 6/14/2018 012560 HACH COMPANY 10967852WWTP: HACH395434 2018-19 AGREEMENTHACH395434 2018-19 AGREEMENT423.000.76.535.80.41.00 8,391.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 864.27WWTP: ORP SOLN+REAGENT SETS10972162ORP SOLNs+REAGENT SETS423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1,334.65Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.00 69.7110.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 144.65WWTP: DIGITAL ORP SENSORS, EQUITRANSFERR10979438DIGITAL ORP SENSORS, EQUITRANSFERRANT423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,191.35Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 69.7117Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 34Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds18 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231728 6/14/2018(Continued)012560 HACH COMPANY10.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 129.89Total :12,195.23231729 6/14/2018010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I4823918WATER - METER BOXES AND LIDS, SUPPLIESWater - Meter Boxes and Lids, Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8,907.8410.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 917.51Total :9,825.35231730 6/14/2018 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 42REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSEMENT009.000.39.517.20.23.00 265.86Total :265.86231731 6/14/2018067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1013338YOST POOL SUPPLIESYost Pool Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.6410.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.56FAC/BOYS & GIRLS CLUB - REPAIR SUPPLIES1014986FAC/Boys & Girls Club - Repair Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 109.0310.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.90FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES1021540Fac Maint Shop Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 27.3610.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.74FAC MAINT - UNIT 42 SUPPLIES1030919Fac Maint - Unit 42 Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 33.1810.0% Sales Tax18Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 35Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds19 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231731 6/14/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.32STREET - BARK FOR 189TH SIDEWALK PROJECT1201863Street - Bark for 189th Sidewalk Project111.000.68.542.61.31.00 6.6610.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.61.31.00 0.67FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES15094Fac Maint Shop Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 103.9610.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.40TRAFFIC - UNIT 64 SUPPLIES1571832Traffic - Unit 64 Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 174.7610.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 17.47CEMETERY - SUPPLIES2098686Cemetery - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 26.9110.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.69YOST & FAC MAINT SUPPLIES23012Yost & Fac Maint Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 48.4610.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.85FAC - BEACH RANGERS - SUPPLIES24411FAC - Beach Rangers - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.8010.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.28FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES3024030Fac Maint - Shop Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.9419Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 36Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds20 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231731 6/14/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES10.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.59SR CENTER - SUPPLIES3040529Sr Center - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.7210.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.77TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES3592079Traffic - Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 7.9010.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 0.79FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES4014462Fac Maint - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.9110.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.39CITY HALL - SUPPLIES4016073City Hall - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.1310.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.01PS - SUPPLIES4022430PS - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.9410.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.69CITY HALL - SUPPLIES4031186City Hall - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 197.0110.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.69SEWER - TRUCK SUPPLIES4097110Sewer - Truck Supplies20Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 37Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds21 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231731 6/14/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES423.000.75.535.80.31.00 24.9510.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.50WATER SUPPLIES4097144Water Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 115.8110.0% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 11.58SEWER - SUPPLIES4098492Sewer - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.2110.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.92MCH - STAIRWAY LIGHT5012769MCH - Stairway Light001.000.66.518.30.31.00 49.9710.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.00SEWER - SUPPLIES5076361Sewer - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 23.3410.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 2.33FAC MAINT UNIT 5 SUPPLIES7012477Fac Maint Unit 5 Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 32.0810.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.21YOST POOL - SUPPLIES7022006Yost Pool - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 75.8210.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.58FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES702345521Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 38Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds22 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231731 6/14/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICESFac Maint Shop Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 69.1910.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.92YOST POOL - SUPPLIES8023345Yost Pool - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.6010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.33YOST POOL - REPAIR PARTS8031053Yost Pool - Repair Parts001.000.66.518.30.31.00 53.3310.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.33Total :1,479.12231732 6/14/2018076689 HOOKS, ANDREW 6/12 REFUND 6/12 REFUND6/12 REFUND001.000.239.200 260.00Total :260.00231733 6/14/2018 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 28299E5KA.SERVICES THRU 5/26/18E5KA.Services thru 5/26/18421.000.74.594.34.65.41 2,179.18Total :2,179.18231734 6/14/2018073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3109786WWTP: COPY PAPER, PAPER TOWELS, MARKINGCOPY PAPER, PAPER TOWELS, MARKING423.000.76.535.80.31.00 109.2910.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 11.25PENS, BUSINESS CARD REFILL SLEEVES3112841BIC pens, Rolodex business card refills001.000.31.514.23.31.00 10.0210.3% Sales Tax22Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 39Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds23 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231734 6/14/2018(Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.03STENO NOTEBOOKS3114586TOPS Gregg Prism Steno Notebooks - 4 pk001.000.31.514.23.31.00 18.2010.3% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.87STENO NOTEBOOKS, PAPER CLIPS3115041TOPS Gregg Prism Steno Notebooks - 4001.000.31.514.23.31.00 39.9010.3% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.31.00 4.11Total :195.67231735 6/14/2018073518 INNOVYZE INC 170630335XPSWMM RENWAL - TAXXPSWMM Renewal - Tax421.000.74.534.80.49.00 397.07Total :397.07231736 6/14/2018070250 IRON MOUNTAIN 20162609105-18 OFF SITE DATA STORAGE SERVICESMay-2018 Off site data storage services512.000.31.518.88.41.00 238.74Total :238.74231737 6/14/2018075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 4924FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNECTIONJun-18 Fiber Optics Internet Connection512.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.0010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.87.42.00 51.50Total :551.50231738 6/14/2018076688 JOHNSON, TANYA LYN OTFOTF POLLINATORS/BEES JUNE-AUGUSTOTF POLLINATORS/BEES JUNE-AUGUST117.100.64.573.20.41.00 500.00Total :500.00231739 6/14/2018074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC SUMMER KINDERMUSIK6707 6709 6710 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION23Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 40Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds24 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231739 6/14/2018(Continued)074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC6707 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 339.666709 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 523.766710 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 363.00Total :1,226.42231740 6/14/2018 068401 KING CO OFFICE OF FINANCE 91771WLRD WRIA 8 - AWARD 114450 FOR 2018WLRD WRIA 8 - AWARD 114450 for 2018422.000.72.531.90.51.00 14,705.00Total :14,705.00231741 6/14/2018067568 KPG INC 5-16118E6JC.SERVICES THRU 5/25/18E6JC.Services thru 5/25/18421.000.74.594.34.65.41 9,717.18Total :9,717.18231742 6/14/2018060909 MACHADO, DAVID L MACHADO EXPCLM 6/18MACHADO EXPENSE CLAIM - AURORA, CO 6/3-6PER DIEM 6/3-6/8 AURORA, CO001.000.41.521.40.43.00 379.50Total :379.50231743 6/14/2018075480 MADATH, DONNA 6675 LITTLE FISHES6675 LITTLE FISHES INSTRUCTION6675 LITTLE FISHES INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 317.25Total :317.25231744 6/14/2018020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 64079527WWTP: PIPE FITTING+NIPPLES,PVC VALVESPIPE FITTING+NIPPLES,PVC VALVES423.000.76.535.80.31.00 325.70Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.55WWTP: PIPE FITTINGS+NIPPLES,STRUT CHANNE64099644PIPE FITTINGS+NIPPLES,STRUT CHANNELS24Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 41Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds25 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231744 6/14/2018(Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO423.000.76.535.80.48.00 566.30Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 37.80WWTP: STRUT CHANNEL NUTS64144831 STRUT CHANNEL NUTS423.000.76.535.80.31.00 79.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.00 8.69WWTP: SEALANT64189531SEALANT423.000.76.535.80.31.00 33.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.31.00 11.45WWTP: PVC BARS64652955PVC BARS423.000.76.535.80.48.00 85.52Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 18.15WWTP: HEAD SCREWS,SOCKET CONNECT64904543HEAD SCREWS,SOCKET CONNECT423.000.76.535.80.48.00 178.11Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 7.73Total :1,362.00231745 6/14/2018069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 17142PROF SERV: LARGE FORMAT SCANNING FORProf Serv: Large format scanning for001.000.62.524.10.41.00 3,519.94Total :3,519.94231746 6/14/2018 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC282085STREET - TRIMMER LINEStreet - Trimmer Line111.000.68.542.71.31.00 37.9010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.31.00 3.9025Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 42Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds26 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :41.80231746 6/14/2018 020900 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC231747 6/14/2018 075286 MOORE, KATHLEEN 20475 PASTELS20475 PASTELS PAINTING INSTRUCTION20475 PASTELS PAINTING INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 224.40Total :224.40231748 6/14/2018075266 MORGAN MECHANICAL INC S18-1760WWTP: TROUBLESHOOT FTC631 AIR SCRUBBERTROUBLESHOOT FTC631 AIR SCRUBBER FAN423.000.76.535.80.48.00 470.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 48.41WWTP: SEMI-ANNUAL FILTER CHG/FULL PM AGMS18-1917 SEMI-ANNUAL FILTER CHG/FULL PM AGMNT423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,435.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 147.81Total :2,101.22231749 6/14/2018072746 MURRAYSMITH INC 15-1715-30E5KA.SERVICES THRU 4/30/18E5KA.Services thru 4/30/18421.000.74.594.34.65.41 22,037.00E6GC.SERVICES THRU 4/30/1817-1989-12E6GC.Services thru 4/30/18423.200.75.594.35.65.41 1,276.00Total :23,313.00231750 6/14/2018018950 NAPA AUTO PARTS 3276-791136 UNIT 49 - PARTSUnit 49 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.4410.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.28UNIT 40 - FUEL PUMP3276-794046Unit 40 - Fuel Pump511.000.77.548.68.31.10 256.6510.3% Sales Tax26Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 43Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds27 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231750 6/14/2018(Continued)018950 NAPA AUTO PARTS511.000.77.548.68.31.10 26.43UNIT 40 - PARTS3276-794390Unit 40 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.3410.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.86UNIT 106 - OIL FILTERS3276-794582Unit 106 - Oil Filters511.000.77.548.68.31.10 64.8710.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.68Total :377.55231751 6/14/2018024001 NC MACHINERY SECS0658796 UNIT 57 - GLASSUnit 57 - Glass511.000.77.548.68.31.10 257.3210.0% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 25.73Total :283.05231752 6/14/2018 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0657996-INFLEET FILTER INVENTORYFleet Filter Inventory511.000.77.548.68.34.40 14.0710.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.40 1.44FLEET FILTER INVENTORY0660187-INFleet Filter Inventory511.000.77.548.68.34.40 38.0610.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.40 3.92Total :57.49231753 6/14/2018068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1035818UNIT E154SO - DUMPING BED ANDUnit E154SO - Dumping Bed and511.100.77.594.48.64.00 22,093.0027Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 44Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds28 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231753 6/14/2018(Continued)068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC10.3% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 2,275.58UNIT E151RE - LIFTGATE1035838Unit E151RE - Liftgate511.100.77.594.48.64.00 4,081.0010.3% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 420.34Total :28,869.92231754 6/14/2018064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 2901059-00SHOP - CHIPKEY KEYSShop - Chipkey Keys511.000.77.548.68.31.20 150.00Freight511.000.77.548.68.31.20 18.2710.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.20 17.33Total :185.60231755 6/14/2018025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 822PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5/23/18Planning Board Minutes 5/23/18001.000.62.558.60.41.00 504.00Total :504.00231756 6/14/2018065720 OFFICE DEPOT 140765370001 PW - OFFICE SUPPLIESPW - Office Supplies001.000.65.518.20.31.00 24.9910.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.31.00 2.57PW - OFFICE SUPPLIES140799465001PW - Office Supplies001.000.65.518.20.31.00 29.0610.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.31.00 2.99INV#145430526001 ACCT#90520437 - EDMONDS145430526001Notary Public Book28Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 45Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds29 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231756 6/14/2018(Continued)065720 OFFICE DEPOT001.000.41.521.10.31.00 8.5010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 0.88Total :68.99231757 6/14/2018063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 33835CHEMICALS YOST POOLCHEMICALS YOST POOL001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,363.7210.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 140.46Total :1,504.18231758 6/14/2018076654 PAMELA HAROLD 3-11700#4020598-807-CR4 UTILITY REFUND#4020598-807-CR4 Utility refund -411.000.233.000 169.59Total :169.59231759 6/14/2018069633 PET PROS 0015961-ININV#0015961-IN CUST#07-EDMONDS PD38817 ORIJEN D USA RGNL RD 25#001.000.41.521.26.31.00 93.0910.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.26.31.00 9.68Total :102.77231760 6/14/2018008475 PETTY CASH 061218STORM CDL RENEWAL - M JOHNSONStorm CDL Renewal - M Johnson422.000.72.531.90.49.00 102.00Water - Water Cert & Testing - J Beck421.000.74.534.80.49.00 187.00Total :289.00231761 6/14/2018073266 PILGRIM MEDIA SERVICES 32519CEMETERY: MEMORIAL DAY CEREMONY SOUNDCEMETERY: MEMORIAL DAY CEREMONY SOUND130.000.64.536.20.41.00 300.00Total :300.0029Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 46Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds30 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231762 6/14/2018069447 POINTS SHARP STEEL INC 18-838ROADWAY - BREAKER REPAIRRoadway - Breaker Repair111.000.68.542.31.48.00 231.63Total :231.63231763 6/14/2018029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITYPORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY422.000.72.531.90.51.00 3,352.64Total :3,352.64231764 6/14/2018064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525ALARM MONITORING CITY HALLALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N001.000.66.518.30.42.00 53.15Total :53.15231765 6/14/2018071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLC 367351SEWER LS 7 - LPG AUXILARY POWERSewer LS 7 - LPG Auxilary Power423.000.75.535.80.45.00 784.61Total :784.61231766 6/14/2018066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA 22647INV#22647 - EDMONDS PDYEARLY CONTRACT RENEWAL -001.000.41.521.80.41.00 400.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.80.41.00 41.20Total :441.20231767 6/14/2018061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE WFIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W001.000.66.518.30.47.00 161.80PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW3-0197-0800897PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW001.000.65.518.20.47.00 32.73PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW111.000.68.542.90.47.00 124.37PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW30Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 47Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds31 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231767 6/14/2018(Continued)061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197421.000.74.534.80.47.00 124.37PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW423.000.75.535.80.47.10 124.37PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW511.000.77.548.68.47.00 124.37PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW422.000.72.531.90.47.00 124.37FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW3-0197-0801132FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW001.000.66.518.30.47.00 195.20CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD3-0197-0829729CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD001.000.66.518.30.47.00 71.95Total :1,083.53231768 6/14/2018064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 5-018284UNIT 24 - PARTSUnit 24 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 87.9510.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.06UNIT 379 - BATTERY5-018453Unit 379 - Battery511.000.77.548.68.31.10 90.1910.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.29Total :196.49231769 6/14/2018032666 ROTO ROOTER 21720268356 YOST POOL DRAINSYOST POOL DRAINS001.000.64.576.80.41.00 1,190.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.41.00 122.57Total :1,312.57231770 6/14/2018075601 RUSHWORKS EDMON060518 ASAP PLAN RENEWAL31Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 48Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds32 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231770 6/14/2018(Continued)075601 RUSHWORKSASAP (ANNUAL SYSTEM ASSURANCE PROGRAM)001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1,030.00Total :1,030.00231771 6/14/2018076653 SAMUEL & ALICIA CARTER 3-13300#722213RT UTILITY REFUND#722213RT Utility refund due to411.000.233.000 79.96Total :79.96231772 6/14/2018074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 44833ONSITE COMPUTER SUPPORTOnsite computer support - 5/22/18512.000.31.518.88.41.00 1,241.25Total :1,241.25231773 6/14/2018076652 SETH & LISA STARK 3-06405#611184535-PMD UTILITY REFUND#611184535-PMD Utility refund due to411.000.233.000 173.64Total :173.64231774 6/14/2018068489 SIRENNET.COM 0227524-INUNIT E150PO - REMOTE SIRENUnit E150PO - Remote Siren511.100.77.594.48.64.00 153.7010.3% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 15.83Total :169.53231775 6/14/2018036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-367724UNIT 11 - ON SPOT AUTOMATIC KITUnit 11 - On Spot Automatic Kit511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,718.83Freight511.000.77.548.68.31.10 138.3610.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 191.29UNIT 14 - MOUNTING KIT, CHAIN ASSEMBLY14-367725Unit 14 - Mounting Kit, Chain Assembly32Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 49Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds33 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231775 6/14/2018(Continued)036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,785.01Freight511.000.77.548.68.31.10 138.3610.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 198.11Total :4,169.96231776 6/14/2018 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0255-4WWTP: 5/5-6/5/18 FLOWMETER 1000541493: 25/5-6/5/18 FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY 99423.000.76.535.80.47.62 18.32HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMONDS ST / METER2003-2646-0HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMONDS ST /001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.17PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP2006-5164-4PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 420.95CITY PARK GAZEBO2013-8327-0CITY PARK GAZEBO001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.60CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS2014-5305-7CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 61.63STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / NO2017-1178-5STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) /111.000.68.542.63.47.00 17.34ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / MET2017-9000-3ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 19.71CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHELTER2021-1448-4CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHELTER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 64.559TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / METER 10004452022-5063-59TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.17STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NO2025-2918-633Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 50Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds34 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231776 6/14/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) /111.000.68.542.63.47.00 3,925.78STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2025-2920-2STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) /111.000.68.542.63.47.00 110.56STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / N2025-7615-3STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) /111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15,900.21STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2025-7948-8STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) /111.000.68.542.63.47.00 378.83WWTP: 5/1-5/31/18 ENERGY MGMT SERVICE-NO2025-7952-0 5/1-5/31/18 ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICE423.000.76.535.80.47.61 9.77STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT M2047-1489-3STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT111.000.68.542.63.47.00 5.12STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NOT2047-1492-7STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) /111.000.68.542.63.47.00 120.03STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2047-1493-5STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT111.000.68.542.63.47.00 60.00STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT2047-1494-3STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15.26STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2047-1495-0STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) /111.000.68.542.63.47.00 95.53LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / METER 102051-8438-5LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 21.34DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 226122053-0758-0DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 22612111.000.68.542.64.47.00 126.4734Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 51Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds35 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231776 6/14/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - METER 100052207-9275-8TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 141.00Total :21,563.34231777 6/14/2018006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 72724PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEESPARKS MAINT DUMP FEES001.000.64.576.80.47.00 952.00Total :952.00231778 6/14/2018 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLINGPARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,039.21Total :1,039.21231779 6/14/2018074568 SPROUT DESIGN 1287WOTS BROCHUREWOTS BROCHURE123.000.64.573.20.41.00 1,125.00Total :1,125.00231780 6/14/2018074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 1362925E4JB.SERVICES THRU 5/4/18E4JB.Services thru 5/4/18421.000.74.594.34.65.41 175.50Total :175.50231781 6/14/2018071549 UNIVAR USA INC KT546335WWTP: SOD. BISULFITESOD. BISULFITE423.000.76.535.80.31.54 2,450.9810.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.54 252.45Total :2,703.43231782 6/14/2018 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 8050129UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTERUTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER421.000.74.534.80.41.00 160.86UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER35Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 52Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds36 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231782 6/14/2018(Continued)044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR422.000.72.531.90.41.00 160.86UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER423.000.75.535.80.41.00 165.72Total :487.44231783 6/14/2018075762 VECA ELECTRIC COMPANY 85322CITY HALL CAT6 UPGRADECity Hall CAT6 Upgrade512.000.31.518.88.41.00 15,475.0010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.41.00 1,593.93Total :17,068.93231784 6/14/2018067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9808199855C/A 442201730-00001iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office001.000.21.513.10.42.00 35.12Total :35.12231785 6/14/2018069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 8082463988WWTP: DISH ALUMIN 70MMDISH ALUMIN 70MM423.000.76.535.80.31.00 110.8310.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 11.42Total :122.25231786 6/14/2018047605 WA ST TREASURER Q2-2018EDMONDS FORFEITURES FOR Q2-20182ND QTR/PROCEEDS/DRUG104.000.237.100 187.50Total :187.50231787 6/14/2018 075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3282.04-1CIVIC FIELD SD-CA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURECIVIC FIELD SD-CA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE125.000.64.594.76.65.41 13,164.82Total :13,164.82231788 6/14/2018067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 60136INV#60136 - EDMONDS PDTOW 2008 WHITE TITAN CUST MOTORCYCLE36Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 53Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds37 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231788 6/14/2018(Continued)067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC001.000.41.521.22.41.00 205.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.41.00 21.32Total :226.32231789 6/14/2018067086 WASHINGTON CRANE AND HOIST CO 0036290-INWWTP: CRANE #8 100 BLDG SO 2-TON HOIST TCRANE #8 100 BLDG SO 2-TON HOIST423.000.76.594.35.64.00 29,741.1710.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.594.35.64.00 3,063.34Total :32,804.51231790 6/14/2018065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I18008216INV#I18008216 ID#EDM301 - EDMONDS PD - MBACKGROUND CHECKS - MAY 2018001.000.237.100 284.00Total :284.00231791 6/14/2018075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 10673760PM: FRESH WAVEPM: FRESH WAVE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 104.2010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.73PM:LINERS, TISSUE, TOWELS10675970PM:LINERS, TISSUE, TOWELS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2,181.5010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 224.69Total :2,521.12231792 6/14/2018073137 WELCH-LANG, CAROLE 6521 6522 FUN FACTOR6521 6522 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTION6521 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 624.156522 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 624.15Total :1,248.3037Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 54Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds38 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount231793 6/14/2018073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7481ENVELOPESENVELOPES001.000.64.571.22.31.00 183.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.571.22.31.00 18.85Total :201.85231794 6/14/2018074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH 1287560INV#1278560 CUST ID EDMONDS PD - MAY 201RANGE USAGE - A. GREENMUN 05/03/18001.000.41.521.40.41.00 13.60RANGE USAGE - K. CRYSTAL 05/03/18001.000.41.521.40.41.00 13.60RANGE USAGE - J.JONES 05/08/18001.000.41.521.40.41.00 13.60RANGE USAGE - D. ANDERSON 05/09/18001.000.41.521.40.41.00 13.60RANGE USAGE - D. BORST 05/31/18001.000.41.521.40.41.00 13.60RANGE USAGE - D. ANDERSON 05/31/18001.000.41.521.40.41.00 13.6010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.40.41.00 8.40Total :90.00231795 6/14/2018 075926 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR 1691378PS - MONTHLY MAINT FEESPS - Monthly Maint Fees001.000.66.518.30.31.00 99.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.20Total :109.20231796 6/14/2018069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000035943TRAFFIC - PUCKS AND EPOXY FOR 95TH PAVETraffic - Pucks and Epoxy for 95th Pave111.000.68.542.64.31.00 968.5610.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 99.7738Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 55Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds39 9:32:31AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :1,068.33231796 6/14/2018 069691 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS231797 6/14/2018 075122 YAKIMA CO DEPT OF CORR 6-6-18 EDMONDS 6-6-18 JAIL BILL FOR EDMONDS15 DAYS INMATE HOUSING - MAY 2018001.000.39.523.60.51.00 897.75Total :897.75Bank total : 288,779.78122 Vouchers for bank code :usbank288,779.78Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report12239Page:6.4.aPacket Pg. 56Attachment: claim cks 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds111:27:09AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount6142018 6/14/2018062693 US BANK 0091MAY 2018 US BANK - EWJOB POSTING - DEPUTY CITY CLERK - UW001.000.22.518.10.41.40 10.00JOB POSTING - DEPUTY CITY CLERK -001.000.22.518.10.41.40 45.00BAREFOOT STUDENT POSTINGS - A001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00JOB POSTING - ENGINEERING TECH - UW001.000.22.518.10.41.40 10.00JOB POSTING - CUSTODIAN - CRAIGSLIST001.000.22.518.10.41.40 45.00JOB POSTING - ENGINEERING TECH -001.000.22.518.10.41.40 45.00INV#1885 06/06/2018 - POLICE #2 - EDMOND1885WA STATE FERRIES - A. MEHL - WHIA001.000.41.521.40.43.00 37.40THE POINT CASINO & HOTEL - A. MEHL -001.000.41.521.40.43.00 300.30WAPRO - RECERTIFICATION FEE -ER CBA001.000.41.521.11.49.00 50.00OPENTEXT - ANNUAL RENEWAL - REDACT-IT001.000.41.521.11.35.00 300.68TRI-TECH FORENSICS - NIK KITS001.000.41.521.80.31.00 515.50AMAZON - ETEKCITY LASERGRIP DIGITAL001.000.41.521.70.31.00 22.81GUESTHOUSE INN & SUITES - KELSO, WA -001.000.41.521.40.43.00 157.98INV#2519 06/06/2018 - POLICE #1 - EDMOND2519FEDEX WSP TOXICOLOGY LAB - LYNNE001.000.41.521.10.42.00 13.76ALASKA AIRLINES BAG FEE - M. FROLAND -001.000.41.521.40.43.00 25.00FEDEX - WSP TOXICOLOFY LAB - LYNNE1Page:6.4.bPacket Pg. 57Attachment: wire 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds211:27:09AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount6142018 6/14/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.41.521.10.42.00 16.94CHEVRON - TOLEDO, WA - ROTH/STRUM -001.000.41.521.40.43.00 26.65UNITED PACIFIC 7470 GAS - BANKS, OR001.000.41.521.40.43.00 10.00CHEVRON - HILLSBORO, OR GAS -001.000.41.521.40.43.00 10.80CHEVRON - CHEHALIS, WA GAS - ROTH/STRUM001.000.41.521.40.43.00 14.68CHEVRON - HILLSBORO, OR GAS -001.000.41.521.40.43.00 29.22FEDEX WSP TOXICOLOGY LAB - MANDEVILLE001.000.41.521.10.42.00 17.28HAMPTON INN & SUITES - ROTH - NAMOA001.000.41.521.40.43.00 678.24HAMPTON INN & SUITES - STRUM NAMOA001.000.41.521.40.43.00 678.24FEDEX WSP TOXICOLOGY LAB - MANDEVILLE001.000.41.521.10.42.00 17.42WWTP:TANK CERT RENEW,ELECT PERMIT,LEAD P2985Amazon: lead pencils, sani-cloths,423.000.76.535.80.31.00 343.20423.000.76.535.80.49.00 3,476.64INV#3048 06/06/2018 - THOMPSON - EDMONDS3048AMAZON - BUSY BEACON AMPLIFIER ADAPTER001.000.41.521.21.35.00 385.559X12 ALSER W/BLACK BRASS MOUNT BADGE 2001.000.41.521.10.31.00 248.18COSTCO - CLOROX DISINFECTING WIPES -001.000.41.521.22.31.00 18.29STERICYCLE - 4-1-2018001.000.41.521.80.41.00 10.36LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 5-9-2018 CONF2Page:6.4.bPacket Pg. 58Attachment: wire 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds311:27:09AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount6142018 6/14/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.41.521.10.41.00 14.49COSTCO - COMFORT MATTS - 6 CLERKS,001.000.41.521.11.35.00 602.15C & M TROPHY - 9X12 ALSER W/ BLACK001.000.41.521.10.31.00 93.76STERICYCLE - 5-14-18 4.3 CF MED BOX001.000.41.521.80.41.00 52.67CREDIT MEMO 3048 - 06/06/2018 - THOMPSON3048AMAZON RETURN - JABRA BUSY LIGHT001.000.41.521.21.31.00 -126.85INV#3215 06/06/2018 - COMPAAN - EDMONDS3215THE DAVENPORT GRAND HOTEL - SPOKANE -001.000.41.521.40.43.00 404.55ITALIAN KITCHEN - SPOKANE - COMPAAN001.000.41.521.40.43.00 30.05MCDONALD'S - ELLENSBURG - COMPAAN -001.000.41.521.40.43.00 6.70THE DAVENPORT GRAND HOTEL - SPOKANE -001.000.41.521.40.43.00 349.05INV#3314 06/06/2018 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS3314BUSHNELL MO CHARGE DATE ON TRAIL -001.000.41.521.22.42.00 9.99CONOCO - DIVINE MID CITY SPOKANE -001.000.41.521.40.43.00 39.304675 PARKS CREDIT CARD4675AMAZON: TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGN001.000.64.576.80.31.00 27.78AMAZON: GRABBER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 88.20AMAZON: COPIER PAPER001.000.64.571.22.31.00 96.08AMAZON: WOTS CARDSTOCK117.100.64.573.20.31.00 19.04YOST PROJECT: REPLACE TOILETS3Page:6.4.bPacket Pg. 59Attachment: wire 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds411:27:09AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount6142018 6/14/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK125.000.64.594.75.65.41 1,554.07AMAZON: TRAFFIC CONES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 52.00AMAZON: WALL POCKET001.000.64.571.21.31.00 20.82AMAZON: SAFETY HELMET001.000.64.576.80.31.00 59.08COSTCO: WATER FOR HEALTH EXPO001.000.64.571.22.31.00 46.05AMAZON: BATTERIES001.000.64.571.22.31.00 11.02AMAZON: GLOVES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 73.24AMAZON: VELCRO EACH EXHIBITS117.100.64.573.20.31.00 16.97AMAZON: PENS001.000.64.571.22.31.00 13.24ARBICO: APHIDIUS001.000.64.576.81.31.00 82.40ISSUU: DIGITAL CRAZE001.000.64.571.22.49.00 39.00AMAZON: TALLY COUNTER FOR RANGER STATION001.000.64.571.23.31.00 6.61AMAZON: COPIER PAPER001.000.64.571.21.31.00 50.41FASTSIGNS: YOST POOL RULES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 558.84AMAZON: NATURE GUIDE001.000.64.571.23.31.00 24.06AMAZON: STORAGE BOXES, PAPER, FILE BANDS001.000.64.571.22.31.00 30.79NAME BADGES INC: NAME BADGES001.000.64.571.22.31.00 42.99EARTH SKY & WATER: MARINE MAMMALS4Page:6.4.bPacket Pg. 60Attachment: wire 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds511:27:09AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount6142018 6/14/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.64.571.23.31.00 22.45AMAZON: MARKET UMBRELLA001.000.64.576.80.31.00 63.96AMAZON: CLEANING SWABS001.000.64.571.21.31.00 9.79AMAZON: PENS001.000.64.571.21.31.00 12.39AMAZON: PAPER, CHALK, TAPE, CABLE TIES,001.000.64.571.22.31.00 36.72AMAZON: VIPER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.21001.000.64.576.80.31.00 51.03MILLS RETIREMENT POSTER FRAMING4697Greg Mills retirement poster framing001.000.21.513.10.41.00 55.00packing/shipping tape001.000.21.513.10.31.00 12.4810.3% Sales Tax001.000.21.513.10.41.00 5.7210.3% Sales Tax001.000.21.513.10.31.00 1.29NUC, VIPRE SECURITY, DOMAIN NAME REGISTR5179Threat Track Security - VIPRE Security512.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,301.53Amazon - Cables - Qty 5512.000.31.518.88.31.00 45.00Newegg.com - Smart UPS 2200 Rack Mount512.000.31.518.88.31.00 144.48DotGovRegistration - Domain Name512.000.31.518.88.49.00 800.00Amazon.com - Cables - Qty 5512.000.31.518.88.31.00 52.35Amazon - Philips BDM4350UC 43" Class5Page:6.4.bPacket Pg. 61Attachment: wire 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds611:27:09AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount6142018 6/14/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.67.518.21.35.00 1,249.64Newegg.com - Intel NUC Mini Barebone512.100.31.518.88.35.00 3,239.30Amazon - EB-LINK Cisco compatible512.000.31.518.88.31.00 33.08ServerSupply.com - Cisco Catalyst512.000.31.518.87.35.00 500.06Amazon - Cables - Qty 4512.000.31.518.88.31.00 51.44PNWER - Registration for Regional512.000.31.518.88.49.00 25.00Newegg.com - Samsung 970EVO Internal512.000.31.518.88.31.00 553.65Newegg.com - Crucial 8GB 260 pin DDR4512.000.31.518.88.31.00 189.69Amazon - 4U 19" Solid Steel Vertical512.000.31.518.88.31.00 99.24Amazon - Cables - Qty 3512.000.31.518.88.31.00 29.61RECORDING, LEMAY, WAPRO5593SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF LIENS421.000.74.534.80.49.00 52.50SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF LIENS423.000.75.535.80.49.00 52.50SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF EASEMENT001.000.25.514.30.49.00 78.00INVOICE #4564627 SHREDDING SERVICES001.000.25.514.30.41.00 14.49INVOICE #4564627 SHREDDING SERVICES001.000.31.514.23.41.00 14.49SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING001.000.25.514.30.49.00 702.00SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF SHORT001.000.25.514.30.49.00 162.506Page:6.4.bPacket Pg. 62Attachment: wire 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds711:27:09AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount6142018 6/14/2018(Continued)062693 US BANKWAPRO MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL - SUSAN QUAN001.000.25.514.30.49.00 25.00SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF LIENS -001.000.25.514.30.41.00 70.00SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING OF LIENS -001.000.31.514.23.41.00 70.00PARADE FEE, REFRESHMENTS, DJC SUB, BUS R5923Refreshments for Creative District001.000.61.558.70.31.00 33.93Daily Journal of Commerce subscription001.000.61.558.70.49.00 250.00Business recruitment ads for June 2018001.000.61.558.70.41.40 1,400.00Name tags, stickers.001.000.61.558.70.31.00 21.18Fourth of July parade fee for Bird Fest001.000.61.558.70.49.00 50.00OfficeSpace subscription for website001.000.61.558.70.41.00 100.006254 PARKS CR CARD6254NRPA: HITE CONFERENCE REGISTRATION001.000.64.571.21.49.00 630.00BRINE SHRIMP DIRECT: HATCHERY CONE FOR001.000.64.571.23.31.00 57.85WASHINGTON STATE: CARRIE PARKING IN001.000.64.571.21.43.00 22.00PSRC 2018 GENERAL ASSEMBLY7483parking for 2018 PSRC general assembly001.000.21.513.10.43.00 20.00ENG CREDIT CARD MAY 201880172018 Heavy Construction Costs Book001.000.67.518.21.49.00 288.35DeLilla Monitor001.000.67.518.21.35.00 551.497Page:6.4.bPacket Pg. 63Attachment: wire 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds811:27:09AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount6142018 6/14/2018(Continued)062693 US BANKVARIOUS VISA DSD CHARGES8083Amazon- DSD supplies001.000.62.524.10.31.00 376.87Amazon- Bldg- earthquake inspectors001.000.62.524.20.35.00 1,004.54Amazon- Eng001.000.67.518.21.49.00 56.22Chave-seminar-Puget Sound Section001.000.62.558.60.49.00 85.00Meske-testing, Carter-cert renewal001.000.62.524.20.49.00 345.00HSTF MEETINGS001.000.62.524.10.31.00 44.57Shipley - Adobe001.000.62.524.10.41.00 55.14Shanes Housing Consortium001.000.62.524.10.49.00 75.00Bldg- earthquake books001.000.62.524.20.49.00 204.59Bldg WABO code books001.000.62.524.20.35.00 205.32FB advert- Housing001.000.62.524.20.41.40 25.00REFUND- RETURNED EARTHQUAKE8083earthquake items return- amazon001.000.62.524.20.49.00 -58.40refund, dbl chg for books bldg001.000.62.524.20.35.00 -102.66LODGING, CONFERENCE REGISTRATION, TRAVEL8296Hilton St Louis - Lodging for S James001.000.31.514.20.43.00 1,004.95AWC - Conference registration for S001.000.31.514.20.49.00 200.00WS Ferries - Ferry Fares for S James &8Page:6.4.bPacket Pg. 64Attachment: wire 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds911:27:09AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount6142018 6/14/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.31.514.20.43.00 16.70INV#8349 06/06/2018 - ANDERSON - EDMONDS8349AMAZON MICROSOFT 4000 KEYBOARD001.000.41.521.10.31.00 41.97INV#9821 - 06/06/2018 - GREENMUN - EDMON9821FEDEX SHIPPING FOR001.000.41.521.10.42.00 19.55SUPERSAAS - COUNTY TRAINING & INTERVIEW001.000.41.521.10.41.00 8.00TASER CEW INSTRUCTOR RECERTIFICATION -001.000.41.521.40.49.00 225.00DESANTIS HOLSTER * LEATHER - DOUBLE001.000.41.521.21.35.00 75.93NAMOA TRAINING CONFERENCE - ROTH001.000.41.521.40.49.00 204.60AMAZON - SHARPIE SILVER MARKERS / POST001.000.41.521.40.31.00 33.80AMAZON - 20 PACK OF 1.5" HEAVY DUTY001.000.41.521.22.31.00 19.63AMAZON - PELICAN 1120 CASE (FOR PATROL001.000.41.521.22.35.00 100.26AMAZON - DURABLE KEY TAGS (FOR PATROL001.000.41.521.22.31.00 54.95AMAZON - KODAK PIXPRO ASTRO ZOOM AZ251001.000.41.521.22.35.00 132.35AMAZON - SAMSUNG 128 GB USB 3.0 FLASH001.000.41.521.40.31.00 38.59TRANSUNION - BILLING STATEMENT TLOXP001.000.41.521.40.41.00 38.71BID/ED! ADVERTISING, PRINTING & BINDINGBID-1687/0907BID/Ed! printing and binding of menu140.000.61.558.70.49.00 274.95BID/Ed! advertising in MyEdmonds News140.000.61.558.70.41.40 55.009Page:6.4.bPacket Pg. 65Attachment: wire 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
06/14/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1011:27:09AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :30,135.196142018 6/14/2018 062693 062693 US BANKBank total : 30,135.191 Vouchers for bank code :usbank30,135.19Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report110Page:6.4.bPacket Pg. 66Attachment: wire 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE
SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC
STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA
SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB
WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA
STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB
STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA
SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC
STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB
WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB
STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA
STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA
STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB
SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE
SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC
STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA
WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD
WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA
Revised 6/14/2018
6.4.c
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA
STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
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 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC
STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC
STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD
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
STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB
STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 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
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
Revised 6/14/2018
6.4.c
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG
STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD
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
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
UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA
PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC
Revised 6/14/2018
6.4.c
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
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 E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
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
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
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 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
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
Revised 6/14/2018
6.4.c
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
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
SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline 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
STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JA c468 2016 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 E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program
WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays
STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan
STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs
SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
Revised 6/14/2018
6.4.c
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update
WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza
PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement
PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa
STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming
STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program
WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall
STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration
STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming
STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive
STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program
STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays
STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps
STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study
SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
Revised 6/14/2018
6.4.c
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
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
SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
Revised 6/14/2018
6.4.c
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
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 Waterline Replacement Projects
SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
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
PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs
SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa
STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement
SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program
WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays
Revised 6/14/2018
6.4.c
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays
STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program
WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming
STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall
STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming
STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive
STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program
STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps
WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays
STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration
STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update
STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan
STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study
Revised 6/14/2018
6.4.c
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
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 ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB
PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA
PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA
PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC
STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE
STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG
STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD
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 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
Revised 6/14/2018
6.4.c
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
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 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC
STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA
STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB
STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA
STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA
STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA
STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB
STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
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 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA
STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC
STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB
STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA
STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
Revised 6/14/2018
6.4.c
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB
SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC
SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC
SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE
SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB
WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB
WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB
WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD
WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
Revised 6/14/2018
6.4.c
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-14-18 (Approval of claim checks and wire payment.)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages by Frontier Communications (amount undetermined).
Staff Lead: Linda Hynd
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Linda Hynd
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages by minute entry.
Narrative
Frontier Communications
CMR Claims Department
P.O. Box 60770
Oklahoma City, OK 73146-0770
(amount undetermined)
Attachments:
Frontier Claim for Damages 5-29-18
6.5
Packet Pg. 79
6.5.a
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Frontier Claim for Damages 5-29-18 (Claim for Damages)
6.5.a
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Frontier Claim for Damages 5-29-18 (Claim for Damages)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
April 2018 Monthly Financial Report
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Sarah Mager
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
No action needed; informational only.
Narrative
April 2018 Monthly Financial Report
Attachments:
April 2018 Monthly Financial Report
6.6
Packet Pg. 82
CITY OF EDMONDS
MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
APRIL 2018
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
1
Page 1 of 1
Fund
No.Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Revenues
4/30/2018
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
001 GENERAL FUND 39,484,055$ 10,413,847$ 9,270,240$ 30,213,815$ 23%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 285,650 3,347 3,313 282,337 1%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 19,180 6,273 8,590 10,590 45%
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 64,750 16,159 51,784 12,966 80%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,170 52 70 5,100 1%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE - 211,428 - - 0%
017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND 300,000 - 6,850 293,150 2%
018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 250,000 - - 250,000 0%
019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND 250,000 - - 250,000 0%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 130,560 26,973 40,206 90,354 31%
111 STREET FUND 1,784,270 545,591 485,352 1,298,918 27%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 1 3,634,203 766,055 1,821,448 1,812,755 50%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 146,200 17,763 14,172 132,028 10%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 400 123 171 229 43%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 87,960 21,773 22,508 65,452 26%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 25,640 10,693 9,965 15,675 39%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 850 176 236 614 28%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 30,520 7,598 13,344 17,176 44%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2 1,446,880 394,968 638,088 808,792 44%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 2 1,448,300 395,874 642,818 805,482 44%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 53,810 25,114 38,975 14,835 72%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - 263 - - 0%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 180,170 69,191 40,766 139,404 23%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 3,150 1,043 1,484 1,666 47%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 33,360 13,838 13,096 20,264 39%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,170 2,498 72 10,098 1%
140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 47,156 49,678 (49,678) 0%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 14,400 - - 14,400 0%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 708,700 - - 708,700 0%
332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,621,977 85,852 97,979 1,523,998 6%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 55,222 50,907 (50,907) 0%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 3 9,660,690 2,502,179 2,723,856 6,936,834 28%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3 5,317,996 1,526,045 1,749,858 3,568,138 33%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 3 11,917,843 3,663,806 3,813,387 8,104,456 32%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,991,530 2 2 1,991,528 0%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,624,640 661,270 582,628 1,042,012 36%
512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,268,390 347,911 424,495 843,895 33%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 69,690 1,449 1,996 67,694 3%
83,871,104$ 21,841,528$ 22,618,333$ 61,252,771$ 27%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
3 Differences primarily due to a 9% increase in water, a 10% increase in storm, and a 9.5% increase in sewer base rates in 2018.
1 Differences primarily due to Grant Billings in 2018 for 2017 in an amount of $1.6M; these are adjusted for CAFR purposes.
2 Differences primarily due to a $418,216 deposit in total for Real Estate Excise Tax in March 2018 from the State.
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
2
Page 1 of 1
Fund
No.Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 44,253,738$ 13,496,549$ 13,366,102$ 30,887,636$ 30%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 294,270 99,255 151,743 142,527 52%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND - 80,601 - - 0%
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 49,584 - - 49,584 0%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,400 - - 5,400 0%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE - 126,697 - - 0%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 103,252 16,128 32,939 70,313 32%
111 STREET FUND 1,856,507 608,763 656,567 1,199,940 35%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 3,747,838 333,893 773,281 2,974,557 21%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 183,892 14,067 11,208 172,684 6%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 90,550 22,675 12,349 78,201 14%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,880 - - 26,880 0%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,000 364 731 269 73%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 29,700 5,830 2,141 27,559 7%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,733,000 378,148 170,585 2,562,415 6%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 2,435,147 - 26,373 2,408,774 1%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 70,900 361 154 70,746 0%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 213,509 54,717 64,420 149,089 30%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,500 82 372 10,128 4%
140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 7,765 24,284 (24,284) 0%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 16,450 - - 16,450 0%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 708,700 - - 708,700 0%
332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,346,881 97,417 49,470 2,297,411 2%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 13,434,675 1,936,440 2,297,283 11,137,392 17%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 6,953,660 994,885 944,759 6,008,901 14%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 14,166,002 2,952,260 2,389,536 11,776,466 17%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,991,520 - - 1,991,520 0%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,662,265 709,913 454,663 1,207,602 27%
512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,335,413 277,784 351,042 984,371 26%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 75,218 23,700 27,158 48,060 36%
98,796,451$ 22,238,292$ 21,807,159$ 76,989,292$ 22%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
3
Page 1 of 3
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Revenues
4/30/2018
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 5 10,367,860$ 1,663,534$ 791,140$ 9,576,720$ 8%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 5 4,027,540 637,935 302,862 3,724,678 8%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 2,500 9,148 2,265 235 91%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 6 7,275,000 2,327,446 2,452,585 4,822,415 34%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 7,140 4,821 - 7,140 0%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 730,000 224,909 242,907 487,093 33%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,611,600 729,784 714,751 896,849 44%
GAS UTILITY TAX 620,200 372,490 323,194 297,006 52%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 321,600 88,304 112,891 208,709 35%
WATER UTILITY TAX 1,201,100 351,278 345,412 855,688 29%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 769,800 227,620 252,850 516,950 33%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 406,200 132,246 145,689 260,511 36%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 867,200 289,486 274,463 592,737 32%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,093,200 403,189 350,982 742,218 32%
PULLTABS TAX 56,600 27,488 26,597 30,003 47%
AMUSEMENT GAMES 40 - - 40 0%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 263,600 64,626 68,005 195,595 26%
29,621,180 7,554,305 6,406,593 23,214,587 22%
LICENSES AND PERMITS:
FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 250 - 125 125 50%
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 300 263 200 100 67%
PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 330 - - 330 0%
AMUSEMENTS 6,330 3,625 3,475 2,855 55%
VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 50,000 1,608 879 49,121 2%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 721,000 364,826 345,926 375,074 48%
FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 42,600 14,111 13,906 28,694 33%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 105,500 25,768 26,966 78,534 26%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 18,600 7,511 3,734 14,866 20%
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 263,800 - 67,668 196,132 26%
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 121,600 54,758 68,159 53,441 56%
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 64,940 22,435 26,795 38,145 41%
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 69,000 37,650 35,800 33,200 52%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 12,000 11,880 50,816 (38,816) 423%
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 715,600 191,866 211,465 504,135 30%
ANIMAL LICENSES 24,500 9,453 7,775 16,725 32%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT 40,000 9,122 18,358 21,642 46%
OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 14,500 5,027 6,483 8,017 45%
2,270,850 759,903 888,529 1,382,321 39%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 7,930 5,949 - 7,930 0%
TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 4,000 1,030 1,169 2,832 29%
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 7,100 1,799 2,028 5,072 29%
STATE GRANTS - BUDGET ONLY 18,000 - - 18,000 0%
WATERFRONT ANALYSIS GRANT - 10,000 - - 0%
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 198,000 - - 198,000 0%
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 12,790 5,657 5,847 6,943 46%
JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 16,716 4,179 8,768 7,948 52%
CRIMINAL JUSTICE-SPECIAL PROGRAMS 43,700 20,581 21,184 22,516 48%
MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT 23,700 - - 23,700 0%
MARIJUANA EXCISE TAX DISTRIBUTION - - 30,559 (30,559) 0%
DUI - CITIES 3,000 3,119 3,050 (50) 102%
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 203,000 100,033 104,405 98,595 51%
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 350,600 86,358 85,480 265,120 24%
MISCELLANEOUS INTERLOCAL REVENUE 2,500 - - 2,500 0%
INTERLOCAL GRANTS - 35,000 - - 0%
VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 2,000 2,000 5,810 (3,810) 291%
893,036 275,704 268,299 624,737 30%
6 2018 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax revenues are $125,139 higher than 2017 revenues. Please also see pages pages 18 & 19.
5 Decrease in 2018 is temporary; Snohomish County changed to deposit only once a month in 2018 versus twice in 2017.
REVENUES - GENERAL FUNDCITY OF EDMONDS
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
4
Page 2 of 3
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Revenues
4/30/2018
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMENTS 2,500 1,820 1,648 853 66%
ATM SURCHARGE FEES 400 73 88 312 22%
CREDIT CARD FEES 10,000 - 30 9,970 0%
COURT RECORD SERVICES - 2,902 4,564 (4,564) 0%
D/M COURT REC SER 400 117 60 340 15%
WARRANT PREPARATION FEE - - 1,774 (1,774) 0%
IT TIME PAY FEE - - 324 (324) 0%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 300 86 32 268 11%
SALE MAPS & BOOKS 100 23 14 86 14%
CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 25,100 - - 25,100 0%
BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 600 - - 600 0%
PHOTOCOPIES 1,000 116 274 726 27%
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,000 1,021 69 3,931 2%
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 200,000 35,926 53,367 146,633 27%
ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES - - 1,486 (1,486) 0%
SNO-ISLE 78,000 43,937 46,254 31,746 59%
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 23,000 9,250 7,510 15,490 33%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 30,000 - - 30,000 0%
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.66,280 243 - 66,280 0%
WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 60,000 10,527 24,488 35,512 41%
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 1,500 - - 1,500 0%
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 100 - - 100 0%
FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FOR DUI - 32 - - 0%
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 50,000 30,505 30,336 19,664 61%
LEGAL SERVICES - - 145 (145) 0%
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 48,600 15,957 18,247 30,353 38%
BOOKING FEES 3,000 1,013 556 2,444 19%
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 15,560 5,507 6,105 9,455 39%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 4,500 1,574 939 3,561 21%
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 826,000 231,032 186,348 639,652 23%
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 2,500 659 1,245 1,255 50%
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 250 15 - 250 0%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 80,250 27,723 60,092 20,158 75%
PLAN CHECKING FEES 443,000 143,234 121,752 321,248 27%
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 8,000 2,935 3,690 4,310 46%
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 1,600 - - 1,600 0%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 4,020 4,690 310 94%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY 14,000 4,340 6,500 7,500 46%
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 11,460 3,820 3,935 7,525 34%
GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 12,000 5,618 5,968 6,032 50%
LOCKER FEES - 15 - - 0%
PROGRAM FEES 910,100 411,731 399,865 510,235 44%
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 1,300 562 235 1,065 18%
WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES 5,000 - - 5,000 0%
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 1,250 - - 1,250 0%
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 2,043,950 522,241 322,879 1,721,071 16%
4,990,600 1,518,574 1,315,508 3,675,092 26%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
5
Page 3 of 3
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Revenues
4/30/2018
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
FINES AND FORFEITURES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 5,000 1,767 2,960 2,040 59%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 215,000 73,960 95,809 119,191 45%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 34,000 11,081 12,560 21,440 37%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)20,700 6,945 12,711 7,989 61%
NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 400 400 3,300 (2,900) 825%
OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 3,400 1,052 337 3,063 10%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 48,000 17,154 51,988 (3,988) 108%
PARK/INDDISZONE 2,600 1,183 418 2,182 16%
DWI PENALTIES 6,000 2,872 2,607 3,393 43%
DUI - DP ACCT 2,000 686 309 1,691 15%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI 200 84 37 163 18%
DUI - DP FEE - - 270 (270) 0%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 135 93 69 66 51%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 36,000 13,215 9,729 26,271 27%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 2,600 1,031 1,113 1,487 43%
CRIM CONV FEE CT 1,600 616 396 1,204 25%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 100 32 - 100 0%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 9,300 5,149 4,472 4,828 48%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 600 190 279 321 46%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 1,100 256 578 522 53%
CRIM CONV FEE CN 500 149 197 303 39%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS - 3,136 - - 0%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 18,500 6,632 6,355 12,145 34%
CREDIT CARD FEE 6,000 3,034 4,004 1,996 67%
COURT COST RECOUPMENT 5,000 - 3,050 1,950 61%
COURT INTERPRETER COSTS - 188 - - 0%
BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 11,000 7,080 9,110 1,890 83%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 2,000 1,200 - 2,000 0%431,735 159,182 222,658 209,077 52%
MISCELLANEOUS:
INVESTMENT INTEREST 156,840 33,075 49,954 106,886 32%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 7,130 1,923 3,352 3,778 47%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 6,500 1,676 3,415 3,085 53%
PARKING 15,600 5,529 3,611 11,989 23%
SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 147,000 20,484 31,425 115,575 21%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 1,880 900 4,100 18%
LEASES LONG-TERM 185,000 61,639 65,127 119,873 35%
OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 2,400 - - 2,400 0%
DONATION/CONTRIBUTION - - 1,281 (1,281) 0%
PARKS DONATIONS 4,350 3,300 2,880 1,470 66%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,500 30 210 1,290 14%
VOLUNTEER PICNIC CONTRIBUTIONS 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 300 254 58 242 19%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 3,000 608 738 2,262 25%
CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 2,000 - - 2,000 0%
OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 2,000 7 - 2,000 0%
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 200 56 30 170 15%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - 28 23 (23) 0%
OTHER MISC REVENUES 652,000 5,327 2,289 649,711 0%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT 30 10 27 3 89%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 120 - - 120 0%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 300 84 80 220 27%
NSF FEES - POLICE - 60 - - 0%
US BANK REBATE 7,500 3,066 3,254 4,246 43%
1,200,770 139,037 168,652 1,032,118 14%
TRANSFERS-IN:
INSURANCE RECOVERIES - 7,143 - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM FUND 012 49,584 - - 49,584 0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 26,300 - - 26,300 0%
75,884 7,143 - 75,884 0%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 39,484,055$ 10,413,847$ 9,270,240$ 30,213,815$ 23%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
6
Page 1 of 6
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
SALARIES AND WAGES 15,510,346$ 4,596,400$ 4,716,708$ 10,793,638$ 30%
OVERTIME 493,580 158,347 205,604 287,976 42%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK 243,389 1,324 - 243,389 0%
BENEFITS 6,171,380 1,772,514 1,858,548 4,312,832 30%
UNIFORMS 88,785 19,652 28,750 60,035 32%
SUPPLIES 368,580 101,385 118,659 249,921 32%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 56,160 18,568 15,773 40,387 28%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,911,435 767,232 699,473 3,211,962 18%
COMMUNICATIONS 166,585 43,112 40,641 125,944 24%
TRAVEL 55,330 8,439 9,723 45,607 18%
EXCISE TAXES 6,500 - 740 5,760 11%
ADVERTISING - 1,305 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,988,447 570,605 652,861 1,335,586 33%
INSURANCE 624,530 616,495 437,253 187,277 70%
UTILITIES 457,800 140,815 152,534 305,266 33%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 590,713 121,314 116,774 473,939 20%
MISCELLANEOUS 517,497 123,735 153,669 363,828 30%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 9,857,590 4,381,798 3,819,451 6,038,139 39%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 695,000 - 305,715 389,285 44%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,863,370 45,000 - 1,863,370 0%
LAND 200,000 - - 200,000 0%
BUILDINGS 60,000 - - 60,000 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 128,721 8,511 33,227 95,494 26%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 176,340 - - 176,340 0%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 500 - - 500 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 21,160 - - 21,160 0%44,253,738$ 13,496,549$ 13,366,102$ 30,887,636$ 30%
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009)
BENEFITS 184,000$ 71,108$ 73,262$ 110,738$ 40%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 102,990 27,748 76,281 26,709 74%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 - 1,800 5,200 26%
MISCELLANEOUS 280 400 400 (120) 143%
294,270$ 99,255$ 151,743$ 142,527$ 52%
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011)
MISCELLANEOUS -$ 80,601$ -$ -$ 0%
-$ 80,601$ -$ -$ 0%
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND (012)
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 49,584$ -$ -$ 49,584$ 0%
49,584$ -$ -$ 49,584$ 0%
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014)
SUPPLIES 100$ -$ -$ 100$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 - - 200 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 5,100 - - 5,100 0%
5,400$ -$ -$ 5,400$ 0%
BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ 17,293$ -$ -$ 0%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE - 50,764 - - 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 58,640 - - 0%
-$ 126,697$ -$ -$ 0%
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND (104)
FUEL CONSUMED 3,000$ 555$ -$ 3,000$ 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - - 5,000 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,230 534 - 2,230 0%
REPAIR/MAINT 800 - - 800 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 5,000 - 20,000 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 72,222 10,038 32,939 39,283 46%
103,252$ 16,128$ 32,939$ 70,313$ 32%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
7
Page 2 of 6
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
STREET FUND (111)
SALARIES AND WAGES 551,495$ 178,493$ 167,117$ 384,378$ 30%
OVERTIME 24,400 11,005 8,713 15,687 36%
BENEFITS 286,892 89,795 87,067 199,825 30%
UNIFORMS 6,000 3,667 3,062 2,938 51%
SUPPLIES 310,000 64,321 80,107 229,893 26%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,000 329 - 20,000 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,050 8,548 4,622 11,428 29%
COMMUNICATIONS 4,500 2,252 2,466 2,034 55%
TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 187,150 59,789 61,877 125,273 33%
INSURANCE 113,230 110,508 156,645 (43,415) 138%
UTILITIES 273,170 68,223 73,149 200,021 27%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 11,000 11,038 33,962 25%
MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 827 704 7,296 9%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 5,000 5 - 5,000 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,970 - - 3,970 0%
INTEREST 650 - - 650 0%
1,856,507$ 608,763$ 656,567$ 1,199,940$ 35%
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE (112)
SALARIES AND WAGES -$ -$ 2,577$ (2,577)$ 0%
BENEFITS - - 2,100 (2,100) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 353,118 232,069 3,044 350,074 1%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300,000 33,962 - 300,000 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 47,910 - - 47,910 0%
LAND 25,000 - - 25,000 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,946,900 67,862 765,561 2,181,339 26%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,220 - - 72,220 0%
INTEREST 2,690 - - 2,690 0%
3,747,838$ 333,893$ 773,281$ 2,974,557$ 21%
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117)
SUPPLIES 4,900$ 46$ 18$ 4,882$ 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,700 - - 1,700 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 168,312 12,217 9,553 158,759 6%
TRAVEL 80 11 9 71 11%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 - - 2,000 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 6,600 1,793 1,628 4,972 25%
183,892$ 14,067$ 11,208$ 172,684$ 6%
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 86,300$ 22,675$ 12,349$ 73,951$ 14%
MISCELLANEOUS 250 - - 250 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 4,000 - - 4,000 0%
90,550$ 22,675$ 12,349$ 78,201$ 14%
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121)
SUPPLIES 1,790$ -$ -$ 1,790$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,090 - - 25,090 0%
26,880$ -$ -$ 26,880$ 0%
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122)
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000$ 364$ 731$ 269$ 73%
1,000$ 364$ 731$ 269$ 73%
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,200$ 5,830$ 2,141$ 26,059$ 8%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,500 - - 1,500 0%
29,700$ 5,830$ 2,141$ 27,559$ 7%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 (125)
SUPPLIES 21,000$ 34,734$ 28,375$ (7,375)$ 135%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 65,040 66,073 23,722 41,318 36%
UTILITIES - 1,649 - - 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 600,000 - - 600,000 0%
BUILDINGS 150,000 - - 150,000 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,896,960 275,692 118,488 1,778,472 6%
2,733,000$ 378,148$ 170,585$ 2,562,415$ 6%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
8
Page 3 of 6
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 160,555$ -$ 26,124$ 134,431$ 16%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1,031,762 - - 1,031,762 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 135,130 - - 135,130 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,080,850 - 248 1,080,602 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 23,100 - - 23,100 0%
INTEREST 3,750 - - 3,750 0%
2,435,147$ -$ 26,373$ 2,408,774$ 1%
GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127)
SUPPLIES 37,500$ 361$ -$ 37,500$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,500 - - 6,500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 600 - 154 446 26%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 26,300 - - 26,300 0%
70,900$ 361$ 154$ 70,746$ 0%
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT (130)
SALARIES AND WAGES 91,711$ 25,030$ 24,657$ 67,054$ 27%
OVERTIME 3,500 1,610 832 2,668 24%
BENEFITS 38,253 11,703 11,303 26,950 30%
UNIFORMS 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
SUPPLIES 22,995 740 14,370 8,625 62%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 3,261 5,792 14,208 29%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,200 4,635 352 3,848 8%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,410 434 524 886 37%
TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 11,640 3,597 3,880 7,760 33%
UTILITIES 3,800 1,158 1,373 2,427 36%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 14,000 2,548 1,336 12,664 10%
213,509$ 54,717$ 64,420$ 149,089$ 30%
SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138)
SUPPLIES 1,500$ 82$ 27$ 1,473$ 2%
TRAVEL 4,500 - - 4,500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,500 - 345 4,155 8%
10,500$ 82$ 372$ 10,128$ 4%
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (140)
SUPPLIES -$ 90$ 73$ (73)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 7,526 23,371 (23,371) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS - 150 840 (840) 0%-$ 7,765$ 24,284$ (24,284)$ 0%
LID FUND CONTROL (211)
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 16,450$ -$ -$ 16,450$ 0%
16,450$ -$ -$ 16,450$ 0%
2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 589,630$ -$ -$ 589,630$ 0%
INTEREST 118,580 - - 118,580 0%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 490 - - 490 0%
708,700$ -$ -$ 708,700$ 0%
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (332)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,160$ 19,740$ -$ 7,160$ 0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 200,000 - - 200,000 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,139,721 77,677 49,470 2,090,251 2%
2,346,881$ 97,417$ 49,470$ 2,297,411$ 2%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
9
Page 4 of 6
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
WATER FUND (421)
SALARIES AND WAGES 828,440$ 254,677$ 242,954$ 585,486$ 29%
OVERTIME 24,000 9,022 6,027 17,973 25%
BENEFITS 392,984 115,587 104,600 288,384 27%
UNIFORMS 4,000 3,623 2,222 1,778 56%
SUPPLIES 220,000 49,553 27,124 192,876 12%
FUEL CONSUMED - - 70 (70) 0%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,800,000 411,986 439,137 1,360,863 24%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 170,000 78,586 33,630 136,370 20%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 11,000 1,730 1,473 9,527 13%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 836,294 361,138 109,261 727,033 13%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 7,749 9,203 20,797 31%
TRAVEL 200 - - 200 0%
EXCISE TAXES 400,000 112,072 135,402 264,598 34%
RENTAL/LEASE 144,907 47,973 47,850 97,057 33%
INSURANCE 56,050 58,214 56,738 (688) 101%
UTILITIES 35,000 9,278 9,388 25,612 27%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 239,500 18,290 14,141 225,359 6%
MISCELLANEOUS 84,785 32,765 37,859 46,926 45%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 30,000 12,918 8,768 21,232 29%
INTERFUND TAXES 1,209,700 351,278 345,412 864,288 29%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 644,620 - - 644,620 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 15,000 - - 15,000 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,648,935 - 666,024 4,982,911 12%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 2,670 - - 2,670 0%
REVENUE BONDS 344,650 - - 344,650 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 25,840 - - 25,840 0%
INTEREST 236,100 - - 236,100 0%
13,434,675$ 1,936,440$ 2,297,283$ 11,137,392$ 17%
STORM FUND (422)
SALARIES AND WAGES 677,138$ 207,450$ 217,064$ 460,074$ 32%
OVERTIME 6,000 5,147 2,896 3,104 48%
BENEFITS 356,297 98,453 110,357 245,940 31%
UNIFORMS 6,500 3,617 4,629 1,871 71%
SUPPLIES 46,000 15,980 12,432 33,568 27%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 5,086 74 3,926 2%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 686,923 240,213 83,525 603,398 12%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 1,725 1,634 1,566 51%
TRAVEL 4,300 - - 4,300 0%
EXCISE TAXES 55,000 26,579 23,688 31,312 43%
RENTAL/LEASE 250,767 86,859 82,176 168,591 33%
INSURANCE 71,540 72,028 178,798 (107,258) 250%
UTILITES 10,500 3,408 3,471 7,029 33%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 15,000 13,505 9,490 5,510 63%
MISCELLANEOUS 88,500 28,872 32,240 56,260 36%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 150,000 17,067 18,375 131,625 12%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 406,100 132,246 145,689 260,411 36%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 298,500 - - 298,500 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 315,000 - - 315,000 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,074,815 36,649 18,222 3,056,593 1%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 97,320 - - 97,320 0%
REVENUE BONDS 168,360 - - 168,360 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,070 - - 32,070 0%
INTEREST 129,830 - - 129,830 0%
6,953,660$ 994,885$ 944,759$ 6,008,901$ 14%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
10
Page 5 of 6
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
SEWER FUND (423)
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,793,854$ 562,979$ 554,317$ 1,239,537$ 31%
OVERTIME 95,000 31,784 29,611 65,389 31%
BENEFITS 821,233 251,492 246,725 574,508 30%
UNIFORMS 9,500 6,394 4,882 4,618 51%
SUPPLIES 432,200 58,579 84,995 347,205 20%
FUEL CONSUMED 80,000 27,821 19,419 60,581 24%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 4,000 - - 4,000 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 50,000 5,745 16,506 33,494 33%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,307,274 485,848 233,982 1,073,292 18%
COMMUNICATIONS 43,000 10,857 14,760 28,240 34%
TRAVEL 5,000 - 2,122 2,878 42%
EXCISE TAXES 200,000 67,373 71,477 128,523 36%
RENTAL/LEASE 310,809 101,403 102,174 208,635 33%
INSURANCE 109,270 115,442 117,717 (8,447) 108%
UTILITIES 1,217,860 275,224 234,539 983,321 19%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 340,000 58,667 107,759 232,241 32%
MISCELLANEOUS 105,450 47,370 37,455 67,995 36%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 168,000 42,213 37,612 130,388 22%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 763,000 227,620 252,850 510,150 33%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,678,327 - - 1,678,327 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 - 23,674 61,326 28%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4,068,435 555,166 176,677 3,891,758 4%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 148,140 - - 148,140 0%
REVENUE BONDS 77,010 - - 77,010 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 171,890 13,725 14,045 157,845 8%
INTEREST 81,750 3,739 3,557 78,193 4%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 2,821 2,683 (2,683) 0%
14,166,002$ 2,952,260$ 2,389,536$ 11,776,466$ 17%
BOND RESERVE FUND (424)
REVENUE BONDS 710,020$ -$ -$ 710,020$ 0%
INTEREST 1,281,500 - - 1,281,500 0%
1,991,520$ -$ -$ 1,991,520$ 0%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
11
Page 6 of 6
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511)
SALARIES AND WAGES 250,519$ 79,548$ 82,036$ 168,483$ 33%
OVERTIME 2,000 - - 2,000 0%
BENEFITS 114,956 34,830 35,519 79,437 31%
UNIFORMS 1,000 488 723 277 72%
SUPPLIES 110,000 19,783 24,028 85,972 22%
FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 268,000 57,701 57,078 210,922 21%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 58,000 652 1,356 56,644 2%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 44,000 567 2,189 41,811 5%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 666 742 2,258 25%
TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 9,780 5,022 3,147 6,633 32%
INSURANCE 29,010 26,351 29,464 (454) 102%
UTILITIES 14,000 4,745 5,319 8,681 38%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 15,079 8,036 51,964 13%
MISCELLANEOUS 12,000 990 1,516 10,484 13%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 8 - 2,500 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 681,500 463,482 203,510 477,990 30%
1,662,265$ 709,913$ 454,663$ 1,207,602$ 27%
TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND (512)
SALARIES AND WAGES 283,742$ 92,573$ 93,110$ 190,632$ 33%
OVERTIME 2,000 30 997 1,003 50%
BENEFITS 98,101 30,500 31,140 66,961 32%
SUPPLIES 5,000 10,630 1,573 3,427 31%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 300,000 6,098 84,163 215,837 28%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 203,300 14,790 1,019 202,281 1%
COMMUNICATIONS 58,770 16,483 14,143 44,627 24%
TRAVEL 1,500 380 - 1,500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 6,810 1,934 1,589 5,221 23%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 315,190 97,274 116,330 198,860 37%
MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 7,092 6,978 (1,978) 140%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 56,000 - - 56,000 0%
1,335,413$ 277,784$ 351,042$ 984,371$ 26%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
BENEFITS 23,000$ 8,879$ 9,969$ 13,031$ 43%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 51,018 14,820 16,919 34,099 33%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 - 270 930 23%
75,218$ 23,700$ 27,158$ 48,060$ 36%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 98,796,451$ 22,238,292$ 21,807,159$ 76,989,292$ 22%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
12
Page 1 of 1
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL 580,919$ 93,544$ 93,044$ 487,875$ 16%
OFFICE OF MAYOR 297,088 91,090 97,145 199,943 33%
HUMAN RESOURCES 477,314 122,632 140,435 336,879 29%
MUNICIPAL COURT 1,105,852 330,859 326,606 779,246 30%
CITY CLERK 694,248 232,085 222,183 472,065 32%
FINANCE 1,237,786 364,229 383,670 854,116 31%
CITY ATTORNEY 847,480 265,386 252,179 595,301 30%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 14,260,547 5,263,262 4,704,813 9,555,734 33%
POLICE SERVICES 11,294,351 3,219,838 3,581,604 7,712,747 32%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV.590,461 168,847 179,612 410,849 30%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3,284,600 831,603 817,737 2,466,863 25%
PARKS & RECREATION 4,368,100 1,110,332 1,159,777 3,208,323 27%
PUBLIC WORKS 3,114,829 874,183 848,683 2,266,146 27%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 2,100,163 528,660 558,614 1,541,549 27%
44,253,738$ 13,496,549$ 13,366,102$ 30,887,636$ 30%
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
WATER UTILITY FUND 13,434,675$ 1,936,440$ 2,297,283$ 11,137,392$ 17%
STORM UTILITY FUND 6,953,660 994,885 944,759 6,008,901 14%
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 14,166,002 2,952,260 2,389,536 11,776,466 17%
BOND RESERVE FUND 1,991,520 - - 1,991,520 0%
36,545,857$ 5,883,585$ 5,631,578$ 30,914,279$ 15%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY OF EDMONDS
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
13
Page 1 of 4
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES 169,808$ 51,408$ 52,238$ 117,570$ 31%
OVERTIME 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
BENEFITS 119,687 33,949 30,449 89,238 25%
SUPPLIES 2,000 527 94 1,906 5%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 237,160 1,644 200 236,960 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 900 1,200 1,800 40%
TRAVEL 6,700 45 325 6,375 5%
RENTAL/LEASE 16,064 2,860 5,441 10,623 34%
REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 25,000 2,211 3,097 21,903 12%
580,919$ 93,544$ 93,044$ 487,875$ 16%
OFFICE OF MAYOR
SALARIES 208,326$ 67,449$ 70,102$ 138,224$ 34%
BENEFITS 53,611 16,378 16,664 36,947 31%
SUPPLIES 1,500 171 167 1,333 11%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 1,582 165 1,835 8%
COMMUNICATION 1,400 381 749 651 54%
TRAVEL 4,000 516 260 3,740 7%
RENTAL/LEASE 21,801 3,842 6,959 14,842 32%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,450 769 2,077 2,373 47%
297,088$ 91,090$ 97,145$ 199,943$ 33%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES 249,577$ 76,100$ 76,406$ 173,171$ 31%
OVERTIME - 369 - - 0%
BENEFITS 84,882 25,509 29,082 55,800 34%
SUPPLIES 2,300 236 94 2,206 4%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 - - 300 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 78,000 5,265 16,476 61,524 21%
COMMUNICATIONS 700 305 403 297 58%
TRAVEL 1,000 - 724 276 72%
RENTAL/LEASE 25,525 7,635 8,739 16,786 34%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 7,850 7,056 7,326 524 93%
MISCELLANEOUS 27,180 156 1,186 25,994 4%
477,314$ 122,632$ 140,435$ 336,879$ 29%
MUNICIPAL COURT
SALARIES 587,898$ 202,595$ 189,599$ 398,299$ 32%
OVERTIME 800 14 - 800 0%
BENEFITS 245,141 76,300 75,225 169,916 31%
SUPPLIES 9,600 3,075 3,326 6,274 35%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 116 - 1,000 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 91,925 27,320 23,350 68,575 25%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,700 625 810 1,890 30%
TRAVEL 6,500 98 515 5,985 8%
RENTAL/LEASE 71,204 13,207 24,164 47,040 34%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 4,263 451 - 4,263 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 14,000 7,059 9,618 4,382 69%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 70,821 - - 70,821 0%
1,105,852$ 330,859$ 326,606$ 779,246$ 30%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
14
Page 2 of 4
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES 342,766$ 108,875$ 113,994$ 228,772$ 33%
BENEFITS 162,547 48,863 50,287 112,260 31%
SUPPLIES 10,240 1,907 1,490 8,750 15%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,310 11,097 6,103 22,207 22%
COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 10,266 8,322 41,678 17%
TRAVEL 1,000 315 437 563 44%
RENTAL/LEASE 64,305 19,586 19,636 44,669 31%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 31,080 28,042 19,501 11,579 63%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 3,133 2,414 1,586 60%
694,248$ 232,085$ 222,183$ 472,065$ 32%
FINANCE
SALARIES 821,066$ 229,308$ 240,450$ 580,616$ 29%
OVERTIME 4,500 - - 4,500 0%
BENEFITS 284,724 72,781 77,113 207,611 27%
SUPPLIES 7,350 1,821 1,118 6,232 15%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,400 906 3,831 1,569 71%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,300 6,613 5 9,295 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,000 491 443 1,557 22%
TRAVEL 3,100 318 1,224 1,876 39%
RENTAL/LEASE 48,146 10,830 16,374 31,773 34%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 38,500 40,372 41,121 (2,621) 107%MISCELLANEOUS 13,700 790 1,992 11,708 15%
1,237,786$ 364,229$ 383,670$ 854,116$ 31%
CITY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 847,480$ 265,386$ 252,179$ 595,301$ 30%
847,480$ 265,386$ 252,179$ 595,301$ 30%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT -$ 315$ 2,370$ (2,370)$ 0%
SUPPLIES 5,000 328 541 4,459 11%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 717,430 171,244 130,737 586,693 18%
EXCISE TAXES 6,500 1,305 740 5,760 11%
RENTAL/LEASE 10,307 5,893 3,673 6,634 36%
INSURANCE 624,530 616,495 437,253 187,277 70%
MISCELLANEOUS 164,070 48,962 48,205 115,865 29%
INTERGOVT SERVICES 9,776,340 4,373,720 3,775,579 6,000,761 39%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT 695,000 - 305,715 389,285 44%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,863,370 45,000 - 1,863,370 0%
LAND 200,000 - - 200,000 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 176,340 - - 176,340 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 21,160 - - 21,160 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES 500 - - 500 0%
14,260,547$ 5,263,262$ 4,704,813$ 9,555,734$ 33%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
15
Page 3 of 4
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
POLICE SERVICES
SALARIES 6,560,766$ 1,918,103$ 2,053,984$ 4,506,782$ 31%
OVERTIME 463,280 150,498 190,542 272,738 41%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK 243,389 1,324 - 243,389 0%
BENEFITS 2,543,628 744,343 820,011 1,723,617 32%
UNIFORMS 78,650 15,399 24,092 54,558 31%
SUPPLIES 86,500 19,798 30,081 56,419 35%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 28,610 9,304 8,281 20,329 29%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 123,420 30,914 37,135 86,285 30%
COMMUNICATIONS 32,000 10,157 12,874 19,126 40%
TRAVEL 19,310 4,465 4,197 15,113 22%
RENTAL/LEASE 984,878 280,458 326,938 657,940 33%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 15,120 2,255 3,566 11,554 24%
MISCELLANEOUS 46,350 16,232 36,675 9,675 79%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,550 8,078 - 10,550 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 57,900 8,511 33,227 24,673 57%
11,294,351$ 3,219,838$ 3,581,604$ 7,712,747$ 32%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV.
SALARIES 238,449$ 77,072$ 78,587$ 159,862$ 33%
BENEFITS 76,571 23,612 24,725 51,846 32%
SUPPLIES 7,000 7,011 5,694 1,306 81%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - - 800 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 240,400 56,327 63,183 177,217 26%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 320 398 1,092 27%
TRAVEL 2,000 116 - 2,000 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 13,751 3,257 4,037 9,714 29%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 9,500 1,132 2,988 6,512 31%
590,461$ 168,847$ 179,612$ 410,849$ 30%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES 1,623,298$ 472,266$ 476,471$ 1,146,827$ 29%
OVERTIME 1,300 3,714 7,096 (5,796) 546%
BENEFITS 625,023 171,001 180,193 444,830 29%
UNIFORMS 500 - - 500 0%
SUPPLIES 16,100 4,072 3,575 12,525 22%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,100 3,239 842 5,258 14%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 756,410 114,955 83,508 672,902 11%
COMMUNICATIONS 9,000 2,059 2,791 6,209 31%
TRAVEL 4,750 1,088 1,883 2,867 40%
RENTAL/LEASE 156,959 50,920 51,765 105,194 33%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 31,100 - - 31,100 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 54,060 8,288 9,614 44,446 18%
3,284,600$ 831,603$ 817,737$ 2,466,863$ 25%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES 1,661,359$ 477,632$ 436,859$ 1,224,500$ 26%
OVERTIME 5,000 104 3,602 1,398 72%
BENEFITS 710,496 194,184 181,908 528,588 26%
UNIFORMS 360 - - 360 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 1,906 - 2,200 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,240 4,867 8,531 19,709 30%
COMMUNICATIONS 16,625 3,263 4,291 12,334 26%
TRAVEL 600 - 89 511 15%
RENTAL/LEASE 120,624 30,248 39,603 81,021 33%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 2,600 - - 2,600 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 52,677 6,807 5,143 47,534 10%
2,600,781$ 719,010$ 680,024$ 1,920,757$ 26%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
16
Page 4 of 4
Title
2018 Amended
Budget
4/30/2017
Expenditures
4/30/2018
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
PARKS & RECREATION
SALARIES 2,048,165$ 590,762$ 595,044$ 1,453,121$ 29%
OVERTIME 10,000 2,630 2,114 7,886 21%
BENEFITS 847,782 237,107 234,157 613,625 28%
UNIFORMS 6,275 1,319 1,417 4,858 23%
SUPPLIES 125,390 35,109 43,275 82,115 35%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 7,750 2,679 1,569 6,181 20%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 595,160 56,845 75,263 519,897 13%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,320 8,830 2,477 27,843 8%
TRAVEL 4,870 1,478 69 4,801 1%
RENTAL/LEASE 264,378 91,172 83,980 180,398 32%
PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 41,482 45,028 129,972 26%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 29,700 13,670 882 28,818 3%
MISCELLANEOUS 92,610 27,248 30,631 61,979 33%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,700 - 43,872 26,828 62%
BUILDINGS 60,000 - - 60,000 0%
4,368,100$ 1,110,332$ 1,159,777$ 3,208,323$ 27%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES 279,248$ 92,684$ 92,001$ 187,247$ 33%
OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0%
BENEFITS 92,055 29,079 33,957 58,098 37%
SUPPLIES 8,600 1,364 1,145 7,455 13%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 32 30 170 15%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 206 221 1,129 16%
TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 122,195 30,910 40,392 81,803 33%
PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 897 913 1,887 33%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,900 - - 4,900 0%
514,048$ 155,173$ 168,659$ 345,389$ 33%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES 719,620 232,145 240,975 478,645 33%
OVERTIME 7,500 1,018 2,250 5,250 30%
BENEFITS 325,233 99,092 102,409 222,824 31%
UNIFORMS 3,000 2,934 3,241 (241) 108%
SUPPLIES 87,000 25,966 28,059 58,941 32%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 417 1,249 1,751 42%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 156,000 13,140 2,608 153,392 2%
COMMUNICATIONS 16,000 5,308 5,662 10,338 35%
TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 68,310 19,787 21,162 47,148 31%
PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 98,436 106,593 173,407 38%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 428,500 29,469 44,377 384,123 10%
MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 948 30 4,970 1%
BUILDINGS - - - - 0%
2,100,163$ 528,660$ 558,614$ 1,541,549$ 27%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 44,253,738$ 13,496,549$ 13,366,102$ 30,887,636$ 30%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
17
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 1,987,736$ 1,987,736$ 2,195,035$ 10.43%
February 4,780,064 2,792,328 4,464,993 -6.59%
March 7,140,338 2,360,274 7,004,229 -1.91%
April 10,849,567 3,709,230 9,270,240 -14.56%
May 18,359,346 7,509,778 15,686,851 -14.56%
June 20,430,442 2,071,096 17,456,466 -14.56%
July 22,471,701 2,041,259 19,200,587 -14.56%
August 24,804,374 2,332,674 21,193,703 -14.56%
September 26,845,572 2,041,198 22,937,772 -14.56%
October 29,646,753 2,801,181 25,331,197 -14.56%
November 37,298,673 7,651,920 31,869,258 -14.56%
December 39,484,055 2,185,382 33,736,522 -14.56%
Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 219,352$ 219,352$ 251,030$ 14.44%
February 381,613 162,261 407,050 6.67%
March 588,896 207,283 1,009,202 71.37%
April 780,860 191,964 1,240,201 58.83%
May 1,005,087 224,227 1,596,330 58.83%
June 1,248,349 243,262 1,982,691 58.83%
July 1,653,074 404,724 2,625,495 58.83%
August 1,929,331 276,257 3,064,261 58.83%
September 2,197,100 267,769 3,489,544 58.83%
October 2,416,963 219,864 3,838,743 58.83%
November 2,630,341 213,377 4,177,640 58.83%
December 2,800,000 169,659 4,447,101 58.83%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax
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
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
18
SALES TAX SUMMARY
$5,325,287
$5,840,764
$6,741,838 $6,905,122 $7,395,114
$2,452,585
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 YTD 2018
Annual Sales Tax Revenue
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
19
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 552,482$ 552,482$ 585,948$ 6.06%
February 1,249,207 696,725 1,321,958 5.82%
March 1,777,304 528,097 1,886,310 6.13%
April 2,272,493 495,189 2,452,585 7.92%
May 2,906,618 634,125 3,136,963 7.92%
June 3,468,607 561,989 3,743,489 7.92%
July 4,058,559 589,952 4,380,194 7.92%
August 4,707,320 648,761 5,080,369 7.92%
September 5,334,689 627,369 5,757,456 7.92%
October 5,989,537 654,848 6,464,199 7.92%
November 6,670,224 680,687 7,198,830 7.92%
December 7,275,000 604,776 7,851,533 7.92%
Gas Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 88,482$ 88,482$ 97,973$ 10.73%
February 187,698 99,217 187,404 -0.16%
March 267,256 79,558 268,029 0.29%
April 335,144 67,888 323,194 -3.57%
May 387,986 52,843 374,153 -3.57%
June 424,966 36,979 409,813 -3.57%
July 453,766 28,800 437,587 -3.57%
August 477,013 23,247 460,005 -3.57%
September 498,430 21,418 480,659 -3.57%
October 523,180 24,749 504,525 -3.57%
November 561,415 38,235 541,397 -3.57%
December 620,200 58,785 598,087 -3.57%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax
2018
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
7,000,000
8,000,000
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
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Gas Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
20
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 101,864$ 101,864$ 94,392$ -7.34%
February 202,129 100,265 183,702 -9.12%
March 294,029 91,900 265,638 -9.66%
April 390,095 96,066 350,982 -10.03%
May 478,713 88,617 430,714 -10.03%
June 568,042 89,329 511,087 -10.03%
July 652,808 84,766 587,353 -10.03%
August 740,812 88,004 666,534 -10.03%
September 832,244 91,432 748,798 -10.03%
October 920,171 87,927 827,909 -10.03%
November 1,003,763 83,592 903,120 -10.03%
December 1,093,200 89,437 983,590 -10.03%
Electric Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 171,906$ 171,906$ 169,967$ -1.13%
February 353,028 181,122 380,238 7.71%
March 518,242 165,214 535,565 3.34%
April 683,645 165,403 714,751 4.55%
May 824,846 141,201 862,377 4.55%
June 940,385 115,539 983,173 4.55%
July 1,050,933 110,549 1,098,751 4.55%
August 1,157,071 106,138 1,209,719 4.55%
September 1,262,180 105,109 1,319,610 4.55%
October 1,372,403 110,223 1,434,848 4.55%
November 1,490,337 117,934 1,558,148 4.55%
December 1,611,600 121,263 1,684,929 4.55%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax
2018
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
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
1,800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Electric Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
21
Meter Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 671,144$ 671,144$ 686,803$ 2.33%
February 1,136,017 464,873 1,148,411 1.09%
March 1,808,515 672,498 1,786,469 -1.22%
April 2,250,797 442,282 2,228,766 -0.98%
May 2,907,543 656,746 2,879,083 -0.98%
June 3,420,955 513,413 3,387,470 -0.98%
July 4,227,120 806,165 4,185,744 -0.98%
August 4,933,718 706,598 4,885,426 -0.98%
September 5,902,426 968,708 5,844,651 -0.98%
October 6,565,192 662,766 6,500,930 -0.98%
November 7,332,394 767,202 7,260,623 -0.98%
December 7,804,500 472,106 7,728,107 -0.98%
Storm Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 293,128$ 293,128$ 287,956$ -1.13%
February 924,642 631,514 913,794 7.71%
March 1,217,367 292,725 1,201,441 3.34%
April 1,476,942 259,575 1,457,402 4.55%
May 1,769,842 292,900 1,746,427 4.55%
June 2,030,237 260,395 2,003,377 4.55%
July 2,324,515 294,278 2,293,762 -1.32%
August 2,956,345 631,830 2,917,233 -1.32%
September 3,248,569 292,224 3,205,591 -1.32%
October 3,508,364 259,794 3,461,948 -1.32%
November 3,801,321 292,958 3,751,030 -1.32%
December 4,061,395 260,074 4,007,663 -1.32%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Meter Water Sales
2018
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
7,000,000
8,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Meter Water Sales
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
4,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Storm Water Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
22
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 691,863$ 691,863$ 707,735$ 2.29%
February 1,253,067 561,204 1,269,207 1.29%
March 1,943,785 690,719 1,962,615 0.97%
April 2,507,611 563,825 2,530,122 0.90%
May 3,199,180 691,569 3,227,900 0.90%
June 3,770,233 571,053 3,804,079 0.90%
July 4,484,245 714,012 4,524,500 0.90%
August 5,054,160 569,916 5,099,532 0.90%
September 5,782,066 727,906 5,833,973 0.90%
October 6,358,537 576,471 6,415,619 0.90%
November 7,064,218 705,680 7,127,634 0.90%
December 7,629,500 565,282 7,697,991 0.90%
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales
2018
*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
7,000,000
8,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
23
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 5,426,375$ 5,426,375$ 4,000,420$ -26.28%
February 7,953,145 2,526,770 7,074,254 -11.05%
March 11,732,786 3,779,641 9,997,735 -14.79%
April 15,684,670 3,951,884 13,366,102 -14.78%
May 18,052,613 2,367,943 15,384,006 -14.78%
June 21,942,404 3,889,791 18,698,794 -14.78%
July 25,644,376 3,701,972 21,853,526 -14.78%
August 29,653,862 4,009,486 25,270,315 -14.78%
September 33,108,704 3,454,842 28,214,449 -14.78%
October 35,966,766 2,858,063 30,650,021 -14.78%
November 40,094,056 4,127,290 34,167,199 -14.78%
December 44,253,738 4,159,682 37,711,981 -14.78%
Non-Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 2,936,502$ 2,936,502$ 1,916,589$ -34.73%
February 3,199,198 262,696 2,811,392 -12.12%
March 4,637,183 1,437,985 3,588,829 -22.61%
April 6,109,820 1,472,637 4,704,813 -23.00%
May 6,254,049 144,228 4,815,875 -23.00%
June 7,756,163 1,502,115 5,972,565 -23.00%
July 8,909,705 1,153,542 6,860,839 -23.00%
August 10,239,438 1,329,733 7,884,788 -23.00%
September 11,222,490 983,052 8,641,779 -23.00%
October 11,660,691 438,201 8,979,212 -23.00%
November 13,002,819 1,342,128 10,012,705 -23.00%
December 14,260,547 1,257,728 10,981,208 -23.00%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-General Fund
2018
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
45,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Non-Departmental
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
24
City Council
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 39,156$ 39,156$ 20,137$ -48.57%
February 81,707 42,551 43,001 -47.37%
March 131,158 49,452 67,048 -48.88%
April 177,465 46,306 93,044 -47.57%
May 223,060 45,595 116,950 -47.57%
June 282,118 59,058 147,914 -47.57%
July 332,530 50,412 174,345 -47.57%
August 383,904 51,375 201,281 -47.57%
September 442,045 58,140 231,763 -47.57%
October 480,175 38,130 251,755 -47.57%
November 530,273 50,099 278,022 -47.57%
December 580,919 50,646 304,575 -47.57%
Office of Mayor
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 24,264$ 24,264$ 23,355$ -3.75%
February 49,615 25,351 47,920 -3.42%
March 74,439 24,823 71,633 -3.77%
April 98,806 24,367 97,145 -1.68%
May 123,154 24,348 121,083 -1.68%
June 147,440 24,286 144,960 -1.68%
July 172,527 25,087 169,626 -1.68%
August 197,868 25,341 194,541 -1.68%
September 222,303 24,435 218,565 -1.68%
October 247,077 24,774 242,922 -1.68%
November 271,327 24,250 266,764 -1.68%
December 297,088 25,761 292,092 -1.68%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Council
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Office of Mayor
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 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
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
25
Human Resources
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 36,684$ 36,684$ 36,984$ 0.82%
February 77,607 40,923 73,258 -5.60%
March 118,303 40,696 107,255 -9.34%
April 153,693 35,390 140,435 -8.63%
May 191,411 37,718 174,899 -8.63%
June 229,956 38,546 210,120 -8.63%
July 270,034 40,078 246,741 -8.63%
August 308,510 38,475 281,897 -8.63%
September 345,878 37,368 316,041 -8.63%
October 385,381 39,503 352,137 -8.63%
November 421,760 36,379 385,378 -8.63%
December 477,314 55,554 436,140 -8.63%
Municipal Court
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 82,608$ 82,608$ 80,036$ -3.11%
February 175,964 93,357 159,028 -9.62%
March 269,619 93,655 241,304 -10.50%
April 356,946 87,327 326,606 -8.50%
May 446,138 89,192 408,217 -8.50%
June 534,494 88,356 489,063 -8.50%
July 623,552 89,059 570,552 -8.50%
August 718,039 94,486 657,007 -8.50%
September 811,352 93,313 742,389 -8.50%
October 908,794 97,442 831,548 -8.50%
November 1,003,801 95,007 918,480 -8.50%
December 1,105,852 102,051 1,011,857 -8.50%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Municipal Court
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Human Resources
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Municipal Court
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
26
Community Services/Economic Development
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 35,508$ 35,508$ 43,517$ 22.56%
February 78,575 43,067 85,170 8.39%
March 122,808 44,233 137,596 12.04%
April 183,062 60,254 179,612 -1.88%
May 221,918 38,856 217,736 -1.88%
June 264,589 42,671 259,603 -1.88%
July 310,671 46,082 304,817 -1.88%
August 361,283 50,612 354,476 -1.88%
September 410,573 49,289 402,836 -1.88%
October 462,272 51,699 453,562 -1.88%
November 518,901 56,629 509,123 -1.88%
December 590,461 71,560 579,335 -1.88%
City Clerk
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 61,607$ 61,607$ 61,232$ -0.61%
February 117,510 55,903 116,550 -0.82%
March 173,888 56,379 172,403 -0.85%
April 232,177 58,288 222,183 -4.30%
May 285,659 53,483 273,364 -4.30%
June 337,760 52,100 323,221 -4.30%
July 393,593 55,833 376,651 -4.30%
August 451,730 58,137 432,286 -4.30%
September 508,091 56,361 486,221 -4.30%
October 576,461 68,371 551,648 -4.30%
November 635,542 59,080 608,186 -4.30%
December 694,248 58,706 664,365 -4.30%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Community Services/Economic Development
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk
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
Community Services/Economic Development
Current Year Budget Prior Year
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 Clerk
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
27
Technology Rental Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 143,632$ 143,632$ 144,135$ 0.35%
February 300,838 157,206 204,078 -32.16%
March 388,705 87,867 293,273 -24.55%
April 473,229 84,524 351,042 -25.82%
May 541,119 67,890 401,403 -25.82%
June 613,434 72,315 455,047 -25.82%
July 720,259 106,826 534,290 -25.82%
August 840,735 120,476 623,660 -25.82%
September 955,896 115,161 709,087 -25.82%
October 1,040,611 84,714 771,928 -25.82%
November 1,136,112 95,501 842,771 -25.82%
December 1,335,413 199,301 990,613 -25.82%
Finance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 124,798$ 124,798$ 125,728$ 0.75%
February 223,504 98,706 210,861 -5.66%
March 319,397 95,892 296,541 -7.16%
April 425,251 105,855 383,670 -9.78%
May 523,182 97,931 472,024 -9.78%
June 620,315 97,133 559,659 -9.78%
July 716,459 96,144 646,402 -9.78%
August 814,575 98,117 734,925 -9.78%
September 925,150 110,574 834,687 -9.78%
October 1,031,905 106,755 931,003 -9.78%
November 1,131,680 99,774 1,021,022 -9.78%
December 1,237,786 106,106 1,116,753 -9.78%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Technology Rental Fund
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Finance
Prior Year amounts are from the Information Services Budget
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
Technology Rental Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
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
Finance
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
28
City Attorney
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 70,623$ 70,623$ 46,119$ -34.70%
February 141,247 70,623 136,648 -3.26%
March 211,870 70,623 182,768 -13.74%
April 282,493 70,623 252,179 -10.73%
May 353,117 70,623 315,224 -10.73%
June 423,740 70,623 378,269 -10.73%
July 494,363 70,623 441,314 -10.73%
August 564,986 70,623 504,359 -10.73%
September 635,610 70,623 567,404 -10.73%
October 706,233 70,623 630,449 -10.73%
November 776,856 70,623 693,493 -10.73%
December 847,480 70,623 756,538 -10.73%
Police
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 889,068$ 889,068$ 871,900$ -1.93%
February 1,784,246 895,177 1,788,816 0.26%
March 2,672,941 888,695 2,677,649 0.18%
April 3,565,257 892,316 3,581,604 0.46%
May 4,451,291 886,034 4,471,700 0.46%
June 5,370,025 918,734 5,394,646 0.46%
July 6,283,947 913,922 6,312,758 0.46%
August 7,183,331 899,385 7,216,266 0.46%
September 8,094,615 911,283 8,131,728 0.46%
October 9,104,818 1,010,204 9,146,563 0.46%
November 10,340,935 1,236,117 10,388,348 0.46%
December 11,294,351 953,416 11,346,135 0.46%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Police
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
City Attorney
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
11,000,000
12,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Police
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
29
Development Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 240,029$ 240,029$ 175,855$ -26.74%
February 498,057 258,029 378,818 -23.94%
March 774,801 276,744 591,734 -23.63%
April 1,025,462 250,661 817,737 -20.26%
May 1,300,333 274,871 1,036,928 -20.26%
June 1,559,748 259,414 1,243,793 -20.26%
July 1,826,863 267,115 1,456,800 -20.26%
August 2,118,268 291,405 1,689,176 -20.26%
September 2,384,924 266,655 1,901,816 -20.26%
October 2,674,729 289,805 2,132,916 -20.26%
November 2,975,523 300,794 2,372,778 -20.26%
December 3,284,600 309,077 2,619,247 -20.26%
Parks & Recreation
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 290,416$ 290,416$ 258,749$ -10.90%
February 593,836 303,420 530,383 -10.69%
March 916,871 323,035 815,736 -11.03%
April 1,236,894 320,023 1,159,777 -6.23%
May 1,585,949 349,055 1,487,069 -6.23%
June 1,933,803 347,855 1,813,236 -6.23%
July 2,410,584 476,781 2,260,291 -6.23%
August 2,953,471 542,887 2,769,330 -6.23%
September 3,331,617 378,146 3,123,900 -6.23%
October 3,667,051 335,434 3,438,420 -6.23%
November 3,969,963 302,911 3,722,446 -6.23%
December 4,368,100 398,137 4,095,761 -6.23%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Development Services
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Parks & Recreation
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
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
4,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Parks & Recreation
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
30
Public Works
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 42,035$ 42,035$ 42,488$ 1.08%
February 85,654 43,620 84,736 -1.07%
March 128,689 43,035 126,826 -1.45%
April 171,578 42,889 168,659 -1.70%
May 214,645 43,067 210,993 -1.70%
June 257,701 43,056 253,317 -1.70%
July 301,222 43,521 296,097 -1.70%
August 343,666 42,444 337,819 -1.70%
September 384,825 41,159 378,277 -1.70%
October 426,961 42,136 419,697 -1.70%
November 469,006 42,045 461,026 -1.70%
December 514,048 45,042 505,302 -1.70%
Facilities Maintenance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 164,689$ 164,689$ 133,250$ -19.09%
February 332,420 167,731 273,490 -17.73%
March 509,854 177,434 416,025 -18.40%
April 679,027 169,173 558,614 -17.73%
May 851,467 172,439 700,475 -17.73%
June 1,002,627 151,161 824,830 -17.73%
July 1,200,111 197,483 987,293 -17.73%
August 1,359,814 159,704 1,118,676 -17.73%
September 1,542,717 182,903 1,269,144 -17.73%
October 1,711,435 168,718 1,407,943 -17.73%
November 1,898,800 187,365 1,562,083 -17.73%
December 2,100,163 201,363 1,727,738 -17.73%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Public Works
2018
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Facilities Maintenance
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
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
1,800,000
2,000,000
2,200,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Facilities Maintenance
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
31
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 200,507$ 200,507$ 164,481$ -17.97%
February 398,504 197,996 334,182 -16.14%
March 613,516 215,012 504,388 -17.79%
April 833,268 219,752 680,024 -18.39%
May 1,042,728 209,460 850,963 -18.39%
June 1,264,837 222,109 1,032,225 -18.39%
July 1,477,294 212,457 1,205,610 -18.39%
August 1,702,007 224,713 1,388,996 -18.39%
September 1,918,545 216,538 1,565,711 -18.39%
October 2,140,781 222,236 1,747,076 -18.39%
November 2,357,334 216,553 1,923,804 -18.39%
December 2,600,781 243,447 2,122,479 -18.39%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Engineering
2018
0
300,000
600,000
900,000
1,200,000
1,500,000
1,800,000
2,100,000
2,400,000
2,700,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Engineering
Current Year Budget Prior Year
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
32
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Years
Agency/Investment Purchase to Par Market Maturity Coupon
Issuer Type Price Maturity Value Value Date Rate
FFCB Bonds 995,820 0.22 1,000,000 997,451 07/18/18 0.75%
FFCB Bonds 2,010,790 0.66 2,000,000 1,988,616 12/28/18 1.42%
FFCB Bonds 2,000,000 0.74 2,000,000 1,984,228 01/25/19 1.23%
FICO Bonds 1,009,725 0.99 1,035,000 1,010,838 04/25/19 1.42%
FNMA Bonds 999,750 1.12 1,000,000 988,502 06/13/19 1.40%
FHLB Bonds 1,000,400 1.14 1,000,000 989,430 06/20/19 1.40%
FHLMC Bonds 995,970 1.42 1,000,000 983,322 10/02/19 1.25%
FNMA Bonds 1,994,310 1.50 2,000,000 1,967,968 10/28/19 1.35%
FNMA Bonds 997,300 1.92 1,000,000 978,678 03/30/20 1.38%
FHLB Bonds 2,003,780 1.92 2,000,000 1,959,860 03/30/20 1.45%
FNMA Bonds 2,000,000 1.92 2,000,000 1,967,810 03/30/20 1.65%
FHLMC Bonds 2,003,868 2.00 2,000,000 1,952,070 04/28/20 1.35%
FNMA Bonds 1,000,000 2.17 1,000,000 975,223 06/30/20 1.38%
FNMA Bonds 1,000,000 2.17 1,000,000 975,223 06/30/20 1.38%
FHLB Bonds 3,000,000 2.21 3,000,000 2,912,724 07/13/20 1.20%
RFCS Bonds 1,999,698 2.21 2,120,000 2,000,748 07/15/20 1.60%
FHLB Bonds 2,000,000 2.25 2,000,000 1,959,904 07/30/20 1.75%
FNMA Bonds 1,000,000 2.33 1,000,000 971,372 08/28/20 1.40%
FNMA Bonds 1,000,000 2.33 1,000,000 971,372 08/28/20 1.40%
FHLMC Bonds 999,500 2.67 1,000,000 973,332 12/30/20 1.75%
FNMA Bonds 2,005,474 2.73 2,000,000 1,940,760 01/19/21 1.50%
FM Bonds 2,000,000 2.92 2,000,000 1,950,204 04/01/21 1.87%
FHLB Bonds 2,000,000 3.15 2,000,000 1,964,330 06/22/21 2.18%
FHLMC Bonds 2,000,000 3.58 2,000,000 1,949,840 11/26/21 2.13%
FHLMC Bonds 999,400 3.67 1,000,000 968,030 12/30/21 2.00%
FHLMC Bonds 1,000,000 3.83 1,000,000 978,098 02/25/22 2.15%
TOTAL SECURITIES 40,015,786 2.1 40,155,000 39,259,933
Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool 10,681,416 10,681,416 Demand 1.71%
Snohomish County Local Gov't Investment Pool 8,890,250 8,890,250 Demand 1.56%
TOTAL PORTFOLIO 59,726,666$ 58,831,599$
As of April 30, 2018
City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail
RFCS, 5%
FHLMC,
20%
FFCB, 12%
FICO, 3%FHLB, 25%
FM, 5%
FNMA, 30%
Issuer Diversification
Checking,
$1.2 , 2%
State LGIP,
$10.7 , 17%
County
LGIP, $8.9
, 15%
Bonds,
$40.2 , 66%
Cash and Investment Balances
(in $ Millions)
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
33
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
$74,830
$163,214
$335,926
$423,816
$653,690
$308,202
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 YTD 2018
Annual Interest Income
0.0%0.1%0.2%0.3%0.4%0.5%0.6%0.7%0.8%0.9%1.0%1.1%1.2%1.3%1.4%1.5%1.6%1.7%1.8%1.9%2.0%2.1%
May July September November January March
Edmonds Rate of Return Compared to Benchmark (Rolling 12 months)
6 Month Treasury Rate (Benchmark)City Blended Rate
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
0-6 Mo 6-12 Mo 12-18 Mo 18-24 Mo 24-30 Mo 30-36 Mo 36-42 Mo 42-48 Mo
Maturity Distribution and Rate of Return
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
34
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
12/31/2017 3/31/2018 4/30/2018 Q1 YTD
001-General Fund 10,273,342$ 7,279,836$ 6,177,480$ (2,993,506)$ (4,095,862)$
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 417,154 302,718 268,724 (114,435) (148,430)
011-Risk Management Fund 902,700 909,117 911,290 6,417 8,590
012-Contingency Reserve Fund 5,447,144 5,485,818 5,498,928 38,675 51,784
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 7,356 7,409 7,426 52 70
016-Building Maintenance 210,221 210,221 210,221 - -
017 - Marsh Restoration & Preservation - 6,825 6,850 6,825 6,850
Total General Fund & Subfunds 17,257,917$ 14,201,945$ 13,080,919$ (3,055,973)$ (4,176,998)$
GENERAL FUND
& SUBFUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$17.26
$14.20 $13.08
-
4
8
12
16
20
Dec 2017 Mar 2018 Apr 2018MillionsGeneralFund & Subfunds
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
35
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2017 3/31/2018 4/30/2018 Q1 YTD
General Fund & Subfunds 17,257,917$ 14,201,945$ 13,080,919$ (3,055,973)$ (4,176,998)$
Special Revenue 8,273,865 10,152,224 10,330,838 1,888,792 2,056,973
Debt Service 3,812 3,812 3,812 - -
Capital Projects 1,544,084 1,597,093 1,592,593 53,009 48,509
Total Governmental Funds 27,079,678$ 25,955,073$ 25,008,162$ (1,114,171)$ (2,071,516)$
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$17.26
$14.20
$13.08
$8.27
$10.15 $10.33
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$1.54 $1.60 $1.59
-
4
8
12
16
20
Dec 2017 Mar 2018 Apr 2018Millions General
Fund &
Subfunds
Special
Revenue
Debt
Service
Capital
Projects
Governmental Fund Balances-By Fund GroupGovernmentalFund Balances-By Fund Group
$27.08 $25.96 $25.01
-
6
12
18
24
30
Dec 2017 Mar 2018 Apr 2018MillionsGovernmentalFund
Balances -Combined
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
36
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2017 3/31/2018 4/30/2018 Q1 YTD
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 692$ 7,909$ 7,959$ 7,217$ 7,267$
111 - Street Fund 1,102,078 931,963 930,863 (170,115) (171,215)
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 728,782 1,805,635 1,776,949 1,087,288 1,048,167
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 533,207 537,185 536,171 3,978 2,964
118 - Memorial Street Tree 18,350 18,477 18,521 127 171
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 82,356 93,083 92,515 10,727 10,159
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 69,293 78,319 79,258 9,026 9,965
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 15,347 15,098 14,852 (250) (495)
123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 59,886 69,601 71,089 9,715 11,203
125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,901,003 2,283,841 2,368,506 382,837 467,503
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 2,165,209 2,667,577 2,781,655 502,368 616,446
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 265,666 294,705 304,487 29,039 38,821
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 188,886 173,184 165,232 (15,702) (23,654)
136 - Parks Trust Fund 155,907 157,015 157,391 1,108 1,484
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 938,109 948,171 951,205 10,062 13,096
138 - Sister City Commission 7,598 7,633 7,298 35 (300)
140 - Business Improvement Disrict 41,496 62,828 66,890 21,333 25,394
Total Special Revenue 8,273,865$ 10,152,224$ 10,330,838$ 1,888,792$ 2,056,973$
GOVERNMENTAL
SPECIAL REVENUE
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$8.27
$10.15 $10.33
-
3
6
9
12
15
Dec 2017 Mar 2018 Apr 2018Millions Special
Revenue
Special Revenue Funds
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
37
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2017 3/31/2018 4/30/2018 Q1 YTD
421 - Water Utility Fund 19,153,889$ 19,675,680$ 19,580,462$ 521,791$ 426,574$
422 - Storm Utility Fund 10,990,767 11,578,363 11,795,867 587,595 805,100
423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 44,666,806 45,674,785 46,090,656 1,007,980 1,423,850
424 - Bond Reserve Fund 843,960 843,962 843,962 2 2
411 - Combined Utility Operation - 40,127 50,907 40,127 50,907
Total Enterprise Funds 75,655,422$ 77,812,916$ 78,361,855$ 2,157,495$ 2,706,433$
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$50,907
$19,580,462
$11,795,867
$46,090,656
$843,962 $201,319 0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
50,000,000
55,000,000
Combined Utility Water Storm Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve Firemen's Pension
Fund
Enterprise and Agency Fund Balances as of April 30, 2018
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
38
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
12/31/2017 3/31/2018 4/30/2018 Q1 YTD
Governmental Funds 27,079,678$ 25,955,073$ 25,008,162$ (1,114,172)$ (2,071,516)$
Enterprise Funds 75,655,422 77,812,916 78,361,855 2,157,495 2,706,433
Internal Services Fund 9,250,186 9,535,224 9,451,604 285,037 201,418
Agency Funds 226,480 206,795 201,319 (19,685) (25,161)
Total City-wide Total 112,211,766$ 113,510,008$ 113,022,940$ 1,308,675$ 811,174$
CITY-WIDE
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$1,592,593
$3,812
$66,890
$7,298
$951,205
$157,391
$165,232
$304,487
$2,781,655
$2,368,506
$71,089
$14,852
$79,258
$92,515
$18,521
$536,171
$1,776,949
$930,863
$7,959
$- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000
Parks Capital Construction Fund
L.I.D. Fund Control
Business Improvement District
Sister City Commission
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
Parks Trust Fund
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
Gifts Catalog Fund
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
Youth Scholarship Fund
Employee Parking Permit Fund
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
Memorial Street Fund
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
Combined Street Const/Improve Fund
Street Fund
Drug Enforcement Fund
GovernmentalFund Balances (Excluding General Fund) as of April 30, 2018
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
39
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2017 3/31/2018 4/30/2018 Q1 YTD
511 - Equipment Rental Fund 8,996,077$ 9,256,106$ 9,124,042$ 260,029$ 127,965$
512 - Technology Rental Fund 254,109 279,117 327,561 25,008 73,452
Total Internal Service Funds 9,250,186$ 9,535,224$ 9,451,604$ 285,037$ 201,418$
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$8,996,077 $9,256,106 $9,124,042
$254,109 $279,117 $327,561
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
Dec 2017 Mar 2018 Apr 2018
511 - Equipment Rental Fund
512 - Technology 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.
6.6.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report (April 2018 Monthly Financial Report)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Job description - Building Inspector (updated)
Staff Lead: Mary Ann Hardie/Leif Bjorback
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: MaryAnn Hardie
Background/History
The Building Inspector and Combination Building Inspector job descriptions have the same educational
and experience requirements. The Building Inspector job description is being updated to reflect more
appropriate entry level minimum qualifications.
Staff Recommendation
Approved at the 6/12 Public Safety/Personnel/Planning Committee for the 6/19/18 Council meeting
consent agenda.
Narrative
The Building Inspector and Combination Building Inspector job descriptions have the same educational
and experience requirements. The Building Inspector job description is being updated to reflect more
appropriate entry level minimum qualifications.
The draft updated job description is attached.
Attachments:
Updated job description - Building Inspector - 6.18
6.7
Packet Pg. 123
Building Inspector December 2015June 2018
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
BUILDING INSPECTOR
Department: Development Services – Building Pay Grade: NE-11*
Bargaining Unit: SEIU FLSA Status: Non Exempt
Revised Date: December 2015June 2018 Reports To: Building Official
POSITION PURPOSE: Under general supervision, performs inspections on residential, multi-family, commercial
and industrial building in the process of construction, alteration or repair to verify compliance with approved
plans and specifications for compliance to the Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and supplemental Codes as
adopted by the City.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all
employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities.
Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional,
position-specific duties.
Enforces provisions of the building construction codes adopted by the City.
Performs independent field inspections to examine and evaluate residential, multifamily and commercial
construction to verify compliance with approved plans and specifications.
Ensures compliance to the Building, Mechanical and Plumbing Code, Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) amendments and Washington State Energy Code.
Coordinates inspections with the public and with other City Departments.
Performs structural and non-structural plan review for residential, multifamily and commercial buildings to
ensure that construction plans comply to the Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, WAC (State)
Amendments, Washington State Energy Code, Edmonds Development Code and applicable ordinances.
Maintains daily inspection records of construction progress, special inspections, field reports, approved
plan revisions, etc. Maintains enforcement inspection records and prepare reports concerning code
violations or inspection results in preparing cases for legal action. As directed by the Building Official,
issues stop work correction notices for code violations; notifies Building Official regarding non-
compliance.
Assists the public by phone and in the office on code questions, review of approved building plans and
permit applications; accepts permit applications as needed; reviews and approves revisions to permitted
plans and provides assistance and information to the public regarding required plan revisions.
Required Knowledge of:
International Building, Mechanical, Uniform Plumbing and Supplemental Codes.
WAC State Amendments to Codes and State Energy Codes.
Edmonds Community Development Code and applicable City ordinances.
Field inspection methods, procedures and techniques.
Operation of a computer and applicable software.
6.7.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Updated job description - Building Inspector - 6.18 (Job description - Building Inspector (updated))
JOB DESCRIPTION
Building Inspector
Building Inspector December 2015June 2018
Working knowledge of the methods, materials, components of building construction materials and the
techniques for new construction, repairs and alterations.
Principles of customer service and public relations.
Research methods and report presentation.
Structure, organization and interrelationships of city departments, agencies and related governmental
agencies and offices affecting assigned functions.
Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and computer applications
such as: word processing, spreadsheets and statistical databases.
Effective oral and written communication principles and practices to include public relations.
English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Principles of business letter writing.
Required Skill in:
Performing accurate and complete field inspections of various types of structures under construction or
alteration.
Reading plans, blueprints, specifications, drawings and other approved permit documents.
Resolving complaints satisfactorily while remaining in compliance with appropriate code and regulations.
Applying correct processes and procedures when reviewing business license applications.
Compiling and gathering information and producing a variety of required reports.
Interpreting and applying federal, state and local policies, laws and regulations related to area of
responsibility.
Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work and
in compiling and preparing spreadsheets.
Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside
agencies, community groups and the general public.
Communicating effectively verbally and in writing, including public relations.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
Associates Degree or two year Technical Certificate in Building/Construction Technology, Planning or related
field and two years of building code enforcement experience associated with a variety of building and
construction types; OR an equivalent combination of education, training and experience.
Required Licenses or Certifications:
Valid State of Washington Driver’s License.
ICC certified Building Inspector within 90 days from date of hire.
Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Environment:
Indoor and outdoor work environment
Driving a vehicle to conduct work.
Physical Abilities:
Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone.
Operating a computer keyboard and survey tools.
6.7.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Updated job description - Building Inspector - 6.18 (Job description - Building Inspector (updated))
JOB DESCRIPTION
Building Inspector
Building Inspector December 2015June 2018
Reading and understanding a variety of materials and conducting inspections.
Sitting, standing or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time.
Ascending/descending ladders and working on scaffolding.
Walking or otherwise moving over rough or uneven surfaces.
Kneeling, bending, crouching and crawling, reaching overhead and above shoulders or otherwise
positioning oneself to accomplish tasks.
Ability to wear appropriate personal protective equipment based on required City Policy.
Hazards:
Adverse weather conditions.
Working in and around moving traffic.
Noise from equipment operation.
Regular exposure to fumes, dust and odors.
Working around and with machinery having moving parts.
Contact with dissatisfied and/or angry individuals.
Incumbent Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________
Department Head: _______________________________________ Date: ________________________
6.7.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Updated job description - Building Inspector - 6.18 (Job description - Building Inspector (updated))
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Job Descriptions (updates) - Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager
Staff Lead: Phil Williams/Mary Ann Hardie
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: MaryAnn Hardie
Background/History
The Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager job descriptions are being updated due to the City's
drug & alcohol testing (commercial driver's license- CDL) random testing pool protocols and
requirements.
Staff Recommendation
Approved at the 6/12/18 Public Safety/Personnel/Planning Committee meeting for the 6/19/18 Council
meeting consent agenda.
Narrative
The Water/Sewer and Street/Stormwater Manager job descriptions include a requirement to possess
and maintain a valid commercial driver's license (CDL) with a Class A airbrake and tanker endorsement.
These two exempt, managerial positions do not operate equipment in their work duties that requires a
CDL.
As it is not an essential function of these positions, these positions should also not be included in the
City's random drug testing pool as required by Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations.
Continuing to require the CDL (which also includes a required medical examination periodically by a DOT
certified physician) is an added expense as well to maintain.
These two attached job descriptions have been updated to remove the CDL requirement.
Attachments:
Street-Stormwater Manager- updated 6.18
Water-Sewer Manager - updated -6.18
6.8
Packet Pg. 127
Street/Storm Water Manager November 2012
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
STREET/STORM WATER MANAGER
Department: Public Works – Streets/Storm Water Pay Grade: NR-15
Bargaining Unit: Non Represented FLSA Status: Exempt
Revised Date: November 2012June 2018 Reports To: Public Works/Utilities
Director
POSITION PURPOSE: Under administrative direction, plans, controls and directs the construction, maintenance
and repair of City streets, alleys, surface water and drainage facilities and systems, sidewalks and related
facilities; supervises and evaluates the performance of assigned staff; manages assigned budget; responds to
citizen complaints and provides documentation to public record requests as well as insurance claims and
recovery.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all
employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities.
Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional,
position-specific duties.
Manages, coordinates and reviews the work of assigned staff; assigns work activities and coordinates
schedules, projects and programs.
Provides constructive feedback; reviews and evaluates work; makes effective suggestions and
recommendations.
Supervises, coaches, trains and motivates staff and coordinates and/or provides staff training.
Manages the employment and hiring process and employee relations for assigned area.
Manages the workflow and prioritization of assigned projects and takes appropriate corrective action
when necessary providing advice and counsel to staff.
Develops or assists with developmental work plans for staff and makes recommendations and/or
implements corrective actions, discipline and termination procedures as appropriate/necessary or as
directed.
Manages, administers, maintains and oversees assigned budgets including making recommendations
to the annual budget.
Monitors expenditures and identifies needs; reviews and approves reports, purchases and payments
according to established policies and practices.
Makes recommendations and forecasts for future funds needed for staffing, equipment, materials and
supplies.
Submits budget to the Public Works Director for approval and prepares bid specifications for the
purchase of materials and equipment.
Obtains price quotes or bids for projects and maintains inventory of equipment and materials.
Plans, organizes and implements work programs for the division related to the construction,
maintenance and repair of City streets, alleys, surface water and drainage facilities and systems,
sidewalks and related facilities.
6.8.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Street-Stormwater Manager- updated 6.18 (Job Descriptions (updates) - Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager)
JOB DESCRIPTION
Street/Storm Water Manager
Street/Storm Water Manager November 2012
Coordinates short and long term plans, schedules and activities with crew leaders; ensures materials,
equipment and tools are available as needed.
Ensures compliance with safety practices, procedures and equipment; investigates accidents as
necessary; reviews and critiques plans and permits for public and private construction and examines
projects and reports deficiencies.
Communicates with the public to resolve issues, complaints, concerns or questions related to division
work and activities; communicates with other administrators, personnel and contractors to coordinate
activities and programs, resolve issues and conflicts and exchange information.
Prepares a variety of narratives and statistical reports, records and files related to assigned activities
and personnel.
Provides operational leadership to assure standards are met for productivity, efficiency, continuous
quality improvement, customer satisfaction and teamwork.
Performs work within scope of authority and training and in compliance with policies and quality
standards monitoring assigned operations and assuring compliance with Federal, State and local
regulations and policies.
Interprets policies and procedures and assures the consistent application of rules and regulations.
Serves as staff on a variety of boards, commissions and committees; prepares and presents staff
reports and other necessary correspondence.
Attends and participates in professional group meetings; maintains awareness of new trends and
developments in the fields related to area of assignment; incorporates new developments as
appropriate and assigned.
Required Knowledge of:
Municipal construction, maintenance and repair procedures; practices and methods utilized in street and
drainage maintenance services.
Operation and maintenance activities of street and drainage systems and facilities.
Operation of hand and power tools and specialized equipment used in street and drainage facility and
systems maintenance and repair.
Applicable federal, state and local laws, codes, regulations policies and procedures of assigned City
systems and activities.
Construction standards.
Safety standards, rules and regulations.
Interpersonal skills using tact, patience and courtesy.
Technical aspects of field of specialty.
Structure, organization and inter-relationships of city departments, agencies and related governmental
agencies and offices affecting assigned functions.
Effective oral and written communication principles and practices to include public relations.
Record keeping, report preparation and presentation techniques and practices.
Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and computer applications
such as: word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases.
English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Principles of business letter writing.
Principles and practices of governmental budget preparation and administration.
Supervisory and training principles, methods and techniques.
Required Skill in:
Planning, organizing and administering a variety of programs, projects and activities related to the
maintenance and repair of City streets, alleys, drainage facilities and systems, sidewalks and related
facilities.
6.8.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Street-Stormwater Manager- updated 6.18 (Job Descriptions (updates) - Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager)
JOB DESCRIPTION
Street/Storm Water Manager
Street/Storm Water Manager November 2012
Operating and training personnel in the use and care of specialized tools and equipment used in street
and drainage system maintenance and repair work.
Analyzing regular and emergency situations accurately and adopting an effective course of action.
Preparing comprehensive narrative and statistical reports.
Planning and organizing work and meeting schedules and time lines.
Interpreting and applying applicable Federal, State, and local policies, laws and regulations.
Monitoring and practicing safe work practices.
Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work and
in compiling and preparing spreadsheets.
Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside
agencies, community groups and the general public.
Interpreting and administering policies and procedures sufficient to administer, discuss, resolve and
explain them.
Compiling, preparing, and maintaining a variety of records, files and reports.
Developing and monitoring departmental and program/project operating budgets, costs and schedules.
Communicating effectively verbally and in writing including public relations.
Supervising, leading, coaching and using best management practices to improve staff performance;
delegating tasks and workload assignments.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
Associates Degree, Vocational Training, or the equivalent of two years of college-level coursework in public
works construction and maintenance or related field and six years of experience in public works street
maintenance, repair and construction activities and a working knowledge of the practices, procedures, and
regulations of street/storm maintenance operations that includes three years of staff supervisory and budgetary
responsibility; preferably in a municipal or public sector environment; OR an equivalent combination of
education, training and experience.
Required Licenses or Certifications:
Valid State of Washington Driver’s License with CDL Class A air brake endorsement.
First Aid Certificate.
Valid Flagging Card.
Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check.
Other Requirements:
Ability to pass a mandatory drug test upon conditional job offer.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Environment:
Indoor and outdoor work environment.
Driving a vehicle to conduct work.
Physical Abilities:
Walking or otherwise moving over rough terrain.
Sitting, standing or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time.
6.8.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Street-Stormwater Manager- updated 6.18 (Job Descriptions (updates) - Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager)
JOB DESCRIPTION
Street/Storm Water Manager
Street/Storm Water Manager November 2012
Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone.
Operating various equipment and tools.
Reaching overhead, above the shoulders and horizontally, bending at the waist, gripping, kneeling or
crouching, stooping, crouching, reaching, pushing, pulling and twisting or otherwise positioning oneself
to accomplish tasks.
Ascending/descending, ladders and inclines.
Working at heights, working on a high ladder and working in a confined space.
Working in a noisy work area, working in direct sunlight, working in outside temperature extremes and
working in dampness.
Heavy physical labor, including lifting/carrying or otherwise moving or transporting 50-100 pounds.
Operating a passenger vehicle, heavy truck, heavy equipment and rotating machinery.
Reading and understanding printed and electronic messages and related materials.
Hearing voice conversation and hearing alarms.
Possessing close vision, far vision, side vision, depth perception, night vision and color vision.
Ability to wear appropriate personal protective equipment based on required City Policy.
Hazards:
Contact with angry and/or dissatisfied customers.
Working around and with machinery having moving parts.
Working in and around moving traffic.
Adverse weather conditions.
Exposure to smoke, noxious odors, toxic fumes and chemicals, epoxy chemicals, poison oak or ivy, dust
or pollen, insect stings solvents, oil and ink.
.
Incumbent Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________
Department Head: _______________________________________ Date: ________________________
6.8.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Street-Stormwater Manager- updated 6.18 (Job Descriptions (updates) - Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager)
Water/Sewer Manager November 2012
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
WATER/SEWER MANAGER
Department: Public Works – Water/Sewer Pay Grade: NR-15
Bargaining Unit: Non Represented FLSA Status: Exempt
Revised Date: November 2012June 2018 Reports To: Public Works Director
POSITION PURPOSE: Under administrative direction, plans, controls and directs the operations of the City’s
municipal sanitary sewer and water distribution systems and related maintenance, repair and construction
activities; protects the public health in the supply of water and disposal of sewage flows to the wastewater
treatment plant.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all
employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities.
Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional,
position-specific duties.
Manages, coordinates and reviews the work of assigned staff; assigns work activities and coordinates
schedules, projects and programs, provides constructive feedback; reviews and evaluates work and
makes effective suggestions and recommendations.
Supervises, coaches, trains and motivates staff; coordinates and/or provides staff training; manages the
employment and hiring process and employee relations for assigned area; manages the workflow and
prioritization of assigned projects.
Takes appropriate corrective action when necessary; provides advice and counsel to staff; develops or
assists with developmental work plans for staff and makes recommendations and/or implements
corrective actions, discipline and termination procedures as appropriate/necessary or as directed.
Manages, administers, maintains and oversees assigned budgets including making recommendations
to the annual budget, monitors expenditures; identifies needs and reviews and approves reports,
purchases and payments according to established policies and practices.
Makes recommendations and forecasts for future funds needed for staffing, equipment, materials and
supplies.
Plans, controls and directs the operation, maintenance, repair and construction activities for the
municipal sanitary sewer and water distribution systems and related facilities.
Develops and implements operational procedures and policies for the division; plans the daily and long-
term activities, maintenance and repair functions associated with the City’s water/sewer systems.
Responds to customer inquiries, vendors, staff and others regarding operational problems and needs.
Directs and responds to emergencies as appropriate to resolve problems, investigate accidents,
prepares periodic reports and maintain records, logs and other documentation related to operational
requirements and maintain assets sheets.
Works with engineers to design, inspect and monitor construction jobs for water and sewer; updates
and reviews City’s Construction Standard Details; monitors and inspects the City’s construction projects
and developer extension projects.
6.8.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Water-Sewer Manager - updated -6.18 (Job Descriptions (updates) - Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager)
JOB DESCRIPTION
Water/Sewer Manager
Water/Sewer Manager November 2012
Maintains the Department of Health Permit operating in the green category; keeps maps updated for
water and sewer utilities; plans, researches and makes purchases for equipment and tools needed.
Provides operational leadership to assure standards are met for productivity, efficiency, continuous
quality improvement, customer satisfaction and teamwork.
Performs work within scope of authority and training and in compliance with policies and quality
standards.
Monitors assigned operations and assure compliance with Federal, State and local regulations and
policies; interprets policies and procedures and assures the consistent application of rules and
regulations.
Serves as staff on a variety of boards, commissions and committees; prepares and presents staff
reports and other necessary correspondence; attends and participates in professional group meetings.
Maintains awareness of new trends and developments in the fields related to area of assignment;
incorporates new developments as appropriate and assigned.
Required Knowledge of:
Operations, services and activities of a City Public Works Department.
Municipal water and sewer system construction, maintenance and repair and related methodologies.
Tools and equipment used in the water and sewer system maintenance and construction.
Uniform Plumbing Code, AWWA Standards, Department of Health, Department of Ecology and other
federal state and local laws, codes, rules and regulations related to assigned activities.
Construction standards.
Health and safety standards, rules and regulations.
Interpersonal skills using tact, patience and courtesy.
Technical aspects of field of specialty.
Structure, organization and inter-relationships of city departments, agencies and related governmental
agencies and offices affecting assigned functions.
Record keeping, report preparation and presentation techniques and practices.
Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and computer applications
such as: word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases.
English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Principles of business letter writing.
Principles and practices of governmental budget preparation and administration.
Supervisory and training principles, methods and techniques.
Required Skill in:
Planning, scheduling and overseeing the maintenance, repair and construction activities of municipal
sanitary sewer and water distribution systems and related facilities.
Operating and maintaining the City water distribution and sewage collection system.
Protecting the public health in the supply of water and disposal of sewage flows to the wastewater
treatment plant.
Planning and organizing work and meeting schedules and time lines.
Interpreting and applying applicable federal, state and local policies, laws and regulations.
Establishing, tracking and maintaining accurate files and records.
Monitoring and practicing safe work practices.
Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work and
in compiling and preparing spreadsheets.
Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside
agencies, community groups and the general public.
6.8.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Water-Sewer Manager - updated -6.18 (Job Descriptions (updates) - Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager)
JOB DESCRIPTION
Water/Sewer Manager
Water/Sewer Manager November 2012
Interpreting and administering policies and procedures sufficient to administer, discuss, resolve and
explain them.
Compiling and preparing a variety of records, files and reports.
Principles of business letter writing.
Work independently with little direction.
Developing and monitoring departmental and program/project operating budgets, costs and schedules.
Communicating effectively verbally and in writing.
Supervising, leading, coaching and using best management practices to improve staff performance;
delegating tasks and workload assignments.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
Associates Degree or Vocational Training in Public Works Construction, Water Distribution, Sanitary Systems or
related field and six years of experience in water distribution and sanitary sewer collection maintenance, repair,
and construction activities that includes three years of staff supervisory and budgetary responsibility; preferably
in a municipal or public sector environment; OR an equivalent combination of education, training and
experience.
Required Licenses or Certifications:
State of Washington Driver’s License with CDL class A with airbrake and tanker endorsement.
Water Distribution Specialist Certification.
Certification as Water Distribution Manager III.
Wastewater Collection Specialist III.
Flagging Certification.
First Aid/CPR Certification.
Cross Connection Control Certification.
Other certifications/licenses may be required within a specified period of time after hire.
Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check.
Other Requirements:
Ability to pass a mandatory drug test upon conditional job offer.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Environment:
Outdoor work environment.
Driving a vehicle to conduct work.
Constant interruptions.
Physical Abilities:
Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone.
Operating a variety of equipment and power and hand tools.
Standing or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time.
Walking or otherwise moving over rough or uneven surfaces.
Bending at the waist, kneeling or crouching, reaching above shoulders and horizontally or otherwise
positioning oneself to accomplish tasks.
6.8.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Water-Sewer Manager - updated -6.18 (Job Descriptions (updates) - Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager)
JOB DESCRIPTION
Water/Sewer Manager
Water/Sewer Manager November 2012
Heavy physical labor.
Lifting/carrying or otherwise moving or transporting heavy objects.
Hazards:
Contact with angry and/or dissatisfied customers.
Working in hazardous traffic conditions.
Work in and around trenches and confined spaces.
Working around and with machinery having moving parts.
Adverse weather conditions.
Fumes from paints and solvents, cement, hot asphalt and sealers.
Incumbent Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________
Department Head: _______________________________________ Date: ________________________
6.8.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Water-Sewer Manager - updated -6.18 (Job Descriptions (updates) - Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Job Description -Senior Accountant (Finance)
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: MaryAnn Hardie
Background/History
Finance has an existing Senior Accountant position and job description that was approved with the 2018
budget. The job description is being updated based on department and organizational needs.
The wage range for this EEA/WSCCCE union position is NE 15. The current wage range will be $6,221 -
$8,336 per month (2017 wages). With the wage range for this position (that was approved in the 2018
budget), this position had 7 steps (on the non-represented position pay scale). This updated position,
when classified into the union will also have an additional step (of 5%) added (Step 7) to ensure
comparability to the existing, approved pay range and to ensure pay equity and recruitment
competitiveness. The pay range noted reflects the additional 7th step.
Staff Recommendation
Approved at the 6/12/18 Public Safety/Personnel/Planning Committee meeting for the 6/19/18 Council
meeting consent agenda.
Narrative
The Finance Senior Accountant position has oversight of the accounting for the City's capital asset
records, preparing periodic reports, and assuring that assets are accurately recorded in the City's capital
asset system on a quarterly manner. This position is also responsible for the City's grant billing,
reconciling and assuring that grant agencies are billed in timely manner and is responsible for preparing
and presenting analyses of capital project financing and other City-financed debt for City management.
Additionally, this position will also prepare confidential research reports and analysis for the City’s labor
negotiating team and participate on the City’s Risk Management team, including analyzing claims in
order for the City to reduce claims or losses.
The udpated draft job description is attached.
Attachments:
Updated Senior Accountant Job Description draft- FInance - 6.18
6.9
Packet Pg. 136
Draft Senior Accountant Job Description June 2018
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
Department: Finance Pay Grade: NE-15
Bargaining Unit: EEA/WSCCCE FLSA Status: Non-Exempt
Revised Date: June 2018 Reports To: Assistant Finance Director
POSITION PURPOSE: Under the direction of the Assistant Finance Director, performs professional accounting
activities and functions for the City. Responsibilities include overseeing project and grant accounting; participating
and acting as a financial advisor in the development of the City’s Capital Improvement Program; participating in
the preparation of the City’s annual budget and financial report; assisting with the City’s Risk Management
analysis; assisting with the City’s Emergency Management preparedness and response, assisting with the City’s
long-range financial planning; applying Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) principles, and guidelines established by granting or contracting agencies;
understanding and applying the Washington State Budgeting, Accounting, and Reporting Systems (BARS); and
ensuring accuracy and confidentiality of information. Provides leadership, procedural support, and guidance to
staff assigned to work on capital projects and grants.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees
in this classification, but only as a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s)
assigned to this position are expected to perform the responsibilities of the Accountants and may or may not be
required to perform all duties listed, and may be required to perform additional, position-specific duties.
Maintains the City's Capital Asset records, prepares periodic reports, and assures that assets are
accurately recorded in the City's Capital Asset system on a quarterly manner.
Coordinate for the annual Capital Asset Inventory and prepares inventory reports and accurately records
asset dispositions and trade-ins.
Prepares quarterly financial/budget work in progress status reports.
Responsible for the City's grant billing, reconciling and assuring that grant agencies are billed in timely
manner.
Responsible for overseeing grant agency invoicing and reimbursements to ensure that grant and contract
work is reimbursed to the City in a timely manner.
Responsible for preparing and presenting analyses of capital project financing and other City-financed
debt for City management.
Responsible for preparing revenue forecasts and debt schedules for use in the development of the City’s
Capital Improvement Program.
Responsible for project accounting codes and structures to ensure the consistent application of
accounting policies across all City departments, and for coordinating related activities with appropriate
project personnel.
Responsible for the preparation of the annual Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Responsible for participating in the preparation of the City's CAFR, including annual financial statements,
notes, schedules, and other supplementary information in accordance with GAAP. The statements should
meet or exceed the standards of the Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for Excellence
in Financial Reporting.
Responsible for providing confidential research reports and analysis for the City’s labor negotiating team.
6.9.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Updated Senior Accountant Job Description draft- FInance - 6.18 [Revision 2] (Job Description -Senior Accountant (Finance))
Draft Senior Accountant Job Description June 2018
Responsible for reviewing, preparing, entering and posting journal entries.
Responsible for providing general guidance to staff regarding questions about an entry, timing of the entry,
account coding and verification that the entry is complete.
Responsible for responding to budgeting questions and accounting inquiries from department directors,
personnel, Councilmembers, and citizens.
Responsible for overseeing the completion of the fixed asset reconciliation.
Responsible for preparing and maintaining a variety of reports, including preparing and presenting staff
reports and other necessary correspondence.
Responsible for preparing ad hoc reports as requested by departments and outside agencies, and working
on a variety of special projects as assigned by the Assistant Finance Director.
Responsible for participating in the preparation of the City’s annual budget by assisting departments with
their budgets; analyzing department submittals for reasonableness; and preparing assigned portions of
the budget document in coordination with other staff.
Responsible for participating in the preparation of the City’s Long-range Financial Plan.
Responsible for participating on the City’s Risk Management team, including analyzing claims in order for
the City to reduce claims or losses.
Attendance at occasional evening meetings may be required to represent the division or department at
City Council meetings.
Responsible for attending and participating in professional group meetings, and maintaining awareness
of new trends and developments in the fields related to area of assignment.
Responsible for incorporating new developments as assigned, and ensuring processes, policies and
practices are interpreted and applied consistently and effectively within assigned responsibilities.
Other duties as required.
Required Knowledge of:
Operational characteristics, services and activities of an accounting office, including business/industry
principles and practices related to work assigned.
Public sector accounting principles and practices, including generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP), GASB, BARS, state laws and regulations, city codes and departmental policies.
Preparation of financial statements and comprehensive accounting reports, including the CAFR and
budgeting procedures.
Grant recording and reporting for compliance with BARS.
Computer hardware and automated accounting/financial systems.
Techniques in data verification and data entry and proper coding of documents.
Analysis of complex financial statements, reports and systems.
Proper principles and practices of preparing, entering and posting journal entries.
Performing a variety of professional accounting duties, including financial analyses and forecasts.
Principles of customer service and public relations.
Research methods and report preparation and presentation.
Advanced mathematical computations adequate to correctly perform work.
Record-keeping and report writing techniques.
Effective oral and written communication principles and practices, to include public relations.
Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment, including computers and computer applications such
as: word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases.
English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Principles of business letter writing.
Principles and practices of governmental budget preparation and administration.
Required Skill in:
6.9.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Updated Senior Accountant Job Description draft- FInance - 6.18 [Revision 2] (Job Description -Senior Accountant (Finance))
Draft Senior Accountant Job Description June 2018
Administering assigned financial and accounting programs.
Meeting deadlines, working with multiple projects and overseeing, verifying and validating the work of
others, including those in other departments.
Operating automated accounting systems and general office equipment.
Identifying and reporting discrepancies.
Analyzing and interpreting fiscal and accounting reports.
Preparing informative and statistical reports.
Computing rapid and accurate mathematical computations.
Gathering data and verifying information.
Responding to inquiries from customers, regulatory agencies, audit firms or members of the business
community.
Interpreting and applying federal, state and local policies, laws and regulations.
Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work, and
in compiling and preparing spreadsheets.
Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside
agencies, community groups and the general public.
Interpreting and administering policies and procedures sufficient to administer, discuss, resolve and
explain them.
Maintaining confidentiality and communicating with tact and diplomacy.
Communicating effectively verbally and in writing, including public relations.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
Bachelor’s Degree in Accounting, Finance, Business Administration or related field and three years of
progressively responsible professional accounting experience that includes experience with general ledgers and
journal entries, financial reports and recordkeeping, and budget preparation in a medium to large scale finance or
accounting department; preferably in government/public sector accounting, two years budgeting and accounting
experience related to municipal utilities.
Required Licenses or Certifications:
CPA license preferred.
Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check & credit check.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Environment:
Office environment.
Constant interruptions.
Physical Abilities
Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone.
Operating a computer keyboard or other office equipment.
Reading and understanding a variety of materials.
Sitting or otherwise remaining stationary for extended periods of time.
Bending at the waist, reaching above shoulders and horizontally or otherwise positioning oneself to
accomplish tasks.
May have to occasionally lift up to 25 pounds.
Hazards:
6.9.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Updated Senior Accountant Job Description draft- FInance - 6.18 [Revision 2] (Job Description -Senior Accountant (Finance))
Draft Senior Accountant Job Description June 2018
Contact with angry and/or dissatisfied customers.
Incumbent Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________
Department Head: _______________________________________ Date: ________________________
6.9.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Updated Senior Accountant Job Description draft- FInance - 6.18 [Revision 2] (Job Description -Senior Accountant (Finance))
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Development Services Fee Adjustments
Staff Lead: Leif Bjorback
Department: Building Division
Preparer: Rob Chave
Background/History
The current Development Services Fee Schedule was adopted by resolution 1377 has been in effect
since January 1, 2017, and most recently revised in April of 2017 by resolution 1385. The Finance
Committee reviewed this proposal and recommended Council approval on the Consent Agenda.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the attached resolution (Exhibit 3).
Narrative
Minor amendments to the Development Services Fee Schedule that became effective January 1, 2017
are being proposed in the following manner. These amendments can be seen in Exhibit 2.
1. A state mandated surcharge is applied to valuation based building permits, and serves to
support the activities of the State Building Code Council. The state recently advised that the
surcharge amount is increasing, and will take effect statewide on July 1, 2018. This is a simple
increase of the fee that is currently adopted in the fee schedule.
2. In an effort to standardize permit fees for fire alarms and fire sprinklers, the fire marshal has
proposed some minor adjustments in the structuring and amounts of certain fees as shown in
the attached schedule.
3. Three new fees will be added to the Engineering Fee section. Two of the fees provide cost
recovery for fabrication of private development related fire and aid signage performed by the
City Public Works Department. A fee is also being added for staff completion of water and
sewer availability letters, which are required by state law with new development projects.
The attached resolution contains a newly formatted version of the existing fee schedule that has been
updated for better usability (Resolution Exhibit A). All of the fees that were previously adopted will not
change except for those proposed above.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule
Exhibit 2: Sections of Fee Schedule showing Markups
Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule
6.10
Packet Pg. 141
RESOLUTION NO. 1377
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE FEE
SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT-RELATED
FESS AND CHARGES FOR SERVICES, INCLUDING A
SAVINGS CLAUSE, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, ECDC 15.00.020 provides for the establishment and amendment of
certain fees charged by the City by resolution; and
WHEREAS, extensive effort has been made by City Staff to analyze the full costs
associated with City permitting and service activities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously established and affirms as its goal
that permit fees shall be set to cover the costs of processing and issuing permits and requests for
service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does, however, desire that parties utilizing the
City's administrative appeals procedures bear a smaller burden of the costs of processing those
appeals in order to afford access to the appeals process; now, therefore,
THE CITY COT'NCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOIWS:
Íiection I,, The fees and charges for services set forth in the schedule attached as
Exhibit A to this Resolution are hereby adopted, along with the referenced tables which are also
included therein, and shall be effective on and after January 1,2017.
$ectíûn 2. Ifany section, sentence, clause or phrase ofthis resolution or any fee or
charge for service adopted or amended hereby should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by
a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the
validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase, or any fee or charge
adopted or amended hereby.
1
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 1 April 2017
Permit Type Notes Fee
General
Credit Card Transaction Fee Applied to total charge amount 3%
City Technology Fee (charged per permit) Charge for each permit applied for $35
Hourly Charge Rate If a charge/rate is not otherwise listed $100
Preapplication Meeting 1/2 refunded to Building Permit fee $1,000
DRC Meeting Development Review Committee $0
Development Project Peer Review Charged for projects requiring outside peer
review
$100/hr (min. 1 hr) +
actual cost of peer
review
Other (fee not categorized) Billed at staff hourly rate $100/hr
Impact Fees
Transportation Impact Fee Fee per Ordinance or as determined by
independent fee calculation.
Fee per Ordinance
Transportation Impact Fee Review -
Independent Fee Calculation
Fee charged when an independent fee
calculation is submitted to the City for
review.
$240
Transportation Impact Fee Admin: Single
Family
When Transportation Impact Fees apply $50
Transportation Impact Fee Admin:
Commercial/MF
When Transportation Impact Fees apply $100
Transportation Impact Fee Deferral Only for IRC structures $50
Parks Impact Fee Fee per Ordinance.Fee per Ordinance
Parks Impact Fee Admin: Single Family When Parks Impact Fees apply $50
Parks Impact Fee Admin: Commercial/MF When Parks Impact Fees apply $100
Parks Impact Fee Deferral Only for IRC structures $50
The Mayor or designee may authorize the refunding of:
1. 100% of any fee erroneously paid or collected.
2. Up to 80% of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued according to the
Edmonds Community Development Code.
3. Up to 80% of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit is withdrawn or canceled before any
plan review work has been done.
4. A fee may not be authorized for refunding except on written application filed by the original permittee, and not
later than 180 days after the date of fee payment.
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 2 April 2017
Permit Type Notes Fee
Building
Fire Alarm (Alteration) up to 5 initiating
devices
No plans. Subject to field inspection. Does
not include replacement of FACP.
$165
Fire Alarm (Alteration) 6 or more initiating
devices
$100 + COE Table 1
Fire Alarm (New)$100 + COE Table 1
Distributed Antenna Radio System (DAS)$100 + COE Table 1
Fire Connection permit $500
Fire Damage COE Table 1
Fire Inspection Fee Per Hour $100
Fire Operational permit $60
Firework Display permit $30
Fire Plan Review fee Per Hour $100
Fire Sprinkler Commercial (Alteration) up to
5 sprinklers
Applies to Commercial and Multifamily $200
Fire Sprinkler Commercial (Alteration) more
than 5 sprinklers
Applies to Commercial and Multifamily $150 + Table 1
Fire Sprinkler Commercial (New) Applies to Commercial and Multifamily $300 + Table 1
Fire Sprinkler Residential (Alteration) Applies to IRC structures $200
Fire Sprinkler Residential (New) Applies to IRC structures $400
Fire Protection System permit $315
Underground Tank 600 gallons or less (fill or
remove)
$100
Underground Tank 600 gallons or less (new
installation)
$150
Underground Tank more than 600 gallons
(fill, remove, install)
$300
Accessory Structure (Greenhouse/Shed)Table 1
ADU Compliance $405
Adult Family Home $500
Appeal of Building Official Interpretation $810
Base Building Permit Processing Fee $100
Building Inspection $100
Cell Communications/ Cellular Facilities Table 1
Change of Use $510
Changes to Approved Plans $100/hr
Commercial New Construction Table 1
Deck , Stair, Ramp Table 1
Demolition (Primary)$300
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 3 April 2017
Permit Type Notes Fee
Demolition (Secondary)$150
Dock/Marina/Floats $200 + Table 1
Fence $60
Garage / Carport Table 1
Grading/Fill Table 2 + peer review
Grease Interceptor $700
Grease Trap $200
Hot Tub/Spa (Commercial)Table 1
Hot Tub/Spa (Single-Family)$200
Hydronic Heating $135
Manufactured Coach-Commercial (Federal
HUD Label)
$500
Manufactured Home Installation (Federal
HUD Label)
$550
ESLHA Administrative Processing Fee $2,385
ESLHA Minor Project Administrative
Processing Fee
$300
ESLHA Consultant Review Full cost of peer
review
ESLHA Packets No labor in current fee $15
Mechanical Permit Table 4
Parking Lot $200 + Table 1
Plumbing Permit Table 3
Re-inspection Fee (Building)$100
Relocation of Building $500 + $100/hr
outside city
Re-roof (Commercial)Table 1
Re-roof (Single-family) Includes sheathing.$100
Residential - New Construction Table 1
Residential -Addition/Remodel Table 1
Re-Submittal Plan Review after 3rd review $100/hr
Retaining Wall (Commercial)$675 + peer review
Retaining Wall (Residential)$265 + peer review
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 4 April 2017
Permit Type Notes Fee
Sign (Per Sign)Excluding specific sign categories listed
below
$150
Sign (Blade Sign) Includes all blade signs in proposal No Charge
Sign (Pedestrian Sign) Includes all pedestrian signs in proposal $75
Sign (Pole Sign)$750
Solar/Photovoltaic (Residential)$120
Solar/Photovoltaic (Commercial)Valuation does not include cost of solar
panels or inverters
Table 1
State Building Code Surcharge Fee $4.50
Swimming Pool (Pre-Manufactured Above
Ground)
$120
Swimming Pool (In-Ground)Table 1
Tenant Improvement Table 1
Violation Compliance Fee $240 or up to 5 times permit fee $240 or 5x permit fee
Window Replacement (Single Family)$150
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 5 April 2017
Permit Type Notes Fee
Planning
Type 1 Staff decisions, no notice $250
Type 2 (A or B) Staff decisions w/ notice $880
Type 3A Hearing Examiner $1,820 + HE*
Type 3A - Specific Applications Outdoor dining; Amateur radio $250
Type 3B Hearing Examiner / ADB $1,820 + HE*
Type 4A Subdivision / PRD final approval $3,720
Type 4B Rezone $6,350
Type 5 Plan, ECDC amendments $6,350
ADB Design Review - Signs ADB consideration of departure from sign
standard, per code
$880
Staff Design Review if project exceeds SEPA
threshold
$880
Lot Line Adjustment $950
Short Subdivision $2,930
Short Subdivision Final Approval $1,440
Subdivision Prelim Approval (+ HE)Staff time plus actual HE cost billed to
applicant
$5,920 + HE*
Subdivision Final Approval Same as Type 4A $3,720
Modification Request $880
Minor change to approved plat $100/hr
Major change to approved plat Same as original application See Note
PRD Preliminary Approval $5,920
PRD Final Approval $3,720
SEPA Review $670
EIS Review Cost
Critical Areas Checklist $100
Critical Areas Checklist Update $50
Critical Areas Study Admin $100/hr (min. 1 hr)
Critical Areas Contingent Review See ECDC 23.40.195 for more detail on
applicable fees
$880
Critical Areas Var / Reasonable Use Staff time plus actual HE cost billed to
applicant
$6,945 + HE*
Appeal of Staff Decision (1 or 2)$400
Appeal of Type 3B Decision $500
Appeal of Notice of Civil Violation $880
Request for Reconsideration $250
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 6 April 2017
Permit Type Notes Fee
Planning Inspection Fee Landscape plan inspection bsed on
estimated cost of landscape installation
1% of est.
Recording Fee Recording documents w/ County $100 + cost
*When permit application is heard by Hearing Examiner (HE), cost of HE hearing is billed
to applicant.
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 7 April 2017
Permit Type Notes Fee
Engineering
Alley Disruption/ Closure Fee Fee charged for closure of alley in excess of
72hrs. Closure fee based on (assessed value
per square foot of abutting property) x
(right-of-way area (SF)).
$200 base fee plus ROW
permit fee plus closure
fees
Backflow Prevention Compliance Fee Fee to assist in ensuring voluntary
compliance with backflow prevention
program & ECC 7.20
$125
Developers Agreements $300 Application Fee
plus $100/hr staff time
plus City Attorney Fees
Development Project Peer Review $300 base fee plus Cost
of Peer Review
Drainage Permit (pool, hot tub, jacuzzi)This permit is for drainage of pools, hot tub,
jacuzzi and other facilities designed or
intended to hold more than 50 gallons of
water.
$50
Encroachment Permit $300 application fee
plus recording fees
Engineering Inspection Fee (Single Family,
Existing Comm/MF, right of way)
Fee is charged per inspection. $100 each
Engineering Inspection Fees - Civil Site
Improvements (subdivisions, commercial,
multi-family)
Engineering inspection during construction
of site improvements for all
subdivisions/short plats, commercial and
multi-family. This fee is charged in addition
to the applicable Engineering Review or
other building permit fee(s).
3.3% of Bond Amount
Subdivision - Civil Review Engineering review of civil plans for
construction of site improvements for
subdivision.
$4,265
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 8 April 2017
Permit Type Notes Fee
Short Subdivision-Civil Review Engineering review of civil plans for
construction of site improvements for short
subdivision.
$2,785
Latecomers Agreement $300 Application Fee
plus $100/hr and City
Attorney Fees
LID Sewer Fees (Outside of LID Map)$300 Application Fee
plus $100/hr and City
Attorney Fees
Parking Disruption/ Closure Fee Fee applies to any activity that occupies or
closes parking space(s), parking lanes(s) or
other paved area of a street/road for more
than 72 hours. Monthly portion of Fee [$
per month] = (1% of assessed value per
square foot of abutting property) x (right of
way area [SF] disrupted/closed). If
disruption/closure affects any portion of
the area of a parking space, the area of
disruption/closure is calculated based upon
the area of a full parking space.
$200 base fee plus ROW
permit fee plus closure
fees
Re-Inspection Fee $100 each
Right-of-Way Construction Permit $300 application fee
plus inspection fees
Right of Way Minor Construction Permit Applies to smaller projects that cause only
minor disturbance to the right of way e.g.
residential driveway replacement, tree
trimming
$100 application fee
plus inspeciton fees
Sewer General Facility Charge Fee per Ordinance
Side Sewer (Commercial & Multi-Family)Sanitary sewer installation - new
commercial or multi-family.
$200 application fee
plus general facility
charge per Ordinance
Side Sewer (All Single Family &
Commercial/Multi-family repairs)
Sanitary sewer installation - new or repair.$100 application fee
plus general facility
charge per Ordinance
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 9 April 2017
Permit Type Notes Fee
Side Sewer - Special Conditions e.g. grinder
pumps, ejectors..
Fee charged in addition to side sewer
permit fee when special conditions exist,
such as grinder pumps, sewer ejector
systems, etc.
$200 application fee
plus $120/hr for Utility
Engineer review
Sidewalk Disruption or Closure Fee charged for closure of sidewalk in
excess of 72hrs. Closure fee based on
(assessed value per square foot of abutting
property) x (right-of-way area (SF)).
$200 base fee plus ROW
permit fee plus closure
fees
Stormwater Engineer Review Stormwater reivew by P.E. Fee will also be
applied for review of storm drainage for SFR
construction of any type (e.g. new
construction, remodel, additions, sealed
decks, etc.)
$120/hr
Stormwater Permit Fee for review of stormwater regulated
activity when another permit (building
permit, subdivision, right-of-way, etc.) is not
required.
$300 application fee
plus inspection fees
Storm System General Facility Charge General Facility Charge
per Ordinance
Street Restoration for Water Meter
Installation
Fee charged when City performs street
restoration after water service and meter
install.
$1000 plus Street
Overlay Cut Fee if
applicable
Street Overlay Cut Fee Fee for cutting into a road that was overlaid
within the last 5 years.
$200 base fee plus ROW
permit fee plus addt'l
per SqYd charge times
overlay cut multiplier
Street Use Permit This fee is applied to any use of public right-
of-way in a temporary nature (not covered
by Encroachment permit or ROW
construction permit)
$100 application fee
plus Bistro Dining fees
per Ordinance if
applicable.
Transportation Engineer Review Transportation review by P.E. $120/hr
Utility Engineer Review Water or sewer utility review by P.E. $120/hr
Utility Company Agreement Fee charged for review time associated with
agreements such as Franchise, Master Use,
and Lease.
$100/hr (min. 1 hr) plus
City Attoney Fees
Variance from Underground Wiring Fee charged for each request for variance
from underground wiring requirement.
$300 application fee
plus $100/hr plus City
Attorney Fees
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Edmonds Fee Schedule Page 10 April 2017
Permit Type Notes Fee
Water Meter General Facility Charge Fee per Ordinance
Water Meter Fee (Based on Size)New service line and meter installation
charges
3/4" $2,920
1" $2,970
1.5" $6,220
2" $6,390
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
L:\Fees\2016 Building Permit Fee Schedule_final.doc
CITY OF EDMONDS
BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE – TABLE 1
Based on building construction valuation
Effective January 1, 2017
$1-$500 $30
$501 to $2000 $30 for the first $500 plus $3 for each additional $100, or fraction
thereof to and including $2000
$2001 to $25,000 $75 for the first $2000 plus $14 for each additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof to and including $25,000
$25,001 to $50,000 $400 for the first $25,000 plus $10 for each additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof to and including $50,000
$50,001 to $100,000 $650 for the first $50,000 plus $7 for each additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof to and including $100,000
$100,001 to $500,000 $1000 for the first $100,000 plus $6 for each additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof to and including $500,000
$500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,400 for the first $500,000 plus $5 for each additional $1,000 or
fraction thereof to and including $1,000,000
$1,000,001 and up $5,900 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4 for each additional $1000 or
fraction thereof.
Other Fees:
1. Plan review fees in addition to building permit fees are assessed at a rate of 85% of the calculated building permit fee
(includes Building, Planning and Engineering for commercial/multi-family reviews and Building/Planning for
residential reviews).
2. Commercial Permits: All permits relating to other than residential permits as described below shall be calculated at
the rate established in the amended Building Permit Fee Schedule based on 120% of above valuation chart. The
determination of value or valuation shall be based on the Building Valuation Data table, published by the
International Code Council, on file with the City Building Official. The Building Valuation Data table shall be updated
on January 1
st of each year to the latest version as published by ICC.
3. Residential Permits: Permits for the construction (including remodels and additions) of single-family residences,
including accessory structures shall be calculated at the rate established in the amended Building Permit Fee Schedule
based on the above valuation chart. The determination of value or valuation shall be based on the Building Valuation
Data, published by the International Code Council, on file with the City Building Official. The Building Valuation
Data table shall be updated on January 1
st of each year to the latest version as published by ICC.
4. Decks, stairs, ramps, covered porches with open exterior sides, and trellises are assessed at $20 per square foot for
valuation purposes.
5. Unheated sunrooms are assessed at $28 per square foot for valuation purposes.
6. After the 3
rd review is complete on a permit application, additional reviews are charged at $100 per hour per
reviewing division/department.
7. Base building permit processing fee is $100 per permit.
8. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans $100 per hour (minimum charge
one hour) per reviewing department/division.
9. Building Inspections outside of normal business hours $100 per hour (minimum charge one hour).
10.Re-inspection fees and inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, are charged at $100 per hour (minimum
charge one hour).
11.Development Project Peer Review: $100 per staff hour plus cost of consultant review fee charged for outside
consultant peer review services when City staff lacks the expertise to review a specific project or aspect of a project.
12.City Technology fee of $35 assessed for each development permit the City issues.
13.State Building Code Council surcharge fee $4.50 per building permit, plus $2.00 per each dwelling unit.
14.Pre-Application Meeting $1000, 50% applied toward future plan check fee for that specific project only.
* The above table is based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code Table 1-A amended.
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
L:\temp\building\fees\2014 fees\2014 grading fee schedule
CITY OF EDMONDS
GRADING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE – TABLE 2
Effective January 1, 2017
GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES
50 cubic yards (38.2 m3 ) or less, when located in a designated critical area ........................................................................ $ 30.00
51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m³ to 76.5 m³)...................................................................................................................................$ 60.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2m³ to 764.6 m³)...........................................................................................................................$120.00
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m³ to 7645.5 m³).................................................................................................................$240.00
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7646.3 m³ to 76 455 m³) --$240.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m³), plus
$100.00 for each additional 10,000 yards (7645.5 m³) or fraction thereof.
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards (76 456 m³ to 152 911 m³) --$1140.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76 455 m³), plus
$100.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5m³) or fraction thereof.
200,001 cubic yards (152 912 m³) or more --$2040.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards (152911m³), plus $100.00 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m³) or fraction thereof.
Other Fees:
Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans ....................................$100.00 per hour
(minimum charge – one-hour)
GRADING PERMIT FEES
Base permit fee..............................................................................................................................................................................$30.00
50 cubic yards (38.2m³) or less, when located in a designated critical area.............................................................................$60.00
51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m³ to 76.5m³).......................................................................................................................................$60.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards (77.2m³ to 764.6 m³) --$120.00 for the first 100 cubic yards (76.5 m³) plus $20.00 for each
additional 100 cubic yards (76.5 m³) or a fraction thereof.
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m³ to 7645.5 m³)--$300.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m³), plus $40.00
for each additional 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m³) or fraction thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7646.3 m³ to 76 455 m³) --$660.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7645.4 m³),
plus $60.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m³) or fraction thereof.
100,001 cubic yards (76 456 m³) or more --$1200.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76 455 m³), plus $90.00
for each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7645.5 m³) or fraction thereof.
Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge – one hour)...............................................$100.00 per hour
2. Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of UBC Section 108.8..............................................................$100.00 per hour
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge – one-hour)...................................$100.00 per hour
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLUMBING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE – TABLE 3
Effective January 1, 2017
Base Permit Fee for Processing
1. For the issuance of each plumbing permit...........................................................................................$40.00
Unit Fee Schedule (NOTE: Base permit issuing fee not included)
1. For each plumbing fixture on one trap or a set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage
piping)..................................................................................................................................................$12.00
2. For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping or water piping, each fixture.......................$12.00
3. For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer (does not include trunk or LID charges) $60.00
4. Rainwater systems – per drain (within footprint of building)........................................................$12.00
5. For each cesspool (where permitted).................................................................................................$50.00
6. For each private sewage disposal system..........................................................................................$60.00
7. For each water heater, including expansion tank............................................................................$12.00
8. For each gas-piping system of one to five outlets.............................................................................$24.00
9. For each additional gas piping system outlet, per outlet.................................................................$ 2.00
10. For each installation or alteration of water treating equipment....................................................$30.00
11. For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter incl. backflow protection devices
thereof………..NC
12. For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in item 11:
1 to 5.....................................................................................................................................................$12.00
over 5, each...........................................................................................................................................$ 2.00
13. For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers:
2 inch diameter and smaller...............................................................................................................$30.00
over 2 inch diameter ...........................................................................................................................$40.00
14. For each graywater system or reclaimed water system (in addition to fixture fees as above).....$60.00
15. For each annual cross-connection testing of a reclaimed water system (excluding initial test)...$30.00
16. For each medical gas piping system serving one to five inlet(s)/outlet(s) for a specific gas.......$100.00
17. For each additional medical gas inlet(s)/outlet(s).............................................................................$12.00
18. For each grease trap ... .....................................................................................................................$200.00
19. For each grease interceptor..............................................................................................................$700.00
20. For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, except kitchen-
type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps (oil/water separator, etc.)........................$100.00
Other Inspections and Fees
1. Re-inspection fee..................................................................................................................................$100.00
2. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated.......................................................................$100.00
3. Plan review fee per hour charge (minimum charge – one
hour)..........................................................$100.00
4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans, per hour
charge (minimum charge–one-hour)...............................................................................................$100.00
L:\temp\building\fees\2014 fees\2014 plumbing fee schedule
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
L:\temp\building\fees\2014 fees\2014 mechanical fee schedule
CITY OF EDMONDS
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE – TABLE 4
Effective January 1, 2017
Base Permit Fee for Processing
1. For the issuance of each mechanical permit.....................................................................................................................$40.00
Unit Fee Schedule (Note: Base permit fee for processing not included.)
1. Furnaces
For the installation/relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and appliance
vent up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3kW)...............................................................................................................$20.00
For the installation/relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and appliance
vent over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3kW).......................................................................................................................................$30.00
For the installation/relocation of each floor furnace, including vent....................................................................................$20.00
For the installation/relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor-mounted unit heater ......................$25.00
2. Appliance Vents
For the installation, relocation/replacement of each appliance vent installed (i.e., Type B, BW, L gas vent, etc.)..............$10.00
3. Repairs or Additions
For the repair, alteration or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit,
or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls...............................$15.00
4. Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems/Air Conditioning Systems, including Heat Pumps
For the installation/relocation of each boiler or compressor up to and including 3 horsepower (10.6kW), or each
absorption system up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3kW).........................................................................................$20.00
For the installation/relocation of each boiler or compressor over 3 horsepower (10.6KW) up to and including 15
horsepower (52.7kW), or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3kW) up to and including 500,000 Btu/h
(146.6kW)............................................................................................................................................................................$30.00
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower (52.7kW) up to and including 30
horsepower (105.5kW), or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h (146.6kW) to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h
(293.1kW)............................................................................................................................................................................$40.00
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower (105.5kW) up to and including 50
horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h
(512.9 kW)...........................................................................................................................................................................$60.00
For the installation or relocation or each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption
system over 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW).............................................................................................................................$95.00
5. Air Handlers
For each air-handling unit up to and including 10,000 (cfm) (4719 L/s), including ducts (i.e., diffusers, blowers, etc.).....$20.00
For each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm (4719 L/s) including ducts ..............................................................................$30.00
6. Evaporative Coolers
For each evaporative cooler other than portable type...........................................................................................................$15.00
7. Ventilation and Exhaust
For each ventilation fan connected to single duct (i.e., bath, laundry, kitchen exhaust, etc.)...............................................$10.00
For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit........$10.00
For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood (i.e. Type 1 and Type
2 hoods, fume hoods, etc.)..................................................................................................................................................$100.00
8. Incinerators
For the installation or relocation of each domestic type incinerator.....................................................................................$20.00
For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type incinerator............................................................$50.00
9. Miscellaneous
For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the IMC for which no other fee is listed (i.e. fire dampers, ductless mini-
split systems, etc.) ................................................................................................................................................................$20.00
Other Inspections and Fees
1.Re-inspection fees assessed at a per hour charge (minimum charge-one hour)..................................................................$100.00
2.Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated, per hour charge (minimum charge–one-hour)...............................$100.00
3.Plan review fee per hour charge (minimum charge – one hour).........................................................................................$100.00
4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans or to plans for which an initial review
has been completed per hour charge (minimum charge–one hour)....................................................................................$100.00
6.10.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2017 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
FIRE SPRINKLER PERMITS:
Residential IRC Structures
New Residential Fire Suppression Systems (fee includes plan review) .................................$400.00 $300.00
Residential Fire Suppression System Alteration (fee includes plan review) ........................................$200.00
Commercial & Multi-Family Fire Suppression Systems
New systems .........................................................................................................................$300.00 + TABLE 1
Modifications:
1 to 5 sprinklers .....................................................................................................................................$200.00
6 to 25 ........................................................................................................................................... $100 + TABLE 1
26 ore more ............................................................................................................................. $150.00 + TABLE 1
Additional inspections/plan review as required ..............................................................................$100.00/hr
FIRE ALARM PERMITS:
New fire alarm system............................................................................................$100.00 $300.00 + TABLE 1
Distributed Antenna Radio System (DAS)............................................................................ $100.00 + TABLE 1
Modifications:
1 to 5 initiating devices...........................................................................................................$165.00 $200.00
6 to 25 ......................................................................................................................................... $100 + TABLE 1
26 ore more ........................................................................................................................... $150.00 + TABLE 1
Additional inspections/plan review as required ..............................................................................$100.00/hr
GENERAL BUILDING FEES:
City Technology Fee for each permit issuance ........................................................................................$35.00
Credit Card Transaction Fee .........................................................................................................................$3%
Recording Fee (for recording documents with County).............................................Recording Cost + $100.00
Development Review Committee Meeting ...................................................................................................$0
Pre-Application Meeting ....................................................................................................................$1,000.00
(50% applied toward future plan check fee for that specific project only)
Residential State Building Code Surcharge Fee .............................................................................$4.50 $6.50
.....................................................................................................................Each additional dwelling unit $2.00
Commercial State Building Code Surcharge Fee...........................................................................$4.50 $25.00
.....................................................................................................................Each additional dwelling unit $2.00
(not applicable to all permits such as plumbing, mechanical, re-roof)
ENGINEERING FEES:
Backflow Prevention Compliance Fee ................................................................................................... $125.00
Developers Agreements ...................... $300.00 + $100.00/hr Staff time + City Attorney Fees Development
Project Peer Review ........................................................................................ $300.00 + Cost of Peer Review
Fire/ Aid Sign Fabrication Fee.................................................................................................................. .$75.00
Private Drive Sign Fabrication Fee ......................................................................................................... $175.00
Water and Sewer Availability Letters ....................................................................................................... $60.00
Latecomers Agreement .......................................................... $300.00 + $100.00/hr + City Attorney Fees LID
Sewer Fees (Outside of LID Map) ................................................. .$300.00 + $100.00/hr + City Attorney Fee
6.10.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Sections of Fee Schedule showing Markups (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
6.10.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Sections of Fee Schedule showing Markups (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY’S
DEVELOPMENT-RELATED FEES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICES.
WHEREAS, ECDC 15.00.020 provides for the establishment and amendment of certain fees
charged by the city by resolution; and
WHEREAS, extensive effort has been made by city staff to analyze the full costs associated with city
permitting and service activities; and
WHEREAS, the city council has previously established and affirms as its goal that permit fees shall
be set to cover the costs of processing and issuing permits and requests for service;
WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 1377 in 2016 which adopted a schedule of fees to
be charged in relation to development activity; and
WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 1385 in 2017 which adopted minor amendments to
Resolution 1377.
WHEREAS, this resolution is intended to replace Resolution 1377 and Resolution 1385; and, now
therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The fees and charges for services set forth in the schedule attached as Exhibit A to
this Resolution, which is incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted, along with the
referenced tables which are also included therein, and shall be effective on and after July 1, 2018.
Section 2. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution or any fee or charge for
service adopted or amended hereby should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase, or any fee or charge adopted or
amended hereby.
Section 3. Resolution 1377 and Resolution 1835 shall have no further effect as of July 1, 2018
as the fees adopted by Resolution 1377 are being replaced by the fees adopted herein.
RESOLVED this _____ day of _____, 2018.
CITY OF EDMONDS
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
_______________________
MAYOR, DAVE EARLING
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO. ____
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Page 1 of 12
FEES ASSOCIATED
WITH
DEVELOPMENT
FEES ASSOCIATED WITH
DEVELOPMENT
Building – Engineering - Planning
121 5th Ave N, Edmonds WA 98020
425.771.0220
Effective July 1, 2018
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Page 2 of 12
ICC VALUATION TABLE
August 2017
Adopted by City of Edmonds effective Jan, 1 2018
Square Foot Construction Costs a, b, c
a. Private Garages use Utility, miscellaneous f. Sunroom (unheated) = $28.00
b. For shell only buildings deduct 20 percent g. Deck Ramp, Stairs, Trellis, Porch = $20.00 per sq. ft.
c. N.P. = not permitted h. Dock = $35.00 per sq. ft.
d. Unfinished basements (Group R-3) = $21.00 per sq. ft. i. Unheated Storage = $25.00 per sq. ft.
e. Carport = $25.00 per sq. ft.
Group (2015 International Building Code) IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV VA VB
A-1 Assembly, theaters, with stage 233.95 225.89 220.42 211.39 198.92 193.15 204.70 181.63 174.97
A-1 Assembly, theaters, without stage 214.40 206.35 200.88 191.84 179.53 173.76 185.16 162.23 155.58
A-2 Assembly, nightclubs 182.86 177.56 173.06 166.05 156.54 152.22 160.22 141.73 136.94
A-2 Assembly, restaurants, bars, banquet halls 181.86 176.56 171.06 165.05 154.54 151.22 159.22 139.73 135.94
A-3 Assembly, churches 216.47 208.41 202.95 193.91 181.79 176.02 187.23 164.50 157.85
A-3 Assembly, general, community
halls, libraries, museums
180.57
172.51
166.04
158.00
144.89
140.11
151.32
127.59
121.94
A-4 Assembly, arenas 213.40 205.35 198.88 190.84 177.53 172.76 184.16 160.23 154.58
B Business 186.69 179.79 173.86 165.19 150.70 145.02 158.70 132.31 126.48
E Educational 197.52 190.73 185.77 177.32 165.32 156.97 171.23 144.39 140.26
F-1 Factory and industrial, moderate hazard 111.86 106.71 100.58 96.68 86.77 82.81 92.61 72.75 68.09
F-2 Factory and industrial, low hazard 110.86 105.71 100.58 95.68 86.77 81.81 91.61 72.75 67.09
H-1 High Hazard, explosives 104.68 99.53 94.40 89.50 80.80 75.84 85.43 66.78 N.P.
H234 High Hazard 104.68 99.53 94.40 89.50 80.80 75.84 85.43 66.78 61.12
H-5 HPM 186.69 179.79 173.86 165.19 150.70 145.02 158.70 132.31 126.48
I-1 Institutional, supervised environment 187.63 181.26 176.01 168.60 155.33 151.11 168.69 139.15 134.82
I-2 Institutional, hospitals 314.17 307.27 301.34 292.67 277.18 N.P. 286.18 258.79 N.P.
I-2 Institutional, nursing homes 217.67 210.77 204.84 196.17 182.68 N.P. 189.68 164.29 N.P.
I-3 Institutional, restrained 212.42 205.52 199.59 190.92 177.93 171.25 184.43 159.54 151.71
I-4 Institutional, day care facilities 187.63 181.26 176.01 168.60 155.33 151.11 168.69 139.15 134.82
M Mercantile 136.25 130.95 125.45 119.44 109.43 106.11 113.60 94.63 90.83
R-1 Residential, hotels 189.35 182.99 177.74 170.33 156.80 152.58 170.42 140.62 136.29
R-2 Residential, multiple family 158.84 152.48 147.23 139.81 127.05 122.83 139.91 110.87 106.54
R-3 Residential, one- and two-family d 148.17 144.14 140.42 136.90 131.89 128.41 134.60 123.40 116.15
R-4 Residential, care/assisted living facilities 187.63 181.26 176.01 168.60 155.33 151.11 168.69 139.15 134.82
S-1 Storage, moderate hazard 103.68 98.53 92.40 88.50 78.80 74.84 84.43 64.78 60.12
S-2 Storage, low hazard 102.68 97.53 92.40 87.50 78.80 73.84 83.43 64.78 59.12
U Utility, miscellaneous 80.38 75.90 71.16 67.61 60.99 57.00 64.60 48.23 45.92
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Page 3 of 12
BUILDING PERMIT FEES
CONSTRUCTION BUILDING PERMIT FEES: TABLE 1
Total Valuation** Residential Commercial
$1 to $500 $100 Base fee + $30 $120 Base fee + $36
$501 to $2,000
$100 Base fee + $30 for the first $500 + $3 for
each additional $100, or fraction thereof to and
including $2,000
$100 Base fee + $36 for the first $500 + $3.60 for
each additional $100, or fraction thereof to and
including $2,000
$2,001 to $25,000
$100 Base fee + $75 for the first $2,001 + $14 for
each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to and
including $25,000
$100 Base fee + $90 for the first $2,001 + $16.80
for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to
and including $25,000
$25,001 to
$50,000
$100 Base fee + $400 for the first $25,001 + $10
for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to
and including $50,000
$100 Base fee + $480 for the first $25,001 + $12
for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to
and including $50,000
$50,001 to
$100,000
$100 Base fee + $650 for the first $50,001 + $7
for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to
and including $100,000
$100 Base fee + $780 for the first $50,001 + $8.40
for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to
and including $100,000
$100,001 to
$500,000
$100 Base fee + $1,000 for the first $100,001 +
$6 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof
to and including $500,000
$100 Base fee + $1,200 for the first $100,001 +
$7.20 for each additional $1,000, or fraction
thereof to and including $500,000
$500,001 to
$1,000,000
$100 Base fee + $3,400 for the first $500,001 +
$5 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof
to and including $1,000,000
$100 Base fee + $4,080 for the first $500,001 + $6
for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to
and including $1,000,000
$1,000,001 and
up
$100 Base fee + $5,900 for the first $1,000,000 +
$4 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof
$100 Base fee + $7,080 for the first $1,000,000 +
$4.80 for each additional $1,000, or fraction
thereof
The determination of value or valuation shall be based on the Building Valuation Data, published in January of each year in the
Building Safety Journal published by the International Code Council, on file with the City Building Official. **See Valuation
Table located on previous page.
TABLE 1 - VALUATION BASED APPLICABLE PERMITS:
Commercial Structures: New, Additions & Remodels Garages & Carports
Residential Structures: New, Additions & Remodels Swimming Pools (In-Ground)
Accessory Structures (Greenhouse/Shed) Cell Communications/ Cellular Facilities
Deck, Stairs, Ramps Other permits types as determined
Commercial: Hot/Tub and Spas, Solar/ Photovoltaic Systems, Re-roofs & Tenant Improvements
Plus: $6.50 Residential State Surcharge Fee per permit and $2 per each dwelling unit
$25.00 Commercial State Surcharge Fee per permit and $2 per each dwelling unit
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Page 4 of 12
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PERMIT FEES
Building / Planning / Engineering
City Technology Fee for each permit issuance ......................................................................................... $35.00
Credit Card Transaction Fee ............................................................................................................................. 3%
Recording Fee (for recording documents with County) ............................................. Recording Cost + $100.00
Development Review Committee Meeting .................................................................................................... $0
Pre-Application Meeting ...................................................................................................................... $1,000.00
(50% applied toward future plan check fee for that specific project only)
Residential State Building Code Surcharge Fee ........................................................................................ $6.50
...................................................................................................................... Each additional dwelling unit $2.00
Commercial State Building Code Surcharge Fee ..................................................................................... $25.00
...................................................................................................................... Each additional dwelling unit $2.00
(not applicable to all permits such as plumbing, mechanical, re-roof)
PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION FEES:
Plan review is calculated at 85% of the building permit fee and includes up to 3 reviews per division/
department. After the 3rd review is complete on a permit application, additional reviews are charged per
reviewing division/ department. ....................................................................................... $100.00/hr (1 hr min.)
Commercial/ Multi-family: Plan review fee includes Building, Planning & Engineering reviews.
Residential: Plan review fee includes Building & Planning reviews.
Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans.
Per reviewing department/division ............................................................................ $100.00/hr (1 hr min.)
Additional plan review for re-submittal after the 3rd review ............................................................ $100.00/hr
Structural Review Fee Consultant Fees ............................................................................................ $100.00/hr
Development Project Peer Review ..................................................................................................... $100.00/hr
+ cost of consultant review fee charged for outside consultant peer review services when City staff lacks
the expertise to review a specific project or aspect of a project.
General Building Inspection Fee ......................................................................................................... $100.00/ea
Re-Inspection Fee ................................................................................................................................ $100.00/ea
SIGNS:
Sign (Per sign excluding specific sign categories listed below) ................................................................ $150.00
Blade Sign (Includes all blade signs in proposal) ............................................................................................... $0
Pedestrian Sign (Includes all pedestrian signs in proposal) ....................................................................... $75.00
Pole Sign ..................................................................................................................................................... $750.00
Planning ADB Design Review (For consideration of departure from sign standard, per code) .............. $880.00
Planning Review Fee for General Signs ............................................................................................................. $0
ESLHA DESIGNATED PROPERTIES:
Additional fees associated with development in the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area
ESLHA Administrative Fee .................................................................................................................... $2,385.00
ESLHA Consultant Review ...................................................................... Full cost of review is paid by applicant.
Deposit at Application for Peer Completeness Review ..................................................................... $500.00
Deposit at Full Application .............................................................................................................. $2,500.00
Deposit at Re-submittal if additional Peer Review is needed ....................................................... $1,500.00
ESLHA Minor Project Administrative Processing Fee .............................................................................$300.00
ESLHA Submittal Packet ............................................................................................................................. $15.00
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Page 5 of 12
MECHANICAL PERMITS:
BASE PERMIT FEE: ...................................................................................................................................... $40.00
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE:
For the installation or relocation of each:
FURNACE - Forced-air or gravity-type, including ducts and appliance vents:
Up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3kW) .................................................................................... $20.00
Over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3kW) ............................................................................................................. $30.00
AIR HANDLER - Including ducts (Diffusers, blowers, etc.)
Up to and including 10,000 cfm (4719 L/s) ........................................................................................ $20.00
Over 10,000 cfm (4719 L/s) including ducts ...................................................................................... $30.00
HEATER - Suspended, recessed wall or floor-mounted unit ................................................................... $25.00
HYDRONIC HEATING SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. $135.00
APPLIANCE VENT - (Type B, BW, L gas vent, etc.) .................................................................................... $10.00
EVAPORATIVE COOLER - (Other than portable) ....................................................................................... $15.00
INCINERATOR
Domestic .............................................................................................................................................. $20.00
Commercial or Industrial ..................................................................................................................... $50.00
VENTILATION AND EXHAUST
Fan connected to single duct (Bath, laundry, kitchen exhaust, etc.) ................................................ $10.00
Each system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system .............................. $10.00
HOOD - Type 1,Type 2, Fume Hood including ducts .............................................................................. $100.00
For the repair, alteration or addition to each:
Heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating,
cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls ......................... $15.00
GAS PIPING: (New or relocated)
Gas-Piping systems of 1 to 5 outlets ........................................................................................................ $24.00
Each additional outlet over 5 ...................................................................................................................... $2.00
BOILER OR COMPRESSOR
Up to and including 3 horsepower (10.6 kW) .......................................................................................... $20.00
Over 3 HP (10.6 kW) up to and including 15 HP (52.7 kW) ..................................................................... $30.00
Over 15 HP (52.7 kW) up to and including 30 HP (105.5 kW) ................................................................. $40.00
Over 30 HP (105.5 kW) up to and including 50 HP (176 KW) ................................................................. $60.00
Over 50 HP (176 kW) ................................................................................................................................. $95.00
ABSORPTION SYSTEM, AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM OR HEAT PUMP
Up to and including 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) ......................................................................................... $20.00
Over 100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kW) up to and including 500,000 Btu/h (146.6 kW) .................................... $30.00
Over 500,000 Btu/h (146.6 kW) up to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) ............................... $40.00
Over 1,000,000 Btu/h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW) ................................. $60.00
Over 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW) ............................................................................................................ $95.00
OTHER FEES:
Re-inspection ........................................................................................................................................... $100.00
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated ............................................................................ $100.00
Plan review fee for both initial and subsequent revisions (1hr/Min) ............................................$100.00/hr
Each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the IMC for which no other
fee is listed (Fire dampers, ductless mini- split systems, etc.) ............................................................ $20.00
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Page 6 of 12
PLUMBING PERMITS:
BASE PERMIT FEE: ..................................................................................................................................... $40.00
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE:
For the installation, alteration, repair, addition or relocation of each: ......................................................... $12.00
Plumbing fixture (on one trap or a set of fixtures on one trap)
Drain w/in footprint of building (rainwater systems, roof deck drains, etc.)
Water Heater (includes expansion tank)
Re-pipe - Drain, vent or water piping (each fixture served)
For the installation, alteration, repair, addition or relocation of each:
Water treating equipment (water softener) ............................................................................................. $30.00
Backflow protective device - 2" and smaller ............................................................................................ $30.00
Backflow protective device - Over 2" ....................................................................................................... $40.00
Graywater system or reclaimed water system (in addition to fixture fee) ............................................. $60.00
Non-grease waste pre-treatment interceptor (oil/water separator, etc.) ...........................................$100.00
Medical gas piping system serving 1 to 5 inlet/outlet(s) for a specific gas ..........................................$100.00
Each additional medical gas inlet/outlet ............................................................................................... $12.00
Grease Trap ..............................................................................................................................................$200.00
Grease Interceptor (Inside Building) ........................................................................................................$700.00
Water Service Line ...................................................................................................................................$112.00
OTHER FEES:
Re-inspection ............................................................................................................................................$100.00
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated .............................................................................$100.00
Plan review fee for both initial and subsequent revisions (1hr min) ............................................... $100.00/hr
IMPACT FEES
PARK IMPACT FEES:
Single-Family .......................................................................................................... $2,734.05 per Dwelling Unit
Multi-Family ........................................................................................................... $2,340.16 per Dwelling Unit
Non-Residential Development ........................................................................................ $1.34 per square foot
Residential Administrative Fee .................................................................................................................. $50.00
Commercial Administrative Fee .............................................................................................................. $100.00
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES:
Refer to City Code & Handouts to calculate impact fee. The following applies in addition to impact fee:
Residential Administrative Fee .................................................................................................................. $50.00
Commercial Administrative Fee .............................................................................................................. $100.00
Independent Calculation Review Fee ..................................................................................................... $240.00 +
Plus Transportation Engineer Review Fee of Independent Fee Calculation when adopted fee categories
do not apply.
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Page 7 of 12
FIRE
FIRE SPRINKLER PERMITS:
Residential IRC Structures
New Residential Fire Suppression Systems (fee includes plan review) ................................................ $300.00
Residential Fire Suppression System Alteration (fee includes plan review) .........................................$200.00
Commercial & Multi-Family Fire Suppression Systems
New systems ........................................................................................................................... $300.00 + TABLE 1
Modifications:
1 to 5 sprinklers ........................................................................................................................................$200.00
6 to 25 .................................................................................................................................... $100.00 + TABLE 1
26 or more .............................................................................................................................. $150.00 + TABLE 1
Additional inspections/plan review as required ............................................................................... $100.00/hr
FIRE ALARM PERMITS:
New fire alarm system .......................................................................................................... $300.00 + TABLE 1
Distributed Antenna Radio System (DAS) ............................................................................ $100.00 + TABLE 1
Modifications:
1 to 5 initiating devices .......................................................................................................................... $225.00
6 to 25 .................................................................................................................................... $100.00 + TABLE 1
26 or more .............................................................................................................................. $150.00 + TABLE 1
Additional inspections/plan review as required ............................................................................... $100.00/hr
TANK PERMITS:
Underground fill or remove 600 gallons or less ....................................................................................$100.00
Underground fill or remove 601 gallons or more ..................................................................................$300.00
Underground install 600 gallons or less .................................................................................................$150.00
Underground install 601 gallons or more ..............................................................................................$300.00
OTHER FIRE PERMITS:
Fire Suppression Systems (including cooking systems, hoods and standpipes) ...................................$315.00
Fire Connection ........................................................................................................................................$500.00
Fire Operational ......................................................................................................................................... $60.00
Firework Display ........................................................................................................................................ $30.00
Fire Inspection Fee ............................................................................................................................ $100.00/hr
Fire Plan Review Fee ......................................................................................................................... $100.00/hr
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Page 8 of 12
MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT FEES:
Accessory Dwelling Unit Compliance (ADU) ............................................................................................. $405.00
Adult Family Home ..................................................................................................................................... $500.00
Appeal of Building Official Interpretation ................................................................................................. $810.00
Change of Use............................................................................................................................................. $510.00
Demolition (Primary Structure) ................................................................................................................. $300.00
Demolition (Secondary Structure) ............................................................................................................. $150.00
Dock/Marina/Floats ................................................................................................................. $200.00 + TABLE 1
Fence ............................................................................................................................................................. $60.00
Hot Tub/Spa (Single-Family) ...................................................................................................................... $200.00
Manufactured Coach Installation - Commercial (Federal HUD Label) .................................................... $500.00
Manufactured Home Installation (Federal HUD Label) ............................................................................ $550.00
Parking Lot ................................................................................................................................ $200.00 + TABLE 1
Relocate a Building ..................................................................................... $500.00 + $100.00/hr outside of City
Re-roof (Commercial) ...................................................Valuation based on square footage & fee from TABLE 1
Re-roof (Residential - includes sheathing) ................................................................................................ $100.00
Retaining Wall (Commercial) ............................................................................................ $675.00 + Peer Review
Retaining Wall (Residential) .............................................................................................. $265.00 + Peer Review
Solar/Photovoltaic (Residential) ................................................................................................................ $120.00
Solar/Photovoltaic (Commercial) - Valuation does not include cost of solar panels or inverters ......... TABLE 1
Swimming Pool (Pre-manufactured, above ground) ................................................................................ $120.00
Swimming Pool (In-Ground) ....................................................................................................................... TABLE 1
Violation Compliance Fee ................................................................................... $240.00 or up to 5x Permit Fee
Window Replacement (Residential) .......................................................................................................... $150.00
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Page 9 of 12
GRADING PERMIT FEES
PLAN REVIEW:
CUBIC YARDS PLAN REVIEW FEE
50 cubic yards or less
(when located in a designated critical area) $30.00
51 to 100 cubic yards $60.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards $120.00
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $240.00
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $240.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $100.00 for
each additional 10,000 yards or fraction thereof.
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards $1,140.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $100.00
for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
200,001 cubic yards or more $2,040.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards, plus $100.00
for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
Other Fees: Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans….$100.00/hr (1hr
min.)
PERMIT FEE:
CUBIC YARDS PERMIT FEE
Base Permit Fee $30.00
50 cubic yards or less
(when located in a designated critical area) $60.00
51 to 100 cubic yards $60.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards $120.00 for the first 100 cubic yards, plus $20.00 for each
additional 100 cubic yards, or fraction thereof.
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $300.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus $40.00 for each
additional 1,000 cubic yards, or fraction thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $660.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $60.00 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
100,001 cubic yards or more $1,200.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $90.00 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
Other Inspections & Fees:
Inspections outside of normal business hours ........................................................................... $100.00/hr (1hr min.)
Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of UBC Section 108.8 ....................................... $100.00/hr (1hr min.)
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated ................................................................ $100.00/hr (1hr min.)
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Page 10 of 12
PLANNING FEES
GENERAL:
Type I (Staff decisions, no notice) .............................................................................................................. $250.00
Type II A or B (Staff decisions with notice) ................................................................................................ $880.00
Type IIIA (Hearing Examiner) ........................................................................ Hearing Examiner Cost + $1,820.00
Type IIIA (Outdoor dining, amateur radio)................................................................................................ $250.00
Type IIIB (ADB / Hearing Examiner) ............................................................. Hearing Examiner Cost + $1,820.00
Type IVA (Subdivision/ PRD final approval) ........................................................................................... $3,720.00
Type IVB (Rezone) ................................................................................................................................... $6,350.00
Type V (Plan & Edmonds Community Development Code Amendments) ............................................ $6,350.00
Lot Line Adjustment ................................................................................................................................... $950.00
Short Subdivision Preliminary Approval ................................................................................................. $2,930.00
Short Subdivision Final Approval ............................................................................................................ $1,440.00
Subdivision Preliminary Approval ................................................................. Hearing Examiner Cost + $5,920.00
Subdivision Final Approval ..................................................................................................................... $3,720.00
Modification Request................................................................................................................................. $880.00
Minor Change to Approved Plat ........................................................................................................... $100.00/hr
Major Change to Approved Plat ....................................................................... Same as Original Application Fee
PRD Preliminary Approval ....................................................................................................................... $5,920.00
PRD Final Approval .................................................................................................................................. $3,720.00
ADB Design Review – Signs ........................................................................................................................ $880.00
Staff Design Review if project exceeds SEPA threshold ........................................................................... $880.00
Landscape Plan Inspection Fee ..................................................................................................... 1% of Estimate
SEPA Review ............................................................................................................................................... $670.00
EIS Review......................................................................................................................................................... Cost
Critical Areas Checklist Application ........................................................................................................... $100.00
Critical Areas Checklist Update ................................................................................................................... $50.00
Critical Areas Variance / Reasonable Use Application ................................ Hearing Examiner Cost + $6,945.00
Critical Areas Study Admin ..................................................................................................... $100/hr (min. 1 hr)
Critical Areas Contingent Review (See ECDC 23.40.195 for more detail on fees) .................................. $880.00
Planning Fee not categorized ............................................................................................................... $100.00/hr
Recording Fee (for recording documents with County) ..............................................Recording Cost + $100.00
Request for Reconsideration ..................................................................................................................... $250.00
Note: When an application is heard by the Hearing Examiner (HE), the cost of the hearing is billed to the applicant.
APPEALS:
Appeal of Staff Decision (Type I, II or Hearing Examiner) ........................................................................ $400.00
Appeal of Type IIIB Decision to City Council ............................................................................................. $500.00
Appeal of Notice of Civil Violation ............................................................................................................. $880.00
ADB = Architectural Design Board EIS = Environmental Impact Statement
HE = Hearing Examiner PRD = Planned Residential Development
SEPA = State Environmental Policy Act
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Page 11 of 12
ENGINEERING FEES
MISCELLANEOUS FEES:
Backflow Prevention Compliance Fee ..............................$125.00
Developers Agreements ...................................................$300.00 + $100.00/hr Staff time + City Attorney Fees
Development Project Peer Review .................................. $300.00 + Cost of Peer Review
Fire/ Aid Sign Address Fabrication Fee .............................. $75.00
Private Drive Sign Fabrication Fee....................................$175.00
Water and Sewer Availability Letters ........................... $60.00/ea
Latecomers Agreement ....................................................$300.00 + $100.00/hr + City Attorney Fees
LID Sewer Fees (Outside of LID Map) .............................. $300.00 + $100.00/hr + City Attorney Fees
GENERAL FACILITY CHARGES:
Water GFC’s are based on meter size:
Water and sewer GFC’s shall be paid by each new customer connecting to the utility systems.
Storm GFC’s shall be paid by the applicant for ESU’s added or created by development.
Meter Size General Facility Charge
¾” $5,050.00
1” $12,624.00
11/2 “ $25,248.00
2” $40,397.00
GFC’s for Single Family Residences only: Fee is based on meter size required for domestic demand (typically
¾”). GFC shall not be based on meter upsizing for fire sprinkler system.
Sewer Utility GFC ............................................................. $4,417.00 per ERU
A single family residential development = 1.0 ERU per dwelling unit
A multifamily residential development = .67 ERU per dwelling unit
Applicants for non-residential development shall pay a GFC equal to the ERU determination that is made
by the Public Works Director.
Stormwater Management GFC ......................................... $799.00 per ESU
A single family residential development with up to $5,000 sf impervious surface are = 1.0 ESU
All other construction calculated according to a ratio of 1.0 ESU per 3,000 sq ft of new, replaced or new
plus replaced impervious surface area.
RIGHT-OF-WAY FEES:
Right-of-Way Construction Permit ................................... $300.00 + Inspection Fees
Right-of Way Minor Construction Permit ....................... $100.00 + Inspection Fees
Street Restoration for Water Meter Installation ......... $1,000.00 + Street Cut Penalty Fee if applicable
(Excluding Private Development Projects)
Street Cut Penalty Fee .....................................................$200.00 + ROW Permit Fee
+ Add’l per SQYD charge times overlay cut multiplier
Encroachment Permit ...................................................... $300.00 + Recording Fees
Street Use Permit ..............................................................$100.00 + Bistro Dining Fees if applicable
Bistro Dining Fees ............................................................... $30.00 Annual Fee + Monthly ROW Use Fee
@ $0.50/ SQ FT x 12.84% (leasehold tax)
Alley, Sidewalk, Street Disruption/ Closure Fees .............$200.00 + ROW Permit + Monthly Closure Fees
Closure fees charged for any activity that occupies or closes, sidewalks, parking spaces(s), parking lanes(s) or
other paved area of a street/road for more than 72 hours. Monthly portion of Fee [$ per month] = 1% of
assessed value per square foot of abutting property x right of way area [SF] disrupted/closed. If
disruption/closure affects any portion of the area of a parking space, the area of disruption closure is
calculated based upon the area of a full parking space.
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
Page 12 of 12
SEWER FEES:
New Commercial & Multi-Family .....................................$200.00 + Inspection Fees
New Single Family .............................................................$100.00 + Inspection Fees
Repair Only (Res, Com & Multi) ........................................$100.00 + Inspection Fees
Sewer Discharge Permit (Pool/ Hot tub) ............................ $50.00
Special Conditions (Grinder Pumps, Ejectors) ..................$200.00 + Side Sewer Fee + Utility Engineer Review
Drainage Permit (Pool, Hot Tub, Jacuzzi) ........................... $50.00
STORMWATER FEES:
Stormwater Permit ...........................................................$300.00 + Engineering Inspection Fees
*Refer also to General Facility Charges
WATER METER FEES:
Meter Size Meter Fee General Facility Charge
Installation of New Service & Meter 3/4” $2,920.00 $5,050.00
1” $2,970.00 $12,624.00
1½” $6,220.00 $25,248.00
2” $6,390.00 $40,397.00
*Refer also to General Facility Charges
SUBDIVISION FEES:
Civil Construction Plan Review
Short Subdivision (4 or less lots) ................................. $2,785.00 + Engineering Inspection Fees
Subdivision (5 or more lots) ........................................ $4,265.00 + Engineering Inspection Fees
GENERAL INSPECTION & REVIEW FEES:
Engineering Inspection Fee .......................................... $100.00/ea
Applies to Single Family, Existing Commercial / Multi-Family & Right of Way Permits
Engineering Inspection Fee .................................................... 3.3% of Value of Improvements
Applies to Civil Site Improvements, such as Subdivisions, Commercial & Multi-Family Permits
Engineering Inspection Fees are charged for each on-site inspection not specifically covered or included
in a separate permit or inspection fee. Fee is charged per inspection and is in addition to the applicable
Building Permit or other permit fees.
Re-Inspection Fee ......................................................... $100.00/ea
Plan Review/ Revision Fee ............................................. $100.00/hr
Utility Engineer Review Fee .......................................... $120.00/hr
Transportation Engineer Review Fee............................ $120.00/hr
Stormwater Engineer Review Fee ................................. $120.00/hr
GFC = General Facility Charge ESU = Equivalent Service Unit
ROW = Right of Way ERU = Equivalent Residential Unit
Refer also to General
Facility Charges
6.10.c
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Exhibit 3: 2018 Fee Resolution and Schedule (Development Services Fee Adjustments)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Stantec Consulting
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On June 17, 2014, Council Authorized the Mayor to sign the contract to hire Stantec to provide design
services for the 2015 Waterline Replacement Project.
On May 26, 2015, Council Awarded a construction contract to D & G backhoe for construction of the
2015 Waterline Replacement Project.
On October 18, 2016, Council gave Final Acceptance of the 2015 Waterline Replacement Project.
On October 17, 2017, Council approved Utility Easements for Swedish Edmonds Campus.
On June 12, 2018, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was forward
to the June 19th consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign the supplemental agreement.
Narrative
As part of the original 2015 design contract, two of the sites possibly included work that would require
easement acquisitions for those project sites to be constructed. As the design was being developed and
coordination with the respective property owners progressed, in late 2014, it was determined that the
City only needed to get easements for work that was going to be done within the Swedish Edmonds
Hospital Campus. During this coordination, the City was also discussing with Swedish their plans to add
a parking structure and the hospital addition, which are now completed.
During the coordination in late 2014, it was determined that the City’s project would have shut down
the only remaining access that was available to the hospital campus during their expansion work. With
this determination, Swedish requested and the City agreed to not proceed with design and construction
of the project until the Swedish Campus improvements were complete.
With the Hospital Campus project wrapping up in late 2016, the City began anew the discussions in
regard to the easements and the waterline replacement work. During the discussions in early 2017
Swedish confirmed the City’s suspicions that the original hospital tower only had one source of water
and that the water replacement work would need to shut that main down for a number of days. This
meant that Swedish needed to do some plumbing improvements within the existing building so that it
had a second source of potable water in case the supply pipe that the City was replacing was ever
6.11
Packet Pg. 173
compromised. Swedish is currently working on the design to provide an emergency backup and expects
it to be in place early 2019.
Later in 2017, the City received record drawings of the hospital campus utility system from Swedish. It
was determined that the waterline replacement work would seriously affect access to the Hospital
Campus’ main loading dock for about four weeks of time. This in turn would negatively affect a lot of
the hospitals inner workings. In addition, the waterline replacement work would need to go under the
hospital’s existing underground utility tunnel which links the Physical Plant building with the Hospital
tower, because the existing watermain was located under the tunnel.
This would require two large excavation pits on either end of this tunnel for jacking and boring of casing
pipe, installation of the watermain, and monitoring of the structure during construction for possible
damage/settlement. The casing would be needed so that any future maintenance/replacement of the
watermain at this location could be done by sliding the watermain out of the casing and sliding a new
main back in, instead of having to jack and bore another pipe back in. The work needed though would
also shut down, by at least a month, the north access road onto the hospital campus and possibly affect
the loading dock that already was going to be encumbered for about four weeks.
With all these issues in mind, the City’s engineering staff reassessed the existing replacement pipe
alignment to see if there were any ways to change the alignment and help decrease the number of
construction impacts that the project would produce, while at the same time meeting the needs of
Swedish and the City. After reviewing all available data and acquiring some additional record drawings
from Swedish, the City was able to verify that if the new main were rerouted so that it ran near the
campus’ north property line, it would cut down the time that we would be compromising access to the
loading dock by at least half and decrease the amount of time that the north access road be shut down
to about a week.
The new alignment would also have the added benefit of decreasing: overall project risks, overall
construction time by two to three weeks, overall construction costs by $250,000, and the overall depth
of the replaced watermain. This is mainly because the pits, monitoring of the structure and the pipe
jacking needed to go under the Campus’ tunnel can be completely avoided. This information was
coordinated with senior hospital facilities staff, since it would be a change over the existing alignment
and would require additional easements through the hospital campus. After review by Swedish senior
facilities staff, they approved the concept and have agreed to give the City any utility easements needed
to make this new alignment work.
With this new information the City contacted Stantec to provide a scope and fee to cover the additional
work needed to complete this design. The City has negotiated a supplemental consultant fee of $75,434
to complete the design services for the Swedish Edmonds Site. The key tasks within the scope of work
include survey, design and preparation of construction specifications. This contract will be funded by the
Water Utility Fund (Fund 421).
Attachments:
Stantec Supplemental Agreement
6.11
Packet Pg. 174
Original Contract No.
Supplemental Agreement 1 No.
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH · EDMONDS, WA 98020 · 425-771-0220 · FAX 425-672-5750 Website: www.edmondswa.gov
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division
DAVE EARLING
MAYOR
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT 2015 Waterline Replacement Project
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”, entered into an
underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project
known as 2015 Waterline Replacement Project, dated June 24, 2014; and
WHEREAS, additional tasks to the original Scope of Work have been identified
with regard to the 2018 Swedish Hospital Water System Replacement; NOW,
THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties
thereto as follows:
1. The underlying Agreement of June 24, 2014 between the parties, incorporated by
this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects:
1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement
shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the
stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if
herein set forth.
1.2 The $384,399 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement
and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional
not to exceed amount of $75,434.38 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to
this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract
amount is increased to a new total not-to-exceed amount of $459,833.38 ($384,399 plus
$75,434.38).
1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost
reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached
Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
\\edmsvr-deptfs\Engineering\Staff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E4JB.2015 Waterline\Stantec.Supp 1.doc
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.
DONE this day of , 20 .
CITY OF EDMONDS STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES
By: By: Mayor David O. Earling Title:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
________________________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
\\edmsvr-deptfs\Engineering\Staff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E4JB.2015 Waterline\Stantec.Supp 1.doc
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20____, before me, the under-signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally
appeared , to me known to be the of
the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
City of Edmonds Exhibit A 2018 Swedish Hospital Water System Replacement Scope of Services
Consulting Services Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES City of Edmonds
2018 Swedish Hospital Water System Replacement Project Consulting Services
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Design for replacement of Swedish Hospital water, fire, and irrigation services and north-end water main replacement began as part of the Edmonds 2015 Waterline Replacement project,
but was stopped after it was determined that the hospital would not be able to physically support
the work without plumbing changes and/or provision of a second water supply source. Recent meetings between the City and Swedish Hospital have resulted in a new design concept that
will re-route the water main further north on the property and will also move the water service,
fire service, and irrigation service connections further north. The proposed north-end alignment is outside the extents of the original topographic survey and design base drawings. The
purpose of this supplement to the original contract is to revise and complete the design for the water main replacement on 76th Avenue W and within the northend of Swedish Hospital private property, including the associated water, fire, and irrigation services based on the new north-
end alignment.
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) will provide professional engineering design services, topographic survey, and technical support services, for replacing existing 8-inch
diameter water mains on 76th Avenue W., along the site frontage, and on the north end of the Swedish Hospital private property (approximately 360 LF and 780 LF respectively).
Additionally, an existing buried vault containing both a 6-inch meter service, for hospital potable
water supply, and a double check detector assembly (DCDA), for an 8-inch hospital fire service, will be replaced with a new 6-inch meter assembly and an 8-inch DCDA assembly in separate
buried vaults. An existing irrigation meter will be replaced with a new 3-inch meter assembly in
a buried vault. Design also includes fire hydrants, valves, other appurtenances and surface restoration, and asphalt patching (excluding asphalt overlay).
Stantec will provide construction drawings, specifications, opinion of probable construction
costs, permit exhibits, review of contractor material submittals, and will draft record drawings upon conclusion of construction.
Technical specifications will be developed by modifiying the “City Water Construction Standard
Specifications” that were developed as part of the 2015 Waterline Replacement project contract.
The water system within the Swedish Hospital site will be constructed outside existing easement
boundaries, therefore, Stantec will develop easement exhibits for use by the City in obtaining a new recorded water easement.
Stantec will attend design and coordination meetings with the City and Swedish Hospital. It is
unknown how many such meetings will be necessary; therefore, a separate task has been established for participation at up to six (6) such meetings.
Swedish Hospital representatives have conceptually approved the idea of relocating the
replacement water main to the north-end of the Swedish Hospital site and to also relocate the water meter and DCDA vualts to the north. A 30% conceptual design will be developed and
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
City of Edmonds Exhibit A 2018 Swedish Hospital Water System Replacement Scope of Services
Consulting Services Page 2 of 9
submitted for City and Swedish Hospital review and acceptance. If the hospital rejects the concept and requests design at or near the current locations, then this contract will be renegotiated to provide design services based on the alternative design scenario.
Stantec’s subcontractor Applied Professional Services, Inc. (APS) will perform utility potholing
as required to determine depth of utilites. Potholing may also be required to determine the depth of the concrete retaining wall between the drive aisle and parking lot. Pothholing is a
contingent item of work requiring City pre-authorization.
SCHEDULE
Stantec will proceed upon receipt of notice to proceed. Bid date is dependent on initiatives
completed by Swedish Hospital that are beyond the control of the City or of Stantec, but it is assumed that design services for this project will be completed during calendar year 2018, with
construction taking place in 2019.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
This Scope of Services generally consists of 2) Project Management, 3) Meetings,
4) Topographic Survey, 5) Engineering Design and Bid Support Services, 6) Easement Exhibit
Preparation, 7) Construction Technical Support and Record Drawings, and 8) Potholing Buried Utilities.
1) NOT USED
2) PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Services:
• Manage all tasks, staff and sub consultants for design and construction phase services and provide general project administration.
• Develop project plan for the design and construction phase services.
• Monitor progress against projected scope and budget and administer monthly
invoicing to the City.
• Communicate with City staff regarding the project progress, and issues of concern,
project requirements, and periodic reviews.
• Develop memorandum
Assumptions:
• Written status reports not required.
• Stantec will employ the services of Applied Professional Services, Inc. (APS) for locating gas and conductive utilities (power, cable, etc).
Deliverables:
• Project Schedule
• Monthly invoices with work summary memorandums for billing periods.
• Correspondence as required.
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
City of Edmonds Exhibit A 2018 Swedish Hospital Water System Replacement Scope of Services
Consulting Services Page 3 of 9
3) MEETINGS
Services:
• Participate at up to six (6) meetings on-site or at Edmonds City Hall, including travel.
• Perform pre-meeting preparation, as required.
• Perform post-meeting communications, including development of meeting summary,
or assignments.
Assumptions:
Additional meetings, if required by the City, will be paid for under the Management Reserve.
4) TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Services:
• Perform field topographic survey, within Swedish Hospital private property, for
approximately 800 LF of water main installation, approximately 260 LF of new water
and fire service lines, including new meter/DCDA installations, to locate and show existing surface conditions and approximate locations of buried utilities within project
limits, using electronic surveying equipment and one or two-person crew.
• Request and review available franchise utility companies’ record drawings
information including underground power, gas, telephone, fiber optic, and other
known utilities, and incorporate into the base drawings.
• Review records provided by Swedish Hospital for locations of under drains and
private drains and side sewers and incorporate into design base drawings as applicable.
• Provide underground utility locates (through services of a subcontractor to the Consultant) for franchise utilities to field mark approximate horizontal locations of
existing buried utilities, excluding water main and services, side sewers, under drains and private drains. Services will include the following: o Preliminary research and review of available City, Swedish Hospital, and utility
companies’ record drawings to confirm approximate locations. o Provide utility paint marks of existing known utilities prior to field survey.
• Reduce field data and prepare survey base drawings for design. Base drawings will typically be established using 1 inch = 20 feet drawing scale and will include two-foot contour intervals.
• Horizontal and vertical control will be compatible with NAD 83 Horizontal datum and NAVD 88 Vertical Datum. GPS surveying methodology will be employed where
practical and feasible.
• Property and rights-of-way boundaries will be as shown on available City or County
GIS. Property addresses and/or parcel numbers will be shown for each parcel
adjacent to the work.
Assumptions:
• Utility locates performed for design purposes are not exact locations and may be
incomplete. Construction contractor should rely on utility locates performed by representatives of the utility purveyor, made in response to Utility Notification Center (one-call) process and on potholing at time of construction. The utility locates
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
City of Edmonds Exhibit A 2018 Swedish Hospital Water System Replacement Scope of Services
Consulting Services Page 4 of 9
performed by the City, Stantec, and Stantec’s utility locates subcontractor (APS) will be suitable for design purposes and will not be confirmed by potholing during design. If required, selective utility potholing would be performed under the contingent item of
work 8, Potholing Buried Utilities.
• Construction contractor will be required to pothole all utility crossings at least 200
feet in advance of the work and assumed depths of new water system improvements
shown on the profile drawings may have to be adjusted in the field to provide sufficient vertical clearance.
• The survey base drawing created for 76th Avenue W, for the 2015 Waterline Replacement project will be reused in its entirety for this project. No additional field
survey will be performed within the 76th Avenue W right-of-way.
• Utility records for utilities within private property can be less accurate and less
complete than utility records for utilities within public rights-of-way. Stantec and APS
do not guarantee or warrantee that all buried utilities are located and shown on the design or construction drawings.
City Responsibilities:
• City will locate and field-mark water mains and water services locations prior to topographic survey.
• City will provide copies of available construction record drawings for previous utilities
installations within project limits.
Deliverables:
• Electronic copies of each survey base map, bound as an x-ref with associated design drawing in AutoCAD Civil 3D 2014 format, at final design delivery.
5) ENGINEERING DESIGN AND BID SUPPORT SERVICES
Services
A. 30% Design Drawings
• Review available water, sewer and storm utility construction record drawings and GIS base maps, incorporate pertinent utility, parcel, right-of-way line and address
information into the base drawings.
• Conduct site visits to verify locations of existing features and conditions as they
relate to the design.
• Prepare preliminary plan-view only design drawings showing base drawing
information (existing topographic survey, utility, and parcel/right-of-way line
information), and proposed alignment of new water mains.
B. 60% Design Documents
• Communicate with City staff to discuss City’s 30% review comments.
• Obtain and incorporate the City’s current Standard Details and Specifications into the
design drawings and contract documents.
• Additional site visit(s), as required, to verify locations of existing features and
conditions as they relate to the design.
• Prepare plan and profile view design drawings showing base drawing information
(existing topographic survey, utility, and parcel/right-of-way line information), proposed alignment of water mains, proposed locations of gate valves, hydrants and
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
City of Edmonds Exhibit A 2018 Swedish Hospital Water System Replacement Scope of Services
Consulting Services Page 5 of 9
services, existing water mains to be abandoned or removed, and limits of pavement restoration requirements, where required. Profile view drawings will show an assumed depth (cover over utility) of 3 feet for gas and conductible utilities (power,
cable, etc) and the existing water system. Potholing to determine actual depth of
utilities, if authorized by the City, will be paid as Potholing Buried Utilities.
• Prepare draft Contract Documents including incorporating City’s standard boilerplate
advertisement for bid, bid proposal, contract, special provisions, and Division 1 General Requirements sections; and modify new technical specifications that were
developed as part of the 2015 Water Main Replacement project contract.
• Prepare Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) showing bid items,
quantities, unit costs, and total probable costs for construction of proposed improvements.
• Conduct in-house quality assurance (QA) review.
C. 90% Design
• Meet with City staff to discuss City’s 60% review comments.
• Incorporate City’s 60% design review comments into drawings, Contract Documents
and OPCC. Expand OPCC to show actual counts of each type of water main fitting.
• Provide final detail on drawings; such as, call-outs for connections to existing
system, fittings, valves, hydrants, services, and water meters; complete project-
specific details and notes, including ones pertaining to trench patch pavement restoration; and standard construction and TESC notes.
• Conduct in-house quality assurance (QA) review.
• Communicate with City staff to discuss City’s review comments.
D. Final Contract Documents
• Finalize drawings and Contract Documents for bidding by incorporating City’s 90
Percent Design review comments.
• Conduct in-house quality assurance (QA) review.
E. Bidding Services
• Assist City in answering bidder questions and preparing bid addenda as needed for
distribution to prospective bidders, if necessary. Assumptions:
• Drainage for vaults can be day-lighted or gravity drained to storm drainage system or the vaults will be allowed to flood up to one-foot depth. Fee for design of power
supply for sump pumps, if required, will be separately negotiated, and paid for under Management Reserve funds.
• Asphalt overlay for street restoration will not be included in scope of design or construction work.
• Existing water system, gas, and conductible utilities (power, and cable) were installed with three feet of cover and side sewers were installed at depth of sewer main with 2% slope up to ROW boundary.
• Hospital records show depths of concrete walls and steel pipe sleeves can be installed under walls using open trenching methods.
• A single bid schedule will be developed.
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
City of Edmonds Exhibit A 2018 Swedish Hospital Water System Replacement Scope of Services
Consulting Services Page 6 of 9
• City turnaround time, for review comments, will be approximately three (3) weeks for 30% submittal, three (3) weeks for 60% submittal, two (2) weeks for 90% submittal
and one (1) week for final review submittal.
• A maximum of 1 bid addenda may be necessary.
City Responsibilities:
• City provide meeting room for City-Consultant meetings
• City will perform coordination with Swedish Hospital for site access (right of entry) and provision of record drawings and record documents.
• City will provide Stantec with electronic (Microsoft Word) standard boilerplate Contract Documents, General Information, Division 1, and Special Provisions to the
Standard Specifications.
• City will coordinate with Fire Marshal, as required, for approval of fire hydrant
locations.
• City will develop and submit all permit applications.
• City will review submittals and provide timely feedback to Consultant.
• City will administer distribution of bid/contract document sets to prospective bidders, distribute addenda as necessary, receive bids, prepare bid tabulation, review apparent low bidder references, and prepare recommendation for contract award.
• City will develop bid abstracts.
Deliverables:
A. 30% Design:
• Submit .pdf drawing file, by e-mail to City for review.
B. 60% Design:
• Submit .pdf drawing file, by e-mail, to City for review and submit pdf file of draft
specifications and OPCC to City for review.
C. 90% Design:
• Submit .pdf drawing file, by e-mail, to City for review and submit pdf file of draft specifications and OPCC to City for review.
D. Final Delivery:
• Submit electronic copy of final Plan Drawings, Contract Documents and OPCC.
o Plan drawings will be provided in pdf format and in AutoCAD Civil 3D 2014. o Contract Documents will be in pdf format and in Word format. o OPCC will be in pdf format and in Microsoft Excel format.
6) EASEMENT EXHIBIT PREPARATION
Services:
• Prepare easement exhibits for one permanent water easement, consisting of legal
description(s) and exhibits. One revision is included.
• Order title report(s), as required. Assumptions:
• City will develop easement legal document and Stantec will develop associated easement exhibits consisting of legal description and drawing.
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
City of Edmonds Exhibit A 2018 Swedish Hospital Water System Replacement Scope of Services
Consulting Services Page 7 of 9
• A maximum of one revision, to each draft easement exhibit document, will be necessary before signature or recording.
• Cost of title report(s) will not exceed $1,000.00.
City Responsibilities:
• Provide copies of all applicable water easements documents held by City.
• Negotiate with property owner and obtain easements.
• Compensate property owners, as required, for easements.
• Submit executed easement documents to County Recorder for recording and pay all recording fees for easements.
• Reimburse Stantec for purchasing title reports.
Deliverables:
• Electronic easement exhibit documents, in pdf format, suitable for recording with easement.
7) CONSTRUCTION PHASE SUPPORT AND RECORD DRAWINGS
Services:
• Participate at pre-construction meeting.
• Review contractor material submittals for conformance with project specifications
and City standards.
• Respond to up to three (3) requests for information (RFIs).
• Prepare Construction Record Drawings (CRDs) using marked up drawings from City
Inspection personnel.
• Submit draft set of CRDs to City for review.
• Finalize and submit CRDs per City’s review comments.
Assumptions:
• Contractor’s initial material submittals will be provided as a single combined submittal, but no more than 3 separate initial submittals, rather than as multiple submittals made over time.
o Only one resubmittal will be made for each initial submittal.
• Redline markups will be clear and legible and will show as-built locations of water
system improvements based on dimensions to fixed surveyed features.
City Responsibilities:
• Provide marked-up drawings of actual construction configuration, by City inspector or contractor, referenced to surveyed features shown on the drawings.
• Review and redline draft CRD’s.
Deliverables:
• Pdf file copy of draft CRD’s for City review;
• One final set of CRD’s on full-size bond paper (22”x34”) and electronic .pdf and
AutoCAD Civil 3D 2014 format files.
8) POTHOLING BURIED UTILITIES
Services:
• Provide utility potholing, for design purposes (only), as requested and authorized by
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
City of Edmonds Exhibit A 2018 Swedish Hospital Water System Replacement Scope of Services
Consulting Services Page 8 of 9
the City.
• Pothole to locate bottom of concrete retaining wall, as requested and authorized by
the City.
Assumptions:
• The $10,000 contingent allowance for potholing may be insufficient and additional
funding for potholing may be authorized by the City using the Management Reserve.
City Responsibilities:
• Authorize work scope and budget, as required.
9) MANAGEMENT RESERVE
A project contingency, for unanticipated items or services performed outside the Scope of
Services, in the amount of $10,000 is included within the City’s project budget for consultant services. This budget amount will only be used at the written direction of the City.
SERVICES NOT INCLUDED
The following services are not a part of this Agreement. If the City chooses to add one or more of the following services to this Scope of Services, then this Agreement shall be modified in
terms of an addition to the total compensation to be paid to the Consultant and an appropriate extension of time (as necessary) to the Consultant’s schedule.
1. Permit investigation and development of permit applications. 2. Coordination with City of Edmonds’s Fire Marshal regarding review and approval of
proposed improvements.
3. Hydraulic network analysis of existing and/or proposed water system to verify proposed pipe sizes.
4. Geotechnical evaluation or investigation of project site.
5. Development of design and specifications for trenchless construction methods (HDD, pipe ramming, tunneling, micro tunneling, etc).
6. Technical or engineering support for design or analysis of temporary or permanent
supply source, to hospital, during temporary shutdown to connect new water, fire and irrigation services.
7. Wetland delineation or biological studies or reports. 8. Underground utility potholing and any associated field surveying to confirm horizontal and vertical locations of existing water mains and other existing buried utilities at various
locations, except as authorized in Potholing Underground Utilities. 9. Distribute bid/contract document sets to prospective bidders, receive bids, prepare bid tabulation, review apparent low bidder references, and prepare recommendation for
contract award. 10. Easements and related work not described in this scope of services.
11. Boundary surveys, setting survey monuments, and associated documentation/filings
recordings. 12. Paying for permit fees or paying more than a total of $1,000 for title report(s).
13. Participation at public hearings or before the hearing examiner.
14. Development of traffic control plans. 15. Electrical engineering or design of power supply, including coordination with power
company, for vault sump pumps, SCADA or other electrical or control systems.
16. Structural design and analysis, including for construction shoring.
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
City of Edmonds Exhibit A 2018 Swedish Hospital Water System Replacement Scope of Services
Consulting Services Page 9 of 9
17. Development of a SWPPP for DOE Construction Stormwater General Permit. 18. Development of a DOE Construction Stormwater General Permit application. 19. Development of pre-construction meeting agenda or minutes.
20. Performance of construction observation or conducting site visits during construction.
COMPENSATION
Compensation to Stantec, and its subconsultants or subcontractors, will be made on a time and
materials (T&M) basis. Exhibit B contains a Fee Schedule, consisting of a Budget Summary for consultant services and 2018 billing rates and charges for Stantec and for its subcontractor, Applied Professional Services, Inc. (APS). Stantec’s rates for 2019 and beyond will be based
on current 2018 rates plus annual adjustment. The annual adjustment factor will equal the Seattle CPI-U increase for the preceding year. The APS rates for 2019 and beyond will equal
the APS standard rates for the new calendar year.
Estimated labor and equipment hours and reimbursable fees are based on the scope of
services and the assumptions described herein. Fees will be adjusted, as required, if project
conditions differ from the assumptions. Task-level budgets may be adjusted (plus or minus) by up to 15% without approval of the City. All other changes to task-level budgets require written
permission from the City. Stantec will complete the Design and Bid Phase services described within this Scope of
Services, based on a time and materials fee not to exceed $102,723.46. Stantec will perform the Construction Phase services described within this Scope of Services, based on a time and
materials fee not to exceed $10,968.28.
A project contingency, for potholing buried utilities, in the amount of $10,103.38 is included within the City’s project budget for consultant services. This budget amount will only be used at
the written direction of the City.
A project contingency, for unanticipated items or services performed outside the Scope of
Services, in the amount of $10,000 is included within the City’s project budget for Management Reserve. This budget amount will only be used at the written direction of the City.
The original approved contract budget for the 2015 Waterline Replacement Project was $344,399, plus a Management Reserve of $40,000.00, for a total previously approved project
budget of $384,399.00. Costs to date (though May 17, 2018) equal $326,038.26, resulting in a remaining budget of $58,360.74. This contract amendment authorizes an additional budget of $75,434.38, for a total remaining project budget of $133,795.12.
END OF EXHIBIT A
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
Principal PM/Civil Admin Senior Project Survey Survey Total Sub-
Task Indep. QC Engr CAD Spec.EIT Lead Admin Geologist Surveyor Chief Field Labor Labor Reimbursable Contractor Total
216.00/hr 169.0/hr 148/hr 169.0/hr 103.38/hr 139.00/hr 91.0/hr 169.00/hr 169.00/hr 139.00/hr 101.00/hr Hours Cost Cost *Cost**Cost
Design & Bid Phase Services
2) Project Management 4 32 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 46 7,662.00$ 7,662.00$
3) Meetings 36 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 6,422.00$ 85.00$ 6,507.00$ 4) Topographic Survey 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 3 20 16 45 5,764.76$ 300.00$ 1,750.00$ 7,814.76$
5) Engineering Design &
Bid Services 10 152 90 140 115 0 8 2 0 0 0 517 77,782.70$ 40.00$ 77,822.70$ 6) Easement Exhibit
Preparation***2 1 6 3 12 1,917.00$ 1,000.00$ 2,917.00$ Subtotals:14 223 92 144 117 10 8 2 9 23 16 658 99,548.46$ 1,425.00$ 1,750.00$ 102,723.46$
PM/Civil Admin Senior Project Survey Survey Total Sub-
Principal Engr CAD Spec.EIT Lead Admin Geologist Surveyor Field Office Labor Labor Reimbursable Contractor Total
216.00/hr 169.0/hr 148/hr 169.0/hr 103.38/hr 139.00/hr 91.0/hr 169.00/hr 169.00/hr 139.00/hr 101.00/hr Hours Cost Cost *Cost**Cost
7) Construction Phase
Support & Record 0 18 20 25 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 70 10,938.28$ 30.00$ 10,968.28$
8) Contingency
Potholing Buried Utilities***0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 103.38$ 10,000.00$ 10,103.38$
9) Management Reserve 10,000.00$
* includes mileage, equipment, supplies, bridge tolls, etc. per rate sheets
** includes 10% subconsultant/subcontractor markup
*** includes est. of $1,000 for title report
110,486.74$ 1,455.00$ 1,750.00$ 133,795.12$
58,360.74$
75,434.38$ NET AUTHORIZED ADDITIONAL BUDGET FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES:
EXHIBIT "B"
2018 Swedish Hospital Water System Replacement Project
Consultant Services
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
BUDGET SUMMARY
CITY OF EDMONDS
SUMMARY ESTIMATE OF CONSULTANT HOURS AND FEE
Labor Hours
TOTAL BUDGET FOR COMPLETING 2018 SWEDISH HOSPITAL WATER SYSTEM REPLACEMENT:
BUDGET REMAINING FROM 2015 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT:
5/17/2018
6.11.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Stantec Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement with Stantec)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Utility Easement for a new ground water monitoring well at 16116 72nd Ave
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On June 12, 2018, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was forward
to the June 19th consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Accept the Utility Easement and authorize the Mayor to sign the document.
Narrative
The 2018 budget included stormwater funding to complete a geotechnical evaluation of the slope
adjacent to the Lorain Woods neighborhood. The data collection for the evaluation requires two
borings, one above the slope and the other at the base. The borings will also be used to monitor
groundwater levels over time. The upper boring is on private property at 16116 72nd Ave W and the
property owner has agreed to let the City install and monitor the well. The “easement area” is limited to
a 5’ diameter circle around the future well location; it is not a traditional linear easement for a utility
line.
Attachments:
Utility Easement
6.12
Packet Pg. 188
6.12.aPacket Pg. 189Attachment: Utility Easement (Utility Easement for a new ground water monitoring well on 72nd Ave)
6.12.aPacket Pg. 190Attachment: Utility Easement (Utility Easement for a new ground water monitoring well on 72nd Ave)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Murraysmith for the Five Corners
Reservoir Recoating Project
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On April 5, 2016, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with Murray,
Smith & Associates.
On April 4, 2017, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 2 with Murray,
Smith & Associates.
On February 20, 2018, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 3 with
Murraysmith.
On June 12, 2018, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was forward
to the June 19th consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign the supplemental agreement.
Narrative
On August 3, 2015, the City entered into a professional services agreement for $71,019 with
Murraysmith & Associates (MSA) to complete a preliminary study and recommendations for the Five
Corners Reservoir. On April 18, 2016 the City entered into a $60,465 Professional Services Supplemental
Agreement 1 with MSA. The contract included a geotechnical investigation to obtain information on soil
bearing capacity and ultrasonic testing on reservoir tank welds to obtain information on reservoir shell
strength that will replace engineering assumptions previously used in the structural analysis. MSA also
evaluated operational constraints to determine if reductions in storage volumes could reduce the
impact from a seismic event. MSA’s technical memorandum concluded that the reservoirs could meet
current seismic codes and be operational within the City’s parameters for water service by lowering the
level of the reservoir overflow pipes and making minor structural enhancements to the roof of the 1.5
MG tank.
On April 7, 2017 the City entered into a $178,829 Professional Services Supplemental Agreement 2 with
MSA. The contract included final design, plans specs and construction cost estimates, surveying and
mapping and bidding engineering services for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating project.
6.13
Packet Pg. 191
On March 28, 2018 the City entered into a $107,846 Professional Services Supplemental Agreement 3
with Murraysmith (formerly MSA). The contract included construction support, shop drawings and
submittals review, requests for information and change orders, on-call construction observation,
support for coating inspection and testing and sub-consultant services for structural engineering and
corrosion engineering, coordination with special inspections, final inspection and reservoir startup and
record drawings for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating project.
The portion of the contract in Supplemental Agreement No. 4 is scheduled to be completed by July 2019
with the completion of the construction contract. The total fee for the Professional Services Agreement
is $30,445 for additional shop drawings and submittals review and plan revisions that will provide the
contractor with conforming plans as minor changes are made to the reservoir design.
Attachments:
Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement
Vicinity Map
6.13
Packet Pg. 192
Original Contract No.
Supplemental Agreement 4 No.
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH · EDMONDS, WA 98020 · 425-771-0220 · FAX 425-672-5750 Website: www.edmondswa.gov
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division
DAVE EARLING
MAYOR
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 4 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and
Murraysmith, hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”, entered into an underlying agreement
for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Five Corners
Reservoir Recoating Project, dated August 3, 2015 and amended April 18, 2016, April 7,
2017 and March 28, 2018; and
WHEREAS, two additional tasks to the Scope of Work have been identified with
regard to additional shop drawings and revised plans; NOW, THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties
thereto as follows:
1. The underlying Agreement of August 3, 2015 between the parties as amended by
Supplemental Agreement No. 1, dated April 18, 2016, amended again by Supplemental
Agreement No. 2, dated April 7, 2017 and amended again on March 28, 2018 incorporated by
this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is further amended in, but only in, the following
respects:
1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement,
as amended by Supplemental Agreement No. 1, 2, and 3, shall be further amended to include the
additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the
attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
1.2 The $71,019 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying
Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, and which was increased by
$60,465, by the Supplemental Agreement No. 1, which was also increased by $178,829 by the
Supplemental Agreement No. 2, and increased again by $107,846 by the Supplemental
Agreement No. 3 is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $30,445
for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a
result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not-
6.13.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating)
\\edmsvr-deptfs\Engineering\Staff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5KA.Five Corners Reservoir Recoating\MSA.Supp 4.doc
to-exceed amount of $448,604 ($71,019, plus $60,465, plus $178,829, plus $107,846, plus
$30,445).
1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement, as amended by Supplemental
Agreement No. 1, 2, and 3, consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby
further amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit B to this Supplemental
Agreement No. 4, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in
full force and effect, amended as set forth in Supplemental Agreement Nos. 1, 2,
3, and 4 but only as set forth therein.
DONE this day of , 20 .
CITY OF EDMONDS MURRAYSMITH
By: By: Mayor David O. Earling Title:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
________________________________ Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
6.13.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating)
\\edmsvr-deptfs\Engineering\Staff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5KA.Five Corners Reservoir Recoating\MSA.Supp 4.doc
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20____, before me, the under-signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to
be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires:
6.13.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating)
City of Edmonds MURRAYSMITH Five Corners Reservoir Construction Support
June 2018 Supplemental Services No. 4 – Page 1
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
City of Edmonds
Five Corners Reservoirs Recoating Project
Phase 3 - Construction Support Services
Supplemental Services No. 4
Introduction
Murraysmith is currently under contract for construction support services for the Five Corners
Reservoir Recoating project. The following scope of work and accompanying engineering fee
estimate has been developed for supplemental construction support services for additional shop
drawings and submittal reviews and revisions to plan sheets during bidding and construction. The
scope and fee have been developed based on discussions with City staff and understanding of the
project.
Scope of Work
The scope of work consists of the following major tasks:
Task 302 - Shop Drawings and Submittals Review
Task 310 – Revised Plans
Task 302 – Shop Drawings and Submittals Review
302.2 Additional Shop Drawings and Submittals Review
At the request of the City, Murraysmith will continue to review and comment on shop drawings
and other technical submittals in support of the reviews by City staff. Murraysmith will consider
and evaluate alternatives or substitutions proposed by the contractor. Receive and review other
submittals of the contractor including construction schedules, shop drawings/submittal schedules,
lump sum price breakdowns, and other submittals required by the contract documents and
requested by the City. Murraysmith will also prepare and maintain a log of submittals received
from the contractor, noting the date received, item submitted on, applicable specification section,
resolution and current status.
6.13.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating)
City of Edmonds MURRAYSMITH Five Corners Reservoir Construction Support
June 2018 Supplemental Services No. 4 – Page 2
Assumptions
City will continue to take the lead in receiving, reviewing, and responding to contractor
submittals and shop drawings.
City will continue to provide direction to Murraysmith with respect to involvement in
review of shop drawings and submittals.
The original scope of work assumed up to twenty (20) submittals would be reviewed. As of
May 31st, Murraysmith has received 32 submittals, including resubmittals, for review. We
anticipate approximately 15 additional submittals, including resubmittals, based on the
current submittal review status; for a total of 47 Murraysmith submittal reviews.
Task Deliverables
Submittal review forms as requested by the City in response to contractor submittals.
Task 310 – Revised Plans
310.1 Revised Plans
Murraysmith will prepare revised plan sheets based on design changes noted in Addendum No. 1
issued during bidding, submittal reviews completed prior to May 8th, and weekly progress meeting
notes received prior to May 8th. At the request of the City, Murraysmith will prepare additional
revised plan sheets to reflect design changes during construction. Revisions to the plan sheets will
be clouded and a remark will be added to the title block. The revised plan sheets will be stamped
and signed by the Project Engineer.
Assumptions
Additional revised plan sheets will be based on City provided construction markups.
Up to fifteen (15) individual plan sheets will be revised and reissued to the City.
Deliverables
Half size (11 in x 17 in) and full size (22 in x 34 in) electronic copies of plan sheets in PDF
format.
6.13.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating)
LABOR HOURSESTIMATED FEESPrincipal Engineer VProfessional Engineer VIIIProfessional Engineer VIEngineering Designer IITechnician IVAdmin IIHoursLaborTotal$244$194$175$137$146$99PSE NWCTask 302 - Shop Drawings and Submittal Review -$ -$ -$ -$ Task 302.2 - Additional Shop Drawings and Submittal Review 21 48 88 157 24,530$ -$ -$ 24,530$ Task 302 Subtotal02148880015724,530$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,530$ Task 310 - Revised Plans-$ -$ -$ -$ Task 310.1 - Revised Plans8 15 15 38 5,645$ -$ 270$ 5,915$ Task 310 Subtotal00815150385,645$ -$ -$ -$ 270$ 5,915$ TOTAL - ALL TASKS0215610315019530,175$ -$ -$ -$ 270$ 30,445$ EXHIBIT BSubconsultantsExpensesSub TotalFIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR RECOATING PROJECTCITY OF EDMONDS FEE ESTIMATEPHASE 3 - CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICESSUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES NO. 4City of EdmondsJune 2018MURRAYSMITHFive Corners Reservoir RecoatingPage 16.13.aPacket Pg. 198Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement (Supplemental Agreement for the Five Corners
Sibrel, City of Edmonds, 2016
City of Edmonds
Vicinity Map Five Corners Reservoir
Recoating Project
Five Corners
Reservoir
6.13.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Vicinity Map (Supplemental Agreement for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Final Acceptance and report on final construction costs for the 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On May 2, 2017, Council awarded a contract to Shoreline Construction Co. in the amount of $924,171.71
for the 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
On June 12, 2018, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was forward
to the June 19th consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Accept project.
Narrative
On May 30, 2017, Shoreline Construction Co. was given the Notice to Proceed for construction,
stipulating 70 working days for completion. This project replaced approximately 2,500 linear feet of
sanitary sewer piping along with associated manholes and service connections in the vicinity of Yost
Park.
The contract award amount was $924,171.71 and Council approved a management reserve of
$92,417.17. During the course of the contract, three revised-cost change orders totaling $65,256.81
were written against the project. A reconciliation change order for ($30,632.53) was written for project
closeout. The project is complete and the final cost paid to Shoreline Construction Co. was $958,795.99.
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
6.14
Packet Pg. 200
Sibrel, City of Edmonds, 2016
City of Edmonds
Vicinity Map 2017 Sanitary Sewer
Replacement Project
2017 Sanitary
Sewer
Replacement
6.14.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Vicinity Map (2017 Sewer Final Acceptance)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Supplemental Agreement with KBA for the 76th Ave and 212th St Intersection Improvements Project
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On March 21, 2017, the City Council approved a Local Agency Agreement with KBA, Inc. for construction
management services on the 76th Ave/212th St. Intersection Improvements Project.
On June 12, 2018, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was forward
to the June 19th consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign the supplemental agreement.
Narrative
In March 2017, the City approved a Local Agency Agreement with KBA, Inc. for construction
management services on the 76th Ave/212th St. Intersection Improvements. The project is nearly
complete and the bulk of remaining work is to pave and stripe the intersection. The work is scheduled
to begin in mid-July and be completed in early August.
This supplemental agreement will provide additional construction management services to support the
City’s project manager in preparing and securing the necessary documentation for the upcoming work
and to close-out the project once the work is completed. The professional services fee for the
supplemental agreement is $24,025 and the total amount of the agreement is raised from $389,580 to
$413,605. The cost for the supplemental agreement will be paid from project funds (federal grant, TIB
grant and utility funds).
Attachments:
KBA Supplemental Agreement #2
6.15
Packet Pg. 202
6.15.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: KBA Supplemental Agreement #2 (Supplemental Agreement with KBA for 76th Ave and 212th St)
6.15.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: KBA Supplemental Agreement #2 (Supplemental Agreement with KBA for 76th Ave and 212th St)
6.15.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: KBA Supplemental Agreement #2 (Supplemental Agreement with KBA for 76th Ave and 212th St)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
238th St. SW No Parking Ordinance
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On June 12, 2018, staff presented this item to the Park and Public Works Committee and it was
forwarded to the June 19th consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the Ordinance and authorize the Mayor to sign it.
Narrative
In April, 2016, the City of Edmonds completed the 238th St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave to 104th Ave. A
sidewalk was added on the north side of the street and rain gardens were added on the south side to
improve storm drainage. Prior to this project, vehicles used the shoulder for parallel parking. However
the elements of the project have reduced the parking width to less than 7’ (below required standard
minimum width for parallel parking stalls). City forces will be able to widen the corridor between 101st Pl
W and 102nd Ave W to allow for parking. In the rest of the corridor, however, it is either not safe or not
practicable to do so. Therefore, parking will be prohibited on the south side of the street from 100th Ave
to 101st Pl and from 102nd Ave to 104th Ave.
The attached ordinance includes the proposed revisions to Section 8.64.030, "Schedule III - Parking
prohibited at all times on certain streets" of the Edmonds City Code (ECC).
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance
6.16
Packet Pg. 206
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 8.64.030 (SCHEDULE III – PARKING PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES ON CERTAIN STREETS); PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, as part of the 238th Street SW Walkway project from 100th Avenue
West to 104th Avenue West, a sidewalk was added on the north side of the street and rain gardens
were added on the south side, decreasing the shoulder width on the south side of the street to less
than 7’; and
WHEREAS, the required width of a standard parallel parking stall is a minimum
of 7’; and
WHEREAS, parking will be prohibited on the south side of 238th Street SW from
100th Avenue West to 101st Place West and 102nd Place West to 104th Avenue West, because the
paved shoulder width is less than 7’; NOW THEREFORE:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The following addition shall be made to Section 8.64 of the ECC
Schedules of Designated Streets (new text in underline):
8.64.030 Schedule III – Parking prohibited at all times on certain streets.
In accordance with ECC 8.48.130, and when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall at any
time park a vehicle upon any of the following described streets or parts of streets:
1. Hemlock Way on the south side from Fifth Avenue to Sixth Avenue;
6.16.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (238th St. SW No Parking Ordinance)
- 2 -
2. Hemlock Way on the north side from Sixth Avenue to a distance 200 feet west therefrom;
3. Both sides of Edmonds Way (State Route 104) from Elm Street extended to the east city limits;
4. 212th Street S.W. on both sides from 84th Avenue West, east to U.S. Highway 99;
5. One side of the following streets, as posted under the direction of the city engineer:
a. Meadowdale Road, from 75th Avenue to 75th Place West;
b. 75th Avenue West, from Meadowdale Road to 162nd Avenue;
c. 162nd Avenue West, from 75th Avenue West to 75th Place West;
6. West side of Sixth Avenue South between Pine and Walnut;
7. South side of Elm Way from Sixth Avenue to a point 200 feet east of Fifth Avenue;
8. State Highway 104, also known as 244th Street S.W., from U.S. 99 to east city limits;
9. West side of Sunset Avenue from Main Street to Dayton Street;
10. Both sides of Puget Drive from Ninth Avenue North to 11th Avenue North;
11. Both sides of 100th Avenue West from 227th Place West to 232nd Street S.W.;
12. Both sides of 196th Street S.W. from the east city limits west to 81st Place West;
13. 220th Street S.W., on both sides, from the eastern city limits of the city of Edmonds to 77th Place
West and from 84th Avenue West to 100th Avenue West (also known as 9th Avenue South);
14. 76th Avenue West on the west side from 206th Street S.W. to 208th Street S.W.; on both sides from
208th Street S.W. to 250 feet south of 220th Street S.W.; and on both sides from 150 feet north of 224th
Street S.W. to 224th Street S.W.;
15. Both sides of 76th Avenue West from 242nd Street S.W. to 244th Street S.W.;
16. Northside of 184th Street S.W. from 80th Avenue West to Andover;
17. 80th Place West on the east side from 212th Street S.W. to a point 750 feet north;
6.16.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (238th St. SW No Parking Ordinance)
- 3 -
18. East side of Ocean Avenue;
19. West side of Admiral Way from Port of Edmonds Boat Launch Road to a point 550 feet north;
20. East side of Railroad Avenue from Main to Dayton;
21. West side of Railroad Street from Main to James;
22. East side of Sunset from Bell Street to Caspers Street;
23. East side of Seventh Avenue N. from Walnut Street to Hemlock Street;
24. The west side of 100th Avenue West, from 80 feet north of the cemetery entrance to 80 feet south of
the cemetery entrance;
25. The terminus and west side of Ocean Avenue excepting only five parking spaces designated by the
city engineer;
26. A portion of the south side of 216th Street S.W. between 72nd Avenue West and 73rd Place West,
with said no parking area to be 40 feet east and 75 feet west of the current established driveway for the
Kruger Clinic;
27. West side of 76th Avenue West from the intersection of 208th Street S.W. north for a distance of 225
feet;
28. Both sides of Dayton Street from Admiral Way to Sunset Avenue (State Route 104);
29. Both sides of Howell Way from Fourth Avenue South to Fifth Avenue South;
30. South side of Caspers Street from Sunset Avenue (State Route 104) to Third Avenue; and
31. West side of Second Avenue South from Alder Street to its dead end, located south of Alder Street.
32. South side of 238th Street S.W. from 100th Avenue West to 101st Place West and 102nd Place
West to 104th Avenue West.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
6.16.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (238th St. SW No Parking Ordinance)
- 4 -
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
6.16.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (238th St. SW No Parking Ordinance)
- 5 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2018, 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 THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 8.64.030 (SCHEDULE III – PARKING PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES ON CERTAIN STREETS); PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2018.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
6.16.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Proposed Ordinance (238th St. SW No Parking Ordinance)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Denise Nelson
Background/History
Trees are an important part of life in Edmonds and our region. They provide both aesthetic and
environmental value. They complement our buildings, streets, parks, and other city features. Of
course, having the right trees in the right place and managing/maintaining them must be considered
too.
Edmonds is designated as a "Tree City USA" city. It has a citizen Tree Board. A Street Tree Plan and
parts of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Park Recreation & Open Space Plan, identify the value
of trees and guide tree selection in public places.
About three years ago, the Tree Board recommended an ordinance that proposed significant
requirements related to trees on private property. The Planning Board held a public hearing and
recommended that the ordinance not be adopted but that an urban forest management plan be
developed prior to considering next steps. The City Council concurred and provided funding for the
development of an urban forest management plan. This action was specifically called out in the
Comprehensive Plan as a step the City was committed to doing in the near term.
Since then, a consultant was selected to assist the City with this project. Particular (but not exclusive)
emphasis was on planting and caring for trees in public places and on educating the public about the
importance of planting appropriate trees and how to care for them. Preliminary efforts included not
only research about the city's "urban forest" (i.e., trees in the city) but sought public awareness and
input. This outreach included:
Press releases and news articles
Meeting with the Tree Board
Meeting with the Planning Board
2 public open house events
Public hearing of the Planning Board
Online survey (posted for 3 months)
Special Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) website with information and updates about
the project: http://www.edmondswa.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/urban-forest-mgmt-
plan.html.
On March 13, the Draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) was released. The Tree Board focused
its April 5 public meeting on a presentation and discussion of the draft UFMP. The Tree Board
continued discussion at its May meeting. (See attached minutes from both meetings.)
7.1
Packet Pg. 212
A slightly revised draft UFMP was introduced to the Planning Board on April 11. This was followed by a
public hearing on May 9. (See April 11 and May 9 meeting minutes, attached.) The Planning Board
further discussed the draft UFMP on May 23. Although none of the Board members objected to the
Draft UFMP and none proposed changes to it, they took considerable time to craft a recommendation
that would reflect the various perspectives that were brought up at the public hearing. Ultimately, the
Board chose to make a simple recommendation: that the City Council consider and adopt the draft
UFMP. (See draft minutes from May 23.)
A short set of "Frequently Asked Questions" was prepared. (See Attachment.)
Staff Recommendation
To hold a public hearing and consider the information.
[Note: No decision is expected at this time.]
Narrative
A final Draft UFMP, which included minor clarifications, additions, and corrections to the original draft,
has been prepared. (See Attachment.)
The Draft UFMP discusses the urban forest and its values. It identifies the current tree canopy coverage
as about 30.3% of the Edmonds total area. (Some cities have more; some have less.) The draft also
discusses city resources used for tree management. Finally, it proposes 21 goals, each with a set of
actions to implement it: These goals are:
1. Maintain citywide canopy coverage
2. Identify key areas to increase canopy
3. Manage tree population age distribution for diversity in city parks and rights-of-way
4. Plant suitable trees and schedule phased replacement for unsuitable species
5. Manage for species diversity
6. Conduct an inventory of City-managed trees to document tree condition and risk
7. Document the ecosystem services provided by public trees
8. Maintain a routinely-updated UFMP
9. Perform a periodic review of tree ordinances
10. Train staff to maintain expertise and professional qualifications
11. Plant and maintain trees annually
12. Update Street Tree Plan
13. Create a dedicated urban forester/arborist staff position
14. Establish a formal interdepartmental working team
15. Update development regulations to ensure appropriate language for protecting trees and/or the
tree canopy as part of the development process
16. Establish a tree bank (fund)
17. Provide outreach to arborist businesses licensed in Edmonds
18. Coordinate efforts of the City, Tree Board, and other interested groups to participate and
promote good urban forest management and urban forest management events.
19. Maintain the Tree Board
20. Establish a Heritage Tree designation
21. Formalize relationships with organizations that share common objectives impacting urban forest
sustainability
All written public comments submitted to the City so far have been compiled. (See Attachment for
consolidated set of public comments.)
7.1
Packet Pg. 213
Next Steps
The presumed next steps are:
· June 19-City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the proposed UFMP and public input
· June 26-City Council will further review and discuss the proposed UFMP
· July 3-City Council will consider the proposed UFMP and may take action
If needed, other process steps can be added. Regardless, adopting a plan is only the start. Steps to
actually implement the plan would need to occur over several years. For example, some of the actions
called for in the plan for would require additional funding before they can be completed; doing those
would considered as part of the budget-setting process.
Attachments:
Att. 1: Tree Board Minutes 4-05-18 & 5-03-18
Att. 2: PB Minutes 4-11-18
Att. 3: PB Minutes of 5-9-18
Att. 4: PB Draft Minutes 5-23-18
Att. 5: Frequently Asked Questions 6_19-18
Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages)
Att. 7: Public Comment Letters
7.1
Packet Pg. 214
Notes of Edmonds Citizens’ Tree Board
City Council Chambers – Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA
April 5, 2018
6:00 pm
1) Call to Order Doug called the meeting at 6:00 am. Roll Call/Introductions
Attendees: Tree Board Members: Steve Hatzenbeler (absent), Doug Petersen (chair), Vivian Olson, Barbara Chase, Frank Caruso (vice chair), Bill Phipps, Gail Lovell, Suzanne Juergensen (Alternate) Diane Buckshnis as City Council Liaison Carrie Hite and Shane Hope Directors from City Ian Scott and Keeley O’Connell from Davey Resource Group – Consultants for Urban Forest Management Program (UFMP)
Audience Members that signed in: Ed Beaulier, Phil Lovell (Planning Board), Larry Vogel (MyEdmondsNews), Gary Nelson, Ross Dimmick, Minna Dimmick, Peter Kalapaca, Wendy Wisdom, Chris Walton, Kristi and Steve Bowman, Joe Scordino, Karen Fionito, Dawna Lahti, Joe Schmous, Todd Echlebarger, Carreen Rubenkonig (Planning Board), Eric Sull. 2) Approval of Agenda
Moved and approved with no changes. 3) Audience Comments (We respectfully request that guests limit comments to 3 minutes or less)
• Ed Beauliere – He had a California Redwood in a little jar and said that maybe Edmonds might want to consider a grove of Redwoods. He said that trees are being removed all over the city and that folks are being contacted to have their timber purchased from timber buyers.
• Chris Walton – He said he was totally in favor of supporting any aspect that related to trees. He said he had many questions when reading the report: 1) there was some analyses of a 6% reduction in
canopy and it was unclear as to how that happened? 2) There was public trees of 12% and private land of 88% on private land and could not understand how the report only addressed the 12% of trees
on public land? 3) There was a goal to increase canopy from 30% to 50% and yet it doesn’t correlate with the 6% reduction comment as well as only focusing on the 12% of Tree canopy. He wanted to know how to increase tree canopy on both public and private land.
• Gary Nelson - He enjoyed the graphics of the report but that there were many errors in the report: one timeline error concluded in 2048? P 7 says Edmonds is oldest City in Snohomish Cty and he
questioned that fact. One table lists the prominent specifies of trees in Edmonds and he didn’t think list was long enough. Talked of GMA guidelines and private property rights. James Clarke has named misspelled. Priority of planting and blockage of views is a big issue and report didn’t seem to touch upon this factor. P 37 gave a long list of pests but nothing prominent to Edmonds – anyone could have provided that list. Survey – it’s clear that 40% from Bowl (view) area answered the questions and these people want control of the trees and protection of views.
• Ross Dimmick – He is a scientist and writes EIS statements for a living and likes to focus on “purpose and need” and “what and why”. From a scientific perspective, this report is a disaster as example, it refers to USFS region of HI and CA and the intercepting rainfall was in accurate as was the increased soil capacity. The fundamental science was quite disappointing from this report.
• Wendy Wisdom – Report needs a lot of work in the area of habitat and wildlife and that snag trees are
very important to the that eco system.
• Dawna Lahti – She had not finished report but found that the report did not have a vision. The goals were not clear in terms of private or public property or the issues of snags or corridors.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Att. 1: Tree Board Minutes 4-05-18 & 5-03-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
4) Approval of Meeting Notes Moved and Approved with no corrections. 5) Old Business/Discussion
• Appoint Student Rep. to Citizen Tree Board
Vivian Moved and Frank seconded the approval of Leslie Smith.
• Tree board pamphlet final bids for printing
Moved by Vivian and seconded by Barbara that Shane would have Denise print 500 copies of the tri-fold brochure.
• Update on upcoming events activity o Discussed the Earth Day Celebration at Yost Park. Diane will buy the snacks and Gail will buy the coffee. It is April 21st starting at 9am. Doug is filling in for Steve (absent) for meeting on April 6, 2018 with Jennifer Leach (City of Edmonds).
o Barbara is working with Debra Dill (City) on the Summer Market Tree Give Away. o Gail and Frank are working are working on Edmonds in Bloom Tree Identification.
• UFMP presentation by Ian Scott of Davey Resource Group (Power Point Presentation Part of notes) o Please refer to the entire Power Point Presentation for the full breakdown of overview, structure,
principals of adaptive management and goals. Each slide was highlighted with the main themes being that the City is reactive rather than proactive. The City doesn’t know the condition or
inventory of the urban forest. Comments were later made that some felt the City Staff did have a pretty good understanding of the street trees and tree inventory. Davey’s rebuttal was that it is not
documented. o Examples of the City Resources were provided as well as city resources utilized. Comments were
brought forth regarding questioning this table and Davey’s rebuttal was that the information was given by staff personnel and only identified Administration and now volunteer groups.
o Survey was reviewed of which the data showed: 40% from Edmonds Bowl; 15% from Seaview area (view area) and 29% from other neighborhoods and consensus was city is in reactive
management mode and regulations on private property should be limited. Comment was made that the survey was skewered because it is based on over 50% of the population is in view area. o Goals were then provided on How to get to the 50% canopy or to sustain a no new loss in canopy and that City needs to move toward proactive management. City should establish a departmental
working team that could document trees and work towards work plans that have adaptive management. Community goads were also given to assist in moving towards tree sustainability
and adaptive management. o Next Steps came forth with meetings and public hearing at Planning Board then revisions and then
update to Council. Council Member Buckshnis requested that the Council be part of the “draft revision stage” so that Council can provide the necessary input to the draft and that it would not fall
on the planning board. QUESTIONS and Comments:
• Tree Board Commissioner Phipps - How did the plan come up with planting 700 trees a year. Davey’s
Group said that was an example of a number to be used so to complete a no-net loss concept. Phipps than stated that it seemed that this goal needs to go beyond the inventory of public trees.
• Chair Petersen – Stated that the report needs a lot of work and that the “tree” solution for public property and private property seem different and that the models should reflect a solution for the entire canopy.
• Tree Board Commissioner Chase – Stated that there should be a list of preferred trees and deal with the goals of diversity. Some trees are more resilient and the report didn’t really address the diseases
and the trees affected.
• Tree Board Commissioner Phipps asked to look at the priority of planting slides and said that the majority of read was right in the area of views and that it would appear that the area was fragmented.
• Vice Chair Caruso (who has his doctorate in insect infestations) indicated that the report needs to provide specific pest to the Edmonds region and he named a few that should be highlighted. He also
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Att. 1: Tree Board Minutes 4-05-18 & 5-03-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
said that the conifers were not really discussed and he agreed with Ms. Chase that there needs to be more distinction and diversity in the report.
• Tree Board Commissioner Phipps brought up that there was not recommendations or discussion regarding a Tree Ordinance and that the report merely cited all the areas in the code that related to
trees. Davey’s Group stated that it was not the intent of the report to advise on any code and that Best Available Science would be of use for any code.
• Chair Peterson brought forth an email question regarding the cutting down of very old evergreens and replacing them with flowering trees and that cutting down a Douglas Fir and replacing it with a deciduous tree is not even addressed in the report. It was also commented that developers are just clear cutting a lot and building. Davey’s Group responded that clear cutting and retaining trees is a Development Code issue and not a function for this report. He did say it is important to keep in mind “how much canopy is at risk” and what are mortality rates and this all needs to be documented in a proactive manner.
• Tree Board Commissioner Olsen brought up the issue of the California Redwoods and that the City needs to be cognizant as to where to place these trees that grown majestically and can be hundreds of feet high. New Business
• Logo and Banner. Discussed and looked at material for banner and then discussed a runner and table cloth. Moved by Vivian and seconded by Frank to spend up to $400 for the banner (3x3 square) and table
runner.
• Suzanne provided a three-fold brochure of an example “small trees” and/or “trees in small places”. She was asked to send that to Diane and she will have the City try and convert it to a word doc or pdf for Tree Board Members to review. 6) Tree Board Member Ideas and Comments 7) Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 8) Future Meeting: May 3, 2018
April 19th in Brackett Room is next Public Open House regarding the Urban Forest Management Program
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Att. 1: Tree Board Minutes 4-05-18 & 5-03-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
EDMONDS CITIZENS’ TREE BOARD
MEETING NOTES
May 3, 2018
Tree Board members present and accounted for: Frank Caruso, Barbara Chase,
Suzanne Juergensen, Gail Lovell, Doug Petersen, Bill Phipps, Vivian Olson, Leslie
Smith(student representative)
Tree Board members absent: Steve Hatzenbeler.
Edmonds City Council liaison present: Diane Buckshnis
Edmonds Park Department guest: Rich Lindsay
Audience: Ross Dimmick
CALL TO ORDER: A quorum was reached and the meeting was called to order by
Tree Board chair; Doug Petersen.
ROLL CALL: All present introduced themselves.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was modified and approved.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS: Ross Dimmick made comments to the tree board
concerning the proposed Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). Ross
stated that there are problems with the UFMP regarding scientific references, and
specificly to the city of Edmonds. Ross has submitted his comments to the
Edmonds City Council. The Tree Board thanked Ross for his research and efforts.
APPROVAL OF MEETING NOTES: The meeting notes for the April 5, 2018 tree
board meeting were corrected and approved.
OLD BUSINESS:
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Att. 1: Tree Board Minutes 4-05-18 & 5-03-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
- Tree Board Pamphlet: The tree board discussed ways to get the new “Before
You Grab That Chainsaw” tree pruning pamphlet to the community. Diane will
see how we can mail the pamphlet to all city water customers through the water
bills. Diane will also distribute them to the city hall “green room” and the
Anderson recreation center.
- Upcoming events: Gail showed off the new Tree Board banners and all were
impressed. The board thanked Gail for her efforts in getting these banners made.
They will look great at our events for years to come.
Gail informed the tree board on the upcoming Edmonds Garden Tour, being
held on July 15, 2018, of which the tree board is co-sponsor. There will be seven
gardens with tree identification signs. Gail will place the tree id signs on July 14th.
The tree board discussed the upcoming tree identification signs event in
downtown Edmonds. It was decided that these “environmental benefits of trees”
signs would be put up along Main Street and 5th Avenue on July 1, 2018 and taken
down on July 21, 2018 . Bill will coordinate this project.
Rich, from the Parks Department, informed the tree board about the upcoming
Arbor Day event, of which the tree board is co-sponsor. There will be a tree
planting event at Meadowdale Park in October 2018. The exact date has not
been decided.
Doug informed the tree board about the “2ndst Annual Edmonds’ Tree Board
Tree Giveaway and Raffle” to be held at the farmers market with September 22,
2018 as the anticipated date. Barbara will coordinate this event and is seeking
volunteers to help. Like last year we will give away tree saplings and raffle away
two trees. The emphasis will be on “Plant the right tree in the right place”.
Barbara will acquire the saplings for this event.
- Replacing street trees in front of City Hall: Rich informed the tree board of
the parks department plan to plant some sidewalk trees in large planters in front
of City Hall. Seasonal annual flowers will be planted in the containers as well.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Att. 1: Tree Board Minutes 4-05-18 & 5-03-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
The tree board thanked Rich for his continued efforts on behalf of beautifying
Edmonds.
- UFMP update: There was a general discussion about the proposed UFMP ,
written by the Davy Group, that will be considered by the City Council this
summer. Concerns were raised about the lack of specificity of the report to the
unique environmental and political realities of Edmonds. Diane explained to the
tree board the steps through the political process; hearings, reviews, public
meetings, and eventual vote before the City Council. Consensus was that
although there were good aspects to the draft UFMP; such as appointment of a
“city arborist” and the creation of an “Edmonds Tree Bank”; the report needs
work making the plan specific to the city of Edmonds environmentally and
politically.
NEW BUSINESS:
- Doug raised the question of what does the tree board mission statement
mean; “to educate the public” about the benefits of trees. How do we
better reach out to the community to fulfill our mission? Doug invites us to
work on new ways to educate and reach out to the public.
-
TREE BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
- Suzanne offered her services as a photographer for future tree board
events.
- Vivian informed the tree board of an upcoming vote before the City Council
on banning single use plastic cutlery/straws in Edmonds. We have since
learned that said vote passed. Yay Edmonds!
ADJOURNMENT;
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Att. 1: Tree Board Minutes 4-05-18 & 5-03-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
With no further business, and after a fun and productive meeting, the esteemed
Edmonds City Tree Board adjourned for the evening.
Next meeting: June 7, 2018
Minutes submitted by Bill Phipps
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Att. 1: Tree Board Minutes 4-05-18 & 5-03-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 2
Mr. Phipps voiced support for the tree bank idea. He has a problem when developers chop down all of the trees on a lot to start with a clean slate. The City needs to have a program in place that requires that every tree that was cut down during development must be replaced with another like tree. These trees could be planted in areas that would not block views or encroach on development, but they would provide the same environmental benefits. He suggested that the City should save open spaces as much as possible and create more parks. The open spaces are disappearing fast in Edmonds, and he is a proponent of planting more trees in our public parks. He summarized that he is in favor of an aggressive tree planting program in the current parks and on the arterial streets. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Monroe referred the Board to the written Development Services Director’s Report. Board Member Lovell asked the name of the new Architectural Design Board Member. Ms. Hope agreed to provide that information after the meeting. Board Member Lovell said he missed the robust report on housing that Ms. Hope provided at the Board’s March 28th meeting. He asked if the PowerPoint presentation is available for the Board’s information. Ms. Hope agreed to pass this additional information on to the Board. She noted that staff is in the process of creating new a PowerPoint presentation that will be provided to the City Council next week. Board Member Lovell asked the next steps in the process of creating a Housing Strategy. Ms. Hope said her expectation is that a draft strategy will be available very soon, including input provided by the Board at their last meeting. A public open house will be held in May to present the draft housing strategy and accompanying data, strategies and ideas. The draft strategy will come before the Planning Board again for a work session and a public hearing, and then the Board will be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Rather than adoption by ordinance, the Housing Strategy will be a plan that sets out high-level strategies and goals. Board Member Lovell noted that potential strategies have come up in discussions that infer that zoning and/or code revisions will be needed. Ms. Hope agreed that some of the recommendations discuss code changes that might be needed later, but exactly how the code should be changed will be a subsequent discussion as part of the implementation stage. Chair Monroe noted that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) will be reviewing the ground floor requirements of the Downtown Business (BD-1) zone. He asked staff to talk about the process for this review. Ms. Hope said the EDC has raised concern that development has not occurred in some parts of the downtown because the ground floor height requirement is such that only two stories of development is possible. The EDC has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to consider potential changes to this requirement. If the City Council decides an amendment might be appropriate, the matter will be remanded to the Planning Board for review, a public hearing and a recommendation to the City Council. She emphasized that the City Council has not made any decisions yet, and the Council Committee that first heard the proposal suggested that the Historic Preservation Commission needs to weigh in on whether or not the proposal should move forward. INTRODUCTION TO DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP) Ms. Hope introduced Ian Scott from Davey Resources Group and Keeley O’Connell from Nature Insight. Although Davey Resource Group has been the lead consultant, the two have worked together as a group. She recalled that, overtime, there has been a lot of discussion in the City about trees and potential ordinances and policies that address trees on both private and public property. The consultants are present to present the draft UFMP. She noted that Board Members were provided a link to the draft plan, itself. The process will provide opportunities for public input as the plan moves through the process, and they would welcome the Board’s input, as well. Ian Scott, Davey Resources Group, commented that the UFMP is still in draft form, and they are still having dialogue with the City about how to best present the priority of the goals and the associated cost levels. He explained that the plan was divided into three key elements, which he described below: 13%
• Tree Resources. Mr. Scott advised that an Urban Tree Canopy Assessment was performed to determine that there was an approximately 30% tree canopy covering the City. When looking at the potential, perhaps some of the existing areas of grass and vegetation could become trees to create a potential tree canopy of 57%. Board Member Lovell asked if there is information in the plan for how the City could get to the 57% canopy, and Mr. Scott said no. It is based on the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, looking at the existing tree canopy, as well as areas of grass and vegetation. Some small elements of the percentage have been excluded, so the number does not quite equal a
cumulative of the two; but it does put a bookend on the amount of canopy the City could potentially have. Board
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Att. 2: PB Minutes 4-11-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 3
Member Lovell said that, in theory, if the City were to convert all grass and vegetation to tree canopy, they could reach a total of 57%. Mr. Scott agreed, but commented that would be a tall ask and only identifies the maximum possible. The numbers were intended to provide a place to start the conservation. Mr. Scott advised that 87% of the existing tree canopy is on private property (83% residential and 4% commercial). When the City looks at what it can actively do to manage trees, it can most directly impact the 13% on public property. There are limited resources to influence the remaining tree canopy. However, the goals in the plan address opportunities to influence both private and public property. Mr. Scott said that, using the assessment, they were able to prioritize planting opportunities throughout the City. Because the assessment was a spatial exercise, the scale ranges from very low to very high. For example, the red areas were recommended as high value planting locations based on relationship with wildlife functionality, the urban heat dial-in effect, and proximity to impervious surfaces. These are areas the City can look at to reduce forest fragmentation and have a focus on where to plant trees. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that most of the red area is located on the downslope along 9th Avenue where a lot of trees have been removed. Mr. Scott advised that slope was not a factor in the priority planting map. Board Member Rubenkonig asked for more information about the terms “migration” as it relates to the wildlife habitat corridor. Mr. Scott said the wildlife habitat corridor is one of the important elements to an urban forest. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the City’s creeks flow west, and she questioned what creek wildlife would be following in this corridor, which runs north/south. Mr. Scott clarified that the red area identifies potential locations where trees could be planted to become canopy and does not necessarily relate to a stream corridor. In addition to significant public concern, the Tree Board identified this area as a place where view is an issue. It is not the intent to say that trees must be planted in this location. However, the City should consider these locations if they want to get the most value out of the environmental services that can be provided by trees. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that this is an area where a significant number of trees have been removed to preserve and/or create view (top of 9th Avenue and Emerald Hills) and now this report provides a fiscal cost to the City of the loss of said trees which reduce stormwater management costs. Mr. Scott advised that, in addition to the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, the consultant has prepared a cost estimator, which is software his company developed as a way to provide clients with an estimate of how many trees may need to be planted in order to modify the existing canopy. He will work with the City to provide more information about how to establish planting goals in the future. Mr. Scott pointed that a number of other cities have done advanced exercises in inventorying trees, and this will be addressed in the set of goals contained in the draft UFMP. However, the City has very limited documented knowledge about its urban forests. The Urban Tree Canopy Assessment provides a solid baseline.
• Municipal Resources. Mr. Scott advised that the consulting team talked to a variety of staff members throughout the course of the project. He referred to the table that was created to look at a variety of City services, ranging from permit intake, to parks and maintenance activities, and even Tree Board activities. They came up with an estimate of how much time a typical staff member might be engaged in these activities and services in any one week. The intent is to create a benchmark in the document for going forward with goals to provide an increased number of services
relating to urban forestry. Currently, the bulk of the energy seems to be within the parks and public tree maintenance (40-60 hours per week). Mr. Scott advised that in 2017, the City spent an estimated $7.74 per capita on urban forest management. This is well above the Tree City USA designation requirement of $2.00. It’s also above the national average of $7.50. However, through this process, they discovered that a large amount of this budget is founded on principles of reactive
management. The City’s current management strategy relies on citizens to contact the City, followed by a City inspection, and then the City spends money to deal with problems. With a proactive management approach, a citizen could contact the City and the City could refer to its existing data base to learn more about a tree and advise the citizen about the plan for addressing the problem. The proactive management approach lends itself to a budget that is also
proactive.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Att. 2: PB Minutes 4-11-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 4
Chair Monroe asked what “volunteer activities” entails. Mr. Scott answered that this includes park programs and City contributions to tree planting projects. The bulk of the 348 trees planting were accomplished via community projects. Ms. Hope added that the City provided trees for planting projects, and it also provides some funding for the Tree Board and tree planting events. City staff also helps with the volunteer activities. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the number of trees removed represents those that were removed on a contractual basis. She noted that the removal cost per tree is roughly $1,500. Mr. Scott said most is contracted tree removal work, as the City does not maintain a bucket crew for tree removal. He noted that the budget and financial information was collected and presented to the National Arbor Day Foundation for the Tree City Grant application. Mr. Scott advised that the estimate of benefits comes from the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment. The City’s expenditure of approximately $300,000 per year provides about $1.5 million in estimated benefits from trees. That means that for every $1 the City spends, they receive about $5 in environmental service and benefit from trees. This attests to the value of service that trees provide to the community. He referred to the introductory elements of the plan, which describe the benefits of trees. The intent is to help the City recognize, in more formal language, that trees are important to the community. It gives foundational strength to the plan, itself. Chair Monroe said it seems difficult to get a dollar value for the benefit. Mr. Scott agreed but said it has gotten easier. He explained that his company uses a suite of software tools that are based on scientific models and developed by the Department of Agriculture. This information is now more accessible, and it is easier to do the math behind how a tree provides its benefits. He said if the City were to have a full inventory of the City-owned trees, the environmental services and benefits could be more specific. But the Tree Canopy Assessment at least gives them a place to start talking.
• Community Resources. Mr. Scott said the City has an active Tree Board, and they have achieved Tree City USA Status. He has also heard of projects being conducted in partnership with Earthcorp. The plan introduces other non-profit resources that the community can engage with. These include the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Forterra, the Municipal Research Service Center, Futurewise, and the University of Washington. Connecting with these various resources and agencies that have the same agenda for having a sustainable urban forest
in Edmonds is something that a strong plan should have. Cities can leverage these relationships and they can be a source of funding, human resources, advocacy, etc. Mr. Scott advised that an open house was held and community surveys were launched in May and June of 2017 to collect
feedback from City residents. About 175 people responded to the survey, with 40% from the downtown bowl, 15% from Seaview, and 29% from other neighborhoods. This public engagement is critical to the success of the plan and will continue.
From the public feedback to date, they learned that people find the trees to be valuable primarily for the air quality and wildlife benefits. Although stormwater measures high, it is not necessarily recognized as an important value. However, people care
about the quality of the air and believe that trees beautify the City. One key thing the City could do to satisfy public interest is maintain its current level of service. Many people expressed satisfaction, in general, with the level of service the City provides.
However, a priority effort should be made to take care of hazardous trees and keep the parks and streets reasonably safe. Planting more trees in public spaces is a high priority item from a public perspective, and there was strong support for limited
regulation of trees on private properties. Many felt the City could improve its on-site resources and public outreach to help people learn to be good stewards of the trees they own and care for.
Using all of this information, Mr. Scott said the consulting team and staff came up with a set of goals for each of the three
elements. However, they are all interrelated. This allows the City to work towards multiple goals at the same time. He reviewed the goals as follows:
• Tree Resources. The main theme behind the Urban Forest goals is to get more information about the Urban Forest asset, itself. You can’t manage what you don’t know. Getting more awareness of where to plant trees and the correct species diversity are important. In the plan, it codifies that the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment should be done every 10 years. The plan emphasizes planting the right trees in the right places and planning and proactively managing tree removal. It is also important for the City to know where it is losing trees in the coming years through general mortality.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Att. 2: PB Minutes 4-11-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 5
• Municipal Resources. Mr. Scott said these goals are designed around improving leadership and alignment of
objectives in the City. There are currently three different departments in the City that touch trees: Community Development, Parks and Public Works. One of the key parts of these goals is to encourage the City to establish an inter-departmental working team so that their municipal forestry efforts are all aligned towards the plan and its goals. Other actions and outcomes include establishing tree inspection cycles and providing some consistency in tree management decisions.
Chair Monroe referred to Goal M-8 and asked how the current regulatory framework would be changed and why. Ms. Hope said the City has long recognized a need to update the regulations. Tree regulations have been scattered throughout different parts of the code, and there are better ways to bring them all together. They have learned new information and new terminology that needs to be incorporated, as well. She emphasized that the proposed plan is
not intended to be an ordinance or code. Therefore, it will not say exactly what should happen. However, it is also clear that the current codes need to be updated as they pertain to trees. Goal M-8 basically says they need to update
and clean up the code and incorporate the proper terms, but it does not say they will make dramatic adjustments to the code requirements. Mr. Scott added that the intent is to update the code to incorporate best available science. It is important to update codes to stay current with knowledge, and this is also a key element of any long-range plan. Chair Monroe summarized that the first step would be to survey what they are doing now and understand where the holes
are. Board Member Lovell recalled that when the Board reviewed proposed code changes relative to trees a few years ago, the crowd became agitated. This plan was not acceptable to either the City or the residents. At that time, it was agreed
that an UFMP was needed before considering any changes to the codes and regulations. The code amendment process was terminated at that point, and the City engaged a consultant to prepare a draft UFMP. He summarized that the
UFMP is just a plan. If the City Council decides that code changes might be appropriate, that process will follow. However, the need should spring from the UFMP. Chair Monroe asked if the consultant has done an inventory of the City’s current tree regulations. Ms. Hope said they
know where the regulations are and something about them, but they haven’t reviewed them to identify exactly what needs to be done. That will be part of the next step. Mr. Scott noted that Goal M-5 is similar to M-8 and calls for
updating the Street Tree Plan. This makes it clear that the City should routinely update all of its policies, codes and plans.
• Community Resources. Mr. Scott advised that community goals are designed to strengthen partnerships between the City, non-profit organizations, neighborhood groups, etc. The goal is to provide a foundation for these groups and organizations to participate in urban forest management in the City. The City has received positive feedback on the establishment of a tree bank fund. One of the common challenges is that when cities obligate developers to replant trees on properties, they don’t have the room for them. Creating an avenue where the trees can be planted somewhere else or a mitigation fund where trees can be planted in other locations is a high value goal in the plan. Board Member Rubenkonig cautioned that Mr. Scott expressed the viewpoint that it is up to the developers to decide when and where trees will be planted. Whereas, in most jurisdictions, the area where trees need to be planted is set aside before the lots are ever created. She said she does not believe the plan is intended to imply that it will be up to developers to decide whether to plant trees or pay money into a fund. The City’s regulations address tree protection requirements in several places, but the staff and community have raised questions about whether the language is consistent, clear and adequate. While she would value a tree bank, she is more interested in addressing this concern. Mr. Scott said the community has also expressed interest in developing a Heritage Tree Designation as a way for the community to recognize important trees in the City. Again, he said the goals in this section are intended to strengthen partnerships within the City so that urban forestry is properly funded and the objectives can be obtained. Mr. Scott explained that once the UFMP has been adopted, it is expected to have a 5 to 10-year cycle before it needs to be revised again. It is always meant to be a long-term vision. The plan indicates an end date of 2048, but that is farther than initially intended. This will be corrected in the draft. It is supposed to be forward thinking for the next 20 years, with the expectation that the City will implement annual action strategies and monitor how things are going via urban forest reports.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Att. 2: PB Minutes 4-11-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 6
Yearly updates could be coordinated and provided by the inter-departmental group, and the Tree Board could report its progress, as well. Community satisfaction surveys should also be conducted to evaluate how the plan is doing, identify what elements are popular, and then make adjustments. The action strategies identified currently in the plan are suggested actions to meet the plan goals, but new information may come to light through routine inspections of trees or an assessment of one of the parks. As this new information becomes available, the plan should be updated accordingly. Mr. Scott said the draft UFMP was presented to the Tree Board on April 5th, and an open house is scheduled for next week to introduce the plan in a public forum and answer citizen questions. The public hearing process will begin in May, followed by revisions to the plan prior to presenting it to the City Council in June. Board Member Lovell referred to a memorandum he sent out to the Board with his notes from the Tree Board meeting that he attended. He said one of the key points made at that meeting was that before any revisions are made to the plan, there needs to be a public discussion at the Council level. Ms. Hope clarified that it was suggested that no substantive changes be made to the plan prior to City Council review. At this time, they are not talking about substantive changes. The revisions going forward are intended to clean up the language, provide additional photographs, correct data, and make some technical adjustments. They are not proposing changes that would alter the recommended goals and actions. Board Member Lovell asked if the draft UFMP would be updated to incorporate feedback from the Planning Board and Tree Board. Ms. Hope answered no, unless a correction needs to be made. This presentation is intended to introduce the Board to the draft plan and give them a chance to ask clarifying questions as they begin to formulate their thoughts. The Board will conduct a public hearing to solicit comments from the public, and the public will also be invited to provide feedback at the open house. Following these public opportunities, the Board will make a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell emphasized that the City Council does not want any substantive changes made to the plan prior to their discussion. Ms. Hope agreed that one Council Member made that point. It has been her intent, as well, to not make any substantive changes to the goals and actions until the City Council has had an opportunity to view the plan. However, that does not mean the Planning Board cannot provide feedback along the way. Board Member Lovell said he does not have a clear understanding of the map that illustrates areas of priority planting. The map labels the priority levels as relating to potential acres of planting. The red area, indicated as very high priority, is 383.6 acres. Does that mean there are no trees there now so there is a great potential to plant more trees? Mr. Scott answered that all of the areas that are colored purple and red are areas where there are currently no trees. According to the data, these are eligible planting sites. Board Member Lovell also referred to the illustration depicting land cover and asked if the plan contains verbiage that explains why there are such heavily forested areas remaining in the City now, such as South County Park. Mr. Scott answered no. The illustration just indicates what is currently there based on the 2015 aerial imagery. Board Member Lovell said he visited the Edmonds Museum to do some research relative to trees in the City. There are several publications and an archive of historic photographs. For the first half century (1887 to 1950), a process of denuding the entire bowl took place as trees were harvested to create wood products. The map of existing forested areas makes it clear to him that, historically, loggers may have made these areas off limits or determined they were too difficult to access. From 1950 forward, the City expanded in population, industry, infrastructure, etc. and there were definite historic moves to acquire more upland area towards the east in order to preserve denuded slopes from erosion. He suggested it would be helpful for the public to have a better understanding of how the City got to its current situation relative to tree cover. He said he heard there was a period of time when the City was denuded of trees and someone decided to plant a bunch of Douglas Firs along the streets. Now they have monstrous trees which create a canopy, but also block views. Again, he suggested this is an element of the City’s history that the public should be aware of. Mr. Scott cautioned that the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment does not tell you about the quality and condition of the forest. The bigger next step is to get a better understanding of that. The UMFP does include a brief history of urban forestry and a history of the City, but it does not go into that level of detail. He explained that there are a lot of aging alders in some of the remaining forested areas, as well as over-mature trees that provide canopy currently but are falling apart. There are younger trees coming up to replace them through natural processes, but knowing what is at risk from development or mortality is a big next step.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Att. 2: PB Minutes 4-11-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 7
Board Member Rubenkonig asked that the parks be identified on all of the maps included in the plan. The report speaks of the five parks, but the public needs to be able to see the parks on each of the maps. Mr. Scott said they prepared the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment prior to the UFMP, and the assessment map results provide more detail. He reminded the Board that the maps are available in GIS now for the City to overlay against any other kind of City demographic. This is a high value for the product. Chair Monroe referred to Table 2, which lists the common and scientific names, as well as the overall benefits of the trees. He said he looks forward to going to www.treebenefits.com to learn more about how they came up with the numbers. He noted that many of the trees on the list are not really common in Edmonds. Mr. Scott said the list came from the City’s Street Tree Plan, which lists the trees the City recommends for use in the rights-of-way. Others have also suggested that the list should include Douglas Fir, Big Leaf Maples, etc., but these would not necessarily be planted in City rights-of-way. The list was meant to provide examples to illustrate that there are benefits to trees. Once the City has an inventory, a future UFMP could list the specific benefits of the top species of trees in the City. One message the list conveys is that bigger trees provide more value and making room for big trees in the community is something people should aspire to do. Ms. Hope added that this could be a potential implementation step. The list is meant to provide a big picture. They need to provide more outreach to the community to remind people about the value of trees. Vice Chair Cheung noted that the tree valuations were calculated based on a tree size of 13-inch caliper. He asked about the typical size of a newly planted tree. Mr. Scott said most often, trees purchased from a nursery have a 2-inch caliper. Vice Chair Cheung asked how long it takes for a tree to reach a 13-inch caliper. Mr. Scott answered that it depends on the species, but it could be 10 to 15 years. Vice Chair Cheung said he assumes that a 2-inch caliper tree does not offer anywhere the benefit of a 13-inch caliper tree. It will take 10 to 15 years before the benefit of the larger tree will be replaced. He asked if it is possible to calculate the immediate effect. Mr. Scott advised that the National Tree Benefit Calculator calculates the value based on zip code, diameter and species of tree. Ms. Hope cautioned that including the tree value information in the plan is not intended to provide exact numbers. The intent is to illustrate that trees not only have aesthetic value, but they also have practical value. For example, if trees can perform some of the stormwater infrastructure or provide shade so that air conditions can be used less, they have some tangible economic value. Board Member Crank requested more information about the public open house, and Ms. Hope answered that it will be held in the Brackett Room on the 3rd floor of City Hall on April 19th from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. A press release was issued earlier in the day, and she will make sure the notice is forwarded to the Planning Board, as well. Board Member Crank asked if there would be public outreach opportunities in other neighborhoods outside of the bowl. Ms. Hope said nothing is planned at this time, but they will give it some thought. She noted that it requires staff time and consultant participation, and the City’s budget is limited. Board Member Crank observed that the UFMP would impact the entire City, yet some people in outlying neighborhoods may not be able to attend a downtown open house or participate in the on-line survey. Board Member Rosen asked for a reference point to indicate whether the City’s current 30.3% tree canopy is good or bad. Mr. Scott said the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment provides a reference to other cities nearby that have completed a similar exercise. American Forest used to advise that every city should pursue a 40% tree canopy as a goal. However, they have since stopped because there was no rationale to support the goal. You want to set a canopy goal that makes sense for your community. They are currently doing a similar project with the City of Sammamish, which has a 48% tree canopy. It is really up to the City to identify the tree canopy it eventually wants to have. Ms. Hope added that it depends on the City’s geography and patterns, as well. Some cities have large lots that are spread out and others are much more urbanized. Board Member Rosen observed that the answer to this question could have a real motivation on what people are willing to do. Understanding where we are is okay, but it doesn’t really help in terms of a reference point or an ideal. He encouraged them to be bold in coming up with a goal based on geographic needs and aspirations as opposed to continuing to maintain the status quo. Ms. Hope said it will be important to identify exactly what it means to have a goal and what they will do about it. For example, would a 45% tree canopy goal require that they eliminate all upland views and replace all of the grass playfields with trees? Would they have to require that everyone plant trees in their yards whether they are wanted or not? Before choosing a goal, they must carefully consider whether it is realistic. Board Member Rosen commented that is how cultural change happens. For example, they now recycle because they decided it is worth the benefit. Ms. Hope agreed but cautioned that the goal must be realistic. In addition to setting a goal, they must also identify a means for obtaining the goal. It requires a balancing act.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Att. 2: PB Minutes 4-11-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 8
Board Member Rosen noted that the draft plan is very robust, and he understands its implementation will be a marathon rather than a sprint. Given all that is included in the plan, he asked the staff and consultant to identify the three highest priority goals. Mr. Scott answered that inventorying all of the publicly-owned trees should be a high priority for the City, both for the liability they carry and because it is the easiest place to gain knowledge about the condition of the City’s trees. The assumption in the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment is that if they protect the trees, the canopy will stay. However, trees also die from natural mortality. Change is going to happen, and it is good to know the condition of the existing trees, as well as what needs to be done to maintain them. He suggested the shortest step to the tree inventory would be to have City staff begin to formally document the condition of trees. Because 83% of the urban forest is on private property, Mr. Scott suggested that public outreach goals are critical to raise awareness of how to best manage trees. For example, citizens need to be made aware that activities such as tree topping is harmful to trees. While people are free to do what they want with their own trees, with better understanding, they may choose not to do things that harm them. Board Member Rosen commented that, regardless of the various reasons, trees will continue to die and/or be removed. Does the plan identify what the annual turnover rate should be in order to maintain the existing tree canopy? Mr. Scott said it will depend on the size of trees planted and getting a stronger sense of the mortality rate. With the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment and the City having knowledge of what properties have already been developed, it can identify where the highest risks of development are. The strength of the UFMP will come from increasing the City’s knowledge of the asset, itself. Board Member Rosen observed that, as reflected in the conversation, there is a lot of interest about price tags and the return on investment. Trees have a huge value, and it helps to demonstrate all the other rolls that trees play and that they do to offset real costs. However, having done a lot of work on conservation education and social change, it can also become more about “what’s in it for me.” Adding a price tag to trees can take them out of the category of being a community value. For example, some people can afford to water yards regardless of how short the water supply is. It’s a double-edged sword that has bitten us in the past because it is hard to go back. He cautioned that this approach has tremendous value, but it has hurt other conservation efforts in the past. Mr. Scott appreciated Board Member Rosen’s observations. Board Member Cloutier observed that it is not likely that anyone will want to plant a fir tree in the areas identified in red on the map because they are view corridors. It will always cost the property owner far more than the benefit derived from the tree. The question is how the City can meet them halfway. For example, could the UFMP include trees that are smaller than full size. While large trees create a good canopy, the underbrush, small bushes and fruit trees can still provide shade, a little bit of water retention, and some wildlife protection. Although these other options do not provide the full scope of having Alders all the way up, that is not going to happen in the view corridors. Instead of giving up, they need to come up with a mitigated plan for these areas. Mr. Scott recognized this concern, as well. He suggested that the City utilize the U-Trace software to model how much canopy could be created if they only planted small trees in the high-priority areas. He said the consulting team would work with City staff to create the bookends. However, this will be part of the action strategies rather than documented in the plan. If they want no net loss, they must learn more about mortality rates and how change is happening in the existing forested areas and then set the objectives. Board Member Cloutier suggested the plan will need to be explicit about how to handle areas where view is of primary concern. For example, he lives in a house with a view. While he loves trees, he doesn’t want a tree in his backyard that blocks his view. He will plant small things instead, which is better than nothing. It is important that the plan identify a way for property owners to do that. Board Member Lovell reminded the Board of the Comprehensive Plan policy to preserve public view corridors and suggested that the UFMP must be congruent with that policy. Ms. Hite agreed and said she intends to review the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies to make sure the UFMP is consistent. Mr. Scott added that the UFMP is meant to sit under the Comprehensive Plan and should be aligned with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is pleased with the direction the City is heading to create a UFMP. However, she is concerned that, in the three years since the public hearing on the Tree Board’s recommended tree plan, 10 trees in her small neighborhood of nine lots have been removed. This has compromised her grove of trees, and she no longer has a wind screen
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Att. 2: PB Minutes 4-11-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 11, 2018 Page 9
from the east, south or west because evergreens have been taken down. Only one tree has been replanted. She is unhappy about this for many reasons. Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that when the City decided to move forward with a UFMP, one of the first premises made was that most of the relief that could be found in increasing the tree canopy is on private land. Some of the goals that have been presented in the plan support that premise. She appreciates that the plan points out that there is an economic cost to the City of having no trees, and that the plan provides some economic numbers for what these costs might be. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the UFMP is a great report, and they have a lot to work with. She looks forward to future hearings; and hopefully, the public will weigh in, as well. The UFMP is necessary. Until they look at the public land, they really can’t look at best management practices for private land. Mr. Scott said the UFMP may not work in all neighborhoods, but perhaps the City could have a program that provides trees for private property owners to plant on their lands. Having a UFMP in place will also help the City become eligible for grant funding to support programs of this type. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that they are moving in the right direction. She wants the tree canopy to increase, and she would like to have a figure to target. However, she recognized that this will have to come later. At this time, they need to establish the facts to support efforts going forward, and the draft UFMP does just that. Vice Chair Cheung said most people appreciate trees, but there is concern when talking about regulating trees on private property. Given that 83% of the tree canopy is located on private property, he suspects many people will become concerned if the City attempts to regulate trees on private property. It is important to recognize that the areas of greatest influence are going to be on private property. However, rather than telling private property owners what they can and can’t do with the trees on their properties, the City should focus on education efforts that encourage people to maintain their existing trees and plant new trees. He said he does not believe that the cost benefit information contained in the plan will have a significant impact on a property owner’s behavior. The plan should provide specific information about the tangible benefits of trees on individual private properties. Mr. Scott said the plan explores the concept of requiring business licenses for arborists and working with people who do tree cutting in the City. A lot of other cities have codes that slow down the cutting because a homeowner is required to get a permit first. Having these additional requirements would affect change and encourage good stewardship of trees on private property. Ms. Hope said another idea she discussed with the consultant is making sure that arborists and tree removal companies clearly understand the City’s regulations. This could help prevent some of problems that come from random tree cutting. Vice Chair Cheung questioned how the desire to have more trees will influence the City’s ability to provide affordable housing options, which is another issue the Board is currently working on. While the UFMP might help save trees, it might also result in increased housing prices in certain areas where tree preservation is required. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that a discussion on potential code amendments related to permit decision making is tentatively scheduled for April 25th. Mr. Lien indicated that he will not likely be ready to move this discussion forward at the next meeting, but it should come before the Board in the near future. Chair Monroe asked Mr. Lien to work with Mr. Chave to determine if there are other agenda items for the April 25th meeting or if it should be cancelled. Board Member Lovell noted that the extended agenda identifies a public hearing on the draft UFMP on May 9th, and the intent is to solicit input and feedback for the consultant. He voiced concern about moving forward with the public hearing given the comment from Council Member Buckschnis at the Tree Board meeting about the need for the City Council to review the draft plan before any changes are made. Mr. Lien emphasized that no substantive changes would be made to the plan based on public and Board feedback, but that does not mean the Planning Board cannot make recommendations relative to potential substantial changes the City Council should consider when the plan is presented to them. Board Member Lovell suggested that one of the major areas of concern in the plan will boil down to what kind of influence the plan and potential outgrowths from the plan will have on private property owners. These elements hung up the last proposal, and the same thing could occur again if they aren’t careful. He asked for suggestions about how the plan, as it currently exists, can help facilitate a smoother transition or provide provisions for private properties.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Att. 2: PB Minutes 4-11-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 2
Board Member Crank reported that Snohomish County recently implemented a Paine Field Airport Commission. She asked if a City Department will be watching this commission as meetings start to occur that pertain to Edmonds. Ms. Hope answered that her department has not been requested to follow the commission, but she will check to see if another department has been given this responsibility. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT Vice Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Activities Report, which was included in the Board’s packet. He commented that the PowerPoint presentation provided in the Staff Report to illustrate 2017 development activity was interesting, and it was helpful to see photographs of what has been or is being built. Ms. Hope said she is pleased the Board found the information interesting and noted that there is a lot of development activity going on right now. She concluded that 2017 was a strong year for development in the City, with the most building permits ever issued in a single year. The Board requested that the PowerPoint presentation be made available to the public via the City’s website, and Vice Chair Cheung noted that it could already be accessed via the Planning Commission’s May 9th meeting agenda packet. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP) Mr. Shipley explained that the UFMP is intended to guide the management of trees in Edmonds, with a particular focus on trees on public lands (rights-of-way, parks, etc.). The plan includes a description of the value of trees, as well as information on tree management and the tree canopy in Edmonds. It provides a number of goals and objectives for urban forest management, including goals and objectives related to public education and outreach. He introduced the consultant, Ian Scott from the Davey Resource Group, who was present to provide an overview of the proposed plan. Ian Scott, Davey Resource Group, explained that the long-range strategic goals provided in the plan are intended to address the three components of a sustainable urban forestry program:
• Tree Resources are the trees on both public and private properties. The Urban Forest Asset Goals are intended to improve the urban forest resources over the next 20 years by developing detailed expectations for the urban forest.
• Municipal Resources include City staff from Development Services, Public Works, and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services. The Municipal Resource Goals are intended to drive improvements in City policy and practices by developing efficiency and alignment of efforts within City departments.
• Community Resources include the tree board, volunteers and non-profit organizations. Community Resource Goals are intended to build stronger community engagement and public participation in urban forest stewardship. The Community Resource Goals are a key component to the success of the plan. Mr. Scott advised that the planning process for the draft UFMP included an Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Assessment, which provided a clear picture of the extent and distribution of tree canopy across Edmonds. The study identified an average tree canopy in Edmonds of 30.3%. If all areas with grass and other vegetation are included as possible locations for trees, the City has a theoretical maximum canopy of 57.4%. However, it is important to keep in mind that private owners control the majority of the tree canopy (83%), and there are currently few regulations to limit tree removal. Only about 13% of the existing tree canopy is on public lands, and the City has a very limited knowledge about the condition or number of these existing trees. Mr. Scott explained that the UTC project provides the City with new tools for planning into the future. The results were used to prioritize planting opportunities around the City and understand how to manage the forest fragmentation to benefit wildlife. Going forward, the City can better manage software tools such as UTRACE, which can help estimate how many trees need to be planted to affect tree canopy into the future and where these trees should be planted. The City can also start connecting its information about trees to the iTREE suite of urban forest software tools to uncover ways to optimize the environmental services provided by trees. He advised that the Priority Planting Analysis provided in the plan identifies an estimated 1,619 acres of priority tree planting space where trees could be planted to expand the urban forest canopy. However, a number of citizens have raised concern that planting trees in some of these locations could result in a loss of view. While view is an important
consideration, other factors (i.e. steep slopes and wetlands) were also considered when identifying the probable high priority areas.
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Att. 3: PB Minutes of 5-9-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 3
Mr. Scott said concern has been raised about whether or not the iTREE software is applicable in Edmonds. However, at this point, it is the best available science available to look at the environmental service provided by trees. The software was developed by a consortium across the country and is used as a resource both nationally and internationally. As new and better science becomes available, the UFMP will allow the City to take advantage of this new information. Mr. Scott displayed a table which outlines the common urban forestry activities that a city might engage in. The table establishes a benchmark around how City staff currently spends its time related to each of the activities. Implementing the goals and objectives in the plan will likely require changes in these numbers, and the table will need to be updated as work is reprioritized into other areas and/or additional staff is added. He also shared a table outlining how the City currently spends money related to urban forestry. He summarized that in 2017, urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita or a total of $319,542. A minimum of $2 per capita is required in order for the City to maintain its Tree City USA status, and the national average is about $7.50 per capita. The 2017 numbers were higher as a result of the UFMP project, and the City’s average in previous years was likely about $3.50. Mr. Scott said it is estimated that the urban tree canopy provides about $1.5 million in benefits to the City annually. That means for every $1 the City invests in urban forestry work, the community yields almost $5 in environmental benefits. The introductory section of the UFMP describes the benefits that trees provide. Cities with street tree inventories can be more specific about these benefits. In the absence of this information, the plan provides examples of the street tree species that are recommended in the City’s Street Tree Plan. Some residents have requested that Douglas Fir and other large native trees be added to the plan. However, the focus of the UFMP is to help improve the City’s management of trees and that is why it focuses on street trees. Mr. Scott advised that as far as community resources go, the City already has a Tree Board in place, and the City has obtained the status of Tree City USA. Another fundamental element of the plan is to encourage more partnerships and public engagement in the management of the urban forest. As the current tree canopy is significantly weighted towards private properties, partnerships and community outreach will be essential to move the plan forward in a unified direction. About 175 people responded to the community survey, and the majority of them were from the bowl area or other neighborhoods associated with a view. Most voiced concern about private property rights and how the plan might impact their ability to maintain their views. However, the goals contained in the plan are much broader than views and they allow freedom for private property owners to manage trees according to basic environmental rules, city requirements, and their own decisions. Mr. Scott said the public also voiced concern that the plan needs to have more science, and the goals called out in the plan are designed to provide this additional information. As they learn more about the City’s urban forest, the plan can be updated accordingly. He emphasized that the plan is not meant to be a research document, but a planning document for the City moving forward. Mr. Scott specifically referred to Urban Asset (UA) Goals UA5 and UA8, which call for managing species diversity and encouraging tree species diversity. Because these goals are closely related, they were combined into a single, more-meaningful goal. He explained that a number of the Municipal Goals contained in the plan are designed to encourage better cooperation amongst the various City departments so that consistent decisions are made. Community Goal (C5) calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. However, it is important to understand that this program would be voluntary for interested property owners to get a tree recognized for its stature and significance to the community. One advantage of the program is that subsequent property owners would at least think about what made the tree so significant to the community before making a decision to take it down. Mr. Scott said another important aspect of the plan is that it establishes a foundation for adaptive management over the next 5 to 10 years. As the City implements, monitors and evaluates the goals over time, adjustments can be made to the strategies for implementation. The intent is that staff would provide routine reports moving forward, with additional community surveys to gauge the success of the plan’s implementation. It is anticipated that new science will become available, and the City can establish better objectives to accomplish each of the goals based on this new information. Mr. Scott reviewed that the draft plan was presented to the Tree Board on April 5th and the Planning Board on April 11th. An open house was conducted on April 19th. Following the public hearing, the Planning Board will be asked to forward a
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Att. 3: PB Minutes of 5-9-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 4
recommendation to the City Council. Revisions will be made to the plan based on community and Planning Board feedback, and the goal is to present it to the City Council for a public hearing and discussion starting in June. Ms. Hope observed that creating the draft UFMP has been a long process, and there are still some clean up work and additional background information that needs to be done. Board Member Lovell commented that the proposed 21 goals represent a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of creating a tree inventory, getting organized, keeping track of tree conditions, etc. He asked if the City Departments responsible for this additional work have made plans for implementation or if they are waiting until after the plan has been adopted. Ms. Hope answered that representatives from the Parks, Public Works and Development Services Departments have all been involved in the process and provided detailed input relative to the proposed goals and objectives. Before the plan is presented to the City Council for approval, they are hoping to at least identify the estimated costs associated with implementing the goals and objectives. Some of the objectives can be implemented at little or no cost to the City, such as establishing interdepartmental relationships, but an actual inventory of trees on public lands will be a large project. If the plan is adopted, the City Council will look at the projects and identify priorities. The intent is to implement the plan in phases over time. Ms. Hite advised that, from a Parks Department perspective, the UFMP will be a foundational plan for the City going forward. She appreciates that the consultant has addressed the concerns raised by citizens to date as the plan is polished up. She observed that a number of residents have expressed their love for trees. The Parks Department loves trees, as well, and 348 new trees were planted in 2017. However, it is also important to keep in mind that only 13% of the tree canopy is located on public lands. The need for protecting and even increasing the tree canopy must be balanced with other environmental needs, as well as the budget, view protection and private property rights. There is a robust conversation happening in the community as the UFMP has been presented to the public, and she encouraged people to keep all perspectives in mind as they work to come up with a balanced approach that makes sense for the City. Ms. Hite commented that the goals identified in the draft plan are very ambitious. Short of regulating trees on private property, the plan gives some tools for the City to provide public education and try to influence behaviors. The City does not currently have this capacity. As the plan moves forward, perhaps the City could provide more funding for public outreach and education. The Tree Board does a great job with public education, including a new brochure, but the City could do a lot more. She summarized that the Parks Department supports the goals presented in the plan and believes they will go a long way to help maintain the urban forest. Regarding the proposed arborist position, she advised that the Parks Department recently supported a staff member to get certified to be an arborist, and she now works for the City in that capacity, performing tree evaluations on both private and public lands. While this is not an arborist-dedicated position, it is a value add for the City. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the UFMP is a structure in which Edmonds can look at its urban forest canopy. A focal point of the plan is evaluating and assessing the existing tree canopy. Once this information is available, the City Council can decide if further action is needed in addition to what is already being done concerning trees and vegetation in Edmonds. A lot of items could be added to the plan, but perhaps the City is already addressing them and they just need to be finetuned. For example, there are industry practices associated with street trees to discourage conflict with sidewalks. These are practical standards that the City applies now, but providing an approved street tree list would clarify the issue further. Perhaps it is a matter of framing the information so it gets out to the community. Ms. McConnell said that, in the past, inappropriate street trees were planted. These trees are causing problems with the sidewalks and other infrastructure and need to be dealt with. The Engineering Department was hoping the UFMP would provide additional direction. While preserving and/or enhancing the tree canopy is important, it is also important to recognize that some trees are creating unsafe pedestrian conditions. These trees need to be replaced as part of the overall infrastructure goals. When development occurs on private properties, the City requires frontage improvements, and it may be necessary to remove some trees that are causing damage to existing infrastructure. When planting new street trees, it is important to consider the species, as well as provide a planting strip that is wide enough to accommodate the tree’s future growth. The Public Works Department is working with the Parks Department to update the Street Tree Plan to address these types of issues. The UFMP will provide helpful guidelines for the overall City goals, and this will enable staff to work at a more detailed level to make sure the goals are implemented appropriately.
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Att. 3: PB Minutes of 5-9-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 5
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that an approved Street Tree List could also be a valuable tool for private property owners to ensure that trees planted in neighborhoods meet the industry standard. She suggested that the benefits provided by the Street Tree Plan need to be better communicated to the public. Board Member Rubenkonig recognized that the City is already doing good things on behalf of trees and will continue to do so in the future. The UFMP will result in additional future actions. However, the focus of tonight’s discussion is regarding the goals and policies in the draft plan. A specific action plan will be addressed at some point in the future after the UFMP has been adopted by the City Council. Ms. Hope referred the Board Members to the written public comments that were attached to the Staff Report and/or forwarded to the Board Members via email. Vice Chair Cheung confirmed that the Board Members received the public comments and read each one prior to the meeting. Board Member Crank referred to Community Goal C5, which calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. Having lived in a community that had a Heritage Tree Designation Program, she observed that a lot of work was required by staff to review petitions from private citizens who wanted to save significant trees that were deemed diseased and/or dangerous by an arborist. It would be good if the City’s certified and licensed arborist could handle all of the cases. However, based on the number of petitions the City might receive, it may be necessary to have a full-time arborist on staff. Ms. Hope responded that the City has discussed the concept, but they are not ready to propose a specific program at this time. She agreed that some cities have done a good job, but other programs have resulted in a lot of hassle with little value. Mr. Scott explained that the method for evaluating the risk of a tree to cause injury or harm to individual properties has improved. For example, the risk assessment method approved by the International Society of Arbiculturists provides an objective method for evaluating trees. Board Member Robles asked about the City’s method for allowing property owners to report on the condition of existing trees on their properties. He also asked how citizens interact with the City when they have questions about trees. Ms. Hope said that, typically, citizens either call or email City staff to report a concern or obtain additional information, and staff responds to each one. Ms. Hite added that her department gets quite a few calls and emails about trees in the parks, as well. She appreciates having the eyes of the citizens to help spot potentially hazardous situations and report them to the City. Board Member Robles commented that the City has a strong activist community regarding trees. He asked if the City has the capability to allow citizens to self-report tree assets and conditions on a centralized data base. Mr. Scott answered that work management software is available that allows citizens to self-report essential infrastructure, but trees are more difficult because they grow and appreciate over time. Because there is so much public interest in trees, software is available that allows people to look up trees to find out more information about them. This information could be made publicly assessible and potentially reduce the number of site visits needed by city officials responding to calls. Board Member Robles explained that there are ways, such as using a block change, which acts as a metronome that klicks off every data that goes onto the register. This concept could be used to the City’s advantage to offer a token (a type of cryptographic coin) when private property owners report on their trees. Property owners could also earn tokens for preserving trees, and these tokens could be used when applying for permits in the future. Using this type of concept, the City could track trees and incentivize people to preserve them whenever possible. Ann Cade, Edmonds, said she missed the previous meetings where the UFMP was discussed because THE EDMONDS BEACON is delivered to her home on Thursdays, after the meetings had already taken place. She asked why a tree inventory is needed and what benefit it would provide to the City. She said her concern is not just about views, but about light and warmth. She does not want to live in a shoreline that is cold and void of sunlight as a result of too many large trees. She referred to a statement that was made at an earlier meeting, suggesting that other vegetation can provide similar benefits to those provided by tall trees. People can vegetate their yards and create oxygen exchange. While she considers herself to be a “tree hugger,” she felt there should be a height limit for trees in the bowl. If the City wants to plant tall trees, she suggested that a strip of land adjacent to Edmonds Way would be a good location since they would not block views. Phyllis Becker, Edmonds, said she has lived most of her life in the Northwest. As any Northwesterner knows, the forest is the forest. The idea of an urban forest is an oxymoron. Forests have huge trees and existed in Edmonds 100 years ago. But now Edmonds is an urban center. She agreed with Ms. Cade that there should be a height limit for trees in the bowl area. She
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Att. 3: PB Minutes of 5-9-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 6
felt that Douglas Fir and other large species are inappropriate in areas where view is a concern. These trees belong in the forest where they do better. There are millions of alternative species that could be planted that would not impact views. She said she currently has a small view that is precious to her and she would like it to be preserved. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, noted that this is the third time he has been before the Board to voice his concerns relative to trees. He agreed there is a lot to consider relative to views, but the Board should keep in mind that the majority of households in Edmonds do not have a view of the water. Most of the views people have are of trees, and trees are what brought him to Edmonds. He recalled that a few years ago, his neighbor cut down three huge Douglas Fir trees. While he previously could see only one neighbor from his deck, he can now see at least five homes. Removal of these trees directly impacted his property. Mr. Phipps commented that a lot of people love trees and the urban forest, and he suggested that Community Goal C1, which calls for establishing a tree bank, is the most important goal and key to answering the question of what tree canopy the City wants to have. Once this question is answered, the rest will follow. He said he hopes the City will choose to have a net gain in tree canopy and decide against allowing further loss. He noted that there are not many places to plant trees in the City, and he supports the recommendation of establishing a tree bank to avoid the controversy associated with views. As long as trees are planted somewhere in the Puget Sound basin, they would be environmentally beneficial to all. It does not necessarily have to take place in Edmonds. Almost 6% of the City’s urban forest has been lost since 2005. It would be great if the City could require that a tree be planted for every tree that is chopped down to accommodate development. A tree bank program would allow the replacement trees to be planted outside of Edmonds where they won’t impact views but would provide an environmental benefit. Mr. Phipps reminded the Board that 83% of the City’s current tree canopy is on private property. Many cities have tree ordinances, including Lynnwood and Shoreline, that apply to private properties, too. Whether the City adopts a UFMP or a tree ordinance, it would be very important not to impact views from private properties. Tall trees should not be planted in the bowl area. He did not believe that the strip of land west of 9th Avenue on the west facing slope would be a politically viable place to plant large trees given concerns about view. That is why the tree bank concept is so important. Mr. Phipps voiced concern that development has resulted in wholesale logging of land. Once these forested areas are gone, they cannot be reclaimed. He would like the City’s Parks Department to make a concerted effort to purchase more open space and forested land to preserve forever. The property east of Seaview Park (between Seaview Park and Perrinville) is a good example of forested land that should be purchased by the City and preserved. He also stressed the need for the City to acknowledge the problems that street trees have created. Injuries have occurred when people have tripped over sidewalks that were raised by tree roots. Some research needs to be done to determine not only the appropriate species, but also the best planting practices. For example, the City of Seattle uses a double grate approach. The first grate is placed at the root level, and the second a foot higher at the sidewalk level. This gives the roots of the trees space to grow without impacting the sidewalks. Eric Soll, Edmonds, referred the Board to a letter he submitted prior to the meeting. He advised that since he and his wife moved to Edmonds they have planted a number of trees on their property without the benefit of any government interaction or education. The tree population in the United States is increasing due to a number of factors outlined in his letter. Because of government legislation, more trees are being saved in other areas. A lot of development is taking place in Edmonds because the Growth Management Act has restricted development opportunities in rural areas. Because development is being pushed to the urban areas, trees in the rural areas are being saved. Mr. Soll emphasized that the Board and City Council do not operate in a vacuum. They just underwent the largest property tax increase in recent memory. In addition, the library measure failed in Snohomish County and only narrowly passed in Edmonds. Government agencies must realize that people are getting tapped out in terms of spending money, and they should concentrate on traditional city functions. He urged the City to recognize that the good times will not last forever, and they should work to establish a rainy-day fund for future needs. Lastly, he said he is fine with the idea of people establishing Heritage Trees on their properties, but he does not want the City to require him to do so on his property. Ross Dimmick, Edmonds, said he also submitted written comments prior to the meeting. He referred to Ms. Hite’s earlier comment about the need for a balance between the environmental benefits of trees and views. For his job he writes environmental impact statements, which takes a wholistic analysis of environmental benefits, including a section on aesthetics.
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Att. 3: PB Minutes of 5-9-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 7
A very important part of the environmental impact statement is the scenic value, which quite definitely includes views. He said he was born and raised in Edmonds and moved back six years ago after spending time in a variety of other locations. Most recently, he lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where there are not a lot of trees. He moved back to Edmonds because of the benefit of trees to the aesthetics of the area, but also for the view. You can travel around the country and will not find a similar view in any of the lower 48 states. It is a unique resource that needs to be considered as part of any discussion about aesthetics. Mr. Dimmick voiced concern that the science contained in the draft plan is weak and does not reflect the unique character of Edmonds. He urged the Board to reject the plan and hold the consultant accountable to produce a real plan rather than a cut and paste plan from other jurisdictions. The Plan needs to have a scientific basis with transparent numbers that can be cross-checked. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds for 50 years. While she agreed that most people love the view of the water that is available in Edmonds, she was present to speak on behalf of the eagles and herons that roost and feed in the beautiful evergreen trees. This iconic image is as precious to her as the view of the water, which she also enjoys. She said she is in favor of the City finding any way to preserve the existing evergreen trees, and she is also in favor of no net loss and would like to see some gain. She said there are 7 huge trees on her property of the species that has been referred to as inappropriate in an urban setting. She hires an arborist to inspect the trees every few years to make sure they are safe and healthy. These trees continue to thrive and provide a great service to wildlife, and they are an important part of Edmonds. Val Stewart, Bellevue, said she was a citizen of Edmonds for 30 years before recently moving to Bellevue, which is known for being a “city in the park.” The City of Bellevue has proactively planted trees, similar to what is being suggested in the draft plan for Edmonds. Bellevue currently has a lot of trees that help improve the quality of life for its citizens, and the parks are amazing. Bellevue is four times the sizes of Edmonds in population and land mass, but they have a 67% tree canopy in their parks. By comparison, the City of Edmonds has only 13%. She said she was shocked to learn that 87% of the existing tree canopy is on private property. Ms. Stewart expressed her belief that the draft plan is well put together, but she is concerned that there is not enough focus on the northwest ecosystem, which is very specific. She advised that she started the Students Saving Salmon Group at Edmonds Woodway High School, and they do water quality testing and help educate home owners about native vegetation on the streams. It is important that the plan encourage native trees wherever possible in the urban forest. She noted that there are currently five dominant trees species in Yost Park, which is the only park that shows what a native ecosystem should look like. That is where she takes students to teach them about native ecosystems in the urban forests. Ms. Stewart suggested the plan should encourage home owners to plant native trees in their yards, and there are a number of species that are smaller in size to avoid issues with view. Planting native trees on private properties would help bridge the fragmented forests throughout the community for the benefit of wildlife. She said she lived in Edmonds long enough to see the tree canopy diminish over time. As trees have been cut down, the amount of wildlife has also diminished. If this continues, the children growing up in Edmonds will not have a connection to wildlife unless they go to a park. She agreed with the plan’s emphasis on education and outreach to help local citizens see and understand the reasons to plant native trees where they can. Ms. Stewart suggested that the plan should make note of the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program that received certification about 10 years ago after 100s of Edmonds residents certified their yards and made a commitment to provide food, shelter, water and a place for wildlife to raise their young. She suggested that this community effort needs to be revived, and this could help improve the canopy on private lands. Lastly, Ms. Stewart referred to a statement in the plan that “tree physiology
for most trees in Western Washington can take up to seven (7) years to establish after planting, and another ten (10) years before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide the majority of their ecosystem services when they reach functional
maturity.” It is important to understand that when a 100-year-old tree is taken down, it will take many human generations to replace its ecosystem function. Vice Chair Cheung closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Rosen thanked the residents for sharing their thoughts and concerns with the Board. Their comments are important and do matter, and the Board is listening. In listening to the public testimony and reading the written comments, it is clear that the public wants it all. They want to preserve views of water and trees, create biodiversity, protect and improve
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Att. 3: PB Minutes of 5-9-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 8
water and air quality, protect property rights, and provide habitat for wildlife. They seem to like trees as long as they don’t get in the way of anything. He commented that not all factors are equal, and the Planting Priority Analysis Map was created with the right perspective in mind. It was a noble effort to identify areas where trees could be planted to increase the canopy. Everyone can likely agree that they don’t want houses to slide down the hillside, and this requires stabilization whether by trees or some other method. Board Member Rosen said he would advocate for increasing the tree canopy over a no-net-loss approach. He would encourage a more sophisticated goal setting specific to preservation. While this will be a heavy lift, the plan is a good place to start. The plan identifies a vision and strong goals and objectives to implement the vision, and course corrections can be made at every opportunity based on new information, changing conditions, etc. He felt the plan is a step in the right direction, but it needs stronger goals, and perhaps they could be stated differently. Additional scientific information is needed to clarify the problem and solutions. The plan speaks only about trees, yet there is a variety of vegetation that can help the City accomplish its goal. The need exists and it must be addressed or the consequences will be severe and significant. Board Member Lovell observed that implementing the goals and objectives called out in the plan will involve a significant amount of staff time. He agreed with Board Member Rosen that additional study is needed in some areas. There has been a lot of feedback with respect to narrowing the tree species down to be more applicable to the environment. Questions have also been raised about whether or not it is realistic to increase the tree canopy, and he is not sure there is a universal belief or understanding that the tree benefit calculations will actually work. He agreed with the finding that a tree inventory is needed to document the existing tree canopy. A number of people commented on the importance of view preservation, but it must be noted that there are more views than just of the water. He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan requires the City to preserve public views, which means they need to be careful what they plan for the view corridors. Board Member Lovell referred to Municipal Goal M6, which calls for creating a dedicated Urban Forest/Arborist staff position. He also referred to Community Goal C5, which calls for establishing a Heritage Tree Designation. While they all understand it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the City to regulate what private property owners can and cannot do on their properties, there are things the City can do to educate about maintaining and planting trees. For example, would it would be possible for a full-time arborist to be on call to address situations where a private property owner wants to remove a tree that is blocking a view or is a nuisance? It seems like there should be a process and some type of inspection done by a professional to identify the appropriate way to handle the situation. Board Member Lovell observed that, typically, a development plan for multi-family residential development will take advantage of as much area as possible, and the tendency is to clear-cut the lot and then replant after development is finished. If the City is serious about preservation and the importance of maintaining the mature trees, there should be a process whereby each site is looked at with respect to the potential retention of trees. He also expressed his belief that the City should renew or bump up its efforts to address street trees that interfere with sidewalks and other infrastructure. Board Member Robles commented that risks and hazards are quite easy to manage if there are adequate standards in place. However, you must first identify the risk exposure, as well as the probability and consequences should it happen. This all starts with some form of inventory. It does not need to be a complete inventory; it could even be as sample inventory. They have a strong citizen base and people who are interested in trees but no way to receive their input. There are a lot of tools available to receive comments on a shared-data base and to incentivize certain behaviors. He cautioned that before the City considers additional regulations, it should try to incentivize desirable behaviors. Understanding technology is necessary to learn what is available, and he hopes the City can look forward rather than backward to take advantage of these new tools rather than creating additional regulations that end up infringing on private property rights. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the plan contains a set of facts and information, some of which came from other jurisdictions. The City Council will have to ultimately decide whether or not the facts are true and applicable to Edmonds. They must also decide if the current tree canopy is sufficient or not. Decisions need to be made about whether it is a serious enough issue to adopt the UFMP and preserve or increase the tree canopy. In the comments from the public, as well as the information presented in the plan and in the Staff Report, she particularly liked the following ideas:
• Licensing companies providing tree cutting services to limit the scare tactics of storm damage control.
• Providing incentives for private land practices to increase the tree canopy.
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Att. 3: PB Minutes of 5-9-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 9
• Overseeing a regulatory overhaul of the tree-related ordinances. This could include a review of the development
regulations to increase the preservation of existing trees and reviewing the landscape provisions to promote improving and increasing the tree canopy. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other cities, such as Redmond and Kirkland, have used more stringent tree policies to successfully create larger tree canopies than what currently exists in Edmonds. Again, she said it will be up to the City Council to determine whether or not the plan contains the facts and describes the seriousness of what is taking place in Edmonds. She
said she heard some very interesting points that are shaping her view a bit differently, and she appreciates the ability to see things from a variety of perspectives. Vice Chair Cheung commented that there are a lot of competing priorities to consider. Most people do not hate trees, and most
do not cut them down for fun. Trees are typically cut down to accommodate development or because they are creating a hazard or causing damage to property. In addition to increasing the tree canopy, these other factors must be considered to ensure
pedestrian safety and to protect properties and infrastructure. Most of the tree canopy is located on private property, and the City must balance the need to preserve trees with the need to protect private property rights. He said a number of large trees have been removed on private properties in his neighborhood over the last five years. One was growing into a home and damaging the structure, and another was covering the sidewalk and creating a dangerous situation. Again, heh said people
usually have a reason for cutting down a tree. Education and guidance on how developers and property owners can build around a tree rather than remove it would be helpful. Perhaps the City could provide examples of how projects were accomplished without removing significant trees.
Vice Chair Cheung cautioned that the City must be reasonable. It cannot put such strict regulations in place that developers cannot build in the City. He reminded the Board of ongoing discussions about the need for affordable housing and placing
additional restrictions on development could be counterintuitive to this effort. He said he also has some concerns about how scientific the report is. He summarized that a lot of people are passionate about trees, and others are more passionate about views or development. They need to be respective of all and recognize there is not a clear solution. Hopefully, they can come up with a plan and goals and objects that balance all of these interests.
Board Member Crank said the UFMP process has been an interesting experience for her, coming from living 16 years in a Tree
City with a similar plan in place and seeing the spectrum of how community members respond to it to actually being on the side of creating and putting a plan in place. As the plan develops, she hopes that it will be user-friendly. Those who have weighed in on the issue to date have been more highly invested than the average homeowner will be. The everyday person will not spend as much time and energy to review the plan and see how it would apply to them. As the plan goes from draft to
permanent, it is important that it be drafted to be as user-friendly as possible. The education process needs to be easy to understand and ideas need to be presented in a way that does not require a lot of time and energy to understand. It needs to be
user-friendly to the majority of the City’s population.
Board Member Lovell asked about the next step in the process. Ms. Hope said they initially anticipated presenting the plan to the City Council, along with the Board’s recommendation, on June 19th, but this might not be possible. The Board is scheduled to continue its discussion on May 23rd. In the meantime, staff will work with the consultant to update the plan and provide additional background information.
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Att. 3: PB Minutes of 5-9-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
SUBJECT TO JUNE 13th APPROVAL
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 23, 2018
Chair Monroe 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 Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Megan Livingston, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT Chair Monroe referred the Board to the Development Services Director’s written report, but there were no comments from the Board. RECOMMENDATION FOR DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP)
Director Hope advised that the Board has received all of the materials for the draft UFMP, except a slightly revised draft is still in process. The purpose of tonight’s meeting is for the Board to discuss the key points of the plan and potentially forward a recommendation on to the City Council. She reminded the Board that the UFMP is intended to be a policy guide and not an environmental impact statement or scientific study. It is similar to plans in other jurisdictions, but with some information that is unique to Edmonds. The plan provides background information about the value of trees and outlines some of the challenges
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Att. 4: PB Draft Minutes 5-23-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 2
of trees. It also describes the City’s current forest management program and explains how resources are currently being allocated to this effort. Director Hope advised that the draft plan identifies 21 objectives that include continuing to work with the Tree Board, encouraging partnerships with other organizations in the City, and identifying things the City can do to better manage its tree inventory on public lands. She pointed out that there are over 1 million trees in Edmonds, and doing a tree inventory for the entire City would be cost prohibitive. However, the City recognizes the need to have a better record of the trees that are located in parks, along trails, within rights-of-way and other public properties. The City has already started work to update its codes relative to trees. In addition to talking about how to manage trees in public spaces, the objectives speak to the need to encourage, education and incentivize the planting of trees on both private and public properties and to work together on future updates of the UFMP. Director Hope reviewed that there has been a series of meetings and open houses relative to the draft UFMP. The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on May 9th and received a number of comments from citizens, both written and oral. Some revisions were made to the plan based on Planning Board and public comments. For example, the map called “Priority Planning Areas” was not intended to imply that trees needed to be planted in all of the red areas, which tend to be view corridors, too. The plan was modified to clarify that these are opportunity areas, but view and other matters will need to be considered. An additional statement was also included about the need to plant the right trees in the right places. Director Hope said that following the Board’s recommendation, the draft plan will move on to the City Council for further consideration, a public hearing, and ultimate adoption. Board Member Rubenkonig said she compared the proposed 22 objectives in the plan to urban forest management plans from other jurisdictions. A lot of the objectives in the City’s proposed plan line up well with the other plans, but she identified some outstanding concerns that may already be included in the plan but perhaps need further clarification. She reviewed these items as follows:
• Support partnerships with utilities, districts, the Edmonds School District, parks with adjoining City property and other public and private institutions (such as interested churches) operating in Edmonds to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy. The plan addresses trees on public properties and rights-of-way, but there is more that needs to be included. For example, the plan should address city-owned buildings and campuses, as well as school and church campuses. Perhaps the City should look at partnering with these other entities for future actions that could benefit the tree canopy. Director Hope suggested that this concept is covered in Community Goal #C3, which calls for
“coordinating efforts of the City staff, Edmonds Citizens’ Tree Board and other interested groups to participate in and promote good urban forest management and urban forest management events.” In addition, Action Item A calls
for “collaborating and partnering with City departments (especially Parks, Public Works and Development Services), nonprofits and neighborhood groups for tree replacement and improvements to landscapes.” Also, Action Item D calls for “partnering with Snohomish County PUD, other City departments, non-profits and other groups to incorporate shared information and outreach goals when possible.” Although churches and the Edmonds School
District are not specifically called out, they would be included in this objective. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that other jurisdictions stress the importance of partnerships, and she felt that was missing from the draft plan.
• Determine the value, function and benefits of the urban forest. Director Hope expressed her belief that this was already part of the plan.
• Establish tree planting and maintenance guidelines. Board Member Rubenkonig said it seems a lot was addressed around this concept, but there is not a specific objective. Director Hope advised that this information is already contained in the City’s Street Tree Plan, which will be updated in the near future.
• Conduct public outreach regarding tree regulations. Director Hope advised that a number of objectives in the plan address public outreach, including public information and education about the City’s tree regulations. The objectives not only address the need to educate the public on the tree regulations, but also on what trees to plant where, how to avoid hitting utility lines, etc. She felt that this concept was adequately covered in the objectives.
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Att. 4: PB Draft Minutes 5-23-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 3
• Further develop the urban forestry program. Director Hope pointed out that this concept was built into the document,
specifically calling for further development of the UFMP system for the City.
• Provide adequate public tree maintenance resources. Director Hope expressed her belief that this issue is adequately addressed in the plan. In addition, resources for tree maintenance will be addressed as part of the City’s annual budget process.
• Quantify the value, function and benefits of the urban forest. Director Hope advised that the plan includes an objective that addresses this issue.
• Dedicate resources for ongoing public outreach and education (Heritage Tree Program, etc.). Board Member
Rubenkonig said this objective would be different than the Tree Board’s efforts. The intent is to imply additional resources are needed for staff support. Director Hope said one outcome of the plan will be budgeting priorities and resources to implement the action items contained in the plan.
• Develop annual reports/annual work plans with tracking and performance measures. Director Hope advised that the plan already calls out the need for annual reports.
• Update and maintain public tree inventories. Director Hope advised that the plan also calls for doing an inventory of public trees.
Board Member Rubenkonig voiced concern that what other jurisdictions call out for partnerships is a bit different than what
the draft plan calls out. Director Hope suggested that it is the same idea of working with a variety of partners. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that partnerships present a great opportunity for the City to augment its tree canopy, and she welcomes
the idea of specifically identifying the other groups that could benefit from additional vegetation on their properties, such as the Edmonds School District and churches.
Board Member Rosen voiced appreciation for the staff and consultant’s hard work, as well as all of the touch points the public
and Board have had to review the document. He also appreciates the reality check of what it means to do an inventory. As called out in the plan, there are at least 10 benefits that trees provide; some are global and others are very geographically specific to a microlevel. These benefits include:
• Improved air quality
• Carbon sequestration
• Increased property values
• Increased revenue in shopping districts
• Reduced stormwater runoff
• Noise buffering
• Soil stabilization
• Habitat
• Promote walkability and increase healthiness
• Food source Board Member Rosen said some of these benefits are more important in very specific places. For example, preventing stormwater runoff and hill stabilization is not true everywhere, but very true in some places. It is for that reason that he would encourage the Board to consider the following points: 1. Prioritize data collection. You can only make good decisions if you have good information. When it comes to stabilization or runoff, the City needs to know where it is vulnerable and what kinds of things are necessary. This needs minimum standards and priority attention. He believes that an inventory is necessary. 2. Be bolder when it comes to trees on public versus private properties. Nearly every code the City has could be considered an invasion of private property rights. There are times when the City has a responsibility to require that
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Att. 4: PB Draft Minutes 5-23-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 4
certain standards be met in order to ensure a hillside is stabilized. This is just one situation where the City should insert itself when it comes to safety in private areas. They should not fear crossing the line to work with the private sector to address these types of issues. 3. Find another way, beyond no net loss, as a goal setting. While it is a nice baseline to say that they should have no net loss, it is based on what they have now. Having no other reference point, he doesn’t know if the City should be scared or very proud of what they have. The City needs a canopy and vegetation that achieves all of the 10 benefits and is also appropriate for the City’s specific needs. 4. Make the objectives more geographic specific. The objectives could talk about runoff or stabilization or people wanting to spend more money because they are walking amongst the trees in a shopping area. They should set goals that are appropriate for the very specific geographic needs the City has. 5. Make the beginning the public education process a priority. It is important for everyone to have a common understanding of the benefits and importance of trees. Public education creates a favorable environment and a support for how the City and its citizens care for tree vegetation of all kinds. Director Hope pointed out that the City already has specific requirements for trees located on steep slopes. Trees cannot be removed from critical areas such as steep and/or hazardous slopes without a permit and under special circumstances. However, the City does not require that all private property owners must to have their backyards be forested. Board Member Crank asked if the routine update called out in the plan as every 5 to 10 years is an average based on what other jurisdictions have done. Director Hope said some jurisdictions try for five years, but the reality is it is hard to do. She recalled that a number of other plans in the City are 6-year plans, and the Comprehensive Plan is an 8-year plan. It’s a matter of time and resources as to how often the plan is updated, and that is why the plan identifies a range. Board Member Crank referred to the objective that calls for establishing a tree bank and asked if the City currently charges in-lieu-of fees for anything else around housing and development. Director Hope answered that there are no other in-lieu-of fee programs currently. This would be a new program and would require some coaching as the new program is drawn up. Board Member Crank commented that she previously lived in a community that had a lot of in-lieu-of fees related to affordable housing, trees, common space, etc. One of the pitfalls in the beginning was that there was a lot of collection, but not necessary doing something with the funds until many years later. She understands that the plan will be a living document, and it should be treated as such. However, her hope would be that by the time they get to the first round of update, the in-lieu-of fee program will be part of that. The City should do whatever it can to circumvent getting to year 6, 7 or 8 of collecting in-lieu-of fees without doing anything with the funds. She recognized that Edmonds is a tree city, and she doubts it would get that far, but she cautioned that it could get to a point where developers get so used to paying the fee so they can do what they want to do, but the fees start to pile up. Director Hope expressed her belief that would not happen in Edmonds. There are a lot of needs and a number of people who are interested in trees. In addition, the City will do annual reports. Chair Monroe asked if Board Member Crank is concerned that developers would bake the in-lieu-of fees into their price and not see it as a deterrent or is the fear that the City would not spend the funds in a timely manner. Board Member Crank said her concern is a bit of both. If developers have a vision, it is sometimes more beneficial to pay the in-lieu-of fee and move forward with their project. On the flip side, she is concerned about the City collecting the fees without having a proactive approach for replanting trees. It is important to have a check and balance system in place as part of the tree bank program. Board Member Cloutier observed that the objective section includes a lot realistic and easily-understood goals, and each one has a set of actions. He is not concerned that the objectives and actions are unsuitable, but he is very concerned with the amount of effort and resources it will take to implement them. They need to figure out the cost benefit associated with each action to help determine how much they can do. Director Hope said she had hoped to provide this additional information, but it is still a work in progress. She cautioned that the intent is not to say exactly how much each action will cost, because it will change from year to year. You have to know more about how each project will be scoped out before you can decide the cost. However, the intent is to provide a lower level of information (i.e. low, medium and high cost) in the next draft. She added that the Board’s ideas relative to priorities would also be taken into account when the plan is presented to the City Council.
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Att. 4: PB Draft Minutes 5-23-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 5
Chair Monroe clarified that before the plan is presented to the City Council there will be a cost range on the sidebar. Director Hope answered affirmatively, but not in actual dollars. She cautioned that it takes a lot of work and more information to create cost estimates in actual dollars. Board Member Robles commented that “what you don’t measure, no one pays attention to.” If the City wants to regulate trees like an asset, then they need to be counted. There are ways to do this without counting every tree or involving the City at all. For example, people can account for their own trees as they grow and produce canopy. Their ability to leave a tree in place for many years creates the canopy the City finds desirable. When they decide to cut down a tree, perhaps there should be a credit against all of the canopy they produced. In the public comment letters, people are treating trees as assets that block views, increase or decrease property values, hold up slopes, etc. When trees are categorized as assets, they warrant some attention in terms of classification or quantification. However, it does not have to be a count of every tree. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that as she reviewed the very fine UFMP, (including public, Board and staff comments), some key points seemed to have priority to her. She recommended that the plan stand, but that the Board’s recommendation to the City Council specifically call out the following:
• We agree the UFMP is a foundational planning document necessary for establishing action to benefit our urban forest and tree canopy of Edmonds.
• We agree with the premise the tree canopy coverage needs to be increased rather than a no-net-loss approach to benefit the urban forest. Director Hope suggested the Board keep in mind that a 1% increase is about 1,300 more trees planted. If they are serious about trying to increase the canopy, they should think about where these additional trees would go.
• We agree the approach to determine a goal for the tree canopy coverage to be either: unique to Edmonds or a weighted number reflecting the legislated tree canopy goals of selected cities. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is not recommending a figure at this time, and she would prefer that the City Council provide focus for that particular goal. She does not think that staying put at 30.3% is good given that there has been a reduction in tree canopy since 2005. Director Hope emphasized that the reduction is a “perceived reduction” that is not based on a specific scientific study. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would look towards increasing tree canopy into the future rather than
maintaining status quo.
• We agree to the request to better define the tree canopy and its vegetative makeup. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that there was confusion at the public hearing that perhaps Douglas Fir were being proposed as potential street trees for downtown Edmonds. There was also concern expressed by the Board that not all trees need to be tall trees to benefit a tree canopy. What seems to be most important is the preservation of mature trees (at least 17 years old) because that is the point in which they become very effective. They need to look further at the definition of
what makes up the tree canopy. Director Hope asked if Board Member Rubenkonig is implying that private property owners should not be allowed to remove trees that are more than 17 years old. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that she isn’t addressing public versus private at this time. The tree canopy seems to refer to that which exists in the City of Edmonds and not just the tree canopy on public properties.
• We agree that the City must attend to reviewing and reorganizing those sections of the code to reduce negative impact to the tree canopy and further fragmentation of the urban forest. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that staff has already advised that the various City departments are starting to meet and coordinate efforts.
• We agree that the City must continue departmental efforts to streamline the administrative processes impacting the tree canopy and further fragmentation of the urban forest. Again, Board Member Rubenkonig commented
that this effort has already started. However, she felt the Board should make it clear that this is a priority.
• We agree that the City, through a revision of the City Code to streamline the departmental administrative processes, will be in a position to identify measures/actions/plans/programs to preserve, maintain and increase
the tree canopy through the efforts of our City government and the City’s property, including but not limited to,
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Att. 4: PB Draft Minutes 5-23-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 6
parks, rights-of-way, capital projects and public buildings and their campuses. Board Member Rubenkonig felt this statement would help clarify all of the possibilities that exist for public properties.
• We agree that the City, through a revision of the City code to streamline the departmental administrative processes, will be in a position to identify those incentives to preserve, maintain and increase tree canopy through the efforts of our citizens and their private properties. Board Member Rubenkonig explained that, at this time, the Board does not know what these incentives will be. They have heard about some that work elsewhere, and they are on the right
track towards coming up with incentives.
• We agree that without the addition of an arborist or City staff tasked with enforcement responsibility to carry out future proposed actions, the City is in a weak position to provide support to preserve, maintain and increase the
tree canopy through the efforts of our citizens and their private properties.
• We agree that incentives can be created to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy in the private and
public sector.
• We agree that incentives to preserve, maintain and increase the tree canopy can be considered for reduction of stormwater management costs to citizens and their private properties.
Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that she agrees with the objectives laid out in the draft UFMP. However, when the plan is moved to the City Council with a recommendation, the Board should provide focus about what they have gained from
their discussions and what they think the priorities should be. Vice Chair Cheung commented that, at this point, it is hard to say how the City is doing as far as tree canopy. If they are actually doing an amazing job and have more tree canopy than most cities, he is not sure they should push an increase. He suggested it is important to maintain the existing tree canopy while they figure this out. He does not want happened in Seattle, where property owners clear cut large numbers of trees to increase views, to happen in Edmonds. If the goal is to increase the
tree canopy by 1% every year, the City will eventually become a forest. He reminded the Board that they are also working to address the issue of housing affordability. Chair Monroe said he is having a difficult time prioritizing the objectives without having cost estimates. Director Hope said she had anticipated that some information relative to cost would have been available for the Board, but the consultant is still working on this element of the plan. However, implementing some of the objectives would be fairly low cost. For example, having every department with a tree responsibility meet on a regular basis to review tree issues would not require new resources. On the other hand, updating the Street Tree Plan could be costly, depending on how extensive the updates are. Chair Monroe expressed his desire that the City should focus on education and giving citizens access to resources. He is not
sure that hiring an arborist is the right way to go given the cost implications. Director Hope advised that the cost would be roughly $100,000 per year. Chair Monroe said the question is how busy that person would be. Once hired, he/she would find things to do, and it could become a spiral effect. Chair Monroe commented that while educating the citizens is good, incentivizing may be a bit of an overreach for the City. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would love to receive a discount on her stormwater management bill for all of the trees she has on her property. She maintains a number of large trees, yet other property owners have been allowed to not have trees. That means she is paying a greater cost for stormwater management, and she would like something better than a handshake. She would like to be rewarded for the contribution she makes. There will always be a segment of people who are resistant to change regardless of the incentives and benefits that trees provide. Chair Monroe countered that he wants to live in a city where people want those changes but are not forced to make those changes. Board Member Rubenkonig responded that, although there is a segment of residents who are not interested in tree preservation, there is also a segment who are very interested and would like to do more. An incentive program could target the latter group. Chair Monroe pointed out that a lower stormwater bill for one person would mean a higher bill for someone else. Director Hope explained that there is a certain cost for managing stormwater throughout the City right now, regardless of how many trees there are. Those costs are not going to go down because some property owners maintain their trees. In order to offer incentives to some property owners, the costs would have to be shifted elsewhere.
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Att. 4: PB Draft Minutes 5-23-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 7
Board Member Robles observed that the goal is to produce canopy for the benefit of the City of Edmonds. If that is something the City wants, they must become “farmers” of canopy. Some properties must provide canopy so that other properties do not have to. Those who maintain their tree canopy have to clean their roofs more, etc. Again, he commented that what does not get measured, does not get attention. The point of measuring the tree canopy is to actually see the value that trees provide. Board Member Crank said she does not necessarily disagree with the points raised by Board Members Rubenkonig and Lovell (see email). However, it is important to recognize that this is a new thing they are doing, and they should not be “trying to put so much “meat on the skeleton” this early in the process. There are some who are very passionate and highly invested in the tree canopy, but the UFMP will not really apply to others. She recommended that they think about the UFMP as the “first layer of paint” or what makes sense to move forward from draft to an actual plan. Chair Monroe referred to the points raised by Board Member Rosen earlier in the conversation and said the three that stuck out to him were the need to prioritize data, public education and establishing no-net-loss. In addition, the Board seemed interested in pursuing a fee-in-lieu-of program. Beyond that, the plan implies more detail than the Board currently has. He suggested that the Board offer these few points to the City Council as part of their recommendation. When the UFMP is reviewed again in five years the City should have the correct data to address the other issues that have been raised. Director Hope emphasized that, if adopted, the implementation of the UFMP would be subject to budget decisions. Most of the objectives will not be implemented in the immediate future. They will be implemented over a number of years as the resources become available. Board Member Lovell referred to the email he forwarded to the Board prior to the meeting, noting that he developed the five bulleted items because he felt the Board still does not know enough about where the City stands with respect to trees. Furthermore, he expressed his belief that the comments and feedback from the public so far is only the tip of the iceberg. His recommendations were designed to identify the elements that are addressed in the plan but emphasize the need for further consideration and study to be undertaken by the City Council regarding each one. In addition to his five bullet points, he suggested that the data contained in the plan related to software, data points, analogue modeling, and statistics should be included in an appendix format so that the average reader can better understand the document. Ultimately, the goals and strategies are the key to the plan, and implementation of the goals and strategies has yet to be developed by the City as led by the City Council. The list he prepared was intended to gather the substance of the comments they heard, but also some of the main objectives in producing the plan in the first place. Director Hope referred to the 1st bulleted item and suggested that collecting height/spread data could be costly and time consuming, and she knows of no other city that has collected this specific data. Board Member Lovell said perhaps the City Council will find that this information is unnecessary. However, he found a number of comments that were repeated by citizens. For example, citizens have raised concern about tall trees that grow to block views, street trees interfering with infrastructure, and shrubs and other vegetation overgrowing from private properties onto public sidewalks. Director Hope agreed that more could be added about ensuring that sidewalks are kept safe and educating the public about what and where to plant. However, the Board should keep in mind that the Street Tree Plan update is intended to be the next step following adoption of the UFMP. The UFMP is intended to be a general citywide plan for tree management, and the Street Tree Plan will identify the types of trees that should be planted on each street, as well as the planting methods that should be used. Rather than trying to figure all of these situations now, the UFMP is intended to set some general parameters and prioritizes the need for an updated Street Tree Plan. Board Member Lovell summarized that his recommendation is intended to point out that, in their review of the plan, the City Council needs to figure out what must be done to meet the objectives and goals in the plan. They should stay away from naming or listing a bunch of specific actions at this time. In general, he is in favor of collecting information that will guide the implementation of the plan’s objectives. Board Member Rosen emphasized that additional data is needed in order for the City to make better decisions, and that is why he suggested that data collection should be a very high priority. What to count is the first thing that needs to be decided, followed by how to accomplish the count. However, he agreed that the UFMP should not get into the specifics of what should be counted. Secondly, he suggested that the objective for data collection should not be for public education. There are many more things they want to educate the public about. Public education should be a separate point of emphasis. Vice Chair Cheung asked if consideration was given to the impact of tree canopy on solar access. Director Hope agreed this is an important point in the sense that trees can present obstacles for people who want to grow gardens or have solar arrays to
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Att. 4: PB Draft Minutes 5-23-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 8
improve energy efficiency. They discussed these tradeoffs and that is why the UFMP does not say exactly what each property owner should do. The intent is to education and provide information so property owners can make the best decisions relative to trees. Board Member Robles commented that data collection does not have to be all that expensive if homeowners provide their own inventories to the City. The ratio of existing trees to the ratio of trees that would be cut down should determine the cost of the permit. Collecting the data is possible as long as the program provides value to the property owners. The costly part comes in processing and retaining the data that is collected. Board Member Rosen pointed out that the City of Philadelphia is crowdsourcing its inventory. Board Member Robles said crowdsourcing is a way to build the social fabric and get people involved in their community. Board Member Rosen said he understands the goal of maintaining the existing 30.3% tree canopy but is concerned that it is not specific to any needs. The City could meet the goal, but still not meet any of the objectives. He recommended that the goal be specific to the City’s needs as opposed to a simple number that has no reference point. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that there are a number of objectives that are not related to the canopy. None of the objectives should be thought of as goals by themselves. The plan is to do a package of actions that touch on all of the goals, but they cannot “eat the whole elephant at once.” Rather than picking a random number, they should identify what to tackle first that has the most “bang for the buck” or to test drive the City’s ability to actually do something. The implementation plan should touch on all of the objectives, and not just those related to tree canopy. While no-net-loss should be one of the objectives of the plan, it must be in context with everything else. The City does not currently have the ability to measure for no-net-loss, but the actions taken moving forward should be consistent with the overall goal of no-net-loss in mind. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the draft plan is fine, and the objectives are good. However, at the moment, she does not have a clear understanding of what the Board is tasked to do. She felt the Board would benefit from continuing the discussion to the next meeting so staff could provide some additional information and direction based on the Board’s discussion. She has not heard any objection to the objectives identified in the plan, but there is an interest in possibly re-prioritizing them. When the Board moves its recommendation to the City Council, she suggested that they provide some focus of attention pertaining to the 30.3% tree canopy retention, data collection, etc. In particular, she felt the responsibilities of a City “arborist” should be clarified as they pertain to both private and public properties. Board Member Rubenkonig said she is not concerned that increasing the tree canopy would prevent the development of affordable housing. That is not how development works. Currently, other jurisdictions require about 30% tree coverage for development and incentives are offered. For example, perhaps units can be smaller if a developer protects a grove of existing trees. Director Hope commented that these types of details would be addressed as part of the plan’s implementation, which will come at a later time. The UFMP is intended to set the stage for coming back and doing more work to get to the specifics. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that there are too many issues that she would like to have additional time to think about before formulating a recommendation for the City Council. Board Member Cloutier emphasized that the UFMP is intended to be a plan and not an execution document. It is similar to the Comprehensive Plan, which provides policy direction but not regulations. For example, no one builds a lot based on what is in the Comprehensive Plan, but the rules for building on the lot must be derived from the principles contained in the Comprehensive Plan. He cautioned against getting too caught up in defining all of the steps for implementation before the plan is even adopted. Approval of the plan means that the City is agreeing to a set of goals and objectives. At this time, the Board should focus on the goals and objectives that are important for the City, without getting into the specifics of prioritization and implementation. The plan is intended to present a vision for how the City wants to handle urban forest management going forward, and the next step will be to develop a set of implementation actions using the UFMP as the guiding principles. At this time, the Board is being asked to make a recommendation on the draft UFMP, which contains higher-level goals and principles for the City. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the draft plan identifies a 30.3% tree canopy without any clarification. It appears that this number is being used as a no-net-loss figure. Board Member Cloutier referred to Urban Forest Asset Goal #UA1, which calls for maintaining the citywide canopy coverage, but it does not identify a specific level the City should achieve. However, the “rationale” statement makes it clear that Edmonds has no set canopy goal. The first action item under Goal #UA1
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Att. 4: PB Draft Minutes 5-23-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 9
is to develop and adopt an overall canopy goal for Edmonds. The plan outlines how the concern can be addressed, but it does not provide a specific implementation plan. He emphasized that implementing the plan is a separate process, and the plan provides the principles and higher-level goals that will guide future implementation. The Board could recommend approval of the plan, with an attached recommendation that implementation of some of the objectives move forward quickly. Chair Monroe suggested that, along with their recommendation, they need to provide the City Council with a summary of the consensus they have heard from the public. In addition, the Board would be remiss if they didn’t also add their own input. He agreed that they should not get into specific details of implementation, but they could highlight some particular points. Director Hope cautioned against the Board trying to summarize the public input. The City Council will receive all of the documents pertaining to the Board’s hearing and discussion. Chair Monroe agreed and suggested that the Board could select the public input germane to the topic so the City Council is aware of the concerns that were raised over and over again. Chair Monroe summarized that the Board has highlighted the following points for potential inclusion in its recommendation: 1. With regard to data collection, knowing the target will be very important. 2. The public education objectives are important. Currently, people do not understand enough about the benefit of trees. 3. Adding cost ranges for each of the objectives is important. 4. No-net-loss is something that needs to be discussed further and understood better. Board Member Cloutier felt that the four issues are already addressed in the plan as it stands. The plan sets forth objectives, but how the objectives are implemented and how much it will cost will be addressed when the action items are implemented. Chair Monroe said the intent of the four points he made above was to add emphasis to things already covered in the plan that the Board wants to emphasize based on public comment and Board discussion. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that the objectives in the plan address all of the issues and concerns raised by the public. As the action items are implemented at some point in the future, staff can provide a reference to the public comments that are applicable. He emphasized that the objectives in the plan do not fix any of the public concerns until the City moves forward with implementation of the action items. Board Member Crank pointed out that postponing their recommendation until June 13th would create a delay in when the plan is presented to the City Council. The Board did not express concern about delaying the process for a few weeks. Again, Board Member Cloutier pointed out that Goal #UA1 calls for determining a goal for tree canopy. Chair Monroe suggested that while determining what the goal should be, the City should operate on the premise that it is not going to be less than 30.3% or no-net-loss. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that the intent of no-net-loss is already captured by the action items in Goal #UA1. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if incentives for private property owners is addressed in the objectives contained in the plan. Board Member Cloutier clarified that this would involve a code amendment and should not be an objective. The intent of incentives is not to reward citizens; it is to protect the overall tree canopy. Incentives may be one action the City takes to support increased canopy coverage, but the goal of the plan should not be to provide incentives. He referred to Goal #UA2, which calls for identifying places where more trees are needed. Once this has been identified, the plan leaves it open for whatever needs to happen to accomplish the objective. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the Board needs to address the tension people have voiced about not wanting to be told what to do with their properties. But she would also like to work with those who want to make a difference. Again, Board Member Cloutier emphasized that the goal is to have more trees or to maintain the existing tree canopy, and the plan provides a list of different ways to accomplish the goal. It is not intended to be an action plan. Chair Monroe pointed out that each of the objectives include a list of actions. Board Member Cloutier agreed. However, he clarified that, similar to the Comprehensive Plan, none of the action items are being done by adopting the plan. It simply outlines potential actions for accomplishing each of the objectives. Director Hope emphasized that adoption of the plan does not mean the end of the effort. It is similar to the Comprehensive Plan. Rather than identifying a certain percentage of land for parks, commercial, residential, etc., the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the goals that are important to the City and then the development codes implement these goals and policies. One of
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Att. 4: PB Draft Minutes 5-23-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 10
the challenges is that the City cannot always solve tension and words do not necessarily do that. She agreed there is an underlying tension, which can sometimes come from people who haven’t even read the plan. These people may not be soothed by words the Planning Board adds to the plan. All of the issues will be worked out on an ongoing basis using the principles outlined in the plan. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE ITS DISCUSSION OF THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TO THE JUNE 13TH MEETING. AT THAT POINT, THE BOARD WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY STAFF BASED ON THE BOARD’S DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH FAILED 2-4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS RUBENKONIG AND ROBLES VOTING IN FAVOR, BOARD MEMBERS MONROE, CHEUNG, CLOUTIER AND CRANK VOTING IN OPPOSITION, AND BOARD MEMBER LOVELL ABSTAINING. (Note: As an alternate member, Board Member Rosen did not vote.) BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN DATED MAY 20, 2018 BE FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 2-5, WITH BOARD MEMBERS MONROE, LOVELL, CRANK, CLOUTIER, AND CHEUNG VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES AND RUBENKONIG VOTING IN OPPOSITION. (Note: As an alternate member, Board Member Rosen did not vote.) INTRODUCTION TO DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY Director Hope advised that tonight’s presentation is intended to be an introduction to the draft Housing Strategy. The Board has already provided input, some of which was incorporated into the document. She reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan includes an action step that calls for developing a Housing Strategy by 2019 that would help increase the supply of housing that is affordable to a range of incomes and to meet diverse housing needs. A Housing Strategy Task Force was formed and has been working on some recommendations to help further some of the ideas and to bring the expertise of housing professionals into the recommendations. She referred the Board to the draft Housing Strategy, noting that it has not been formatted or finalized at this point. She introduced Kevin Ramsey from Berk Consulting, who was available to present the draft plan to the Board. Kevin Ramsey, Berk Consulting, briefly explained why housing prices are on the rise in Edmonds and across the Puget Sound Region. Along with population and job growth comes more and more competition for a limited number of housing units. Despite the fact that the region has been building housing at a substantial rate in recent years, it has not been keeping up with job and population growth in the area. The result is increased housing costs for both rental and owner markets. That means people have to look further away from employment centers to find housing they can afford, and this creates more traffic and pollution and higher transportation costs. One solution is to increase housing production but focus on a greater variety of housing options so people can find the type of housing that best meets their needs without having to pay for housing that is too large. However, housing production is not completely sufficient to deal with affordability issues. Particularly for people on the lowest ends of the income spectrum, it is not possible to build enough housing so that people earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) will be able to find affordable housing in the market. That is why the strategy also considers other options for providing more subsidized and income-restricted housing. A goal of producing more housing is enabling more people to live in the community of all different incomes and backgrounds. Mr. Ramsey shared findings specific to housing needs in Edmonds, noting that there are nearly 6,000 households in Edmonds that are cost-burdened, which means a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing costs. Over 4,000 of these households are low-income, which is defined as 80% or less of AMI. AMI for families in Snohomish County is about $96,000 a year. He provided a chart to illustrate the demand/need for housing based on different income levels: extremely low income (<30% AMI), very low income (30-50% AMI), low income (50-80% AMI), moderate income (80-100% AMI) and above median income (>100% AMI). The chart also identifies the percentage of cost-burdened households in each category. He particularly noted the severe lack of subsidized housing to meet the need. Mr. Ramsey explained that one reason the need is so large is that wages in Edmonds are not matched well to local housing costs. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds, and about 60% of these jobs pay less than $40,000 per year (about 40% of
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Att. 4: PB Draft Minutes 5-23-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
What is an “urban forest”?
It is a term to describe the trees that are in an
urban area. The “Edmonds urban forest” includes
all the trees that are in the City.
Why is an urban forest management plan being
proposed?
Urban forest management plans are a tool that
some cities use to help guide policies or practices
regarding trees. In Edmonds, a draft plan has been
developed to provide broad information about
trees and resources for the community, including
opportunities for public education. Its special focus
is to guide the management of trees on public
property and in the right-of-way.
What will I nd in the draft UFMP?
In the draft Urban Forest Management Plan is a description of
the value of trees, information on tree management and tree
canopy in Edmonds, and a set of objectives to be achieved over
the long term. The information and objectives relate to trees
city-wide but give special emphasis to trees located on City
property and the public right-of-way.
What do we know is missing from the current draft?
Missing right now are photos for some pages. Before the next
draft is circulated, local tree photos will be substituted for the
“placeholder” graphics currently shown.Also missing for each of
the plan’s objectives are the estimated timeframes and costs,
along with a priority order, for achieving the objectives. More
work will be done on this before a nal draft is ready for
adoption.
How can I learn more or provide input on the draft plan?
Options will include:
URBAN
FOREST
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Frequently Asked Questions
Review information (including the draft Urban Forest
Management Plan) online at: edmondswa.gov and search
“UFMP”
Attend a meeting of the Planning Board
Attend a meeting of the Tree Board
Attend an open house in-person (date TBD)
Attend a “virtual” open house (online)
Mail a written comment to:
Development Services
Attn: Brad Shipley
121 5th Ave N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Email a comment: brad.shipley@edmondswa.gov
7.1.e
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Att. 5: Frequently Asked Questions 6_19-18 (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest
Urban Forest Management Plan
City of Edmonds
DRAFT May 22, 2018
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Prepared for:
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Prepared by:
Davey Resource Group, Inc.
6005 Capistrano Avenue, Suite A
Atascadero, California 93422
Phone: 805-461-7500
Toll Free: 800-966-2021
Fax: 805-461-8501
www.davey.com/drg
City of Edmonds
Urban Forest Management Plan
DRAFT May 22, 2018
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
CITY OF EDMONDS STAFF MEMBERS
Shane Hope, AICP, Director Development ServicesCarrie Hite, Director, Parks, Recreation,
and Cultural Services
CITY OF EDMONDS CITIZENS’ TREE BOARD
Doug Petersen, Position 3 - Chair
Frank Caruso, Position 1 - Vice Chair
Gail Lovell, Position 2William Phipps, Position 4
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Nathan Monroe, Position 4 - ChairMatt Cheung, Position 3 - Vice Chair
Philip (Phil) Lovell, Position 1
Daniel Robles, Position 2
CITY OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Mike Nelson, Position 2 – Council PresidentDiane Buckshnis, Position 4 – Council President Pro Tem
Kristiana Johnson, Position 1
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Position 3
Phil Williams, Director, Public Works and UtilitiesBrad Shipley, Associate Planner
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
Barbara Chase, Position 5
Steve Hatzenbeler, Position 6
Vivian Olson, Position 7Suzanne Jeugensen, Alt.
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Position 5Alicia Crank, Position 6
Todd Cloutier, Position 7
Mike Rosen, Alt.
Dave Teitzel, Position 5Thomas Mesaros, Position 6
Neil Tibbott, Position 7
Acknowledgments
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Executive Summary
Scope & Purpose
Plan Foundation1
Introduction
Community
Benefits and Challenges of the Urban Forest7
What Do We Have?
Edmonds’ Urban Forestry History
Regional Plans and Legislation
Urban Tree Canopy Analysis
Existing Urban Forest Practices
What Do We Want?
Stakeholder and Community Input51
How Do We Get There?
Urban Forest Asset Goals
Municipal Resource Goals
Community Resource 57
How Are We Doing?
Monitoring and Measuring Results81
Appendices
Appendix A: References
Appendix B: Table of Figures
Appendix C: Community Survey Responses
Appendix D: Open House Summary Report
83
E
Regulatory Framework
Regional Urban Forestry Resources
Urban Forestry Practices - Case Studies17
E
Table of Contents
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
1 Scope & Purpose
Scope & Purpose
The purpose of the Urban Forest Management Plan
(UFMP) is to provide a guide for managing, enhancing,
and growing trees in the City of Edmonds over the
next 20 years. The plan also includes long-range
goals to promote sustainability, species diversity,
and greater canopy cover. Publicly-managed trees
along streets, in parks, and at City facilities are
collectively referred to as the community urban
forest. Privately owned trees are also considered
part of the urban forest in this plan because of their
function and contribution to the sustainability of the
overall urban forest in Edmonds; however, the City
recognizes that it has a limited role in the care of
private trees.
Recognizing the significance of environmental and
socioeconomic benefits provided by trees and their
relationship with a high quality of life, the UFMP
aims to:
Illustrate the value and benefits of trees.
Promote shared vision and collaboration
between community residents.
Establish benchmarks and metrics
to monitor the long-term success of
management strategies.
Enhance the health and sustainability of the
community urban forest.
Increase the vital benefits that the trees
provide to Edmonds and the region.
Ensure that resources are in place to
support the care and management of the
community’s trees.
This UFMP includes goals and action strategies for
the long-term and short-term in support of this
purpose. It identifies appropriate resources to
adequately manage community trees. It is intended
to remain flexible and dynamic, allowing for the
exploration and implementation of the actions as
funding and resources permit.
The development of the UFMP included a
comprehensive review of existing policies and
regulations, current funding and maintenance levels,
analysis of the extent, condition, and composition
of the existing tree resources, stakeholder concerns,
and community input.
Plan Foundation
Spending any amount of time outdoors in the City will
reveal the abundant and diverse natural resources
found within City parks and surrounding residences
and businesses in Edmonds. Besides the obvious
amenities available to a city on the coastline of the
Puget Sound, another abundant natural wonder
in Edmonds is its trees. Interspersed amongst the
buildings and roads, trees provide the City with the
shade, fresh air, and softened landscape that help
people achieve the unique experience referred
to as; “an Edmonds kind of day.” All of the trees
in Edmonds make up the City’s urban forest tree
resource. Without active management, this urban
forest is at risk.
In December 2016, the City adopted a Comprehensive
Plan that formally recognized that the community
places a high value on the conservation of the urban
forest. This Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)
is intended to be an element that aligns in support
of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, this UFMP
aligns with the intentions of, “providing a framework
for moving the Edmonds community toward a
sustainable future that integrates and responds
Executive Summary
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
What
Do We
Have?
What
Do We
Want?
How
Are We
Doing?
How Do
We Get
There?
Acres 6,095
Population 41,840
Land Cover
Tree Canopy 30%
Grass & Vegetation 27%
Impervious Surfaces 34%
Bare Soils 2%
Open Water 7%
Tree Canopy Cover
Maximum Potential Canopy 57%
High Priority Planting Acres 384
Investment
Tree Care Per Capita $7.74
Edmond's Urban Forest Benchmark Values
The City
2Executive Summary
to environmental, economic, and social needs in a
way which meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs” (Comp Plan, 2016).
The following principles for urban forest management
set the framework for the UFMP:
Optimize the ecosystem services provided
by trees.
Control tree maintenance costs to the com-
munity.
Create pathways to stable and predictable
funding.
Mitigate risks and liabilities associated with
trees.
The structure and organization of the UFMP are
based on the understanding of what we have, what
we want, how we get there, and how we are doing.
This structure, referred to as adaptive management,
is commonly used for resource planning and
management (Miller, R.W., 1988) and provides a good
conceptual framework for managing community
forest resources.
The plan development process involved a
comprehensive review and assessment of the
existing community tree resource, including
composition, value, and environmental benefits.
The process explored community values, existing
regulations, and policies related to community
trees. In addition, there were multiple stakeholders,
internal and external, who played a role in the
planning, design, care, and advocacy around the
community forest. These stakeholders include the
general public, City departments, the Citizens’ Tree
Board, and Snohomish Public Utility District (PUD).
Each of these stakeholders contributed to the
development of this Plan.
Table 1: Benchmark Values (2017)
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
3 Executive Summary
What Do We Have?
Edmonds was founded along the coast of the Puget
Sound in 1890. Similar to the rest of the region,
Edmonds had forestlands that were logged and
waters that were fished. As Edmonds has grown
in population, the forest has been urbanized
and divided for parks, homes, and businesses.
Recognizing the role of trees in the community and
the necessity to manage them, the City drafted a
Streetscape Plan in 2002 that included tree planting
guidelines as part of the general aesthetic goals for
the community. Revised in 2006 and again in 2015,
elements of this Plan introduced tree care policy
that has since been the source for many of the City’s
tree management decisions.
In terms of regulations, the care for the urban forest
is generally understood to be required by the Growth
Management Act of 1990. Guidance is provided by
the City’s Comprehensive Plan (2016), the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Plan (2016), and the
Streetscape Plan (2015). These primary documents
define the reach of existing regulations and policies
within which care for the urban forest is mandated:
Comprehensive Plan (2016) - Environmental
Quality Goal A - “…Protect environmental
quality within the Edmonds community
through the enforcement of community-
based environmental regulations.”
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan
(2016) - Natural Resource and Habitat
Conservation Goal 4 – “Preserve and
provide access to natural resource lands
for habitat conservation, recreation, and
environmental education.”
• Objective 4.5 - Expand the urban forest
and increase tree canopy in Edmonds.
• Action Plan 4.G - Steward the urban
forest using appropriate maintenance
of street and park trees, clear removal
and replacement policies and providing
information about urban forestry to
property owners.
Streestcape Plan (Revised 2015) - Celebrate
Sustainable Practices. In redesigning
the corridor, it is critical that the new
interventions improve the street’s
performance. This includes enhancing
the street environment and gateways for
pedestrian benefits through an Urban
Forestry program in the Downtown/
Waterfront area.
The urban forest is a combination of both public
and private trees. Any trees that the City has direct
control of and responsibility for are defined as
the community tree resource. This includes public
trees in parks, along rights-of-way, and around
City facilities. Managing any resource begins with
defining what is being managed and establishing
benchmarks along with clearly defined goals and
expectations. While public trees along major
arterials and high-profile areas are well-known and
routinely cared for by City staff, other public street
trees are expected to be maintained by the adjacent
property owner. Aside from individual development
applications, the City does not have a method to take
an inventory or track the history, status, or location
of public trees. In addition, providing adequate care
for trees requires a level of knowledge and a skill set
that many property owners do not have.
The planning process for this UFMP included an
assessment of tree canopy. The results of the study
provide a clear picture of the extent and distribution
of tree canopy across Edmonds, benchmarking the
average tree canopy cover at 30.3%. Analysis of
historical change estimates that the City has lost 114
acres of its tree canopy since 2005. In 2005, there
was an average tree canopy cover of 32.3%.
The primary challenges and opportunities for urban
forest management are:
Private owners control the majority of tree
canopy (83.0%) with few regulations to limit
tree removal, except when the trees are
associated with development or are within
an environmentally critical area.
There is limited knowledge about the
condition of trees in the urban forest.
There is an estimated 1,651 acres of tree
planting space opportunity to expand the
urban forest canopy.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Tree Canopy
30%
Impervious34%Grass/Vegetation
27%
Bare Soils2%
Water7%
4Executive Summary
Map 1: Land Cover
Figure 1: Land Cover
Land Cover
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
5 Executive Summary
What Do We Want?
The plan development process included substantial
outreach to public stakeholders, residents, and
non-profit agencies. The process provided a broad
perspective of the challenges that face Edmonds’
urban forest. Through open house forums and
public meetings, the City has found an engaged
set of residents with varying opinions on matters
pertaining to the care of the urban forest.
City Staff were also consulted during plan
development, with City code and public safety
being the main considerations when making tree
care decisions. City Staff will often take a reactive
approach to tree management by performing work
on trees as problems are discovered, but they also
look for opportunities to plant trees in strategic
public places.
In general, stakeholders from both the community
and City Staff share the following desired outcomes
for the UFMP:
Preservation and Enhancement of Tree
Canopy
Sustainability, Health, and Safety of the
Community Tree Resource
Preservation and Enrichment of Wildlife and
Habitat
Increased Outreach and Education
Increased Collaboration with Volunteers and
Non-profit Groups
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
6Executive Summary
How Do We Get
There?
The long-range strategic goals provided in this Plan
are proposed to address the three components of a
sustainable urban forestry program:
Urban Forest Asset Goals - which are
intended to improve the urban forest
resource over the next 20 years by
developing detailed expectations for the
urban forest.
Municipal Resource Goals - which are
intended to drive improvements in City
policy and practices by developing efficiency
and alignment of efforts within City
departments.
Community Resource Goals - which are
intended to build stronger community
engagement and public participation in
urban forest stewardship.
How Are We Doing?
The UFMP presents opportunities to care for the
urban forest in Edmonds by providing an overarching
framework for urban forestry operations, policies,
and programs. It presents a high-level review of
urban forest management in the City, including
historical context and an exploration of the benefits
of Edmonds’ trees. Building upon that information,
the Plan connects the community’s vision for the
urban forest with appropriate goals and actions.
This Plan provides various goals to pursue along a
20-year timeline concluding in 2038. These short
and long-term goals will be achieved by adapting
the Plan according to a five-year cyclical review of
operational objectives. The success of the UFMP
will be measured through the realization of goals
and will be demonstrated through the health of
the urban forest and increased environmental
benefits. Ultimately, it will lead to an enhancement
of tree canopy throughout the City. Furthermore,
the greatest measurement of success for the UFMP
will be how successful it is in meeting community
expectations for the care and preservation of the
community tree resource.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
7 Introduction
Trees play an essential role in the community
of Edmonds, providing numerous tangible and
intangible benefits to residents, visitors, neighboring
communities, businesses, and wildlife. Research
demonstrates that healthy urban trees can improve
the local environment and lessen the impact resulting
from urbanization and industry (U.S. Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Division, 2017). Trees improve air
quality, reduce energy consumption, help manage
stormwater, reduce erosion, provide critical habitat
for wildlife, and promote a connection with nature.
In addition to these direct improvements, healthy
urban trees increase the overall attractiveness of a
community. In Portland, Oregon, street trees were
found to add an average of $8,870 to homes’ sales
price as well as reduce time on the market for home
sales by 1.7 days (Donovan et al., 2010). Studies
on the business benefits of trees have shown how
retail districts promote longer and more frequent
shopping and greater sales (Wolf, 2007). Urban
trees support a more livable community, fostering
psychological health and providing residents with a
greater sense of place (Kuo, 2003). Community trees,
both public and private, soften the urban hardscape
by providing a green sanctuary and making the City
of Edmonds a more enjoyable place to live, work,
and play. The City has emphasized the importance
of trees within the Comprehensive Plan (2016), so
much so that public trees are defined as a valued
community resource, a critical component of the
urban infrastructure, and a part of the City’s identity.
Community
Early settlements were built in the City to access
natural resources, where shingle mills became the
primary industry. Although construction of the
Great Northern Railway along the waterfront was
expected to be the main source of growth in the
City, most growth occurred due to its proximity to
Seattle. Passenger ferry service has also helped the
town grow and prosper.
Edmonds’ population, from 2017 State estimates, is
41,260 people and covers a land area of 8.9 square
miles. It is the third largest city in the county after
Everett and Marysville. By 2035, the population is
expected to be 45,550.
Community Vision for the UFMP
Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan provides a vision of
the City as an attractive, sustainable community for
all ages. It specifically recognizes the value of trees
as contributing to that vision and directs that an
urban forest management plan be used as a guide
for decisions on managing the forest resource,
especially focusing on public land and rights-of-way.
For private lands, the UFMP would guide education
and incentives to encourage good tree management
practices.
Introduction
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
8Introduction
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
9 Introduction
Benefits and
Challenges of the
Urban Forest
Urban and natural forests work constantly to mitigate
the effects of urbanization and development, which
protects and enhances lives within the community.
This is increasingly evident as communities calculate
the benefits of their urban forest using a complete
inventory or sample data in conjunction with the
USDA Forest Service i-Tree software tools. This state-
of-the-art, peer-reviewed software suite considers regional
environmental data and costs to quantify the ecosystem
services unique to a given urban forest resource.
Individual tree owners can calculate the benefits
of trees to their property by using the National
Tree Benefit Calculator (www.treebenefits.com/
calculator) or with i-Tree Design. (www.itreetools.
org/design). The National Tree Benefit Calculator
was developed by Casey Trees and Davey Tree
Expert Company to aid in the understanding of the
environmental and economic value trees provide
on an annual basis. In general, there are five (5)
important ways in which trees provide benefits:
Water Quality, Carbon Sequestration, Energy
Savings, Air Quality, and Socioeconomic benefits.
Water Quality
Urban stormwater runoff is a major source of
contamination for the Puget Sound and riparian
areas throughout Edmonds, threatening both human
health and wildlife, including salmon populations.
Requirements for surface water management
are becoming more stringent and costly for both
developers and the City.
By incorporating the right mix of urban trees into
stormwater management planning, runoff volumes,
peak stream flows and flooding incidents may all
be reduced; a strategy that may lessen the need for
constructing stormwater management facilities and
the cost of treatment to remove sediment and other
pollutants.
Trees improve and protect water quality by:
Intercepting Rainfall – Trees intercept
rainfall in their canopy, which act as a mini-
reservoir. Some water evaporates from the
canopy and some slowly soaks into the
ground, reducing the total amount of runoff
(Xiao, et al., 2000). Canopy interception
also lessens soil compaction, which in turn
further reduces runoff.
Increasing soil capacity and infiltration –
Root growth and decomposition increase
the capacity and rate of soil infiltration
by rainfall and snowmelt resulting in
slower percolation rates and increasing
the filtration of contaminants (Xiao, et al.,
2007).
Reducing soil erosion – Tree roots reduce
the flow and volume of stormwater runoff,
avoiding erosion and preventing sediments
and other pollutants from entering streams,
rivers, Lake Washington, and the Puget
Sound (WA Department of Ecology, 2011).
Providing salmon habitat – Shade from
trees helps to cool warm urban runoff,
which poses a threat to anadromous fish,
like salmon. Shade from trees provides
lakeside and riparian habitat for salmon
and cools water temperatures, increasing
dissolved oxygen, which is essential to
salmon survival (Puget Sound Partnership,
2012).
In Edmonds, a mature (8” DBH) Bowhall Maple
growing along a residential street would intercept
an estimated 477 gallons of stormwater from city
storm sewers in 2017 avoiding $13.25 in stormwater
management cost (www.treebenefits.com, 2017).
Among the signature trees of the Edmonds
streetscape plan (2015), chanticleer pear intercepts
the most stormwater runoff (509 gallons valued
at $14.16) per tree. Japanese stewartia intercepts
the least stormwater runoff (153 gallons valued at
$4.26) per tree.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Common Name Scientific Name Overall
Benefits
Overall Benefits if
cared for to 13"
Intercept
Stormwater
Runoff (gallons)
Stormwater
Value
Bowhall Maple Acer rubrum
'Bowhall'$95.00 $142.00 477 $13.27
Columnar Norway
maple
Acer platanoides
'Columnare'$106.00 $144.00 507 $14.10
Chanticleer pear Pyrus calleryana
'Chanticleer'$48.00 $68.00 509 $14.16
Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba
'Blagon'$76.00 $119.00 299 $8.31
Leprachaun ash
Fraxinus
pennsylvanica
'Johnson'
$83.00 $124.00 346 $9.61
Japanese stewartia Stewartia
pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 153 $4.26
10Introduction
Table 2: Water Benefits from Most Prominent Street Tree Species
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Common Name Scientific Name Overall
Benefits
Overall Benefits if
cared for to 13"
Reduced
atmospheric
carbon (pounds)
Carbon
Value
Bowhall Maple Acer rubrum 'Bowhall'$95.00 $142.00 148 $0.46
Columnar Norway
maple
Acer platanoides
'Columnare'$106.00 $144.00 193 $0.61
Chanticleer pear Pyrus calleryana
'Chanticleer'$48.00 $68.00 148 $0.48
Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba 'Blagon'$76.00 $119.00 186 $0.59
Leprachaun ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
'Johnson'$83.00 $124.00 166 $0.52
Japanese
stewartia
Stewartia
pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 195 $0.62
11 Introduction
Carbon Sequestration
As environmental awareness continues to increase,
governments are paying particular attention to global
warming and the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. As energy from the sun (sunlight) strikes
the Earth’s surface it is reflected back into space as
infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb
some of this infrared radiation and trap this heat in
the atmosphere, increasing the temperature of the
Earth’s surface. Many chemical compounds in the
Earth’s atmosphere act as GHGs, including methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2),
water vapor, and human-made gases/aerosols. As
GHGs increase, the amount of energy radiated back
into space is reduced, and more heat is trapped in the
atmosphere. An increase in the average temperature
of the earth may result in changes in weather, sea
levels, and land-use patterns, commonly referred
to as “climate change.” In the last 150 years, since
large-scale industrialization began, the levels of
some GHGs, including CO2, have increased by 25%
(U.S. Energy Information Administration).
Trees absorb atmospheric carbon, which reduces
greenhouse gases. The carbon-related function of
trees is measured in two ways: storage (total stored
in tree biomass) and sequestration (the absorption
rate per year) (Jo, et al., 1995). Urban trees reduce
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in two ways:
Directly – Through growth and the seques-
tration of CO2 as wood and foliar biomass.
Indirectly – By lowering the demand for
heating and air conditioning, thereby reduc-
ing the emissions associated with electric
power generation and natural gas consump-
tion.
In Edmonds, a mature (8” DBH) Bowhall maple
growing along a residential street would annually
reduce over 148 pounds of atmospheric carbon (www.
treebenefits.com, 2017). This can be represented as
about $0.46 in benefits both in carbon sequestered,
and avoided. Among the signature trees of the
Edmonds streetscape plan (2015), Japanes stewartia
reduces the most atmospheric pounds of carbon
(195 pounds valued at $0.62) per tree. Chanticleer
pear reduces the least atmospheric carbon (148
pounds valued at $0.48) per tree.
Table 3: Carbon Benefits from Most Prominent Street Tree Species
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Common Name Scientific Name Overall
Benefits
Overall Benefits if
cared for to 13"
Conserved
(Kilowatt hours)
Energy
Value
Bowhall Maple Acer rubrum 'Bowhall'$95.00 $142.00 26 $1.31
Columnar Norway
maple
Acer platanoides
'Columnare'$106.00 $144.00 22 $1.15
Chanticleer pear Pyrus calleryana
'Chanticleer'$48.00 $68.00 24 $1.22
Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba 'Blagon'$76.00 $119.00 18 $0.91
Leprachaun ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
'Johnson'$83.00 $124.00 19 $0.95
Japanese stewartia Stewartia
pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 12 $0.61
12Introduction
Energy Savings
Electric and gas utilities develop energy conservation
solutions to keep rates low for their customers,
reduce their need to build new lines, and, ultimately,
to be good environmental stewards. Energy services
delivered to Edmonds residents are provided by
Snohomish County Public Utility District (SNOPUD).
This organization recognizes how trees can reduce
energy consumption and encourages Edmonds
residents to consider trees as a cooperative strategy
for improving energy conservation (SNOPUD, 2017).
Urban trees and forests modify the environment
and conserve energy in four principal ways:
Shade dwellings and impervious
surfaces – Impervious surfaces in 2011
were assessed as 34% of the total land
base (Edmonds, 2017). Shade from trees
reduces the amount of radiant energy
absorbed and stored by these impervious
surfaces, thereby reducing the urban heat
island effect, a term that describes the
increase in urban temperatures in relation
to surrounding locations (Simpson &
McPherson, 2000). Shade from trees also
reduces the amount of energy used to cool
a structure (Simpson, 2002).
Transpiration – Transpiration releases
water vapor from tree canopies, which
cools the surrounding area. Through
shade and transpiration, trees and other
vegetation within an urban setting modify
the environment and reduce heat island
effects. Temperature differences of more
than 9°F (5°C) have been observed between
city centers without adequate canopy cover
and more forested suburban areas (Akbari,
et al., 1997).
Wind reduction – Trees reduce wind speeds
by up to 50% and influence the movement
of air and pollutants along streets and
out of urban canyons. By reducing air
movement into buildings and against
conductive surfaces (e.g., glass, metal
siding), trees reduce conductive heat loss,
translating into potential annual heating
savings of 25% (Heisler, 1986).
Green Roofs – Native trees and vegetation
on rooftops can help reduce the urban
heat island effect, decrease the heat loss
through rooftops and provide a beautiful
addition, not only for enjoyment to humans,
but also contribute to the success of the
community’s ecosystem by increasing
habitat for all living creatures (U.S.
Department of Energy, 2004).
Table 4: Energy Benefits from Most Prominent Street Tree Species
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Common Name Scientific Name Overall
Benefits
Overall Benefits if
cared for to 13"Air Value
Bowhall Maple Acer rubrum 'Bowhall'$95.00 $142.00 $1.25
Columnar Norway
maple
Acer platanoides
'Columnare'$106.00 $144.00 $1.02
Chanticleer pear Pyrus calleryana
'Chanticleer'$48.00 $68.00 $1.38
Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba 'Blagon'$76.00 $119.00 $0.84
Leprachaun ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
'Johnson'$83.00 $124.00 $0.65
Japanese stewartia Stewartia
pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 $0.55
13 Introduction
Air Quality
Urban trees improve air quality in five fundamental
ways:
Reducing particulate matter (e.g., dust and
smoke)
Absorbing gaseous pollutants
Shade and transpiration
Reducing power plant emissions
Increasing oxygen levels
They protect and improve air quality by intercepting
particulate matter (PM10), including dust, ash, pollen,
and smoke. The particulates are filtered and held in
the tree canopy where they are eventually washed
harmlessly to the ground. Trees and forests absorb
harmful gaseous pollutants like ozone (O3), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Shade and
transpiration reduces the formation of O3, which
is created during higher temperatures. Scientists
are now finding that some trees may absorb more
volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) than previously
thought (Karl, T. et al 2010; Science NOW, 2010).
VOC’s are a class of carbon-based particles emitted
from automobile exhaust, lawnmowers, and other
human activities.
By reducing energy needs, trees also reduce
emissions from the generation of power. And,
through photosynthesis, trees and forests increase
oxygen levels.
Table 5: Air Quality Benefits from Most Prominent Street Tree Species
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Common Name Scientific Name Overall
Benefits
Overall
Benefits if
cared for to 13"
Leaf Surface
Area (square
feet)
Increased
Property
Value
Bowhall Maple Acer rubrum 'Bowhall'$95.00 $142.00 181 $77.00
Columnar Norway
maple
Acer platanoides
'Columnare'$106.00 $144.00 207 $88.10
Chanticleer pear Pyrus calleryana
'Chanticleer'$48.00 $68.00 70 $29.66
Goldspire ginko Ginko biloba 'Blagon'$76.00 $119.00 151 $64.51
Leprachaun ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
'Johnson'$83.00 $124.00 166 $70.67
Japanese stewartia Stewartia pseudocamellia $33.00 $63.00 61 $25.93
14Introduction
Aesthetic, Habitat,
Socioeconomic, and Health
Benefits
While perhaps the most difficult to quantify,
the aesthetic and socioeconomic benefits from
trees may be among their greatest contributions,
including:
Beautification, comfort, and aesthetics
Shade and privacy
Wildlife habitat
Opportunities for recreation
Reduction in violent crime
Creation of a sense of place and history
Human health
Reduced illness and reliance on medication
and quicker recovery from injury or illness
Some of these benefits are captured as a percentage
of property values, through higher sales prices
where individual trees and forests are located.
While some of the benefits of forests are intangible
and/or difficult to quantify (e.g., the impacts on
physical and psychological health, crime, and
violence), empirical evidence of these benefits does
exist (Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1986; Kuo & Sullivan ,
2011). However, there is limited knowledge about
the physical processes at work, and their interactions
make quantification imprecise. Exposure to nature,
including trees, has a healthy impact on humans
(especially children), such as increased worker
productivity, higher test scores, reduced symptoms
of ADD, and faster recovery times following surgery
(Faber et al., 2006).
In addition, trees and forests have positive economic
benefits for retailers. There is documented evidence
that trees promote better business by stimulating
more frequent and extended shopping and a
willingness to pay more for goods and parking (Wolf,
2007).
Trees further generate socioeconomic and health
benefits by generating better school performance,
less workplace illness, increased concentration, all
of which yield an increase to overall productivity. In
addition, the trees throughout the built environment
(and especially among vacant lot conversions and
streets) promote active living connectors and reduce
crime rates. Thus, trees provide for their community
by generating new economic income and removing
judicial system costs (Wolf, 1998).
In addition, trees and forestlands provide critical
habitat (foraging, nesting, spawning, etc.) for
mammals, birds, and fish and other aquatic species,
along with limitless opportunities for recreation,
offering a healthful respite from the pressures of
work and everyday stress.
Table 6: Aesthetic and Socioeconomic Benefits from Most Prominent Street Tree Species
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
15 Introduction
Challenges
Developing and caring for a healthy urban forest
requires the coordination of many different
stakeholders, with a clear vision, and dedicated
resources. As such, the urban forest intersects with
many other elements of the city. This can result in
conflict or challenges including:
Conflicts with Buildings and Infrastructure
- Roots and branches of trees can damage
nearby sidewalks, utility lines, and buildings.
Hazard Trees - Trees can create hazards to
the community. Storm events, accidents,
improper maintenance, and the natural
death of trees can all create structural
weaknesses for trees and the surrounding
area.
View Issues - Edmonds is known for the
majestic views of the Puget Sound. It is
possible for trees to block these views if
they grow too large or were planted in
improper locations.
Maintenance - Trees are living
infrastructure. As such, they require active
and regular maintenance. Structural
pruning, irrigation, and the management
of pests and diseases are some critical
maintenance practices that must occur to
ensure a healthy and vibrant urban forest.
Choice of Tree Species - Different tree
species have different needs, growth
patterns, and resistances to pests and
diseases. A diverse palette of species
improves the resilience of the urban forest.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
16Introduction
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
17 What Do We Have?
To effectively manage the urban forest, it’s essential
to have knowledge and understanding of what exists
today. This section lays the groundwork for the
UFMP with historical context, current policies and
practices and understanding about the existing state
of the urban forest.
History of Urban
Forestry in Edmonds
Trees have been an important part of the City’s
character and economy since its founding. However,
to understand and manage the urban forest has
depended upon which trees are being considered and
where the trees were located. This is evident from
the various locations where trees are referenced in
the City code as well as the variety of departments
whose staff oversee tree related matters. Edmonds
had been designated by the National Arbor Day
Foundation as a Tree City USA since 2011, but has
had city staff in different departments managing
tree issues within the City for decades.
Recognizing the role of trees in the community and
the necessity to manage them, the City drafted a
Streetscape plan in 2002 that included tree planting
guidelines as part of the general aesthetic goals of
the community. Revised again in 2006 and 2015,
elements of this plan introduced tree care policy
which has been the source for much of the City’s
tree management decisions ever since.
In 2010, the City formed the Edmonds Citizens’
Tree Board to assist in the development of tree
ordinances and to encourage the planting and
maintaining of trees. This is an early example of
the City taking steps towards management of tree
resources as an integrated ecosystem of both public
and private trees. In 2015, one of the efforts of this
board was a proposal to the City for updated tree-
related municipal ordinances. These proposed tree
codes, through a public comment period, were
rejected in part due to public concerns about private
property rights, but also because the City felt that it
had insufficient tree policy direction to warrant the
recommended codes.
From these related events, it’s clear that the
community has assumed an increasing level of care
for the urban forest that would benefit from long-
term strategic planning. Increasing regulations from
the State and Federal Government for environmental
stewardship requirements have also played a
significant role in defining the level of care for the
urban forest that exist in Edmonds today.
Of special note are three policy sources that directly
influence the management of urban forestry
and land use in Edmonds; The Washington State
Growth Management Act (1990), the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan (2016), and the Edmonds Parks
Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan (2016) (The
PROS Plan is also an element of the Comprehensive
Plan.) Their backgrounds, roles, and influences on
the development and operation of Edmonds urban
forest are discussed below.
What Do We Have?
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
18What Do We Have?
Growth Management Act (1990)
In 1990, the State Legislature adopted the
Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter
36.70A RCW) on the basis that uncoordinated
and unplanned growth posed a threat to the
environment, sustainable economic development
and the overall quality of life in Washington. Unique
among states, the Act requires that municipalities
prepare their own comprehensive plans that provide
for growth and development in a manner that is
locally and regionally consistent, achievable, and
affordable. All cities and counties in Washington are
required to adopt critical areas regulations by the
Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA defines
critical areas as:
“Critical areas” include the following areas and
ecosystems:
a. Wetlands;
b. Areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water;
c. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
d. Frequently flooded areas; and
e. Geologically hazardous areas.
Cities are required to include the best available
science in developing policies and regulations to
protect the functions and values of critical areas.
Further to that end, jurisdictions must review,
evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas
ordinances per an update schedule.
Edmonds has an outstanding inventory of critical
areas and protection of these critical areas overlaps
with the protection of the urban forest. The trees
in the urban forest increase soil security to protect
wetlands, waterways and flooded areas, and the
branches and canopy provide ample real estate for
wildlife to call home. It is important that the City
plan for all the trees in the urban forest as a whole,
not just critical areas.
This notion is reinforced in Washington
Administrative Code (365-190-060(1)) which
specifies when classifying forest land resources that
“Cities are encouraged to coordinate their forest
resource lands designations with their county and
any adjacent jurisdictions. Counties and cities should
not review forest resource lands designations solely
on a parcel-by-parcel basis.”
Edmonds has established environmental quality goals
in support of the legislation and in order to protect
critical areas. Since the critical areas regulations
must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
the Comprehensive Plan sets forth the underlying
policies for the jurisdiction’s critical areas program.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
19 What Do We Have?
The Comprehensive Plan (2016)
As an overarching guiding document, the
Comprehensive Plan aggregates other city visions
and plans into one cohesive document. The
Comprehensive Plan is structured by element, then
goals, then policies.
The Comprehensive Plan contains 9 elements. These
elements include goals and policies that can be
directly supported through this UFMP. These are the
community sustainability elements of the plan and
include goals and policies associated with:
Sustainability
Climate Change Goals and Policies, including
support for the Kyoto Protocol and the US
Mayor’s Climate Change Agreement
Community Health
Environmental Quality
The urban forest is a key component of the community
sustainability element. Goal A in this element seeks
to protect environmental quality and sets the first
policy (A.1) as to: Ensure that the city’s natural
vegetation, especially native vegetation, associated
with its urban forests, wetlands, and other wildlife
habitat areas are protected and enhanced...” A.2
sets to protect and retain the urban forest, native
vegetation, and wildlife habitat areas. This includes
techniques such as tree retention, which should be
integrated into land use and development codes. As
the urban forest grows, so too does the habitat and
environmental quality.
The community culture and urban design element’s
implementation involves tree policy as well. In
this element, the streetscape section defines the
many ways that trees enhance the community:
“Trees are an asset to the community. They help
absorb stormwater, provide habitat for wildlife,
clean pollution from the air, and give both
summer shade and aesthetic pleasure.” In this
way, the Comprehensive Plan addresses the policy
commitment to Community Health, through the
preservation and expansion of the urban forest.
Street trees are further explored in the Streetscape
Plan developed in 2002 by the Parks, Recreation, and
Cultural Services Department and updated in 2006.
The Streetscape Plan includes a Street Tree Plan for
the downtown corridor. In 2011 the City adopted a
“Complete Streets” program which accommodates
the needs of all users along streets, including a safe
space for pedestrians which necessitates a tree
management component. This section concludes
with Actions A.1 and A.2, which state that Edmonds
should update the Street Tree Plan and develop an
Urban Forest Management Plan by the end of 2017.
The community sustainability element also includes
two other sections that are interconnected with the
urban forest; Climate Change and Critical Areas.
Recognizing the importance of addressing the issues
surrounding the environment and climate change,
the City of Edmonds formally expressed support
for the Kyoto Protocols, adopted the U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement by Resolution No.
1129, and joined the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) by Resolution No.
1130. A crucial component of these climate change
policies is the reduction of greenhouse gases with
several benchmarks:
1. By 2020, reduce overall emissions of green-
house gases in the state to 1990 levels;
2. By 2035, reduce overall emissions of green-
house gases in the state to twenty-five
percent below 1990 levels;
3. By 2050, the state will do its part to reach
global climate stabilization levels by reduc-
ing overall emissions to fifty percent below
1990 levels, or seventy percent below the
state’s expected emissions that year.
The Edmonds urban forest is vital to the success of
meeting these benchmarks. Trees reduce carbon
through many ways including; reducing energy
demand for shaded buildings, acquiring carbon
dioxide for the photosynthesis, and sequestering
carbon. The potential for carbon sequestration
is determined by maximum tree sizes, lifespans,
growth rates, and tolerances to urban stress.
Therefore, growing long-lasting and healthy trees
directly contributes to the success of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan climate change goals.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
20What Do We Have?
The PROS Plan (2016)
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS)
Plan provides comprehensive guidance on the
management and development of Edmonds’ parks,
recreation and open spaces, and the services
provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Department. The PROS plan has been
regularly updated (1996, 2001, 2008, and 2014) to
remain relevant to Edmonds as the city evolves.
Edmonds updates the PROS Plan and Community
Cultural Plan on a six-year cycle, in alignment with the
requirements of the Washington State Recreation
and Conservation Office (RCO) to maintain eligibility
for federal and state grant programs. To this end,
the PROS plan contains detailed data on numerous
species and habitats in the city. The PROS Plan is
also an important tool in meeting Washington’s
Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements and
achieving the important citywide goals outlined in
the Strategic Action Plan (April 2015). The PROS Plan
defines seven goals, of which Goal 4.0 specifically
addresses urban forestry.
Goal 4.0 (Natural Resource and Habitat
Conservation) seeks to preserve and provide access
to natural resources for habitat conservation,
recreation, and environmental education. The
eight objectives discuss preserving and protecting
areas with critical habitats and natural resources.
Of special importance to the UFMP is Objective
4.5, which states “Expand the urban forest and
increase tree canopy in Edmonds”. Under each
goal, the PROS Plan recommends projects and
initiatives. A recommended project (4.G) under Goal
4 is: “Steward the urban forest using appropriate
maintenance of street and park trees, clear removal
and replacement policies and providing information
about urban forestry to property owners.” This
demonstrates the value of the urban forest to the
people of Edmonds as manifested through existing
official documents addressing the urban forest and
urban tree canopy.
Summary Considerations for
UFMP
These documents demonstrate the existing
regulations and policies within which care for the
urban forest is mandated. It is clear from the scope
defined within these documents that the values of
the Edmonds community, and Washington State at
large, require that urban forest management include
strategies to improve the care and conservation of
all trees. This includes consideration for improving
and preserving trees near waterways, critical areas,
habitats, and on private parcels. Equipped with
this policy background and mandate to manage
the urban forest, it’s essential to plan with as much
knowledge about the community tree resource as
possible.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
21 What Do We Have?
Community Tree
Resource
Trees belonging to the public, in parks, along rights-
of-way and around City facilities are the community
tree resource. These trees can be the most actively
managed population by the City and provide the
best indicators to showcase its vision of a well-
managed and sustainable urban forest condition.
A well-managed urban forest is healthier and more
resilient to pests, disease, and climate fluctuations.
As a result, a well-managed urban forest is also more
cost-efficient. As urban forests evolve over time,
managers revise their strategies for individual tree
species based on past performance and emerging
prospects. Because trees are relatively long-lived
organisms, urban forests, like those in Edmonds,
are often a combination of well-adapted, high-
performance species mixed with some species that
may be less desirable and require more attention.
There is a widely accepted guiding rule in tree
resource management that no single species should
represent greater than 10% of the total population,
and no single genus more than 20% (Clark et al,
1997). Achieving a diverse population of trees
can help to minimize detrimental consequences
in the event of storms, drought, disease, pests, or
other stressors that can severely affect an urban
forest and the flow of benefits and costs over time.
Catastrophic pathogens, such as Dutch elm disease
(Ophiostoma ulmi), emerald ash borer (Agrilus
planipennis) are both examples of unexpected,
devastating, and costly pests and pathogens that
highlight the importance of diversity and the
balanced distribution of species and genera.
Current operations in the City that care for the
community trees do not keep suitable records of
their tree resource to summarize within this UFMP.
Public trees along major arterials or high-profile
areas of the City are well-known and routinely cared
for by City Staff, but as an overall management tool,
the City does not maintain data about these trees
as a collective inventory of their green infrastructure
assets. Managing for appropriate tree species can
help control maintenance costs, reduce damage to
infrastructure, and manage the need for pest and
disease control measures.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
22What Do We Have?
Tree Canopy Cover
The amount and distribution of leaf surface area is
the driving force behind the urban forest’s ability
to produce benefits for the community (Clark et al,
1997). As canopy cover increases, so do the benefits.
Tree canopy is the layer of leaves, branches, and
stems of trees and other woody plants that cover
the ground when viewed from above.
Understanding the location and extent of tree
canopy is critical to developing and implementing
sound management strategies that will promote the
smart growth and sustainability of Edmonds’ urban
forest and the invaluable benefits it provides.
In addition to understanding the tree canopy as
a whole, the quality of the urban tree canopy is
often categorized by the amount of fragmentation.
Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy
will vastly improve when there is less fragmented
canopy, and there are more linkages between
multiple patches of forest. These categories of
canopy include:
Core Canopy - Tree canopy that exists
within and relatively far from the forest/
non-forest boundary (i.e., forested areas
surrounded by more forested areas).
Perforated Canopy - Tree canopy that
defines the boundary between core forests
and relatively small clearings (perforations)
within the forest landscape.
Patch Canopy - Tree canopy of a small-
forested area that is surrounded by non-
forested land cover.
Edge Canopy - Tree canopy that defines
the boundary between core forests, and
large core forests and large non-forested
land cover features, approximately 328
feet. When large enough, edge canopy may
appear to be unassociated with core forests.
The City of Edmonds completed a canopy assessment
in June 2017 using a heads-up digitizing approach
and high resolution (4.8 inch), leaf-on aerial
imagery captured on August 7th, 2015. The overall
assessment does not distinguish between publicly-
owned and privately-owned trees because trees
provide benefits to the community beyond property
lines. The results of the study provide a clear picture
of the extent and distribution of tree canopy within
Edmonds.
The data developed during the assessment becomes
an important part of the City’s GIS database. It also
provides a foundation for developing community
goals and urban forest policies. With these data,
managers can determine:
The location and extent of canopy over time
(tracking changes)
The location of available planting space
(potential planting area)
The best strategies to increase canopy in
underserved areas
The data, combined with existing and
emerging urban forestry research and
applications, can provide additional
guidance in two ways:
Finding a balance between growth and
preservation
Identifying and assessing urban forestry
opportunities.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
23 What Do We Have?
Canopy Cover Summary
The City of Edmonds encompasses a total area of
9.5 square miles (6,095 acres) with 1,844 acres of
tree canopy (Figure 1). This total area includes 8.9
square miles of land and 0.6 square miles of water.
By analyzing high-resolution aerial imagery, Davey
Resource Group (DRG) determined the following
land cover characteristics within the City of Edmonds:
30.3% existing canopy, including trees and
woody shrubs (525 acres)
1.6% (99 acres) dry vegetation and bare
ground
6.6% (402 acres) open water, where tree
canopy is unfeasible
27.4% (1,670 acres) of grass and low-lying
vegetation
34.1% impervious surfaces, including roads,
parking lots, and structures (2,080 acres)
From 2005 to 2015 tree canopy decreased
from 32.3% to 30.3%
Total potential canopy is 57.4%, considering
suitable planting sites (1,651 acres) and the
existing canopy (1,844 acres), for a total of
3,495 acres
Private properties have most of the canopy
(83.0%), followed by public (12.9%), and
commercial (4.1%) properties.
Among parks in Edmonds, Snohomish
County Park has the most canopy cover
(117 acres) followed by Yost Memorial Park
(44 acres) and Meadowdale Beach Park (26
acres)
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Tree Canopy
30%
Impervious34%Grass/Vegetation
27%
Bare Soils2%
Water7%
24What Do We Have?
Map 1: Land Cover
Figure 1: Land Cover
Land Cover
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
25 What Do We Have?
Canopy Fragmentation
As a part of the UTC assessment, Edmonds’ existing
UTC was analyzed for fragmentation to discover the
distribution of canopy (Map 2). The overall health
of the urban ecosystem is highly dependent on the
ability of the trees, plants, wildlife, insects, and
humans to interact collectively as a whole.
Often, the health and diversity of the overall canopy
will vastly improve by creating linkages between
multiple patches of forest.
Canopy fragmentation data serves as a valuable
management tool due to the importance of Edmonds’
critical areas and environmental stewardship. The
analysis found that Edmonds’ urban forest includes
the following:
10.3% (190 acres) of Core Canopy
8.2% (151 acres) of Perforated Canopy
55.5% (1,023 acres) of Patch Canopy
26.0% (480 acres) of Edge Canopy
Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison
Wildlife corridors (bottom) link habitats and lead to
improving habitat quality while fragmentation (top)
leads to isolation and declining habitat quality.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Patch Forest56%
Edge Forest
26%
Perforated Forest8%
Core Forest
10%
26What Do We Have?
Map 2: Forest Fragmentation
Figure 2: Forest Fragmentation
Forest Fragmentation
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
27 What Do We Have?
Park Canopy Cover
The City of Edmonds includes 47 parks covering
344 acres (5.6% of all land area) (Map 3). Edmonds’
parks have an average tree canopy cover of 44.1%.
Within those parks, canopy varied depending on site
and size. Edmonds’ largest park, Snohomish County
Park (119 acres), has 117 acres of tree canopy and
an average canopy cover of 98.7%. The second-
largest, Yost Memorial Park (44 acres) has 41 acres
of canopy cover, which represents 93.5% of the
land area. The high canopy cover of Yost Memorial
Park reflects that it is one of the few areas of native
vegetation that remain in Edmonds. The park
contains mixed stands of western red cedar (Thuja
plicata), red alder (Alnus rugosa), bigleaf maple
(Acer macrophyllum) and western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), which offer a glimpse into the natural
history of the area. Centennial Plaza is the smallest
park (less than 0.1 acres) with 0.02 acres of canopy
(9.9 % canopy cover).
Of the four largest parks (Snohomish County, Yost
Memorial, Meadowdale Beach, and Pine Ridge), all
have high tree canopy potential (greater than 96.7%).
However, of these parks, only Pine Ridge Park is not
currently near maximum potential canopy.
An acceptable strategy is to focus attention on the
parks where there is a much larger gap between
current canopy cover and potential canopy cover. For
example, Mathay Ballinger Park has 54.4% canopy
cover, but the potential is 93.8%. Haines Wharf
is another example where the potential canopy
(40.6%) is much higher than the existing canopy
(11.9%). The 5 biggest parks are listed at right.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Park Name Total
Acres
Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
% Potential
Canopy
Snohomish
County Park 118.55 117.05 98.73 99.47
Yost Memorial
Park 44.14 41.28 93.53 97.45
Meadowdale
Beach Park 25.54 25.16 98.50 99.77
Pine Ridge Park 23.78 21.36 89.83 96.66
Edmonds Marsh 23.37 5.66 24.21 24.91
28What Do We Have?
Map 3: Tree Canopy by Park
Table 7: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks
Tree Canopy By Park
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Sensitive Area Total
Acres
Patch
Forest
Acres
Edge
Forest
Acres
Perforated
Forest Acres
Core
Forest
Acres
Non
Forest
Acres
Biodiversity Areas And Corridor 251.82 1.35 53.94 27.09 147.67 21.78
Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron)2.55 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.40 1.48
Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 10.52 35.32 4.61 16.53 51.36
Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 14.46 9.28 0.18 2.70 51.21
Wetlands Area 80.65 5.48 13.56 0.51 1.76 59.36
29 What Do We Have?
Critical Areas
The Washington State Growth Management Act
(GMA) mandates that all cities and counties in
Washington are required to adopt critical areas
regulations. The GMA states that critical areas
include the following categories and ecosystems:
Wetlands
Areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas
Frequently flooded areas; and
Geologically hazardous areas
Analysis of critical areas in conjunction with tree
canopy can reveal the important relationship that
trees provide in the conservation and protection of
these environments. Two critical area designations
are especially important to urban forest management
in Edmonds; fish and wildlife habitat areas and steep
slopes (Tables 8 & 9).
Fish and wildlife habitat areas include high priority
habitats and species that have been identified for
conservation and management.
DRG analyzed the relationship between forest
fragmentation and the following priority habitat and
species list categories:
Biodiversity and Corridor Areas (Breeding
and Refuge)
Nesting Habitat (great blue heron)
Sensitive Aquatic Habitat (Trout/Salmon)
Sensitive Habitat (bald eagle)
Wetlands Area
Biodiversity areas and corridors, identified by
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
are areas of habitat that are relatively important
to various species of native fish and wildlife. In
Edmonds, most of the biodiversity areas and
corridors are in core (58.6%) or edge (21.4%) forest.
This is congruent with what theory would suggest,
because corridors are continuous areas of habitat.
Nesting habitat for the great blue heron is comprised
of several elements; the nesting colony, year-round
and seasonal buffers, foraging habitat, and a pre-
nesting congregation area. For a given nesting area,
habitats are delineated by a buffer created from the
outermost perimeter of great blue heron nests.
In addition, there is a larger seasonal buffer to
reduce human noise pollution during the breeding
months (February - September). Nesting habitat in
Edmonds is located primarily in non-forest areas
(58%). This value warrants further investigation to
determine optimal canopy levels.
Sensitive aquatic habitat is determined by in-stream
physical characteristics (e.g., temperature, water
quantity, structure, substrate conditions, etc.).
However, sensitive aquatic habitat is also strongly
influenced by watershed processes beyond the
waterline. This includes canopy cover, riparian
Table 8: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Sensitive Area Total
Acres
% Patch
Forest
% Edge
Forest
% Perforated
Forest
% Core
Forest
% Non
Forest
Biodiversity Areas And Corridor 251.82 0.54 21.42 10.76 58.64 8.65
Nesting Habitat Area (Great Blue Heron)2.55 1.36 24.96 0.00 15.73 58.01
Sensitive Aquatic Habitat Area 118.33 8.89 29.85 3.89 13.97 43.40
Sensitive Habitat Area 77.83 18.58 11.92 0.23 3.47 65.80
Wetlands Area 80.65 6.79 16.81 0.63 2.18 73.60
30What Do We Have?
condition, large woody debris, impervious surfaces
and stormwater discharge, sediment delivery, road
location and maintenance, watershed hydrology,
and nutrient dynamics (Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife, 2009). In Edmonds, 43.4% of
sensitive aquatic habitat is found in non-forest areas.
The second largest forest fragmentation category
for sensitive aquatic habitat is edge forest (29.9%).
Nesting habitat for bald eagles is typically defined
by areas of large, mature trees close to large bodies
of water and generally buffered from human activity
(Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). This nesting
behavior is reflected in the 11.9% of nesting area
located in edge type forests of Edmonds.
However, nest trees are often among the largest
trees in a forest patch (Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 2016). This tree preference is reflected in
18.6% of nesting habitat being found in patch forest.
Around wetlands, the Washington Department of
Ecology defines vegetated areas adjacent to aquatic
resources as buffers that can reduce impacts from
adjacent land uses (Washington Department of
Ecology, 2011). These buffers also provide some
of the terrestrial habitats necessary for wetland-
dependent species that require both aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. The quality of these buffers
could be described by their canopy fragmentation,
where 73.6% of wetlands were classified in non-
forest areas, and 16.8% were classified in edge
forest, with only 2.2% in the core forest.
The protection of steep slopes against landslides and
erosion is a key benefit of vegetation (Washington
Department of Ecology, 2011). Trees provide several
benefits to the structural integrity of slopes and the
prevention of soil erosion:
Foliage intercepts rainfall, causing
absorptive and evaporative losses that
reduce rainfall available for infiltration.
Roots extract moisture from the soil which
is lost to the atmosphere via transpiration,
leading to a lower pore-water pressure.
Roots reinforce the soil, increasing soil shear
strength.
It is important to understand the significance of
steep slopes because of their influences on local
wildlife and habitat quality. For example, increased
erosion can negatively impact spawning salmon by
increasing sediment and particulates in streams and
other water bodies. In this way, riparian vegetation
that prevents erosion protects critical habitat for
wildlife.
Most steep slopes (66.1%) are in areas with tree
canopy. This figure presents an excellent baseline, as
trees are a vital tool for securing soil and minimizing
erosion. Among all areas with slopes over 12 degrees,
66.1% of the area is canopy, 14.3% is impervious,
19.0% is pervious, and 0.6% is bare soil.
Table 9: Percent of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Dataset Source Weight
Proximity to
Hardscape
Urban Tree Canopy
Assessment 0.30
Slope National Elevation
Dataset 0.25
Road Density National Hydrologic
Dataset 0.15
Soil
Permeability
Natural Resource
Conservation Service 0.10
Soil Erosion
(K-factor)
Natural Resource
Conservation Service 0.10
Canopy
Fragmentation
Urban Tree Canopy
Assessment 0.10
31 What Do We Have?
Planting Opportunity Areas
With over 1,651 additional acres of planting
opportunity area, a system is needed to identify
the areas that will yield the highest returns. DRG
identified opportunity planting site levels based
on possible planting sites and then compared how
a tree planted in these sites would impact several
environmental benefits (Table 10). These benefits
are related to stormwater interception and erosion
control, urban heat islands, and proximity to tree
canopy. Increasing the number and size of trees in
very high opportunity planting level areas will yield
the highest return on investment.
However, the City understands the importance of
view corridors to the Puget Sound and, while an
area may otherwise be determined to be a high
opportunity planting level, public views are a value
too and choosing the right tree for the right place
must be considered.
Sites were given an overall opportunity planting level
based on a composite of these environmental factors
and the averages were binned into five (5) classes.
Higher numbers indicate a higher opportunity for
planting. These classes ranged from Very Low to
Very High (Table 11).
Trees planted in the next several years should be
planted in areas where they will provide the most
Table 10: Factors Used to Prioritize
Tree Planting Sites
benefits and return on investment. A very low
opportunity planting site is one where planting
a tree will do little to impact stormwater, heat
islands, and environmental conditions. A very high
opportunity planting site likely has high rankings in
at least two factors, and thus tree planting in these
areas is highly strategic, addressing multiple urban
issues at once (Map 4).
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opportunity
Level
Potential
Acres
Very Low 105.53
Low 395.36
Moderate 288.54
High 464.98
Very High 396.60
32What Do We Have?
Map 4: Opportunity Planting Areas
Table 11: Opportunity Planting Level Acres
Planting Opportunity Areas
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Air Quality10%
Carbon
Sequestration
14%
Stormwater
Management76%
33 What Do We Have?
Overall Benefits
Edmond’s land cover data was used within i-Tree
Canopy to model the environmental benefits from
the entire urban forest (all public and private trees).
The trees in Edmond’s are providing air quality
and stormwater benefits worth nearly $1.6 million
annually. To date, trees in Edmonds are storing
187,590 tons of carbon in their leaves and woody
biomass. The stored carbon is valued at $6.8 million.
Annually, tree canopy in Edmonds provides the
following environmental services:
Reduces 42.8 million gallons of stormwater
runoff, a benefit worth nearly $1.2 million.
Improves air quality by removing 42.2 tons
of pollutants (CO, NO2, O3, SO2, and PM10),
valued at $146,823.
Sequesters 6,294 tons of carbon, valued at
$221,885 annually.
Figure 4: Overall Environmental Benefits
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
34What Do We Have?
Summary Considerations for
UFMP
The UTC assessment establishes a GIS data layer
that can be used in conjunction with other map
layers to prioritize planting sites and increase
canopy cover strategically. Edmonds’ existing tree
canopy covers 30.3% of the City, and decision-
makers can set a target canopy cover goal to
pursue. With this UTC assessment, urban forest
managers have the following opportunities: Use planting opportunity site analysis to
identify new tree planting locations to
reduce erosion and soil degradation.
Use GIS canopy and land cover mapping to
explore under-treed neighborhoods and
identify potential planting sites.
Incentivize tree planting on private property,
particularly in high/very high planting
opportunity areas.
Increase canopy with tree planting in areas
of patch and fragmented canopy to reduce
forest fragmentation and improve wildlife
habitat and corridors.
Conducting outreach to the community with
this report as an important tool for engaging
public interest and support.
Define canopy goals and identify actions
that will support these goal(s).
Develop clear policies and standards
to meet the 30% native vegetation
requirement codified by ECDC 23.90.040.C
(Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable,
Undeveloped Parcels) in undeveloped (or
redeveloped) subdividable lands zoned
as RS-12 or RS-20, that contain a stream
or stream buffer, or a wetland or wetland
buffer.
Currently, forestry operations in the City do
not document the community tree resource
according to industry best management practices.
A public tree inventory is important because it
provides information on species diversity, forest
age, and relative performance of different tree
species. An inventory that is maintained with
continued updates also facilitates planning and
prioritization of tree maintenance duties. Based on
this assessment, urban forest managers have the
following opportunities: Establish and continually update a public
tree inventory.
Integrate maintenance cycles with the
public tree inventory database.
Study genus/species compositions to
ensure best-management diversity
recommendations are being followed.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Tree Locations City Department Actions
Permits for Tree
Removal
Permits for Tree
Pruning
Permits for Tree
Planting
Hazardous Tree
Inspections
Tree Pruning
Tree Removal
Tree Planting
Hazardous Tree
Inspections
Tree Pruning
Tree Removal
Tree Planting
Trees on Private
Property
Development
Services
Trees in Parks
Parks,
Recreation and
Cultural
Services
Trees within
City Rights-of-
Way
Public Works
and Utilities
(with Parks’
assistance in
downtown)
35 What Do We Have?
Existing Urban
Forest Practices
There are three departments within the City of
Edmonds that have influence over the management
of the urban forest; Development Services (DS),
Public Works and Utilities (PW), and Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Services (PRC). Although
they share and communicate any issues related to
tree care and urban forest management, decision-
making authority is determined based on the
location of the trees. There is no specific staff person
or leadership team with overarching responsibilities
for guiding the management of the entire urban
forest in Edmonds.
Tree Maintenance
Tree maintenance is important at all stages of tree
life, but is especially critical for young trees as they
benefit from early structural pruning and training.
Minor corrections, such as removing double leaders
or crowded branches, can be conducted at ground
level with minimal cost when a tree is young.
However, if left unattended, defects can evolve into
very expensive structural issues and increase the
risk of failure as trees mature, at which point it may
be impossible to correct the issue without causing
greater harm.
Over-mature trees require more frequent inspection
and removal of dead or dying limbs to reduce the
risk of unexpected failure. By establishing a budget
for maintenance, urban forest managers can plan
the necessary tree care at the appropriate life stage
when it is most beneficial and cost-effective.
At the City, tree maintenance is addressed most
frequently with reactive tactics. As issues related
to trees are identified by City Staff, work is
prioritized based on existing and available budgets.
Planning associated with tree management on
public properties is minimal with priority attention
given to ensuring the successful establishment of
new tree plantings and responding to hazardous
tree conditions. Currently, the Parks Department
performs certain routine tree inspections and
provides limited proactive maintenance activities
(typically associated with the care of trees after
planting to encourage successful establishment).
Within City rights-of-way, tree issues are uncovered
as part of routine safety inspections of sidewalks
and streets, where trees are only identified when
infrastructure is damaged by roots, or when tree
hazards are observed by public works staff. Similarly,
in City parks, trees will be prioritized for maintenance
when safety concerns are observed through routine
park maintenance activities.
Table 12: Decision Matrix for Urban Forest
Management in Edmonds
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Urban Forestry Items Expenditure
Tree Planting and Initial Care $4,848
Tree Maintenance $79,779
Tree Removals $37,565
Management $62,771
Volunteer Activities $134,579
TOTAL $319,542
Budget Per Capita $7.74
UTC Estimate of Benefits $1,567,000
City Services Common Urban Forestry
Related Activities
Estimated
Hours per
Week*
Development plan review for
compliance with tree
protection codes
Public inquiries (online,
phone, and counter)
Investigating and resolving
tree complaints
Investigating and resolving
infrastructure damage
complaints
Tree planting and
establishment
Structural pruning on smaller
trees
Inspection and identification
of hazardous trees
Contract
Management Managing contract tree crews 1
Community Service Requests
Response Management
Urban Forest Management
Plan stewardship
Federal, state grant
procurement
Tree City USA applications
Volunteer events
Coordinated tree planting
Neighborhood association
support
Website content and public
education
Tree Board
Meetings
Addressing public issues
related to trees 1
Comprehensive
(Long-range)
Planning
<1
Community
Education Action
and Outreach
1
Permit Intake
and Review 2
Code
Enforcement &
Complaint
Investigation
2
Parks & Public
Tree
Maintenance
40-60
Emergency
Response 0
36What Do We Have?
Tree Maintenance Budgets
The majority of tree maintenance costs are
accounted for as general line items through the
parks department budget. As part of the annual
Tree City USA application, departments will
summarize their expenses. In 2017, the Edmonds’
urban forestry expenditures were $7.74 per capita,
which is more than the minimum $2 per capita for
Tree City USA designation and more than the $7.50
national average reported by the National Arbor Day
Foundation. Documented Edmonds’ expenditures
have been in the range of $3 per capita in prior years.
Using the recent Urban Tree Canopy assessment
as a benchmark estimate, Edmonds’ urban forest
produces about $1,567,000 in environmental
benefits and is maintained with a 2017 budget of
approximately $319,542.
Service Levels
To assess current urban forest workload and staffing
levels, an estimated 11 city staff members were
identified as persons who work with tree issues on
at least an intermittent basis every week. From those
who are involved with forestry issues or operations
on a more regular time basis, 3 individuals were
identified with a quantifiable amount of time each
week working with trees or tree-related issues.
Overall, there is evidence of good interdepartmental
cooperation. These general conclusions about the
shared responsibilities among staff resources at
the City are very important when the City evaluates
future staffing needs for urban forestry. Currently,
no one single position is designated as a Full-Time
Employee (FTE) dedicated to urban forestry.
Table 13: 2017 City Urban Forestry Expenditures
Table 14: Current Urban Forest Workload and
Staffing Levels
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
37 What Do We Have?
Staff Training
The science of arboriculture, and the management
of urban forests are domains that are increasingly
recognized as special areas of expertise. Credentials
are increasingly requested by many municipalities
as evidence of competency. Bachelor’s degrees in
Forestry, Urban Forestry, Environmental Sciences,
and Horticulture are often the base requirements
for leadership roles in urban forest management.
Professional credentials can also demonstrate
competency, with the most widely accepted
credentials in Washington State coming from the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
The City provides on-going training to any staff
handling tree maintenance equipment, including
chainsaw, chipper, and lift-truck safety. Stakeholder
interviews revealed that landscape maintenance
workers in Edmonds receive no formal training on
structural pruning or tree care. The following is a
summary description of staff resources and training
within individual City departments:
In Development Services, staff are trained
to interpret ordinances related to trees, but
rely on reports by ISA certified arborists
when necessary to render decisions.
Staff within development services have
backgrounds in Urban Planning and one
(1) person with has an advanced degree in
Forestry. There are no ISA certified arborists
within development services staff.
The Department of Public Works and
Utilities has a director with advanced
degrees in Biology and Aquatic Biology. In
addition, the department has engineers
on staff who can successfully consider
relevant tree issues in terms of asset and
infrastructure management, but tree care
expertise is not required for any staff in
this department. Tree- related issues are
resolved based on previous experiences
and through hired consultations with ISA
certified arborists when necessary.
The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Department has two staff members who
provide expertise on urban forestry topics.
The first is an ISA certified arborist who
is referenced by all City departments and
citizen groups for opinions on the best
practices associated with tree care. There is
also a staff member who has an advanced
degree in Forest Ecology who works
with citizen groups on tree planting and
stewardship projects.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
38What Do We Have?
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
39 What Do We Have?
Major and Emerging Diseases
and Pests
Another important aspect to tree maintenance is
staying alert to managing emerging diseases and
pests that can be costly to control with individual
trees. For sustainability of the entire urban forest,
these are potentially catastrophic matters to consider.
Further information on the pests and diseases that
threaten the forest ecosystems in Washington can be
found on the USDA’s Forest Service website (https://
www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/forest-grasslandhealth/
insects-diseases/?cid=stelprdb5287906).
Among the many diseases and pests that affect
trees, City Staff and residents should remain alert to
the following:
Asian Long-Horned Beetle (ALB), is an
invasive insect that feeds on a wide variety
of trees in the United States, eventually
killing them. The beetle is native to China
and the Korean Peninsula. Signs of ALB start
to show about three to four (3 – 4) years
after infestation, with tree death occurring
in ten to fifteen (10 - 15) years depending
on the tree’s overall health and site
conditions. Infested trees do not recover,
nor do they regenerate. There are a broad
number of tree species this insect will feed
in and most common deciduous trees in
Edmonds are at risk.
Bronze Birch Borer (BBB) is an emerging
pest in western Washington that has
migrated from eastern Washington in recent
years. Periods of extended summer drought
have weakened birch trees and made them
more susceptible to this pest which can
severely damage or kill the trees. Chlorotic
leaves and sparse upper branches are the
first symptoms that homeowners usually
notice. Close examination will reveal lumpy
bark and half-moon-shaped beetle exit
holes (WSU,2008).
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) has killed
hundreds of millions of ash trees in North
America. The EAB is a destructive, non-
native, wood-boring pest that exclusively
kills both stressed and healthy ash trees
two to three (2 – 3) years after infestation
(NASPF, 2005). EAB is a jewel beetle native
to Northeastern Asia. EAB larvae feed on
the vascular tissue of trees and populations
grow exponentially. This pest has been
identified as moving slowly into the Western
U.S. and is considered a catastrophic pest
for Ash tree populations.
Dutch Elm Disease (DED) has devastated
American elm populations, one of the most
important street trees in the twentieth
century. Since first reported in the 1930s,
it has killed over 50 percent of the native
elm population in the United States (NASPF,
2005), although some elm species have
shown varying degrees of resistance.
Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) is the name of
the foliage disease of Douglas-fir caused
by the fungal pathogen Phaeocryptopus
gaeumannii. SNC is known as a “cast”
disease because it causes the premature
shedding of needles (or casting) from
the tree. resulting in sparse tree crowns
Asian Long-Horned Beetle Emerald Ash Borer
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
40What Do We Have?
and reduced growth. Although it is called
“Swiss” needle cast, the fungus is native to
the Western United States throughout the
range of Douglas-fir. SNC disease symptoms
include chlorotic (yellow) needles and
decreased needle retention, resulting in
sparse crowns and reduced diameter and
height growth (OSU, 2017). Mortality from
this disease is considered rare, but tree
care and maintenance of this disease can
be expensive and necessary in an urban
setting.
Douglas-fir Tussock Moth (DFTM) is a
moth found in Western North America.
Its population periodically erupts in
cyclical outbreaks (Wickman et al., 1998).
Outbreaks of the Douglas-fir tussock moth
appear to develop almost explosively,
and then usually subside abruptly after a
year or two. The caterpillars feed on the
needles of Douglas fir, true fir, and spruce in
summer. Forestry management to prevent
tree damage from tussock moth outbreaks
include four activities: early detection,
evaluation, suppression, and prevention.
These four activities must be well integrated
to ensure adequate protection from the
pest.
Other Diseases and Pests. Information on
specific diseases and insects that damage
trees in our region have been identified
by the Washington State Department
of Natural Resources. Current online
information is at: www.dnr.wa.gov/
ForestHealth.
Tree Acquisition and Quality
Control
Discussions with City Staff involved in acquiring and
planting trees did not reveal any standard practices
to ensure the quality of the trees during acquisition.
As trees are planted, there is no planned follow-up
or warranties managed with new trees.
Tree City USA
The Arbor Day Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit
conservation and education organization founded in
1972 in Nebraska, United States, by John Rosenow.
It is the largest nonprofit membership organization
dedicated to tree planting. The Foundation offers
Tree City USA certification. Cities can earn Tree City
USA certification by meeting four (4) core standards
of quality urban forestry management: maintaining
a tree board or department, having a community
tree ordinance, spending at least $2 per capita on
urban forestry, and celebrating Arbor Day.
Currently, the City of Edmonds dedicates $319,542.20
towards total community forestry expenditure, and
with a population of roughly 41,260, has a per capita
investment of $7.74. The Arbor Day Foundation has
recognized this per capita investment, as well as
recognizing the City of Edmonds’ community tree
ordinance and observance of Arbor Day.
Swiss Needle Cast Douglas-fir Tussock Moth
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
41 What Do We Have?
Regulatory
Framework
The City of Edmonds provides regulations for several
components relevant to urban forestry in the
Edmonds City Code and Community Development
Code. These regulations are designed to:
Authorize the power of government to
manage the urban forest
Define street trees and, as appropriate,
municipal responsibilities for their care
Enumerate tree related fees and penalties
Create regulations associated with tree
clearing on private land
Require tree protection during construction
Classify critical areas or buffers
These different regulations cover tree related
topics on a range of land types, and all influence
the direction and management of urban forestry
programs. The following summaries outline the
chapters and sections of city code.
Authorization of Power
The legitimacy of Edmonds’ city government to
manage forestry domains and the definition of those
domains fall under the authorization of power:
Chapter 18.45 provides for the City’s
Planning Division Manager to direct and
enforce City codes related to land clearing
and tree cutting on public land and private
property. It exempts Public Works, Parks
and Fire Departments in specific situations
where safety is an issue.
Chapter 18.85.030 provides for the Director
of Public Works to enforce and inspect work
done to maintain City street trees in healthy
condition, or remove trees from the public
right-of-way as necessary.
Chapter 10.95.030 provides for a Tree
Bboard, made up of Edmonds City residents
in order to encourage civic engagement for
active stewardship of the urban forest. The
powers and duties of the Tree Board are to
advise and make recommendations to the
Mayor and City Council as appropriate on
tree related matters.
Street and Public Trees
The City of Edmonds is ultimately responsible for
the planting and maintenance of public trees.
These trees are on public property parcels or select
locations in the rights-of-way. Other planting strips
are the responsibility of adjacent land owners:
Chapter 9.20.060, for sidewalk construction
and maintenance, declares that the
responsibility is with the abutting property
owner for maintaining or repairing adjacent
planting strips. This includes all tree care.
Chapter 18.85 provides further clarity on
the regulation of street trees and trees
on public property. All street trees are
managed by the Public Works Department
and require permits for all persons who
wish to plant, remove, prune or otherwise
change a tree on a street, right-of-way,
parking strip, planting strip, or other public
place. This code chapter also includes
language defining abuse and damage to
street trees.
Tree Related Fees and Penalties
To facilitate compliance and remediation for
disregarding public tree codes, the City provides
penalties as a punitive deterrent:
Chapter 18.45.070 defines the punitive
discretion for trees that are damaged from
disregard of City code of up to $1,000 for
trees less than 3” and $3,000 for trees
larger than 3”. Fines can be tripled related
to trees in critical areas, buffers, or areas
dedicated to public use, including public
right-of-way.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
42What Do We Have?
Private Land Clearing
Land clearing on private property is often a critical
challenge to effectively reaching urban forestry
canopy goals. Individual private property rights and
objectives of private landowners can frequently
be at odds with the community aspirations for the
urban forest.
Chapter 18.45 contains regulations
associated with trees on private properties
for land clearing and tree cutting. This
code provides for a variety of purposes
that would preserve the physical and
aesthetic character of the City and prevent
indiscriminate removal or destruction of
trees. This chapter also implements policies
of the State Environmental Policy Act. It
provides special exemptions in 18.45.030
for improved single-family lots, partially
improved single-family lots or certain
unimproved lots, allowing private property
owners in these categories to maintain or
remove trees at their discretion without
permits. Additionally, these land clearing
codes provide exemptions for utility
vegetation maintenance or tree work by
City departments when situations involving
danger to life or property are found.
Tree Protection During
Construction
As new construction occurs throughout the Pacific
Northwest, many projects can damage or kill trees.
Regulations to protect trees during construction
are a mechanism to control canopy loss as sites are
developed.
Chapter 18.45 requires that trees that are
being retained during a land development
project are also protected. The codes
describe the protected area on a site
as being within the drip-line of the tree
and attempts to limit damage to trees by
controlling the impact to trees within this
area.
Critical Areas and Buffers
Washington State has special laws to protect critical
areas, which are defined for certain types of valuable
and environmentally significant areas.
Chapter 23.40 establishes extra protections
and management requirements for trees
located near wetlands, streams, or steep
slopes. Tree pruning or removal is restricted
or prohibited without a report from an
ISA certified arborist, ASCA registered
consultant, or a registered landscape
architect that documents the hazard
and provides a replanting schedule for
replacement trees.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
43 What Do We Have?
Regional Urban
Forestry Resources
Regional urban forestry resources are organizations
that provide services to aid in the protection,
maintenance, and development of the urban forest.
These range from active volunteer groups in the
City, to nonprofits, academic institutions, and state
and federal government agencies. Some of the
organizations and programs described below have
been used by the City. Others may be good choices
for the future.
Washington State Urban and
Community Forestry Program
Under the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the Washington State Urban
and Community Forestry (UCF) Program provides
technical, educational, and financial assistance
to Washington’s cities and towns, counties,
tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and
educational institutions. The mission of the UCF is:
“To provide leadership to create self-sustaining
urban and community forestry programs that
preserve, plant and manage forests and trees for
public benefits and quality of life.”
A key service provided by the UCF is its collection of
financial assistance programs including; Community
Forestry Assistance Grants, Tree City USA Tree
Planting & Maintenance Grants, Arbor Day Tree
Reimbursements, Landscape Scale Restoration
Grants, Scholarships, and Internships. All forms of
financial assistance, their availability in a given year,
and their associated dollar amounts are dependent
on continued funding through annual grant
allocations from the USDA Forest Service. The UCF
communicates events, educational opportunities,
and other information through a Tree Link Newsletter.
The Washington Community Forestry Council
advises the DNR on policies and programs. The
program does this by teaching citizens and decision-
makers about the economic, environmental,
psychological, and aesthetic benefits of trees.
The program also helps local governments, citizen
groups, and volunteers plant and sustain healthy
trees throughout Washington. The council was
established under RCW 76.15.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
44What Do We Have?
FORTERRA Green City
Partnerships
The Green City program helps urban communities
in the Puget Sound region effectively steward
their natural open spaces through best practices.
FORTERRA partners with local municipalities to
develop achievable goals, shared visions, long-term
plans, and community-based stewardship programs
to care for the valuable forests and natural areas in
our urban environments. Specific services include:
City-wide forested park and natural area
assessment
Strategic and restoration planning
Volunteer program development and
guidance
Education and training for volunteers
Restoration tracking systems
Green City outreach and community
engagement
On- the- ground stewardship projects and
event support
The Green City Partnerships share three (3) core
goals:
Improve the quality of life, connections to
nature, and enhance forest benefits in cities
by restoring our forested parks and natural
areas
Galvanize an informed and active
community
Ensure long-term sustainable funding and
community support
These unique public/private partnerships bring
together public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders
to create a sustainable network of healthy forested
parks and natural areas throughout the region.
Municipal Research and Services
Center
The Municipal Research and Services Center
(MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local
governments across Washington State better serve
their citizens by providing legal and policy guidance
on any topic. The MRSC collects state and local
information from parks and recreation departments,
land use planners, utilities, and citizen organizations
to promote and manage urban forestry resources.
Example resources include local urban forestry
programs in Washington State, legal references, and
related articles.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
45 What Do We Have?
Futurewise
Futurewise is a nonprofit that has worked to prevent
sprawl to protect the resources of communities
in Washington State. Futurewise was founded
to help support implementation of Washington
State’s Growth Management Act, and to focus on
preventing the conversion of wildlife habitat, open
space, farmland, and working forests to subdivisions
and development.
Futurewise provides data analysis and research,
community and environmental planning and
policy development, community engagement and
outreach, grassroots organizing and advocacy,
legislative initiatives, and litigation. These services
are all provided through strategic collaboration with
businesses, governments, community organizations,
and nonprofit partners.
The University of Washington
Restoration Ecology Network
TThe UW-Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN)
is a tri-campus program, serving as a regional
center to integrate student, faculty and community
interests in ecological restoration and conservation.
Students in the program are required to complete
capstone projects, where students of different
academic backgrounds work together to complete
a local restoration project. Students learn how
to plan, design, install, and monitor a restoration
project while working in teams. The Capstone
spans three academic quarters beginning in the
fall. Communities collaborate with the program to
develop RFPs, which then provide volunteers for the
community and excellent learning experiences for
the students.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
46What Do We Have?
EarthCorps
EarthCorps is a human capital development
program where corps members learn leadership
skills by working collaboratively, leading community
volunteers, and executing technical restoration
projects along shorelines, trails, and in forests. Puget
Sound Stewards help EarthCorps run restoration
events, monitor plant growth, adapt management
plans, and educate the community. EarthCorps
collaborates with businesses, nonprofits, and
communities to offer volunteers who are passionate
about conservation and restoration.
The Puget Sound Stewards program in Edmonds was
created by EarthCorps in 2015 in partnership with
the City of Edmonds with support from the Hazel
Miller Foundation. The goal was to provide on-
going, locally-based, expert care for one of the City’s
key natural areas. Starting with Edmonds Marsh, a
wildlife sanctuary and rare example of a saltwater
marsh in the midst of a city, the program has grown
to include three more sites: Brackett’s Landing,
Willow Creek Demonstration Garden, and Hutt Park.
The volunteers who join the Puget Sound Steward
program are supported by EarthCorps staff and crews
as they learn about the ecology of Puget Sound and
how to perform actions that improve the ecological
health of project sites in Edmonds that contribute to
the health of Puget Sound and Edmonds residents.
Actions include removing invasive weeds such as
Himalayan Blackberry or English Ivy, mulching areas
in need of water retention and weed suppression,
and replanting with native plants to foster greater
biodiversity.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
47 What Do We Have?
Urban Forestry
Practices:
Case Studies
In order to remain progressive with its urban forestry
programs, the City of Edmonds recognizes that
there are urban forestry practices emerging from
other municipalities that could eventually add value
if developed within the City. Through stakeholder
interviews and discussions with City Staff, three
urban forestry practices were selected as important
for further consideration in implementation of this
UFMP: Tree Banks (or fee in-Lieu programs), Heritage
Tree Programs and Arborist Business Licensing. This
section explores some examples around how other
cities have adopted these programs.
Tree Banks – Fee-based
alternatives to tree replacement
Often in the course of urban forest management,
there can be logistical challenges associated with
replacing trees at the same site where trees are
removed. An increasingly common solution is
to provide developers and residents with the
opportunity to pay fees in-lieu of meeting their
landscaping requirements. Providing a fee or
financial guarantee option creates a system for
funding tree planting projects or even more
sophisticated landscape restoration projects that
improve the overall health and condition of the
urban forest.
Precedence for this option can be found at the
National level, with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
In a Federal Rule published in April 2008, The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define an in-
lieu fee program as:
“A program involving the restoration,
establishment, enhancement, and/or
preservation of aquatic resources through
funds paid to a governmental or non-
profit natural resources management
entity to satisfy compensatory mitigation
requirements... Similar to a mitigation bank,
an in-lieu fee program sells compensatory
mitigation credits to permittees whose
obligation to provide compensatory
mitigation is then transferred to the in-lieu
program sponsor.”
Snohomish County
Here, the government provides options for
permit applicants to engage the county, their own
contractor, or do the mitigation work themselves to
ensure that mitigation is achieved, even when it is
not possible at the proposed project site:
“Applicants may choose to perform the
off-site mitigation work on private property
either themselves or through their own
contractor, subject to all other provisions of
Section 30.62 SCC, or applicants may enter
into a voluntary mitigation agreement with
the County pursuant to RCW 82.02.020
under which the County will perform the
mitigation work on public property within
the same sub-drainage basin or watershed
resource inventory area (WRIA).” (POL-6210
REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING OFF-SITE
MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO CRITICAL
AREAS ARISING OUT OF SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION UNDER SCC
30.62.330)
The following cities are examples of fee in-lieu
programs related to urban forestry. There is some
variation in how these fees are calculated, as well as
where the funds collected get administered.
City of Redmond
The City of Redmond calculates fee in-lieu to include
the cost of the trees. More importantly, the fee
also includes all costs associated with establishment
care. From Article IV Environmental Regulations:
RMC 21.72.080 E.2. - Tree Replacement
Fee A fee in- lieu of tree replacement may
be allowed, subject to approval by the
Administrator after careful consideration
of all other options. A tree replacement fee
shall be required for each replacement tree
required but not planted on the application
site or an offsite location.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
48What Do We Have?
i. The amount of the fee shall be the tree base
fee times the number of trees necessary to
satisfy the tree replacement requirements
of this section. The tree base fee shall cover
the cost of a tree, installation (labor and
equipment), maintenance for two years,
and fund administration.
ii. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the
issuance of a tree removal Permit.
iii. Fees collected under this subsection shall be
expended only for the planting of new trees
in City-owned parks, open spaces or rights-
of-way.
http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/
redmond-wa/export2doc.aspx?pdf=1&tocid
=005.009&file=doc-005.009-pid-80.pdf
City of Renton
The City of Renton has much more limited code
language. Fee in-lieu options are still at the City’s
discretion, but only cover the cost of the tree and
installation. No funding for establishment care
is required in this code. However, the code does
directly designate the funds to be allocated to
the Urban Forestry Program fund, which provides
more discretion to the City with how the funds get
allocated:
RMC 4-4-130 H.1.E iii. Fee in Lieu: When
the Administrator determines that it is
infeasible to replace trees on the site,
payment into the City’s Urban Forestry
Program fund may be approved in an
amount of money approximating the
current market value of the replacement
trees and the labor to install them. The City
shall determine the value of replacement
trees. http://www.codepublishing.com/
WA/Renton/#!/Renton04/Renton0404/
Renton0404130.html
City of Port Angeles
The City of Port Angeles provides a fee in-lieu
option, but it only appears to relate to street tree
replacement requirements. Another distinction in
this code is the fee is determined by the Community
Forester (a city staff position):
PAMC 11.13.050 B.3. Street tree
requirements in previously developed area.
In addition to the above requirements,
the following also apply: Where new
street trees cannot be planted due to
portions of rights-of-way having been
previously paved or otherwise rendered
unsuitable to plant trees, a fee-in-lieu
of planting is required. Such fee shall be
determined by the Community Forester
per City Policy and deposited into the
Community Forestry Fund. https://library.
municode.com/wa/port_angeles/codes/
code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT11STSI_
CH11.13STTR_11.13.050STTRENRE
Heritage Tree Programs-–
Recognizing Historical
Significance of Trees
In many cities around the nation, trees are often
recognized for their historical significance to the
community. This recognition is commonly referred
to as part of a Heritage Tree Program. These
programs provide communities with a way of
officially recognizing trees, and with the recognition,
can offer a variety of benefits to the community,
including:
Increasing public awareness of trees and the
urban forest
Drawing attention to and protecting unique
and significant trees
Reinforcing how trees are one of the key
components of a city’s unique character and
sense of place
Engaging citizens with the purpose and
activities of a city’s urban forestry program
Encouraging public participation in the
identification and perpetuation of heritage
trees throughout the City
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
49 What Do We Have?
City of Seattle
In the greater Puget Sound region, a number of cities
have heritage tree programs. One of the earliest
programs was for the City of Seattle in 1996 when
PlantAmnesty (a nonprofit) initiated a program
that eventually became co-sponsored by the City.
Seattle’s program provides the broadest set of
categories for designating a tree as a heritage tree.
Trees can be designated according to the following
categories:
Specimen: A tree of exceptional size, form,
or rarity.
Historic: A tree recognized by virtue of its
age, its association with or contribution
to a historic structure or district, or its
association with a noted person or historic
event.
Landmark: Trees that are landmarks of a
community.
Collection: Trees in a notable grove, avenue,
or other planting.
City of Vancouver
The City of Vancouver, Washington, has had a
heritage tree program in place since 1998. Unlike
Seattle, which already regulates the care of
exceptional trees (including heritage trees) on
private property, the City of Vancouver uses this
designation to protect trees on private properties
where tree removal permits would not ordinarily
be required. This is a voluntary program for private
property owners, thus protecting the rights of the
property owner (https://www.cityofvancouver.us/
publicworks/page/heritage-trees).
City of Lynnwood
Closer to Edmonds, in the neighboring City of
Lynnwood, the Heritage Tree program is defined
in municipal code. Although many aspects of this
program are similar to other cities, their specific code
language binds all successive owners of the tree to
the protection obligations within this designation.
This language has the added benefit of ensuring
long-term protection and care for the tree unless it
is determined to be a hazard (LMC 17.5.070).
Arborist Business Licenses –
Ensuring Best Practices in Tree
Care
Businesses that operate in Edmonds only require
a general business license to work as an arborist.
This is not uncommon, but many cities are now
recognizing how the complexity of city codes
associated with tree care and the expectations
of the community necessitate special licensing
for businesses that perform tree work. Tree care
industry professionals and researchers in the
science of arboriculture routinely convene as the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), or the
Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA). These groups
collaborate to encourage best practices in tree care
and tree worker safety. To help ensure a community
has companies that are adequately trained and
qualified for tree work, the use of arborist licensing
that ties the business with these organizations is
increasingly popular. The following cities were
selected from throughout the U.S. as examples of
different approaches for arborist business licensing:
City of Herrington
Herrington, KY – Businesses that practice
arboriculture must submit an application
to the City for a Tree Contractor license.
The application identifies the business
as practicing arboriculture and requires
proof of sufficient insurance (http://
www.cityofherington.com/pview.
aspx?id=32514&catID=547).
City of Lincoln
Lincoln, NE – In Lincoln, applications
for tree services and arborists not only
require proof of insurance, but also proof
of ISA credentials or a tree worker test
administered by the parks and recreation
department. http://lincoln.ne.gov/city/
parks/communityforestry/arborist.htm
City of Denver
Denver, CO – Denver has two classes for
their “Tree Service License.” This is a distinct
feature of their licensing process. Licenses
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
50What Do We Have?
can be issued to businesses working on
“Large Trees,” which require workers to
leave the ground, or an “Ornamental”
license, designed for companies doing
landscaping work on small trees that do
not require an aerial lift. https://www.
denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/
Portals/747/documents/forestry/tree-
license-info-packet.pdf
City of Spokane
Spokane, WA – Spokane has a commercial
tree license that businesses must secure
if they are doing work on public property
trees (e.g.,street trees and park trees).
https://my.spokanecity.org/urbanforestry/
permits/
Summary Considerations for
UFMP
Historical practices and regulatory requirements
provide a clear vision and mandate that direct the
City to manage the entire urban forest. In particular,
the City has special authority over property it owns
or that is within the public right-of-way. Yet, no
comprehensive public tree inventory exists. The City
also does not have a dedicated forestry specialist to
direct the City’s urban forest management activities.
Instead, the City has multiple departments that
are guided by codes and policies for site-specific
decisions without overarching strategic level
guidance of the forest. An example encountered by
public works staff is when a tree removal is being
considered. One tree may need to be removed and
replaced for safety reasons, but additional trees may
get removed and replaced to maintain the aesthetic
of the streetscape. Without overarching urban forest
strategies, removals of trees for simple rights-of-
way improvements can be seen as reactive solutions
resolved through political discourse instead of
planned practical decisions for city managers.
This reactive approach to urban forest management
also extends to the tree care budget. The City does
not maintain sufficient tree related information
(such as tree quantity or condition data) to budget
for proactive tree care. Current urban forestry
benefits models show how trees in Edmonds
provide environmental and economic benefits that
are much greater than their reactive management
costs. There is tremendous opportunity to leverage
this disparity and direct forest management toward
proactive tactics such as tree planting, young tree
maintenance pruning, and tree inspections.
With the City having authority to care for
approximately 12% of the City’s entire tree canopy,
other methods to encourage or require tree planting/
protection will be needed for the community to
have influence over tree care in the remaining
88% of the forest. Some strategies that have been
engaged in at other municipalities include the fee
in-lieu programs to support variances in any tree
replacement obligations, Heritage Tree Programs
that protect special trees, and arborist business
licensing to encourage best practices in tree care.
Finally, the City of Edmonds has both public and
nonprofit agencies committed to helping Edmonds
maintain a healthy urban forest. With continued
or greater engagement, the City may realize more
grant-funded opportunities, volunteer resources,
and engaged citizens who will help the City achieve
its urban forest management goals.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
51 What Do We Want?
Stakeholder and
Community Input
Edmonds conducted substantial outreach to public
stakeholders, residents, and nonprofit agency
stakeholders. Connections and relationships that
develop among stakeholders are valuable outcomes
of the urban forest outreach process. This provided
a wide context for the challenges that face Edmonds’
urban forest. As community awareness and actions
associated with urban forestry move forward, it will
be the people of Edmonds that ultimately realize the
value of their contributions to their community in
the trees that grow around them.
Stakeholder Interviews
In the summer of 2017, a team from the Davey
Resource Group and Nature Insight Consulting
met with several municipal and regional urban
forest stakeholders. These stakeholder interviews
occurred over two days and included urban
planners, utility experts, public works staff, tree
board representatives, and City staff leadership.
Their valuable contributions guided the framework
of the UFMP.
Virtual Open House
Throughout the development process, the City
hosted a website that provided community access
to the planning process. In addition, the website
provided access to videos of public presentations,
surveys, and invitations for public comments. This
approach provided further opportunities for public
input outside of scheduled community meetings.
Community Meetings
The first public meeting was held with the City of
Edmonds Citizens’ Tree Board on May 4, 2017.
During this meeting, issues, concerns, and values
about the urban forest were explored with members
and visitors in attendance.
Later, on June 22, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted
the first of two open houses (Appendix D) at City Hall
to share information about the UFMP development
process and gather input from community
residents. The open house included a presentation
and a brief discussion with the audience to answer
clarifying questions. Following the presentation,
attendees were invited to provide input (thoughts,
ideas, concerns, questions) on six opinion poster
boards. Each poster board contained a broad
topic followed by initial suggestions generated
through the prior stakeholder interview process.
Attendees were invited to express their opinions
using dots (where green = a positive “vote”/
agreement for the suggestion, yellow = concern/
hesitation of the suggestion, and red = a negative
“vote”/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion).
Attendees were invited to use as many dots of
each color as necessary to express their opinion of
each suggestion on each poster board. In addition,
each poster board provided an area for Additional
Suggestions, where attendees were invited to write
down their thoughts, ideas, concerns, and questions
on a sticky note. The sticky note was then adhered
to the poster board for other attendees to review
and “vote” on.
A third meeting which was with the Planning Board,
occurred on July 26, 2017 as another opportunity
to solicit public participation early in the UFMP
development process. The results of these public
meetings helped the City to understand the needs
and concerns of the community and guide the
development of the online survey.
What Do We Want?
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
52What Do We Want?
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Improved Air Quality Wildlife Habitat Protect Water
Quality/Reduced
Stormwater Runoff
Carbon Storage Energy Savings Other
Environmental Benefits
53 What Do We Want?
Online Community Survey
From the initial stakeholder outreach, a survey was
developed with the intention of understanding and
benchmarking Edmonds’ community values and
views on the urban forest. Survey data was collected
online. The survey platform only allowed one survey
response per household to control for multiple
entries from a single respondent. The survey closed
in September of 2017 with 175 responses having
been gathered through the summer (Appendix
C). Responses increased following the public open
house and a presentation to the planning board.
Although the intent was to gather feedback from a
broad representation of the community, 40.9% of the
respondents affiliated themselves with the Edmonds
Bowl area, with another 15.2% affiliating with the
Seaview neighborhood. Other neighborhoods had
less than fifteen (15) responses each, about 29.3%
of the combined total. 14.6% (24 responses) did not
affiliate within the survey-defined neighborhood
groups.
The results showed how seventy-five percent
(74.9%) of respondents “strongly agree” that public
trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds.
Sixty-seven percent (66.9%) of respondents “agree”
or “strongly agree” that Edmonds needs more public
trees. The most popular location for more trees is
in open space and natural areas (60.4%), followed
by parks (59.2%), streetscapes (59.2%), then trails
and bike paths (45.6%), downtown (42.6%), and golf
courses (11.2%).
When asked to rank the environmental benefits
most valued from the urban forest, respondents
expressed the greatest appreciation for air quality
benefits, with 36.6% indicating that it is the most
important benefit, followed by wildlife habitat, and
water quality. Energy savings were ranked as least
important at 4.6% (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Beauty/Aesthetics Shaded
Trails,sidewalks,
and bike trails
Attractive to
Residents
Shaded
streets/Buffer
from vehicles
Improve retail
areas and
neighborhoods
Increased Property
Values
Passive recreation Shaded Parking
Intangible Benefits
54What Do We Want?
On average, respondents ranked the beauty of trees
as the most important intangible benefit, followed
by shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails, then
Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit
attractiveness to residents. The benefit of shaded
parking was ranked as the least important aesthetic
benefit (Figure 6).
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Take care of hazardous trees.Holistic Plant Health Care(Improve the urban forest,
but not necessarily every
tree)
Best possible care (all treesshould look good)Clearance only (keep thesidewalks and streets clear)None-Keep them natural
Maintenance Expectations
55 What Do We Want?
In general, respondents are satisfied with the
current level of maintenance, with 69.8% saying they
“Agree” or “Strongly Agree.” When asked to rank
various options for the level of maintenance that
public trees should receive, 52.1% of respondents
indicated their preferred expectation is for trees to
receive hazard maintenance (Figure 7).
Fifty-four percent (53.9%) of respondents would
like to see the City help preserve trees on private
property. Education and outreach were considered
the best ways to encourage tree planting and
preservation on private property, with 79.0% of
respondents identifying these as their preferred
methods.
Respondents were asked to select the types of
education and public outreach they would like to
see offered by the urban forestry program. The
most popular educational materials were website
resources (62.7%), followed by interpretive trails
and displays (59.8%), guided nature and tree walks
(55.0%), and informational brochures (43.2%).
Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
56What Do We Want?
Summary Considerations for
UFMP
Already considered a valuable asset by Edmonds
residents, Edmonds has an opportunity to further
improve the urban forest through increased
public outreach and community engagement.
Public engagement on urban forestry issues has
demonstrated that the public is generally satisfied
with the City’s activities on public property, but
prefers to have the City only provide guidance and
education as opposed to regulation when it comes
to stewardship of trees on private property.
There is general agreement from survey respondents
that trees impact views for many residents, and the
issue galvanizes residents as a primary tree issue
in Edmonds. In fact, views of the water and other
scenic places are fundamental to Edmonds’ identity
as a community. Scenic views are also considered
a property right of long-established development.
At the same time, appreciation of trees—especially
“the right trees in the right place”—is a value shared
by almost everyone.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
57 How Do We Get There?
Over the next twenty (20) years, the City of
Edmonds will be able to enhance management of
the urban forest through implementation of actions
recommended in this Plan. The decision to develop
a Plan with a 2038-time horizon was primarily based
on the precedence established by the City with
other long-range planning documents. Additionally,
growing and improving Edmonds’ urban forest are
slow processes. Tree physiology for most trees in
Western Washington can take up to seven (7) years
to establish after planting, and another ten (10) years
before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide
the majority of their ecosystem services when they
reach functional maturity. For this additional reason,
it is essential that urban forest planning consider at
least twenty (20) years within the Plan framework as
a reasonable expectation for achieving the desired
state of the urban forest.
The long-range strategic goals provided in this Plan
will address the three components of a sustainable
urban forestry program:
Urban forest asset goals, which are
intended to improve the urban forest
resource over the next twenty (20) years
by developing detailed expectations for
the urban forest. To accomplish these
goals, the most common tactic will be to
increase the amount of information the City
maintains about its urban forest resource.
This includes activities like routine tree
canopy assessments and a public tree
inventory, both of which are fundamental to
management and are substantial expenses
to an urban forestry program requiring
significant consideration.
Municipal resource goals, which are
intended to drive improvements in
City policy and practices by developing
efficiency and alignment of efforts within
City departments. The common tactics
for accomplishing these goals center
around developing policies that promote
routine tree inspection and formalized tree
management strategies for City-owned
trees. These goals encourage the City to
improve its awareness and mitigation of
tree hazards and eliminate barriers to
effective urban forest management.
Community resource goals, which are
intended to build stronger community
engagement and public participation in
urban forest stewardship. The common
tactics for accomplishing these goals
coordinate with the public and encourage
the participation of citizens and businesses
to align with the City’s vision for the urban
forest.
The research into current and historical efforts in
urban forestry at the City has revealed numerous
opportunities for Edmonds to enhance the
understanding of the urban forest resource as well as
improve efficiency in tree maintenance operations.
The criteria and indicators proposed by Kenney, et al.
(2011) were used as a standard to assess the current
urban forestry practices in the City, and provide
the management reference necessary to frame the
following recommended goals for this plan.
How Do We Get There?
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
58How Do We Get There?
Goal Designations
The priority designation ranks the actions in
order of priority:
“A” priority actions will be pursued first
and are most likely to be revised upon
completion.
“B” priority actions generally
complement the “A” actions and
become next steps.
“C” priority actions are generally long-
range efforts.
The time designation is the estimated timeframe
anticipated for completion of the action/activity
once it is started.
This approach acknowledges the need for an
effective organization to balance priorities and
their associated expenditures using three tiers
of financing alternatives (cost) to describe the
actions:
“Fiscally Conservative” ($) suggests
prioritized spending within existing
funding.
“Investment” ($$) alternative suggests
the action likely requires additional
funding.
“Vision” ($$$) requires substantial
investment in time and funding.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
59 How Do We Get There?
Urban Forest Asset Goals
UF Goal #UA1 - Maintain Citywide Canopy Coverage
Performance Measure - Tree Canopy Cover (% of City land covered by tree canopy)
Rationale - Edmonds has no set canopy goal. The current canopy 30.3% (1,844
Acres) is less than the 2005 Canopy cover (1,988 acres). This means that the City
has lost an estimated 6.2% (144 acres) since 2005.
Risk - Diminished canopy cover can increase flooding, urban heat island effects,
and energy use, reduce air quality, and degrade asphalt road surfaces. Canopy
loss also negatively impacts wildlife travel corridors and decreases habitat.
Benefit - Canopy cover can help optimize the ecosystem services provided by the
urban forest.
Actions:
A. Develop and adopt an overall canopy goal for Edmonds.
a. The planting of new trees and proper maintenance of existing trees
is necessary to maintain or increase canopy cover. Maintenance tasks
include; irrigation, pruning, removal of invasive plants (such as ivy),
and more.
B. Adopt a City policy to avoid any net loss to the overall tree canopy.
C. Conduct urban tree canopy (UTC) analysis every ten (10) years to determine
changes and progress towards community canopy goals.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
B, 1-2 Years, $
A, 1 Year, $
C, >10 Years, $$
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
60How Do We Get There?
UF Goal #UA2 - Identify Key Areas To Increase Canopy
Performance Measure -Tree Canopy Cover (% of City land covered by tree canopy)
Rationale - Tree canopy in parks, steep slopes, and fragmented forest areas have
potential to reduce erosion risk and improve wildlife habitat.
Risk - Lack of tree canopy can result in erosion risk and reduced wildlife habitat.
Benefit - The City can develop efficient strategies for increasing canopy and
targeting specific areas to improve and distribute the benefits provided by the
urban forest.
Actions:
A. Identify areas where tree planting will enhance overall canopy cover, improve
stormwater management, and/or protect existing natural resources.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
B, 1-2 Years, $
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
61 How Do We Get There?
UF Goal #UA3 - Manage Tree Population Age Distribution for Diversity
Performance Measure - Distribution of trees per DBH Class (%) in city parks and
public Right-of-Way
Rationale - Maintenance costs and expensive end-of-life tree care are more
evenly distributed when a population has an ideal distribution of tree ages
(approximated by DBH).
Risk - City Staff suspect an uneven age distribution in many parks and natural
areas. There is concern about increased risks of whole tree failure due to a
growing number of trees in decline. Serious and substantial expenditures on tree
removals can be necessary in even-aged populations that reach the end of their
useful life in a few years.
Benefit - Annual costs for care of public trees can be more evenly distributed over
many years.
Actions:
A. For any tree inventory efforts, collect DBH to estimate tree age.
a. Create removal plans for the eventual decline (particularly for large
and risky trees).
B. Develop specific age distribution goals for different populations.
a. Type: Coniferous/Evergreen.
b. Size: Small/Medium/Large.
C. Identify mature/over-mature trees that have reached the end of their
lifespan and plan for their gradual replacement.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
B/C, on-going, $$$
B/C, 1-2 Years, $$$
B/C, on-going, $$$
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
62How Do We Get There?
UF Goal #UA4 - Plant Suitable Trees and Schedule Phased Replacement for
Unsuitable Species
Performance Measure - % of public trees in population considered suitable
species*
Rationale - Species demonstrating poor performance in the City should not
continue to be planted. Phased removals of existing poor-performing species
should be considered for key areas*
Risk - Unsuitable species require substantial maintenance and must be replaced
more frequently.
Benefit - The community will have lower tree maintenance costs.
Actions:
A. Document and track tree species information when performing work to
understand and identify unsuitable tree species.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
B/C, on-going, $$$
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
63 How Do We Get There?
UF Goal #UA5 - Manage for Species Diversity
Performance Measure - Species Distribution on City properties and public rights-
of-way (%)*
Rationale - No species should represent more than 10% of the population and
no genus should represent more than 20%. Exceptions may be made for native
species in naturalized areas.
Risk - Predominance of a few species can lead to substantial impacts from pests
or diseases that tend to be species-specific, and storms that may predominantly
damage certain species.
Benefit - The urban forest will be healthier, more resilient, and sustainable.
Actions:
A. Establish diversity policies.
a. No single species represents >10% of the resource.
b. No single genus represents >20% of the resource.
c. No single family represents >30% of the resource.
B. Increase species diversity in the public tree resources.
C. Identify and maintain a broad palette of regionally compatible species
(including native species).
D. Reduce reliance on overused species.
E. Choose pest and disease resistant varieties when available.
F. Develop a publicly accessible list of desirable and undesirable tree species.
a. Periodically update the list according to Washington State invasive
species guidelines.
G. Establish policy that prohibits planting of invasive tree species on City
property.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
A, 1-5 Years, $
C, 6-10 Years, $$
B, 6-10 Years, $$
A, 1-5 Years, $$
B, 6-10 Years, $$
B, 1-2 Years, $
C, 2-5 Years, $
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
64How Do We Get There?
UF Goal #UA6 - Conduct an Inventory to Document Tree Condition and Risk
Performance Measure - % of City-managed property with Documented Tree
Inspection
Rationale - The City is not managing a database of trees. The City cannot quantify
tree assets, risks, or liabilities associated with its trees.
Risk - Without data on all publicly-owned trees, planning and prioritization of
urban forestry activities are based on conjecture and anecdotal evidence.
Benefit - The City can plan proactive tree management strategies and distribute
workloads efficiently.
Actions:
A. Develop a tree inventory of public trees.
B. Develop a standard tree inspection protocol.
a. Identify and prioritize plant health care needs/requirements.
b. Identify signs or symptoms of disease, pests, and abiotic disorders,
including environmental stress (e.g., water management, soil
conditions, and nutrient availability).
c. Identify obvious signs of decline and/or failing structure.
d. Identity and assess potential risks.
e. Identify risk factors and mitigation strategies for mature, over-mature,
and declining trees.
C. Integrate inventory data into easily accessed software or data management
system.
a. Evaluate applications for smartphones/tablets to allow for updates
to occur simultaneously as maintenance and/or inspections are
completed.
b. Coordinate with GIS and Information Technology staff to evaluate
urban forest tree inventory software.
D. Develop a policy and responsibility for keeping inventory data up-to-date.
a. Establish workflows for City Staff that allow for access to inventory
data by supervisory staff, and in the field.
b. Integrate tree inventory data updates into tree work contracts.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
B, 1-5 Years, $$
A, 1-2 Years, $
A, 1-5 Years, $$$
A, on-going, $
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
65 How Do We Get There?
UF Goal #UA7 - Document the Ecosystem Services Provided by Public Trees
Performance Measure - Number of Ecosystem Services Tracked by the City
Rationale - Aligning with the City’s Comprehensive Plan elements, the City would
be favorably positioned to understand and optimize the ecosystem benefits
provided from trees by documenting and tracking the ecological function of
publicly-owned trees.
Risk - If services are not tracked, the value of the asset is unknown and preservation
and maintenance are more difficult to rationalize.
Benefit - Urban forestry projects will be easier to identify, finance, and secure
when cost-benefit relationships can be established and the information is shared
with the public.
Actions:
A. Complete a resource analysis (using i-Tree or another model).
a. Use i-Tree to evaluate the current composition, benefits, and benefit
versus investment ratio of the community urban forest.
B. Periodically review changes and improvements to benefits, composition,
and benefit versus investment ratio.
C. Consider results and alignment of UFMP goals, objectives, and actions.
D. Report changes and progress in the State of the Urban Forest Report.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
C, 6-10 Years, $$
C, >10 Years, $
C, >10 Years, $
C, 1-2 Years, $
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
66How Do We Get There?
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
67 How Do We Get There?
Municipal Resource Goals
Municipal Goal #M1 - Maintain a Routinely-Updated Urban Forest
Management Plan
Performance Measure - Management Plan Age and Frequency of Revisions
Rationale - For this plan to adapt to evolving circumstances and maintain
relevance to the community and City Staff, periodic reviews and amendments
are required. This high-level alignment with the community will ensure public
support for urban forestry project funding.
Risk - The plan may become unused and obsolete.
Benefit - This will create pathways to stable and predictable funding.
Actions:
A. Review and revise the UFMP every five to ten (5 - 10) years.
a. Adjust targets as necessary.
b. Align City objectives and actions into the annual work plan.
c. Periodically review the UFMP for alignment with community values
and expectations for the urban forest.
d. Determine community satisfaction measured through surveys or as
evidenced by public support for realizing the Plan’s goals and actions.
i. Gauge the level of public engagement and support for urban
forest programs, workshops, and issues.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
C, 6-10 Years, $$$
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
68How Do We Get There?
Municipal Goal #M2 – Perform a Periodic Review of Tree Ordinances
Performance Measure -Date of last revision of Tree Protection Ordinances
Rationale - For the City to adapt to evolving circumstances, periodic reviews and
amendments to the City Codes tree protections are required.
Risk - Development activities on private property will not sufficiently protect
trees, according to community values.
Benefit - This will keep the ordinance updated and aligned with best practices
and community values.
Actions:
A. Review and revise the Tree Ordinances every five to ten (5 – 10) years.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
B, 1-5 Years, $$$
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
69 How Do We Get There?
Municipal Goal #M3 - Train Staff to Maintain Expertise and Professional
Qualifications
Performance Measure - Annual Number of Urban Forestry Training Hours per FTE
Rationale - Each City staff person who makes decisions that impact the urban
forest should receive annual training specific to their duties. This will strengthen
the qualifications of the urban forestry team and increase their capacity to
effectively implement the plan.
Risk - Staff may not be aware of most recent best management practices and
industry standards.
Benefit - Staff is more likely to manage urban forest risks and control costs using
the best available science and practices.
Actions:
A. Establish a protocol for ongoing staff training on urban forestry issues.
B. Establish training protocols for City Staff performing tree work.
a. City tree crews will be supervised by an ISA certified arborist.
b. City tree crews should be fully trained and certified for bucket work,
climbing, and rescue.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
B, on-going, $$
A, 1-2 Years, $$
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
70How Do We Get There?
Municipal Goal #M4 - Plant Trees Annually
Performance Measure - Number of Trees Planted Per Year
Rationale - To combat normal tree mortality, the City must engage in annual tree
planting or risk a decline in the size of the urban forest. Without data to quantify
the tree mortality rate, the number of trees that should be planted annually
cannot be determined. However, the 2017 canopy assessment suggests there
are 383 acres considered to be very high tree planting opportunity sites.
Risk - The number of trees in the City will decline without active replanting.
Benefit - This will guide the value of the ecosystem services provided by the
urban forest and control costs by proactively directing the future state of the
urban forest.
Actions:
A. Develop a tree planting and replacement plan as a supplement to the UFMP.
a. Use GIS mapping data to identify and prioritize planting sites and to
ensure coordination with planned improvements and construction.
b. Classify and prioritize available planting sites based on:
i. Space and minimum planting setbacks.
ii. Soil characteristics.
iii. Irrigation infrastructure.
iv. Landscape objectives and tree density.
v. Site constraints and existing infrastructure, including hardscape,
utilities (overhead and underground), bridges, and culverts.
vi. Invasive vegetation lack of native plants.
c. Place an emphasis on Right Tree Right Place.
i. Reducing hardscape and utility conflicts.
ii. Matching tree species to soil and water conditions.
iii. Matching tree species to planter size and intended use.
d. Optimize shade and environmental benefits by planting large stature
trees where feasible.
B. Set a replacement ratio of planting three trees for every one tree that is
removed in natural areas (3:1 ratio).
C. Ensure funding for trees and planting sites are included in projects funded
by Capital Improvement Funds (CIP).
a. CIP-funded projects should include adequate consideration of
trees and planter space, including the construction of planters and
pavements that support mature tree development and tree health
(e.g., suspended pavement, structural soils).
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
A, 1-5 Years, $$
A, 1-5 Years, $
A, 1-2 Years, $
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
71 How Do We Get There?
Municipal Goal #M5 - Update Street Tree Plan
Performance Measure -Updated City Policies on Street Tree Care
Rationale - Planting and tree care policies established within the Street Tree Plan
has been minimally updated since its original adoption. The City’s Comprehensive
Plan also notes that the Street Tree Plan should be reviewed and updated
routinely. The plan should at a minimum comply with standards developed by
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The ANSI A300 Series applies
to tree care operations and ANSI Z133 safety requirements apply to employers
and employees engaged in arboricultural operations.
Risk - Without an updated Street Tree Plan, it is difficult for the public and
city staff to know the range of appropriate choices for street trees and related
information. Tree care practices and tree species selection could interfere with
elements of the UFMP strategic goals.
Benefit - An updated Street Tree Plan would identify a better range of choices for
street tree species. This will also help optimize daily operations and tactics with
alignment of long-term urban forest management strategies.
Actions:
A. A team composed of relevant City departments (especially, the Parks and
Recreation Department and the Public Works Department) would review
the current Street Plan, including previous draft revisions. The team will:
a. Identify key concerns and potential updates for the Street Tree Plan.
b. Get public input on proposed changes and take the revised Plan
through the appropriate adoption process.
B. Adopt as policy, the most current industry standards for all contractors and
in-house crews engaged in tree care operations.
a. City of Edmonds Tree Pruning Standards should adhere to current
industry standards and best management practices (BMPs).
b. Designate a City Staff member responsible for maintaining and
updating standards in accordance with industry standards and BMPs.
C. Ensure all public trees are on a regular pruning and maintenance cycle.
a. Incorporate trees at City facilities and parking lots into regular
maintenance and pruning cycles.
b. Incorporate significant trees and trees close to trails and accessible
open space areas into regular maintenance and pruning cycles.
c. Incorporate street trees into regular maintenance and pruning cycles.
D. Explore GIS coordination for workload management and use analytics for
maintenance cycles (e.g., planning, scheduling, and routing).
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
A, 1-2 Years, $
A, 1-2 Years, $
C, 5-10 Years, $
C, 6-10 Years, $$
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
72How Do We Get There?
Municipal Goal #M6 - Create a Dedicated Urban Forester/Arborist Staff
Position.
Performance Measure – As part of the City budget process, consideration of
adding a certified arborist to city staff resources.
Rationale –The City has a certified arborist as part of its Parks and Recreation
Department. The arborist helps advise on tree issues for City properties and
rights-of- way. This is effective for current needs of the Parks Department. The
City does not have a certified arborist as part of the Public Works Department
or Development Services Department. Adding a city arborist to either the
Development Services Department or Public Works Department would require
additional city funding. Currently, the Development Services Department requires
outside arborist assessments (paid for by the property owner) for various types
of tree removal and pruning.
Risk – Insufficient staff resources could limit active management of the urban
forest. Without a certified arborist in the Development Services Department, the
City would continue relying on outside expertise from certified arborists for issues
of tree removal and pruning on private property. Without a certified arborist in
the Public Works Department, public right-of-way work may be delayed.
Benefit – Having a certified arborist in the Development Services Department
would allow the Department to more quickly make decisions on tree removal
and pruning issues. This would add to General Fund costs but would save private
property owners time and/or money compared to obtaining outside professional
expertise for every required tree management decision. It would also result in
more consistency for such decisions.
If a certified arborist were added to the Public Works Department, that person
would be able to assist with tree maintenance issues without waiting for Parks
Department staff to be available or contracting with a non-City arborist to do the
work.
Actions:
A. Identify tasks and responsibilities for this position through an analysis of
the level of need for a certified arborist (for example, whether half-time,
full-time, or on contract) to assist the Development Services Department
and/or Public Works Department.
B. Further evaluate risks and benefits using contracted staff resources.
C. The City Council will consider the level of need and the availability of funds
and, as part of a budget process, make a decision about adding an arborist
to city staff resources.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
B, on-going, $$$
B, on-going, $$$
B, on-going, $$$
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
73 How Do We Get There?
Municipal Goal #M7 - Establish a Formal Interdepartmental Working Team
Performance Measure - Number of Urban Forestry Team Meetings Annually
Rationale - Team meetings ensure that Plan goals are routinely referenced and
Plan obstacles can be addressed through collaborative problem solving, ensuring
that all City departments cooperate with common goals and actions.
Risk -Miscommunication with the public or misalignment of goals and priority
actions may occur. Isolation from decisions and collaborations can result in
limited Plan effectiveness.
Benefit -The team will improve operating efficiency on urban forestry projects.
Actions:
A. Designate an Urban Forester within City Staff to provide leadership to the
working team.
B. Establish Quality Assurance protocols for urban forestry activities:
a. Risk assessment/Risk management.
b. Sidewalk repair inspections and recommendations for Public Works/
Engineering.
c. Arborist reports, recommendations, and assessments
(interdepartmental).
d. Tree inventory data collection input/update.
e. Tree inspections.
f. Issuing service requests and work orders.
g. Volunteer coordination/Public outreach.
C. Develop an annual work plan to guide routine operations and objectives.
a. Pruning schedules for maintenance contract(s).
b. Tree planting and replacement plan.
c. Prioritize risk mitigation actions and tree removals.
d. Identify and prioritize trees for inspection/risk assessment.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
A, on-going, $
B, 1-2 Years, $
A, 1 Year, $$
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
74How Do We Get There?
MF Goal #M8 - Update Development Regulations to Ensure Appropriate
Language for Protecting Trees and/or the Tree Canopy as Part of the
Development Process
Performance Measure – Ordinance Proposed to Update Tree-related Regulations
Rationale – The City’s development regulations address tree protection
requirements in several places but staff and community have questioned whether
the language is consistent, clear, and adequate related to the development
process. Updating these requirements has been planned as part of a larger
code update but has not moved forward as rapidly as intended. Some updates
related to the urban forest could go forward sooner than the rest of the code
update. This would allow for the tree-related code language to be reviewed and
updated as appropriate to ensure that the city’s tree canopy is maintained and
not compromised due to development.
Risk – If the regulatory language is not updated, tree protection requirements
for development may not be clear or adequate and the tree canopy could be
unnecessarily reduced.
Benefit – Development and change are part of urban life. At the same time,
management of the urban forest is important for overall quality of life. Code
language that is as clear as possible, especially related to trees and development,
will help ensure the best balance for the future. If a certified arborist were added
to the public works department, that person would be able to assist with tree
maintenance issues without waiting for Parks Department staff to be available or
contracting with a non-city arborist to do the work.
Actions:
A. Building on the City’s past experience with tree codes, on examples from
other places, and on any other new information, the Development Services
Department should review the Edmonds Community Development Code
related to tree management and the development process.
B. The Development Services Department should confer with the Tree Board
and others on potential code changes.
C. Move draft code changes forward under a broad public process before
being considered for adoption by the City Council.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
B, 1-5 Years, $$
A, 1-5 Years, $
A, 1-5 Years, $
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
75 How Do We Get There?
Community Resource Goals
Community Goal #C1 - Establish a Tree Bank (Fund)
Performance Measure - Dollars ($) in Fund
Rationale - Establishing a tree planting funding mechanism whereby residents
can pay in-lieu fees to fund planting trees in other areas of the City when any
planting on-site is not a reasonable option.
Risk - Residents and developers get frustrated with having to replace trees they
do not even want.
Benefit - Trees will be preserved, cared for, and/or planted in desirable locations
with more City controls to ensure their successful establishment and growth.
Actions:
A. Establish a tree in-lieu fund.
a. Ensure funds are dedicated specifically for tree care operations,
including planting and replacement.
b. Work with Finance department to develop appropriate fees and
mechanisms for tree replacement.
i. Perform in-lieu fee comparison in the region and increase in-lieu
fee to reflect a regional fee structure.
B. Identify opportunities for additional sources of revenue.
a. Appraisal fees for trees damaged in vehicular accidents.
b. Fines for malicious damage to public trees.
c. Charitable contributions and ‘in-memoriam’ options.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
B, 6-10 Years, $
B, 6-10 Years, $
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
76How Do We Get There?
Community Goal #C2 – Provide Outreach to Arborist Businesses Licensed in
Edmonds
Performance Measure - Number of Businesses Licensed to Practice Arboriculture
Rationale - Establishing a specific licensing category for businesses that do tree
work or landscaping in the City is a strategy to encourage alignment with City
urban forestry goals without mandating best practice requirements on private
property owners through City code. It will help to ensure these companies
operate with high professional standards and help facilitate success with citywide
goals and actions.
Risk - Failure to engage with businesses practicing arboriculture can result in
damage to public trees, private trees, and canopy loss.
Benefit -This will lower costs associated with urban forest management through
voluntary cooperation.
Actions:
A. Determine the number of companies doing business in landscaping or
arboriculture.
B. Host learning forums for businesses performing tree work.
C. Host learning forums for general contractors about urban forestry and tree
protection.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
B, 1-5 Years, $
A, 1-2 Years, $
C, 1-2 Years, $
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
77 How Do We Get There?
Community Goal #C3 – Coordinate efforts of the City, Edmonds Citizens’ Tree
Board, and other interested groups to participate and promote good urban
forest management and urban forest management events.
Performance Measure - Number of Volunteer Hours supporting Urban Forestry
Rationale - Edmonds should seek neighborhood volunteers. This will create
pathways for communication of urban forestry goals and actions to the public
and foster volunteerism in the community.
Risk - Failure to engage with neighborhoods can lead to misunderstandings and
neighborhood distrust of City regulations and activities.
Benefit - This will lower costs associated with urban forest management through
voluntary cooperation.
Actions:
A. Collaborate and partner with City departments (especially Parks, Public
Works, and Development Services), nonprofits and neighborhood groups
for tree replacement and improvements to streetscapes.
B. Develop outreach materials that communicate information about trees and
the community urban forest.
C. Develop outreach materials (pamphlets, articles, etc.) that communicate
specific topics about trees, the urban forest, and environmental benefits:
a. Communicate basics of tree care, including planting, pruning, and
irrigation.
b. Communicate benefits of trees and tree canopy, including
environmental, social, and economic benefits.
c. Communicate information about the community urban forest,
including composition, health, and species diversity.
d. Present recommendations for tree species for private property.
D. Partner with Snohomish PUD, other City departments, nonprofits, and
other groups to incorporate shared information and outreach goals when
possible. Possible examples include:
a. Right Tree Right Place – Power line friendly tree species.
b. Safety considerations related to trees near energized lines and
underground utilities.
E. Provide educational opportunities where residents can learn about tree
care, urban forestry, and meet other individuals with like-minded interests
to build community.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
B, on-going, $
A, 1-5 Years, $$
B, 6-10 Years, $$
B, 1-5 Years, $$
B, 1-5 Years, $
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
78How Do We Get There?
Community Goal #C4 – Maintain the Citizens’ Tree Board
Performance Measure - Number of Tree Board Meetings Annually
Rationale - Having a community tree board that meets on a regular basis will
increase community participation on urban forestry issues and help ensure
success with Plan goals by raising community awareness of the urban forest.
Risk - Public will not have a consistent City-sponsored group to participate in
urban forest activities, provide input, and assist with public education.
Benefit - This can improve community support for urban forestry funding.
Actions:
A. Develop and deliver an annual Tree Board Report.
a. Update citizens on the urban forest activities and services that the
Board has performed, including number of trees pruned or planted,
and educational materials provided.
b. Identify any urban forestry awards or grants that could be pursued by
the City.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
A, on-going, $$
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
79 How Do We Get There?
Community Goal #C5 - Establish a Heritage Tree Designation
Performance Measure -Number of Trees considered Heritage Trees
Rationale - Community survey results show limited interest in regulations for
trees on private properties. However, trees that are removed can be very slow
to replace. The public can recognize the social compact of land ownership and
educate the community by having trees designated as part of the City’s heritage.
Risk - There are limited controls for the public to ensure retention of substantial
tree assets in the community.
Benefit - Trees that are considered heritage trees to the community could
potentially receive additional protection and perhaps financial compensation to
the owner/steward of the tree.
Actions:
A. Develop a definition for Heritage Trees within City Ordinances.
B. Develop a historic trees registry to celebrate and educate the public about
the legacy created from tree stewardship.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
Priority:
Time: TBD
Cost:
A, 1-5 Years, $
B, 6-10 Years, $$
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
80How Are We Doing?
Community Goal #C6 – Formalize relationships with organizations that share
common objectives impacting urban forest sustainability.
Performance Measure - Number of affiliations and/or partnerships with regional
and national organizations.
Rationale - Plan goals and actions should be relevant wherever possible to the
strategies and goals of urban forestry and environmental planning documents at
the regional and national levels. They should support cooperation and interaction
among neighboring communities and regional groups.
Risk - Failure to integrate UFMP goals with regional goals may limit effectiveness
of Plan or risk conflicts with regional planning efforts.
Benefit - Regional partnerships can create pathways to stable and predictable
funding.
Actions:
A. Update existing planning documents to reference or validate the UFMP.
B. Identify organizations with urban forestry leadership roles at the regional
level.
a. Prioritize and formalize relationships
C. Maintain Tree City USA status.
D. Qualify and apply for Society of Municipal Arborists (SMA) Accreditation,
which requires:
a. At least one ISA Certified Arborist on staff.
i. ISA Certified Municipal Specialist preferred.
b. An Urban Forest Management Plan.
c. Tree City USA status.
d. A Tree City USA Growth Award within the past five (5) years.
e. Demonstrated preference to TCIA Accredited tree care companies
when private arborists are contracted.
f. Adherence to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards, and ANSI A300 tree care
performance standards.
g. A pledge of adherence to the SMA Code of Ethics and to promote SMA
objectives.
Objectives Priority, Time, Cost
Priority:
Time: TBD
Cost:
B, 6-10 Years, $
B, 1-5 Years, $
A, on-going, $
C, 1-5 Years, $$
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
81 How Are We Doing?
Monitoring and
Measuring Results
The UFMP includes goals and actions for measuring
the success of planning strategies. It is intended
that the Plan serves as a living document. As new
information becomes available, this section of the
UFMP will be reviewed and amended using routine
plan updates, annual reports, and community
satisfaction surveys.
5-10 Year Plan Update (Plan
2023)
The UFMP is an active tool that will guide
management and planning decisions over the next
twenty ( 20) years. The goals and actions will be
reviewed every five to ten (5 -10) years for progress
and integration into an internal work plan. The
UFMP presents a long-range vision and target dates
are intended to be flexible in response to emerging
opportunities, available resources, and changes
in community expectations. Therefore, each year,
specific areas of focus should be identified. This can
inform budget and time requirements for Urban
Forest Managers.
Annual State of the Urban Forest
Report
This report, delivered annually, should include
numbers of trees planted and removed by the City,
and any changes to the overall community urban
forest (e.g., structure, benefits, and value). It will
serve as a performance report to stakeholders and
an opportunity for engagement.
The report is also an opportunity to highlight the
successful attainment of UFMP actions as well as to
inform stakeholders about any issues or stumbling
blocks. This information can be integrated into
urban forest managers’ Annual Reports and used to
pursue additional project support and funding from
state agencies and Tree City USA applications.
Community Satisfaction
The results of the UFMP will be measurable in
improvements to efficiency and reductions in costs
for maintenance activities. Attainment of the goals
and actions will support better tree health, greater
longevity, and a reduction of tree failures. However,
perhaps the greatest measurement of success for
the UFMP will be its ability to meet community
expectations for the care and preservation of the
urban forest resource.
Community satisfaction can be measured through
surveys as well as by monitoring public support
for realizing the goals and actions of the Plan.
Community satisfaction can also be gauged by
the level of engagement and support for urban
forest programs. An annual survey of urban forest
stakeholders will help managers ensure activities
continue to be aligned with the community’s vision
for the urban forest.
How Are We Doing?
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
82How Are We Doing?
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
83 Appendices
Appendix A: References
Akbari, H., D. Kurn, et al. 1997. Peak power and cooling energy savings of shade trees. Ener-
gy and Buildings 25:139–148.
American Forests, 2007, http://www.americanforests.org
Casey Trees and Davey Tree Expert Company. The National Tree Benefit Calculator, 2017. http://www.
treebenefits.com/calculator/
CensusScope, 2012, “CensusScope: Your Portal to Census 2000 Data.” www.censusscope.org
City of Edmonds, 2015, Edmonds Streetscape Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services.
City of Edmonds, 2016, Citizens’ Tree Board.
City of Edmonds, 2016, Comprehensive Plan, City of Edmonds Department of Development Services,
Planning Division, Edmonds, Washington.
City of Edmonds, 2016, Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Plan, Department of Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services.
City of Edmonds, 2017, Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Report, City of Edmonds Department of
Development Services, Edmonds, Washington.
City of Seattle, 2012, http://www.seattle.gov/parks/ProParks/
Clark, James, N. Matheny, G. Cross, V. Wake, 1997, A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability, Journal of
Arboriculture 23(1): January 1997.
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313).
Donovan, G and Butry D, 2010, Trees in the City: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon Landscape and
Urban Planning.
Energy Information Administration, 2003, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003. http://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
Evergreen Cities Task Force, 2009, A Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Planning, Washington
State Department of Commerce. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_urban_guide_to_urban_
forestry_programming.pdf
Faber Taylor, A. & Kuo, F.E., 2006, “Is contact with nature important for healthy child development?” State
of the evidence. In Spencer, C. & Blades, M. (Eds.), Children and Their Environments: Learning, Using
and Designing Spaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 — P.L. 101-624.
Heisler, G.M., 1986, “Energy savings with trees.” Journal of Arboriculture, 12, 113-25.
Hartel, D, 2003, “GASB 34: Urban Natural Resources as Capital Assets”, 2003 National Urban Forest
Conference, Southern Center for Urban Forestry Research & Information.
i-Tree. , 2012, Tools for Assessing and Managing Community Forest. www.itreetools.org
Appendices
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
84Appendices
Jo, H.-K. and E.G. McPherson. 1995. Carbon storage and flux in urban residential greenspace. Journal of
Environmental Management. 45:109-133
Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Karl, Tom., P. Harley, L. Emmons, B. Thornton, A. Guenther, C. Basu, A Turnipseed, K. Jardine. 2010, Efficient
Atmospheric Cleansing of Oxidized Organic Trace Gases by Vegetation. Web 11/9/2010. <http://www.
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/330/6005/816>
Kenny, Andy, P. van Wassenaer, A.L.Satel, 2011, Criteria and Indicators for Strategic Urban Forest Planning
and Management, Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 37(3):108-117.
Kuo, F.E., & Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?
Environment & Behavior, 33(3), 343-367.
Kuo, F.E., 2003. The role of arboriculture in a healthy social ecology: Invited review article for a Special
Section. Journal of Arboriculture 29(3), 148-155.
Land and Water Conservation Fund, 2012, nps.gov. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/
Miller, R. W. 1988. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
The Nature Conservancy. 2012, www.nature.org
The National Arbor Day Foundation, 2012, Tree City USA Award, http://www.arborday.org/
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005.Forest Health Protection—Emerald Ash Border.
Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and
Private Forestry. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/eab/index.html
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. 2005. Forest Health Protection—Dutch Elm Disease.
Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and
Private Forestry. http://na.fs.fed.us/fhp/ded
Oregon State University (OSU), 2017. College of Forestry, Swiss Needle Cast. http://sncc.forestry.
oregonstate.edu/glossary/term/17
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 2012, http://www.pscleanair.org/
Puget Sound Partnership, 2012, www.psparchives.com
Science Now. Tree Leaves Fight Pollution. October 2010. sciencemag.org. Web 11/05/2010. < http://news.
sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/tree-leaves-fight-pollution.html>
Simpson, James, 2002. “Improved estimates of tree-shade effects on residential use,” Energy and Buildings
34, 1067-1076.
Simpson, J.R. and E.G. McPherson. 2000. Energy and air quality improvements through urban tree planting.
In: Kollin, C., (ed.). Building cities of green: proceedings of the 1999 national urban forest conference;
Seattle. Washington, D.C.: American Forests: 110-112.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
85 Appendices
“Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1.” Trees Near Power Lines | Residential | Snohomish County
PUD, 15 Dec. 2017, www.snopud.com/home/treetrim.ashx?p=1219.
The Trust for Public Lands. 2012, www.tpl.org
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Division, 2017. Urban Ecosystems and Processes (UEP). https://
www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/
U.S. Department of Energy, 2004. “Green Roofs,” Federal Technology Alert DOE/EE-0298, Federal Energy
Management Program.
Washington Department of Ecology, 2011 – Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control, http://www.ecy.
wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/93-30/index.html
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Land Use Planning For Salmon, Steelhead and Trout.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00033/psst_externalreviewdraft_june152009.pdf
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Periodic Status Review for the Bald Eagle. http://wdfw.
wa.gov/publications/01825/draft_wdfw01825.pdf
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2018. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/
Washington State, 1990. Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070 (1) Land Use
Element1).
Washington State University Extension, 2008, WSU Extension Publishing and Printing, http://cru.cahe.
wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1380e/eb1380e.pdf
Wickman, Boyd, et al., 1988. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth 86. https://www.
fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/
Wolf, K.L. 1998, “Urban Nature Benefits: Psycho-Social Dimensions of People and Plants”, University of
Washington Center for Urban Horticulture, Human Dimensions of the Urban Forest, Fact Sheet #1.
Wolf, K.L. 2007. The Environmental Psychology of Trees. International Council of Shopping Centers
Research Review. 14, 3:39-43.
Xiao, Q.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Ustin, S.L. 2007. Hydrologic processes at the urban residential
scale. Hydrological Processes 21:2174-2188.
Xiao, Q., E.G. McPherson, S.L. Ustin and M.E. Grismer. 2000. A new approach to modeling tree rainfall
interception. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(D23) :29,173-29,188
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
86Appendices
Appendix B: Table of Figures
Maps
Map 1: Land Cover Classes
Map 2: Forest Fragmentation
Map 3: Tree Canopy by Park
Map 4: Opportunity Planting Areas
Figures
Figure 1: Land Cover Classes
Figure 2: Fragmentation Comparison
Figure 3: Forest Fragmentation
Figure 4: Overall Environmental Benefits
Figure 5: Most Valuable Environmental Benefit
Figure 6: Most Valuable Intangible Benefit
Figure 7: Maintenance Expectations
Tables
Table 1: Benchmark Values
Table 2: Water Benefits from Most Prominent Species
Table 3: Carbon Benefits from Most Prominent Species
Table 4: Energy Benefits from Most Prominent Species
Table 5: Air Quality Benefits from Most Prominent Species
Table 6: Aesthetic and Socioeconomic Benefits from Most Prominent Species
Table 7: Tree Canopy of 5 Largest Parks
Table 8: Acres of Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
Table 9: Percent Sensitive Area by Fragmentation
Table 10: Factors Used to Prioritize Tree Planting Sites
Table 11: Opportunity Planting Level Acres
Table 12: Decision matrix for urban forest management in Edmonds
Table 13: 2016 Urban Forestry Expenditures
Table 14: Current Urban Forest Workload and Staffing Levels
.
4, 22
24
26
30
.
4, 22
23
24
31
51
52
53
.
2
10
11
12
13
14
26
27
28
29
30
33
34
34
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Improved Air Quality 36.57%64 24.00%42 21.14%37 14.29%25 4.00%7 175 4.75
Energy Savings 4.57%8 5.14%9 13.71%24 26.86%47 49.71%87 175 2.88
Protect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff 21.71%38 36.57%64 25.71%45 10.29%18 5.71%10 175 4.58
Carbon Storage 8.57%15 8.57%15 17.14%30 36.00%63 29.71%52 175 3.3
Wildlife Habitat 28.57%50 25.71%45 22.29%39 12.57%22 10.86%19 175 4.49
Other 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0 0
175
0Skipped
Answered
Total14532
87 Appendices
Appendix C:
Community Survey Responses
Introduction:
The survey questions provided a public feedback
opportunity during the early stages of plan
development. They were designed to solicit
input from residents and businesses in the City of
Edmonds and help guide the plan development
by understanding about how respondents.
The questions were arranged into 4 groups:
How do you value trees?
Your opinion about public trees. (City
managed trees on streets and in parks)
Your opinion about private trees.
(privately managed trees)
Who are you? (Simple Demographics)
Question 2: Trees are known to provide benefits to the environment. Understanding which benefits
are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-5)
the following ENVIRONMENTAL benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1 = most valuable and 5 =
least valuable):
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Strongly Agree 74.86%131
Agree 21.71%38
Disagree 2.29%4
Strongly Disagree 0.57%1
Not sure 0.00%0
Not Sure 0.57%1
Other (please specify)0.00%0
Answered 175
Skipped 0
Responses
Improved Air Quality 36.57%64 24.00%42 21.14%37 14.29%25 4.00%7 175 4.75
Energy Savings 4.57%8 5.14%9 13.71%24 26.86%47 49.71%87 175 2.88
Protect Water Quality/Reduced Stormwater Runoff 21.71%38 36.57%64 25.71%45 10.29%18 5.71%10 175 4.58
Carbon Storage 8.57%15 8.57%15 17.14%30 36.00%63 29.71%52 175 3.3
Wildlife Habitat 28.57%50 25.71%45 22.29%39 12.57%22 10.86%19 175 4.49
Other 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0 0
175
0Skipped
Answered
Total14532
88Appendices
Question 1: Trees are important to the quality of life in Edmonds.
Question 2 (Extended)
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Total Score
Attractive to Residents 14.86%26 21.71%38 16.00%28 13.14%23 15.43%27 9.71%17 6.86%12 2.29%4 175 5.39
Beauty/Aesthetics 34.29%60 21.14%37 14.86%26 14.29%25 7.43%13 2.86%5 2.29%4 2.86%5 175 6.29
Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails 21.71%38 17.14%30 24.00%42 11.43%20 9.71%17 9.71%17 4.57%8 1.71%3 175 5.74
Shaded Parking 2.86%5 3.43%6 8.57%15 9.71%17 8.57%15 17.71%31 19.43%34 29.71%52 175 3.03
Improve retail areas and neighborhoods 5.14%9 10.29%18 12.57%22 13.71%24 19.43%34 18.29%32 14.29%25 6.29%11 175 4.25
Increased Property Values 4.00%7 5.14%9 5.14%9 9.71%17 10.29%18 13.71%24 22.86%40 29.14%51 175 3.05
Passive recreation 4.00%7 5.14%9 6.86%12 12.00%21 15.43%27 14.86%26 20.00%35 21.71%38 175 3.37
Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles 13.14%23 16.00%28 12.00%21 16.00%28 13.71%24 13.14%23 9.71%17 6.29%11 175 4.89
175
0
Answered
Skipped
6 7 812345
Additional Comments
Answered 60
Skipped 115
Answer Choices
I was not aware that the City has an urban forest program 36.69%62
I have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest 23.67%40
I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest 52.07%88
I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City 14.79%25
Other (please specify)12.43%21
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
89 Appendices
Question 3: Trees also provide less tangible benefits to society. Understanding which of these benefits
are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please rank (1-8)
the following AESTHETIC and/or SOCIOECONOMIC benefits in order of their value to you. (i.e., 1 = most
valuable and 8 = least valuable):
Question 4: Optional. Use this space to provide additional comments on the benefits of Edmonds’
public trees.
Question 5: What is your current awareness of the City’s urban forest program? Please check all that
apply.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Total Score
Attractive to Residents14.86%2621.71%3816.00%2813.14%23 15.43%27 9.71%17 6.86%12 2.29%4 175 5.39
Beauty/Aesthetics34.29%6021.14%3714.86%2614.29%25 7.43%13 2.86%5 2.29%4 2.86%5 175 6.29
Shaded Trails,sidewalks, and bike trails21.71%3817.14%3024.00%4211.43%20 9.71%17 9.71%17 4.57%8 1.71%3 175 5.74
Shaded Parking2.86%53.43%68.57%159.71%17 8.57%15 17.71%31 19.43%34 29.71%52 175 3.03
Improve retail areas and neighborhoods5.14%910.29%1812.57%2213.71%24 19.43%34 18.29%32 14.29%25 6.29%11 175 4.25
Increased Property Values4.00%75.14%95.14%99.71%17 10.29%18 13.71%24 22.86%40 29.14%51 175 3.05
Passive recreation4.00%75.14%96.86%1212.00%21 15.43%27 14.86%26 20.00%35 21.71%38 175 3.37
Shaded streets/Buffer from vehicles13.14%2316.00%2812.00%2116.00%28 13.71%24 13.14%23 9.71%17 6.29%11 175 4.89
175
0
Answered
Skipped
6 7 812345
Answer Choices
I was not aware that the City has an urban forest program 36.69%62
I have visited the City's webpage for information about public trees and/or the urban forest 23.67%40
I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Edmonds' urban forest 52.07%88
I have participated or volunteered with tree related events in the City 14.79%25
Other (please specify)12.43%21
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
90Appendices
Question 5 (Extended)
Question 3 (Extended)
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Daily 13.02%22
Weekly 11.83%20
Monthly 10.65%18
Several Times A Year 34.32%58
Never 30.18%51
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
Answer Choices
Daily 5.33%9
Weekly 4.14%7
Monthly 2.96%5
Several Times A Year 41.42%70
Never 46.15%78
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
Answer Choices
Daily 5.33%9
Weekly 2.96%5
Monthly 5.92%10
Several Times A Year 43.20%73
Never 42.60%72
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
91 Appendices
Question 6: Trees can grow to obstruct streets and sidewalks. How often do you encounter this issue
with trees in the public rights-of-way.
Question 7: Trees can become damaged or develop structural weakness over time, these issues may
be risks for injury to persons or property. How often do you encounter this issue with public trees?
Question 8: Trees can appear sick and unhealthy from damage by insects, diseases, or simply poor tree
care regimes. How often do you observe this issue with public trees?
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Strongly agree 10.65%18
Agree 59.17%100
Disagree 11.83%20
Strongly Disagree 8.88%15
Not Sure 9.47%16
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
92Appendices
Question 9: In general, I am satisfied with the current level of maintenance provided for Edmonds’
public trees.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Total Score
None-Keep them natural 3.55%6 8.88%15 10.06%17 25.44%43 45.56%77 6.51%11 169 1.92
Best possible care (all trees should look good)15.38%26 9.47%16 21.89%37 26.04%44 23.08%39 4.14%7 169 2.67
Clearance only (keep the sidewalks and streets clear)6.51%11 24.26%41 27.81%47 26.04%44 10.65%18 4.73%8 169 2.89
Take care of hazardous trees.52.07%88 26.04%44 14.20%24 5.33%9 1.78%3 0.59%1 169 4.22
Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree)21.89%37 30.18%51 23.08%39 12.43%21 8.28%14 4.14%7 169 3.47
169
6Skipped
Not Sure12345
Answered
Answer Choices
Strongly Agree 37.87%64
Agree 28.99%49
Disagree 17.16%29
Strongly disagree 5.33%9
not sure 10.65%18
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
Answer Choices
Parks 59.17%100
Open spaces and Natural Areas 60.36%102
Streetscapes 59.17%100
Golf Courses 11.24%19
Downtown 42.60%72
Trails and bike paths 45.56%77
Edmonds has enough public trees 20.12%34
Other (please specify)17.75%30
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
93 Appendices
Question 11: Edmonds needs more public trees.
Question 10: What level of maintenance would you prefer for public trees? Please rank the following
options according to your preference (1 = most desirable; 5 = Least desirable)
Question 12: Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Please check as many as apply.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Total Score
None-Keep them natural 3.55%6 8.88%15 10.06%17 25.44%43 45.56%77 6.51%11 169 1.92
Best possible care (all trees should look good)15.38%26 9.47%16 21.89%37 26.04%44 23.08%39 4.14%7 169 2.67
Clearance only (keep the sidewalks and streets clear)6.51%11 24.26%41 27.81%47 26.04%44 10.65%18 4.73%8 169 2.89
Take care of hazardous trees.52.07%88 26.04%44 14.20%24 5.33%9 1.78%3 0.59%1 169 4.22
Holistic Plant Health Care (Improve the urban forest, but not necessarily every tree)21.89%37 30.18%51 23.08%39 12.43%21 8.28%14 4.14%7 169 3.47
169
6Skipped
Not Sure12345
Answered
94Appendices
Question 10 (Extended)
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Seminars and workshops 44.38%75
Interpretive trails and displays 59.76%101
Website resources 62.72%106
Online videos (e.g. YouTube)24.26%41
Guided nature/tree walks 55.03%93
Informational brochures 43.20%73
Other (please specify)11.83%20
Answered 169
Skipped 6
Responses
Additional Comments
Answered 40
Skipped 135
Answer Choices
Trees blocking my view 24.70%41
Trees shading my yard 9.04%15
Tree debris in my yard 12.65%21
Healthy mature trees being removed during development 68.67%114
Canopy loss 57.83%96
Loss of wildlife habitat 72.29%120
Other Concerns(please specify)18.67%31
Answered 166
Skipped 9
Responses
95 Appendices
Question 13: What types of education and public outreach would you like to see offered by the urban
forestry program? Please check all that apply.
Question 14: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about the care of public
trees.
Question 15: What is/are your biggest concern for trees in Edmonds? (Check as many as apply)
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Trees near my property are a nuisance 11.98%20
Trees near my property are a dangerous 17.37%29
Trees near my property block views 29.34%49
Trees near my property are beautiful 67.66%113
Trees near my property are healthy 59.28%99
I want more trees near my property 25.15%42
I have no trees near my property 0.60%1
I don't agree with any of these statements.2.40%4
Answered 167
Skipped 8
Responses
Answer Choices
Yes. The City should require property owners to
preserve trees on private parcels where
reasonably possible.53.89%90
No. This City of Edmonds should not concern
itself with trees on private property.17.96%30
Not sure. This issue is more complicated.28.14%47
Answered 167
Skipped 8
Responses
96Appendices
Question 16: What are your experiences with trees on nearby properties around you? Please select
any from this list any statements you agree with.
Question 17: When private properties are developed or improved, trees on the property can be
impacted. Should the City be involved with protecting trees on private property during construction?
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Education and outreach 79.04%132
Information about how to hire a professional tree care company 29.34%49
Require tree care companies to have a certified arborist on staff 28.74%48
Free (or low-cost) Trees 55.09%92
Ordinances, Rules or Regulations 35.33%59
Other (please specify)22.75%38
Answered 167
Skipped 8
Responses
Additional Comments
Answered 44
Skipped 131
Answer Choices
Male 28.66%47
Female 59.76%98
Gender Diverse 1.83%3
Prefer not to answer 9.76%16
Answered 164
Skipped 11
Responses
97 Appendices
Question 18: In your opinion, what are the best ways to encourage tree planting and preservation on
private property? Please select as many as apply.
Question 19: Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about trees on private
property.
Question 20: Which gender do you identify with?
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
Under 18 0.00%0
18 to 25 1.22%2
26 to 35 4.27%7
36 to 45 11.59%19
46 to 55 21.34%35
56+61.59%101
Answered 164
Skipped 11
Responses
Answer Choices
Downtown/The Bowl 40.85%67
Westgate 7.32%12
Five Corners 8.54%14
Perrinville 4.88%8
Meadowdale 4.27%7
Seaview 15.24%25
Lake Ballinger 1.22%2
HWY 99 3.05%5
Other (please specify)14.63%24
Answered 164
Skipped 11
Responses
98Appendices
Question 21: What age group are you representing?
Question 22: Where do you live in Edmonds? Please choose a neighborhood from the list below.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Answer Choices
I am a resident of Edmonds 95.12%156
I am a frequent visitor to Edmonds 10.98%18
I own a business in Edmonds 6.71%11
I appreciate public trees 72.56%119
I have planted public trees as a volunteer 18.90%31
I help care for a public tree adjacent to my property 10.98%18
I have donated money to a non-profit foundation in support of public trees 15.85%26
None of the above 0.61%1
Other (please specify)4.27%7
Answered 164
Skipped 11
Responses
99 Appendices
Question 23: What is your relationship with Edmonds’ urban forest. (Choose all that apply)
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Additional Comments
Answered 33
Skipped 142
100Appendices
Question 24: Please provide any additional comments
or feedback (Optional)
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
101 Appendices
Appendix D: Open House
Summary Report
On June 22nd, 2017, the City of Edmonds hosted the
first of two open houses in the Brackett Room at City
Hall to share information about the City of Edmonds
Urban Forestry Management Plan and gather input
from citizens.
The open house included a presentation by Ian
Scott of Davey Resource Group and a brief Q and
A from the audience to ask clarifying questions.
The presentation provided attendees an overview
of Edmonds’ urban forest, an introduction to what
will be included in the Urban Forest Management
Plan, and that the Davey Resource Group team has
completed to date. Following the presentation,
attendees were invited to provide input- thoughts,
ideas, concerns, questions- on six discussion/opinion
boards where a broad topic was introduced on each
board followed by initial suggestions generated
through the prior stakeholder interview process.
Attendees were invited to express their opinions
using dots (where green= a positive “vote”/
agreement for the suggestion, yellow= concern/
hesitation of the suggestion, and red= a negative
“vote”/disagreement or dislike of the suggestion).
Attendees were invited to use as many dots of
each color necessary to express their opinion of
each suggestion on each board. In addition, each
board provided an area for Additional Suggestions
where attendees were invited to write down their
thoughts, ideas, concerns, questions on a sticky note
and adhere it to the board for other attendees to
review and “vote” on, as well. Lastly, a confidential
and anonymous option was provided for attendees
to provide comments and feedback by writing their
thoughts, ideas, concerns and questions on index
cards that were placed inside a box and not shared
at the public meeting.
The Davey Resource Group team also provided a link
for attendees to give additional feedback through an
online survey. That survey can be accessed via the
home page on the City of Edmonds website, under
the “What’s New…” section. The link provided is:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/EdmondsUFMP
Local media provided public announcements of the
open house leading up to the event:
http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/reminder-
open-house-managing-citys-tree-cover-set-june-22/
https://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/p/open-
house-planned-to-discuss-managing-city-s-tree-cov
er/1660111?source=WeeklyHeadlines
My Edmonds News covered the open house and
provided a news story and video of the presentation
to the public:
http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/public-
asked-share-ideas-managing-edmonds-urban-
forest/
http://myedmondsnews.com/2017/06/now-video-
open-house-plan-manage-edmonds-urban-forests/
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #1: What tree benefits do you most appreciate?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Improved Air Quality 11 0 1
B. Energy Savings 4 0 0
C. Water Quality/ Reduced Stormwater Runoff 14 0 0
D. Carbon Storage 7 1 0
E. Wildlife Habitat 14 0 0
F. Beauty/Aesthetics 12 0 0
G. Shaded trails, sidewalks, and bike trails 4 0 3
H. Improved retail areas and neighborhoods 3 1 4
I. Increased property values 7 2 3
J. Shaded streets and parking lots 4 1 0
K. Additional Ideas
Wind protection (think roof shingles); noise reduction; shade-
calm/healing; sound of wind through branches; hi-class (untreed
neighborhoods proven to have higher crime- “the projects”
don’t get trees, Bellevue does); soil retention; cools streams;
coastal trees involved in weather cycle to prevent inland
desertification
0 0 0
City revenue increase with more views 0 0 0
Air quality requires big, tall trees 0 0 1
102Appendices
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #2: What types of outreach and education are
preferred/valued?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Electronic (websites, links, youtube, apps)2 0 0
i. Species selection 4 0 0
ii. Tree planting 1 0 0
iii. Tree pruning 4 1 0
iv. Interactive tree selector 1 1 0
v. Irrigation 1 0 0
vi. Volunteer opportunities 1 0 0
B. Hard copy (pamphlets, newsletter)3 0 0
i. Species selection 3 1 0
ii. Tree planting 1 0 0
iii. Tree pruning 3 1 0
iv. Irrigation 0 0 0
C. Hands-on (Workshops, seminars)2 0 0
i. Tree planting 2 0 0
ii. Tree pruning 5 0 0
iii. Irrigation 0 0 0
iv. Volunteer opportunities 1 0 0
D. Additional Ideas 7 1 0
Neighborhood meetings for education and outreach 0 0 0
Maybe a pamphlet with a map of specific trees of interest 0 0 0
Pamphlets telling what species of trees on city property-
amount of carbon storage, % stormwater absorption- info which
appeared tied to Main St trees for a very short time. Maybe
story in the Beacon [local newspaper with print and online
circulation]
0 0 0
New name needed 0 0 0
103 Appendices
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #3: What is/are your biggest concern(s) for trees
in Edmonds?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Trees blocking my view 11 1 9
B. Trees shading my yard 3 0 7
C. Tree debris in my yard 1 1 5
D. Healthy mature trees being removed 12 0 3
E. Canopy loss 11 0 3
F. Loss of wildlife habitat 15 0 3
G. Additional Concerns
Private development- current Edmonds land use code allows
developers to completely clear treed lots for development
(residential, commercial, etc). This is not okay. It disrupts urban
1 0 0
Someone who would be willing to negotiate or help mediate
between neighbors having difficulty with trees vs. view, perhaps
to come to the home if asked and accepted by both parties
1 0 0
Need to address invasives in our forests that prevent the
establishment of seedlings. Without that there will be no forests 0 0 0
Critical areas ordinances are not followed- All native vegetation
is removed for development 0 0 0
This becomes a question of aesthetics- learn to see trees, which
are beautiful and characteristic of the luxuriant NW where we
have chosen to reside- as the “view”. Trees are very connected
to the idea of “the commons” in which we have not much
2 0 0
I believe these green dots indicate agreement with the stated
additional concern.
***Note: for this opinion board:
Green dots = concerned
Red dots = not concerned
104Appendices
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #4: What level of maintenance would you prefer
for public trees?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. None (keep them natural)1 4 2
B. Best possible care (all trees should look good)7 1 3
C. Clearance only (keep sidewalks and streets clear)7 1 1
D. Take care of hazardous trees 10 2 0
E. Holistic plant health care (improve the urban forest, but
not necessarily every tree)8 3 0
F. Additional Ideas
In past, City has been resistant to allow removal of dangerous
and dying trees even when 3 arborists said remove. Need
process to effectively deal with dangerous trees.
0 0 0
Utilize/ plant and replace trees that “heave” the sidewalks. ie-
avoid trees that interfere with built environment. 2 0 0
Native trees preferred. Alder are not trash trees. 0 0 0
Edmonds is a City of Views- Very important that property
owner’s views are protected. As a first step/tonight’s meeting
working together to protect environment as well as property
owners will put this plan in a more optimistic mode.
0 1 0
There were not actually green dots placed on this Additional
Idea sticky note, but two other people wrote “Agree” directly on
the note itself.
105 Appendices
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #5: Where would you like to see more trees
planted?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Parks 10 0 0
B. Open Spaces 10 0 1
C. Commercial properties 9 2 0
D. Streets and medians 7 3 2
E. Parking lots 10 0 0
F. Private properties 8 1 1
G. Additional Ideas
Along railroad- need tall ones to defray pollutants. Along all
arterials for same reason. Along streams to keep them cool 1 0 0
Less trees in view areas 1 1 1
106Appendices
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Opinion Board #6: What are the best ways to encourage tree
planting and preservation on private property?
Idea # Green
Dots
# Yellow
Dots
# Red
Dots
A. Free (or low-cost) trees 10 0 0
B. Information about how to hire a professional tree care
company 3 0 0
C. Education and Outreach 16 0 0
D. Tree planting events 5 0 0
E. Additional Ideas
Update land use code so developers cannot clear all of the trees
when building. Current code allows to clear the entire lot.3 0 1
Education- slow but steady so that folk begin to know that all
the oxygen we breathe is produced by (largely) trees- for “views”
we can cut out our lungs.
0 0 0
Provide ideas for good trees that are more like 15 ft tall in order
to keep both trees and preserve view.3 0 0
City needs a full-time arborist. Codes should:3 0 0
Neighbor education and outreach (about critical areas and
streamside property management more important than public
meetings for general public)
0 0 0
107 Appendices
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
108Appendices
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
109 Appendices
Additional anonymous comments:
Change name “Urban Forest”- bad
impression, oxymoron. Suggestion- Best
plant/tree for Best location
Wondering what is/can be done to
encourage people to maintain views for
neighbors around them?
Let’s separate view areas from non-view
areas. Right tree for right location.
I am concerned about safety regarding older
trees in both private and public spaces. We
have 70+ year old trees in our neighborhood
that lose branches with most wind storms.
Who watches out for the health of those
trees and probability of danger? Most
people would have no idea where to begin,
let alone be able to afford to do something
like hire an arborist. (signed J Thompson)
Questions from the public asked during the
presentation:
Question regarding how the 30% canopy
cover was determined- comment that that
number seemed really high. Wondering if
there is a uniform process used by all cities.
Made comment that grants were judged
by how much canopy a City had. Asked for
clarification on what the process that was
used to determine 30% canopy cover.
Question asking for clarification of the
intention of the UFMP- to handle City trees
(as stated in an early slide) or is it actually
expanded to handle private trees too.
Commenter asked for clarification on
defining “what is a tree”- a 30ft lilac…is that
a tree? A big rhododendron- is that a tree?
Commenter referring to tree planting
suggestions (provided an sign in table on
yellow paper)- had a question about why is
there not any evergreen on that suggestion
guide?
Commenter asked question regarding tree
topping being preferable to cutting a tree to
the ground. Expressed concern over making
a “blanket rule” that tree topping is bad or
not preferable.
Question regarding information on what
kinds of trees do what kinds of things- eg. a
fir versus an oak- and where is that kind of
data available at?
Question referring to the chart shown
in the presentation comparing Edmonds
with other cities- does that chart take
into consideration view property- does
it differentiate where there are view
properties and where there are not?
Commenter suggested that a significant
portion of the City [of Edmonds] has views.
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
110Appendices
Attendance
City of Edmonds:
Dave Teitzel, Edmonds City Council
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation & Cultural
Services Director
Phil Williams, Public Works and Utilities
Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program
Manager
Brad Shipley, Planner
Debora Ladd, Parks Maintenance Staff
Project Team Members:
Ian Scott, Davey Resources Group
Ian Lefcourte, Davey Resources Group
Keeley O’Connell, Nature InSight Consulting
Members of the public:
Approximately 50
7.1.f
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Att. 6: Draft EdmondsWA UFMP 2018_06_04 (Pages) (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Edmonds UFMP Draft, March 2018
Comments on Part 1 “What Do We Have?” by Steve Hatzenbeler, Citizens’ Tree Board
1. Page 1, column 2, “abundant”: the use of subjective terms like this should be avoided.
2. Page 2, column 2, “comprehensive”: No on-the-ground assessment was completed, so I would be
hesitant to call the review comprehensive.
3. Page 2, Table 1, $7.74: This was inflated in 2017 due to the UFMP expenditures. Not an accurate
representation of typical per capita investment.
4. Page 3, column 2, “the City does not have a method to take inventory or track the history, status,
or location of public trees”: Seems like this is something that should be changed/fixed. Is DRB
recommending that the City start tracking it?
5. Page 5, column 2, “they also look for opportunities to plant trees in strategic public places”: I don’t
think this is accurate. Is City staff (besides the Parks Dept) really looking for opportunities to plant
trees?
6. Page 6, column 2, “20-year timeline concluding in 2048 (2038)… achieved by adapting the Plan
according to five-year cyclical review of operational objectives.”: Is the City committing to these 5-
yr cyclical reviews of operational objectives?
7. Page 7, column 2, “…especially focusing on public land and rights of way. For private lands, the
UFMP would guide education and incentives to encourage good tree management practices.”:
This sentence implies that the Comp Plan focuses on public right of way and land, but I don’t think
that is actually in the Comp Plan. This should be reworded.
8. Page 9, column 2, Intercepting Rainfall: It may be beneficial to add context here that relates
rainfall interception to reducing stormwater runoff and urban flooding. I think people will
recognize these as problems in Edmonds.
9. Page 11, Table 3: Reduced atmospheric carbon (pounds): This is pounds per year, correct?
10. Page 12, column 1, “Impervious surfaces in 2011 were assessed as 34% of the total land base
(Edmonds, 2017).”: This seems like awfully old data. Why not use the current data in the TCA. See
Land Cover Map 1 on page 22.
11. Page 12, Table 4: This is not mentioned in the text so it’s hard to understand its value/place in the
report.
12. Page 13, Table 5: This data would benefit from being discussed in the text of the report.
13. Page 14, column 1, Aesthetic, Habitat, Socioeconomic, and Health Benefits: may be useful to
mention a counterpoint here that trees in view areas may contribute to lower property values and
strained neighbor relations. View areas are a significant complication in many parts of Edmonds,
and seem to not be accounted for in the UFMP so far.
14. Page 15, column 1, “…to understand and manage the urban forest has depended upon which
trees are being considered and where trees were located.”: This is really awkward wording and
should be rewritten to get the point across.
15. Page 15, column 1, “In 2015, one of the efforts of this board was a proposal to the City for
updated tree-related municipal ordinances.”: This is an incomplete representation of what
happened, and if it needs to be brought up in the UFMP (the value of mentioning it is
questionable, in my opinion), it should be more completely explained. Development Services was
intimately involved in the proposed ordinance every step of the way, it was not just the Tree
Board’s proposal.
16. Page 16, column 2, “It is important that the City plan for all the trees in the urban forest as a
whole, not just critical areas.”: If this is the case, shouldn’t we address the other 83% of the
canopy that’s not in public property and rights of way?
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
17. Page 17, column 1, “…should be integrated into land use and development codes.”: Is this meant
to suggest that land use and development codes in Edmonds will be updated to include tree
retention requirements?
18. Page 18, column 2, “…care for the urban forest is mandated.”: This statement implies the entire
urban forest, not just the 13% of it that happens to be on public right of way.
19. Page 18, column 2, “…strategies to improve the care and conservation of all trees.”: All trees. So
how does this UFMP improve care and conservation of trees on private property?
20. Page 19, column 2, “Current operations in the City that care for the community trees do not keep
suitable records of their tree resource to summarize within this UFMP.”: This sounds like
something that should be addressed/fixed.
21. Page 20, column 2, “…provide benefits to the community beyond property lines.”: This point
should be hammered home more strongly; it is very important for the community to understand
trees as a community resource, not just individual trees on single parcels.
22. Page 21, column 2, “…suitable planting sites (1,651 acres)”: Is this only on public property and
rights of way, or does it also include private property?
23. Page 25, column 2, “Haines Wharf is another example where the potential canopy (40.6%) is much
higher than the existing canopy (11.9%).”: It should be noted that big increases in tree canopy
cover at HW Park would affect views on the hill above the park. This will not be practical or
accepted by the community. Situations like this will reduce the effective potential gains in canopy
gain at HW Park and other places like it, and the potential tree canopy gains should be adjusted to
reflect that.
24. Page 29, Table 10: View impacts (or potential view impacts) should be factored into this table,
maybe with a negative weight factor. This would lower the priority of planting in areas where
views could be affected by tree planting. View impacts cannot be ignored by this plan.
25. Page 30, Table 11: Much of the high and very high priority planting areas are in view and private
property areas. I don’t think view impacts should be ignored. The impact on views should be
factored in and reduce priority of certain areas.
26. Page 31, column 1, “Edmond’s”: Correct spelling (numerous spelling errors throughout
document).
27. Page 31, column 1, “The stored carbon is valued at $6.8 million.”: In my opinion it would be
valuable to provide an explanation of what this means, and how a value is assigned to stored
carbon.
28. Page 32, column 1, “Use GIS canopy and land cover mapping to explore under-treed
neighborhoods and identify potential planting sites.”: Seems like this should be included in the
UFMP. This statement suggests that identifying future planting sites would be done later by urban
forest managers--who don't exist in Edmonds.
29. Page 32, column 1, “Incentivize tree planting on private property, particularly in high/very high
planting priority areas.”: But be wary of impacts on views. Views just don't seem to be factored
into this UFMP yet, and in Edmonds, they can't be ignored in a successful and meaningful UFMP.
30. Page 32, column 2, “Define canopy goals and identify actions that will support these goal(s).”: Isn't
this UFMP supposed to define the canopy goals and identify actions that support these goals?
That seemed to be one of the primary reasons the UFMP was proposed a few years ago.
31. Page 34, Table 13: Should be 2017, not 2016.
32. Page 34, Table 13: The total is inaccurate, and should be $319,542.
33. Page 38, column 2, “Currently the City of Edmonds dedicates $319,542 towards total community
forestry expenditure”: Specifically in 2017. This statement suggests that the $319k expenditure is
a budgeted annual expense, which it is not.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
34. Page 38, column 2, “…per capita investment of $7.74.”: Significantly inflated in 2017 due to the
cost of the UFMP.
35. Page 39, column 1, “Create regulations…”: This is odd wording; "These regulations are designed
to" create regulations? Should be stated differently.
36. Page 39, column 2, “All street trees are managed by the Public Works Department.”: Seems to
more commonly be managed by Parks, not Public Works
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
From: K Keefe [mailto:wheekawheek@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 1:06 PM To: Nelson, Denise Subject: UFMP Comments
Hello,
below are my comments regarding the Draft Urban Forest Master Plan for
Edmonds. First of all, thank you to the City for opening up this process to the public for
input and examination!
I think efforts to protect, maintain and foster health trees are supremely important. My
main comment would be to encourage the City to either implement, or find out how to
implement, more control over trees (and there removal) on private property. I
understand that ability to do so is -possibly- limited on private property, because trees
are that, property of the owner. However, I think that trees should be considered a
very important benefit to the community as a whole, and therefore more strongly
regulated.
If, as stated in the document, private owners control the majority of the tree canopies,
then I believe a great deal of the focus from the City should therefore be on protecting
those trees. If that amount of homeowners cut down all of those trees the City would
only be left with a 17% tree canopy.
Although it may seem a stretch, this could feasibly happen with current lack of
regulation. And what is stopping homeowners and developers from doing this? Do we
want to see an Edmonds that is void of it's beautiful trees?
Off site land owners may not care much whether or not there are trees on the property,
and often times it is easier to cut down the trees to make way for development, rather
than to try and preserve them.
Good, health, mature trees take a long time to grow. While developers may have to
plant new trees in place of any of those removed, it is not an apples to apples
exchange. A small, cheap, (possibly not native) deciduous tree purchased at a home
improvement store does not provide the same benefits to wildlife, and to the air, as a
long standing, native mature tree does. I believe it is extremely unfair and unwise to
allow that kind of exchange.
Please consider more regulations on private property owners, for the sake of the
beautiful community we live in.
Thank you,
Killy Keefe
Edmonds,WA
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
--
Killy
wheekawheek@gmail.com "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Jimi Hendrix "Dawn is breaking everywhere. Light a candle, curse the glare." Touch of Grey, The Grateful
Dead.
"She knew how animals would act, she understood what animals
thought, but you could never be sure about people."
From "The Long Winter" by Laura Ingalls Wilder
What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die
from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected.
~ Chief Seattle
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
From: Danielle Hursh [mailto:hurshdc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 12:02 PM To: Nelson, Denise; Kiwi Fruit Subject: Comments for the 4/5 Tree Board Meeting Hello,
I am unable to attend the Tree Board meeting scheduled for tomorrow at 6pm. I wanted to submit my public comments about the draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). First of all, I very much appreciate that the City of Edmonds is pursuing an UFMP and the public
input that has been solicited in creating it. One of the reasons I moved to Edmonds was for its
lovely serene environment - one that is greatly enhanced by the City's trees! I've reviewed the draft UFMP and agree with most of the points made. I would like to see the City set a goal of at least maintaining the current percentage of canopy cover - as development increases we will continue to see a decline in canopy cover unless additional steps are taken to preserve the
trees/canopy cover we currently have.
I do think the City of Edmonds can/should do more to protect trees on private property - especially property that is in the process of being developed or redeveloped. There have been several recent development projects in my neighborhood where the City said the developers
would do their best to preserve the trees - instead the lots were clear cut. Its easy for developers
to clear cut old trees and plant "replacement" trees; however this is not the best approach for our neighborhoods, wildlife, or environment. "Replacing" second growth evergreens (50+ years old) with small deciduous is not an equitable approach to our tree canopy or urban forest. I urge the City to consider additional rules/restrictions to help preserve trees on privately owned property.
Thank you! I look forward to hearing more about this work and seeing the finalized Urban Forest Management Plan. Danielle Hursh
23627 101st Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020 206-218-8695
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Subject Matter
Notes BY: P.B.
Lovell
RE: UFMP [Urban Forest Management
Plan] April 7, 2018
PBL had volunteered to attend and feedback substance of Tree Board meeting on 4/5/18, which
featured a presentation of the DRAFT Urban Forest Management Plan under development for the
city by the consultant: Davey Resource Group [Ian Scott]. This writing reflects my notes from said
meeting/presentation with potential additional reference points for PB members in conjunction
with continuing reviews of the UFMP. Notes in no particular order or priority.
1. Board members should read both substance and commentary of the presentation
contained within My Edmonds News, posted April 5, 2018 [by Larry Vogel] for his more
detailed account of the presentation.
2. The procedures from here as to necessary revisions to the UFMP and any subsequent
substantive actions to be taken by the City appear to provide for a public review by the City
Council before any substantive revisions to the draft Plan are undertaken. This would mean
that the PB, after our scheduled review and discussion on April 11 and the public hearing
currently targeted for May 9 would take no final action’ but could make comments and
recommendations on the draft Plan. (which might include any recommendations for
changes relative to subsequent City Council action). [Note that an additional public open
house is scheduled for April 19 at which further input from citizenry would be gathered].
These three input ‘flows’ [Tree Board review, Public open House, PB review/discussion]
would be compiled and forwarded to Council for their discussion and further input from
the public before any substantive revisions to the UFMP are undertaken by Davey.
(However, some corrections and clean-up to the background information may be done
ahead.) Process from that point forward would be determined later.
3. Specific comment/feedback points gleaned from the Tree Board meeting of April 5:
• Public comments received as to some shortfalls within DRAFT Plan data, specifically:
Tree species statistics applicable to Pacific NW appear to be lacking
Plan refers to a 20 year process, but elsewhere refers to ‘completion’ as 2048
Scientific data does not appear to be drawn from our area of the country,
particularly as to rainfall, tree species, diseases, and other environmental
data.
• Community ‘responses’ thus far [survey] only represent 175 responses—more
needed.
• Goals of both community and municipal participants should be to preserve
current 30.3% canopy citywide.
• DRAFT Plan identifies actions for which staff/dollar inputs would be needed.
For the City to implement Plan—amounts/projections will need to be carefully
considered.
• More discussion and direction needs to be undertaken to clarify both role of the
UFMP and any subsequent resultant Code revisions with respect to public
property trees vs. private property owners— citizens need to support UFMP
canopy maintenance goals for city, but plan should not dictate private property
rights.
• UFMP could incorporate guidance for potential future land development code
revisions to accommodate more effective land-clearing and tree preservation
criteria.
4. PBL is in process of collecting old historic photos on Edmonds hopefully illustrating early land
clearing and subsequent ‘growth’ of trees within the city—this would be to assist PB discussion
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
April20,2018
Comments on the Draft Urban Forest Master Plan (March 2018)
Ms. Shane Hope
Director of Development Services
City of Edmonds
My concerns about Tree Board and City of Edmonds moving forward are:
I thought that Tree Board would have as its mission to streamline some of process to comply with the
tree-related ordinances that City has. lnstead of having to go from Person A to Person B to Person C,
streamline the process to have a Person A, known to be the Tree Authority for City, to answer any
questions that might arise. That's not what is happening and I am disappointed.
As a taxpayer, I am dismayed and appalled at the poor quality of work that the report contractor, Davey
Resource Group, is submitting for us to peruse or even read thoroughly. Much of the science that is
cited is based on studies in California. Many of the statistics cited in this report originate from
California. Has the writer or researcher of this expensive report walked around with a knowledgeable
arborist to see what trees grow well and are native to the area and take p¡ctures if necessary? lf the
Edmonds City Council approved an over six figure amount for this report, we are not getting our
money's worth!!
Trees are lovely. The big tall green conifers are one of many reasons we chose to move to Edmonds.
However, one would hope and desire practical uses and implementat¡ons of trees. Edmonds planted
street trees 20 years ago, but now homeowners are responsible for them, along with rigid guidelines
that are not clear, are hidden away, unless one asks many levels and layers of people. How is that the
best utilization of staff or trees?! How does that foster good will for citizens of the city?
Also the city plants or requires new homeowners or developers to plant trees in the sidewalk area.
Guess what? The sidewalks are buckling, the street sweeper must be employed and paid, and the street
sweeper truck must operate to pick up all of the leaves, the sidewalks must be grinded or replaced to
prevent falling by those of us who walk the streets of Edmonds for fun or business. Are all of the costs
and tedium worth the city's very rigid, costly agenda? Are all of those costs reflected in the Tree Plan?
Also if this new plan for trees encourages the coordination of at least three departments of the City's
workforce, why is ¡t that only one area, Development Services, shows up for these public meetings? I
find that irregular, at best. lf all three groups of the City workforce are to be held accountable, wouldn't
each group or entity want to show an interest or learn from the public what their concerns might be?
Respectfully submitted by,
Minna Dimmick
546 Walnut St. #302
Edmonds, WA 98020
505-463-7106
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
On Apr 19,2018, at7:27 AM, Jenny Anttila wrote:
Hello Council Members,
There are certain points that do have to be addressed:-
2)
Trees in the common areas that are the "showcase" for Edmonds that are planted on the
sidewalks and main streets. They provide beauty and shade and should be maintained by the
City and be under your area of domain. Some of them overgrow and homeowners do call the
City to ask for action.
Any new trees planted by the City on sidewalks, or otherwise, should be the appropriate tree for
the space.
Trees in areas not underthe Edmonds Council control are: those trees in your citizens own
yards. You cannot mandate costs or rules for cutting them down (if too big or diseased, or incur
costs for replanting if required by home owners). These trees are not your business oryour area
of control with fees or fines.
Hedges along sidewalks should be under your access with notifications should these hedges
overgrow into the sidewalk or grow higher than a 6' wooden fence, We have limited sidewalks
in this town, and to allow a homeowner to let their hedges (or large plants) impede sidewalks is
wrong.
We do not want a town where we are paying fines and under strict rules and regulations with
regard to our own homeowner trees. Many people plant the wrong trees that grow out of
control or are now too old to afford to apply for permits for cutting them down, have to pay a
fee for that, and then have to pay for an approved arborist to replant trees they don't need or
want in their yards. lf the City is trying to pass these types of laws you will have a fiasco in the
City chambers soon.
The City already has rules on trees being protected if they grow by a stream (which we have
many in this town),
3)
4)
s)
6)
Thank you,
Jenny Anttila
Edmonds, WA 98020
1)
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Rec’d: Sat 4/28/2018 12:39 PM
Dawna Lahti edmondite1@hotmail.com
Dear Diane:
In the end, it was your penned e-mail address that endured, so here is my note in lieu of my
presence at the tree meeting on the 9th of May.
It appears that I've organized my notes according to the easel displays:
C-2 "outreach to arborists" is too weak. There needs to be something that you require of the
for the privilege of working in Edmonds (which will always decrease the canopy and so is a net
loss to our community). Perhaps they need to defend any tree-topping, which causes disease
and death of healthy trees, to the city arborist and then pay a special fee graduated according
to trunk diameter. They will pass this on to the homeowner, of course, but it will also be a
nuisance to them and they will be less likely to suggest it as an option.
The regulation needs to extend to lumberjacks, too, who have a saw and can climb a tree
but don't necessarily know the downside of their trade at all.
C-5 the Heritage tree program needs to involve the history and art groups of Edmonds and
should have a mapping on the Edmonds website, an app to tour the trees by sidewalk as well as
a paper map to hold as they do so (for those with that comfort zone). This program will utterly
fail if not thoroughly planned before it is implemented. And it will be worse than worthless
unless the trees are offered protection simultaneously with the status.
M-8 protecting canopy: 5-10 year plan is too short for trees. Soon you will have a bunch of 5-
10 year old trees and nothing else as all the rest are unprotected. Probably I miss the mark
here. but I'm right about the need for a longer view for NW trees that outlive us by generations.
Rotation of planning is important to consider. The iconic oaks at the fountain won't last
forever. Where are young oaks to be planted now to make sure we still have such shade in a
prominent place a generation or two from now? Variety of street trees by neighborhood gives a
sense of place as Seattle demonstrates. Variety and a planting schedule make for a lovelier
result.
Where pocket parks are designed (as on Dayton) be certain to consider shade trees. People
don't gravitate to cement in any season. We acknowledge global warming, so why not act like it
is coming.
This document ignores the view interests in Edmonds. That is the elephant in the room, but it
needs to be addressed head on. Every tree is in someone's potential "view", so without specific
regulation and zoning, we end up with a hot hardscape of a city with "views" of the sun in your
eyes.
This document ignores the aging- hippie desire to have solar-panels on your own roof (which
encourages you to cut your own trees and everybody else's). This is a city and the place for
solar panels is in a sunny field in Eastern Washington. I'm being facetious, but the reality of
these two questions has everything to do with any conversation about trees in Edmonds.
Respectfully,
Dawna Lahti
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Ross Dimmick
546 Walnut Street #302, Edmonds WA 98020
May 2, 2018
Edmonds City Council
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Councilmembers,
In response to Councilmember Buckshnis’ request that residents voice opinions regarding the March
2018 draft Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP), I submit this comment document to the Edmonds City
Council.
I have reviewed the draft UFMP, prepared by Davey Resource Group (Davey), from my perspective as an
Edmonds native and current resident, combined with 30 years of professional experience as a scientist
employed in environmental consulting across various states and internationally. The past 20 years of my
professional experience have been in the development, review, and management of environmental
impact analyses related to the National Environmental Policy Act. My review holds the draft UFMP to
the same standard as I expect from my draft Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact
Statements: a scientifically objective document that informs decisionmakers in creating sound public
policy.
The Tree Board has adopted the slogan “Right Tree, Right Place” to summarize their objectives.
According to the draft UFMP, 87 percent of the current tree canopy is on private property, largely
outside of the City’s control, making education a centerpiece of any successful urban forest
management strategy. If the City plans to turn the slogan into action, namely to help private landowners
answer the question “What is the right tree in this place?” and encourage them to plant and maintain
trees to serve that objective, it is essential to create a science-based UFMP that addresses benefits and
costs of trees within Edmonds. Unfortunately, the draft UFMP is stunning in its lack of a basic scientific
foundation, especially in the context of the unique characteristics of Edmonds.
Those of us who have had to opportunity to live in other regions of the country recognize the many
unique characteristics of the Puget Sound area as a whole, and Edmonds in particular. Some of those
characteristics are socio-geographic—our proximity to an urban area with world-class amenities and a
vibrant economy—while others relate to the caring and community-involved people who live here. But
it’s the natural environment that separates us from many other cities. It’s the water, the mountains, the
weather, the topography, and the trees. It is in tailoring the draft UFMP to these characteristics of
Edmonds that it fails—much of the draft UFMP feels like it was cut and pasted from a tree plan for a city
in California or Nevada.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Ross Dimmick
546 Walnut Street #302, Edmonds WA 98020
Much of my review of the draft UFMP focuses on the Introduction, pages 7 through 14, which presents
the benefits of the urban forest. These benefits are key to developing the Urban Forest Asset Goals, the
management objectives of the urban forest, described beginning at page 57 of the draft UFMP. Each
management objective has a stated rationale, risk, and benefit that ties to the benefits described in the
Introduction. If science does not support the benefit, or if the benefit comes at great cost, then the
management objective must be reconsidered.
My comments follow. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft UFMP.
Sincerely,
Ross Dimmick
cc: Ms. Shane Hope, Development Services Department
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page | 1
Comment 1: The National Tree Benefit Calculator (www.treebenefits.com/calculator), used to determine
tree benefits shown in tables on pages 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, is
1) more limited in its applicability than described in the draft UFMP,
2) far too inaccurate to produce meaningful results for a planning document, and
3) not transparent in its data sources and calculations.
The quantitative evaluation of benefits described in the Introduction (see tables on pages 10, 11, 12, 13,
and 14) is derived from the National Tree Benefit Calculator (http://www.treebenefits.com/calculator/),
co-designed by Davey Tree Expert Co. The calculator accepts four inputs: zip code, tree species, tree
diameter, and nearest land use (e.g., single-family residential, small commercial business). From these
four inputs, the calculator produces five different benefit values for a tree, corresponding to the draft
UFMP tables cited above: stormwater diversion, carbon (CO2), energy, air quality, and property value.
More limited in its applicability than described in the draft UFMP. In its descriptions and calculations of
tree benefits within the Introduction section, the draft UFMP confuses the three major categories of
trees in Edmonds that the plan is intended to address: city-owned street trees, trees in city-owned
parks, and trees on private property. On page 9, “Benefits of the Urban Forest,” the draft UFMP states
“Individual tree owners can calculate the benefits of trees to their property by using the National Tree
Benefit Calculator (www.treebenefits.com/calculator) or with i-Tree Design
(www.itreetools.org/design).” The description at the website of the National Tree Benefit Calculator
states that the “tool is based on i-Tree’s street tree assessment tool called STREETS.” As the name would
suggest, i-Tree STREETS applies only to street trees, and is not designed to be applicable to “individual
tree owners.” It is also not applicable to trees in city-owned parks. Therefore, the tables in the
Introduction apply to only a very small percentage of trees in Edmonds, street trees, likely comprising
well under 1 percent of the Edmonds tree canopy.
Far too inaccurate to produce meaningful results for a planning document. The calculator website itself
describes the calculations as “a first-order approximation.” So, what does this mean? Edmonds is
included within a “Pacific Northwest” region, extending from the U.S./Canada border almost to
California, and from the Pacific Ocean to the Cascade Range. Entering the zip code from Aberdeen, with
more than double Edmonds’ annual average rainfall, or Salem, Oregon, situated in the farmlands of the
Willamette Valley, produces exactly the same quantities and dollar values for a given tree. With the
differences among locations in this region, particularly climate, property values, and baseline air quality,
these values cannot be the same. For Davey to rely on such a crude tool for a paid report is
unacceptable. Davey needs to use the original documents that form the scientific basis for these
calculations and adapt them to the unique Edmonds setting, particularly precipitation frequency and
intensity, temperatures, baseline ambient air quality, and the mountain/water viewshed (a key
consideration in property value impacts).
Not transparent in its data sources and calculations. Central to any scientific document is the concept of
reproducibility—the reader should be able to achieve the same results by following the methodology
presented in the document and its references. On a high-school math test, this is called “show your
work.” Davey’s system does not provide verifiable sources or calculations of tree benefits. As such, it is
not possible to determine whether calculations are based on science that is relevant to our environment
in Edmonds, or even applicable to the question being asked.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page | 2
Within my own work, I have been contracted on occasion to prepare documents to update existing
environmental impact analyses based on new information. It is frustrating (and expensive for the client)
when I have to reconstruct an analysis from scratch because the original author failed to adequately
document their calculations. For a UFMP to be useful for implementing a long-term strategy, it must
occasionally be updated to reflect:
New science. Urban forestry is still a relatively new scientific field and strategies now being
implemented to manage urban forests will lead to new science on benefits and costs and case
studies on what works and what doesn’t.
Changes in development patterns. Edmonds continues to feel pressure from the heated Seattle
housing market, encouraging denser development in the form of apartments and townhouses.
Changes in the natural environment. The draft UFMP’s description of our current urban forest is
a snapshot in time that is ever-changing.
Because the draft UFMP poorly documents its methodologies and calculations, it will be difficult and
expensive for the City to update the UFMP to suit future needs. The City needs to ensure the
transparency of all analyses and reproducibility of data to allow for occasional updates of the plan and
to track progress against urban forest management goals.
Comment 2: The relationship between the urban forest and energy use, CO2, and carbon sequestration
are inadequately described and/or erroneously calculated.
Pages 11 and 12 of the draft UFMP claims that urban forests help reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases
through 1) sequestration of CO2 as wood and foliar biomass, and 2) lowering the demand for energy
used in heating and air conditioning, thereby reducing the emissions associated with electric power
generation and natural gas consumption. The draft UFMP claims that energy savings are achieved by:
shading dwellings and impervious surfaces; transpiration, the release of water vapor through tree
canopies causing atmospheric cooling; wind reduction, helping to avoiding winter heat loss; and green
roofs, putting native trees and vegetation on rooftops.
To test some of these statements, I used the i-Tree Design (www.itreetools.org/design) tool as
suggested in the draft UFMP. Somewhat randomly choosing a house on Alder Street between 6th and 7th
avenues, I used the design feature of the tool to place a single western red cedar, of 8-inch diameter at
breast height, in the front yard (south of the house). Other information about the house was
determined from a recent real-estate listing (constructed before 1950, no air conditioning) and entered
into i-Tree Design. The results related to CO2 and energy use over the next 20 years were stated by the
tool as follows:
$−44 of savings by reducing −2,463 lbs. of atmospheric carbon dioxide through CO2
sequestration and decreased energy production needs and emissions
$0 of summer energy savings by direct shading and air cooling effect through evapotranspiration
$−303 of winter energy savings by slowing down winds and reducing home heat loss
Note that the dollar savings and CO2 reduction values are negative. With the absence of air conditioning,
typical for houses in Edmonds, the effect of a single cedar tree was to increase energy use and,
correspondingly, CO2 generation by shading the house from sunlight in during the heating months of fall,
winter, and spring. According to the latest U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year estimates,
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page | 3
approximately 57 percent of homes in Edmonds are heated by CO2-generating fossil fuels. Other tree
types and placements within i-Tree Design may produce more favorable results for the house analyzed
but are unlikely to show energy savings given our relatively mild winter climate and, typically, a lack of
air conditioning. But other tree placements may increase shading and energy consumption in
neighboring houses, which i-Tree Design does not model. This “neighbor effect” is particularly severe in
Edmonds—of the 1,001 communities in the U.S. larger than Edmonds (2016 U.S. Census Bureau
Estimates), only 5 are further north: Everett, Marysville, and Bellingham, Washington; Minot, North
Dakota; and Anchorage, Alaska. This means that the shadow cast by a tree in Edmonds, especially the
tall conifers native to this area, is long during the late fall and winter months, nearly 300 feet at noon for
a 100-foot-tall tree.
While it is true that the urban forest sequesters carbon through growth of biomass, the draft UFMP does
not address the fate of that carbon. Because urban trees are seldom used for wood products,
sequestered carbon is eventually returned to the atmosphere as part of the carbon cycle as trees die
and rot or are cut down and chipped or used as firewood. Theoretically, a mature urban forest will
release as much carbon as it takes in. This explanation provides needed context for the reader to better
understand the relationship of carbon sequestration and the urban forest.
Characteristics of Edmonds, particularly lack of air conditioning in most homes, low sun angles, and
abundant large conifers, cast doubt over claims that urban trees lead to net reduction in CO2 from
energy savings and carbon sequestration. The draft UFMP lacks any region-specific discussion of factors
that potentially affect its conclusions and its own modeling tool shows that net CO2 production and
energy use can increase in relatively common situations. It is inexcusable for the draft UFMP to omit
region-specific factors in drawing its conclusions and inappropriate to state any conclusions without a
thorough scientific analysis.
Comment 3: The costs of trees to the City are not adequately described nor calculated.
On page 34, the draft UFMP focuses its cost analysis on City expenditures for planting, maintenance, and
removal of trees, along with management and the cost of volunteer activities. The draft UFMP also lists
City departments and weekly estimated hours per week spent on urban forest-related activities. This
cost analysis appears to ignore other urban forest costs to the City. The following costs should be
quantified through interviews and data supplied by City staff, as well as the best available science:
Assessment and repair of hardscape damage. A casual stroll around downtown Edmonds will
illustrate damage and repairs to sidewalks (Figures 1 and 2), gutters, and curbs from street
trees. Other damage may occur to stormwater drainage systems from tree roots.
Street sweeping. Our wettest month, statistically, is November, when leaves shed from trees
reach their maximum. Also, our most severe windstorms tend to occur during the rainy months,
requiring the street sweeper to clean up leaves, boughs, and small limbs to maintain stormwater
drain performance.
Catch basin and storm drain cleaning. Accumulation of leaves, needles, and other tree debris
can clog storm drains and require cleanout of catch basins.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page | 4
Figure 2. Sidewalk replacement and repairs
from tree-root damage, 5th Avenue South
Figure 1. Multiple sidewalk repairs from tree-
root damage, 5th Avenue South
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page | 5
There is a long list of other potential indirect costs, including:
Carbon emissions. Pruning, tree removal, and street sweeping, among other activities, generate
carbon emissions from use of power equipment such as saws, chippers, trucks, and sweepers.
In determining net carbon value, the cost of these emissions must be included.
Damage and injury from falling trees.
Disruption to traffic during tree maintenance.
Opportunity cost. The presence of trees precludes other potential uses of the space.
Recent scientific literature1 addresses other potential costs, including utility company tree maintenance
and tree-related repair costs, which are passed on to ratepayers, as well as economic costs of power
interruption. The UFMP should list and evaluate whether these costs are relevant to Edmonds, and, if
so, should include them in the cost analysis.
Comment 4: The draft UFMP focuses only on urban forest management costs borne by the City. The cost
of trees to private landowners is all but ignored, despite representing 87 percent of the urban forest
canopy.
On page 34, the draft UFMP states: “Using the recent Urban Tree Canopy assessment as a benchmark
estimate, Edmonds’ urban forest produces about $1,567,000 in environmental benefits and is
maintained with an annual budget of approximately $319,542.” Subject to the caveats in my comments
regarding the accuracy of these numbers, this statement directly compares a benefit from the entire
tree canopy with the cost only to the City government. Obviously, the costs to private landowners for
maintaining their 87 percent of the canopy, including direct and indirect costs of pruning, leaf raking and
blowing, debris disposal, moss treatments, pressure washing, gutter cleaning, and hardscape repair, far
exceed the cost to the City. These activities also generate carbon emissions which need to be included in
the cost. If the draft UFMP intends to provide some sort of cost/benefit analysis, it needs to include the
costs to all parties.
Comment 5: Despite being shown as the largest environmental benefit (by dollar amount) provided by
the Edmonds tree canopy, the derivation of the stormwater management value remains an enigma.
On page 31, the draft UFMP states that the Edmonds tree canopy “Reduces 42.8 million gallons of
stormwater runoff, a benefit worth nearly $1.2 million.” Note that this is 76 percent of the quantified
benefit for Edmonds. Two numbers are important to understanding this benefit: derivation of the value
of 42.8 million gallons of stormwater runoff diverted, and the cost per gallon assigned to that runoff,
approximately 2.8 cents. According to the draft UFMP, the 42.8 million gallons was derived from the
i-Tree Canopy model, which, in its web version, does not seem to produce estimates for stormwater
diverted. The complete input and output from this i-Tree Canopy model should be included as an
appendix for review.
During the April 19 Open House for the draft UFMP, I asked Ian Scott and Ian Lefcourte, both of Davey
Resource Group, how the 2.8 cents per gallon value for diverted stormwater was derived. Neither could
1 Two examples are: Vogt, J.M., Hauer, R.J., Fischer, B.C., 2015. The costs of maintaining and not maintaining the
urban forest: a review of the urban forestry and arboriculture literature. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 41: 293–
323. Song, Xiao Ping, Tan, Puay Yok, Edwards, Peter, Richards, Daniel, 2018. The economic benefits and costs of
trees in urban forest stewardship: A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29: 162–170.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page | 6
tell me, but Mr. Lefcourte said he would follow up on that information (the latest email I received from
Mr. Lefcourte said that he was checking with his geographic information system personnel). This value is
also used in the treebenefits.com model for calculating the benefits of individual trees, and in benefits
calculations in Table 2 of the draft UFMP. Through my own research, I found a value of 2.779 cents per
gallon in a report not cited in the draft UFMP (McPherson et al. 2002, Western Washington and Oregon
Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting); however, the reference cited by the
McPherson report as its source did not appear to support the value.
The difficulty in trying to track down how the largest quantified benefit in the draft UFMP was derived
should highlight a basic inadequacy with the document—its lack of transparency. Davey appears to be
asking us to take their word for it. All the documentation showing how these numbers are derived need
not be presented in the narrative of a plan that is intended for a non-technical audience, but it should be
included as an appendix to verify accuracy and to reduce the cost of future plan updates in response to
better data, changes in costs, and changes within the urban forest itself.
Comment 6: The canopy air quality benefit appears to ignore tree-generated pollen and volatile organic
compounds.
On page 31, the draft UFMP states that the Edmonds tree canopy “Improves air quality by removing
42.2 tons of pollutants (CO, NO2, O3, SO2, and PM10), valued at $146,823.” I was unable to find any
accounting for the costs of pollens and biogenic volatile organic compound emissions (volatile organic
compounds generated by trees). Tree pollen levels are known to be high in this area, with visible
accumulations on cars and other surfaces, particularly in the spring. Pollen is known to have direct
health effects in this area, mostly as a nuisance either left untreated or treated with over-the-counter or
prescription medications; however, among some individuals, pollen can initiate an allergic reaction that
can, in turn, trigger asthma symptoms. The cost of both pollens and biogenic volatile organic compound
emissions should be included in the calculation.
Two additional questions should be answered within the air quality analysis in the draft UFMP: are air
quality values based on the mix of trees (particularly deciduous versus conifers) that we have in
Edmonds? What is the source of baseline air quality data used for Edmonds?
Comment 7: Mitigating the urban heat island effect is mentioned, but the draft UFMP presents no
information on the magnitude of the urban heat island in Edmonds, or whether one even exists.
At various places, the draft UFMP refers to trees mitigating the “urban heat island effect” through
shading of impervious surfaces; however the draft UFMP never presents data to establish whether
Edmonds even has a measurable urban heat island effect. On April 24, 2018, Seattle set a daily record
high temperature with 77°F recorded at SeaTac Airport. The high temperature recorded at the Port of
Edmonds weather station that day was only 60.5°F, more than 16°F cooler. With Edmonds’ position at
the confluence of Puget Sound, Admiralty Inlet, and Possession Sound, the relatively cool temperature
of these water bodies in the summer, and the prevalence of an onshore flow, all of Edmonds, even along
the Highway 99 corridor, tends to be cooler in the summer, sometimes much cooler, than communities
located further away from the water or in the South Sound. The draft UFMP should either eliminate any
mention of urban heat island effect or present data defining the magnitude of the urban heat island
effect for Edmonds and science determining that mitigating the effect would have a net environmental
benefit (e.g., not increase CO2 emissions through increased fall/winter/spring heating needs).
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Dimmick—Comments on Draft Urban Forest Master Plan, May 2, 2018 Page | 7
Comment 8: To be useful in achieving its goal of enhancing wildlife habitat, the UFMP must list which
wildlife species need habitat to ensure that cultivating the correct types of trees is encouraged.
Wildlife habitat is mentioned numerous times as a benefit of the urban forest, but there is no list of
target wildlife species the City is attempting to provide habitat for. Without this list, a particular tree
may or may not provide suitable habitat. Some species have experienced population decline because
their habitat requirements are too specific. On page 9, the draft UFMP states “there is a widely accepted
guiding rule in tree resource management that no single species should represent greater than 10% of
the total population, and no single genus more than 20%.” The UFMP needs to present a list of target
wildlife species and explain how the diverse forest goals help rather than hinder these species.
On pages 7, 14, 18, and 28, the draft UFMP mentions that trees provide “critical habitat” for wildlife.
The term “critical habitat” has a specific regulatory meaning under the Endangered Species Act. Is that
the intended meaning here? If so, for which wildlife species is the Edmonds urban forest considered
critical habitat?
Comment 9: Apparent math discrepancy.
On page 25 of the draft UFMP are the statements “The City of Edmonds includes 47 parks covering 344
acres (5.6% of all land area) (Map 3). Edmonds’ parks have an average tree canopy cover of 44.1%.” This
would indicate that park canopy covers 151.7 acres (344 acres × 0.441), yet the canopy cover of just the
five largest parks (Table 7, page 26) is 210 acres.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Ø Your C<¡mment Mafters!L$It-tø rc,ur comment Matters!CIfName (optional)Email (optionat).+42êtt6*.ü-t-Å-p.^*øø**More space on back sidexxYour Comment Matters!, Bíl/ Fhtooçrfi:>Your Comment Matters!¡/¿Name (optionat)Email (optionat):_ll,'s L'(P(nY**More space on back side*xf.87.1.gPacket Pg. 383Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Your Comment Matters!Ø rour comment Matrers!ffi-L'æÆ )ñs,æ üAß*øName (optionat):Email (optionat)t03afe¿øsrlfbfaL7,e¿Ìlame (optionat):mail ¡optionarl*ÉJz¿¿tzWÆ_É^"4É¿./fe¿,úd/*More space on back sid***More space on back side**7.1.gPacket Pg. 384Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 9:10 AM
To: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Please submit this letter as part of my testimony for May 9th Planning Board meeting
Please include the statement below as my written testimony (which was recently published in the My Edmonds News as an opinion piece) for the public hearing on the City of Edmonds Draft Urban Forest
Management Plan to be heard on May 9th, 2018
Thank You
Eric Soll Edmonds Wa
The location that is currently present day Edmonds was incorporated in 1890. The city has evolved into a pleasant suburban city containing a variety of vegetation, including a variety of tree species planted by
residents. The tree inventory on private property has managed to thrive without any government oversight for the first one hundred and twenty years of Edmonds' existence, as witnessed by the lush
canopy in many Edmonds' residential neighborhoods. In 2010, the Edmonds Tree Board was organized and tasked with various activities related to the trees of Edmonds.
By the end of 2014, interacting with liaisons from city council, city staff and an ordinance developmental consultant, that board generated a proposed tree ordinance for the city of Edmonds.
That proposed ordinance Chapter 23.20 ECDC -Tree Conservation, had it had been adopted, included in part provisions for:
An intricate and expensive permitting process, often with the necessity of the retention of private consultants at considerable expense to the private residential owner to remove any trees for virtually any reason.
Governmental requirements and oversight as to the number and size of trees required to be maintained
on each individual private property Extensive fines for not complying with the ordinance.
Enough Edmonds residents vehemently opposed the proposed legislation that the proposed ordinance was not implemented by the Edmonds City Council. One is encouraged to review the entire document to observe an excellent example of potential extensive governmental overreach and interference with private property rights.
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Boards_and_Commissions/Boards/Tree_Board/TreeCode/TreeBoardRecommendation_ECDC2320.pdf
A consultant report, the " City of Edmonds, Urban Forest Master Plan 2017 Draft March 2018" has recently been generated and will be presented to the Edmonds City Council for review and implementation.
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Development_Services/Planning_Div
ision/Plans/UFMP/EdmondsWA-UFMP-2018_03_12-PagesWEB.pdf
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Recognizing that there would be significant opposition to government mandates applied to private property, the Urban Forest Master Plan focuses on how best to increase the number, appropriateness and quality of trees on public property, as well as promoting an aggressive educational campaign to educate the public on the benefits of increasing the tree canopy both on public and private property.
Ignored in this process is the fact that local, state and federal government policies, statutes and ordinances have had a deleterious direct and indirect impact on the tree canopy in Edmonds, as well as other urban centers. Focusing on the state level, the Urban Growth Management Act has both restricted property that can be developed for residential development, and dictated that future growth including increased density be
primarily channeled to existing urban population centers. This mandate has resulted in part in the escalating expense in obtaining land to develop residential housing.
. As a result of prohibitively expensive residential parcels available for development, as well as legislated
density goals, cities are aggressively amending their comprehensive plans and corresponding zoning ordinances. Comprehensive plans are transforming what were once single family neighborhoods into high density "affordable" multi unit neighborhoods. Apartments, condominiums and town houses are being developed on what were once single family parcels. As a result, there is a corresponding loss of area
available for all vegetation, including trees.
Escalating costs associated with marshalling residential parcels has had a transformational effect on single family residential development. Large single family residences must be built in order for the
projects to be economically viable. The development of modest size thousand square foot single family starter houses allowing a majority of the parcel to be covered with vegetation including trees are
residences of a by gone construction era.
As a result of both the dramatic increased cost and lack of affordable housing, the state has mandated that counties such as Snohomish County with cities the population size of Edmonds, encourage
Accessory Dwelling Units to be constructed on single family parcels. That intensive development not only eliminates existing vegetation and trees on single family parcels, but precludes future vegetation as the
residential footprint is expanded to accommodate the second dwelling unit.
The use of planning devices to increase density, such as Planned Unit Developments, allow an increased number of residences on parcels zoned for single family development. That form of
development also reduces available area for all vegetation, including trees.
There is a certain irony that government officials ranging from local cities to the state level are focused on tasks to ensure that various Puget Sound jurisdictions fulfill their governmental mandated requirement
to plan for and promote population growth in established cities through increased density. That growth and resultant density in these fully developed jurisdictions will result in the decrease of the "forest canopy"
due to intensive redevelopment density. Concurrently, governmental employees throughout Puget Sound are engaged in activities to maintain or even increase the same tree canopies. It is even more
ironic that often, it is the same government department or even the same employees that are tasked with addressing both issues at the same time, all underwritten by overburdened taxpayers. The Urban Forest Master Plan calculated that tree canopy has been reduced in Edmonds from 32.3% to
30.3 % between the years 2005 and 2015. Not a surprise to anyone as legislative mandates require Edmonds to develop more residential assets in a city that is almost fully developed, to comply with
various density developmental requirements. Most Edmonds residents, both homeowners and renters have unknowingly made and continue to make significant contributions to preventing development in adjacent rural areas. That has been accomplished
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
as a result of the strict mandates of the Urban Growth Management Act, which has resulted in increased prices, density, noise, lack of residential privacy, traffic and lack of parking, as increased development has been legislatively funneled into Edmonds and other cities, rather than in undeveloped areas. That factor, including the number of trees saved from development, is never considered as a cost to homeowners and renters in this process, nor is the benefit of those undisturbed trees included in any calculation of tree canopy loss for those urban areas sacrificing their quality of life to prevent development
elsewhere. It is an unofficial, vegetation, tree and land bank that much of the state population is unknowingly participating in through the legislated density degradation of their own immediate urban and suburban environment. There is actually positive news when calculating the size of the current United States tree canopy. Reviewing the statistics, it has been concluded by experts that there are now more trees in the
United States than there were one hundred years ago. This is due to a variety of factors including: Forest management practices. The expansion of the national park and national monument systems.
Reduction of need for agricultural land as a result of improved agricultural practices which produce greater crop yields.
Elimination of marginal farming operations - with those properties often reverting back to forests. Urbanization of the US population - less people placing residential pressure and development on rural areas.
Thus the United States is actually increasing its tree canopy, as opposed to conventional alarmist wisdom which incorrectly asserts that the tree inventory in the United States is rapidly dwindling due to rapid over
development.
The Urban Forest Master Plan estimates that approximately forty four to sixty four staff hours per week is currently dedicated to ongoing tree maintenance and related issues in Edmonds. That is equivalent
to one and one half full time government positions currently focused only trees.
The Urban Forest Master Plan reports that Edmonds is currently allocating $7.74 per capita per year to overall tree maintenance, The average for most jurisdictions is $7.50 per capita, and the Edmonds figure
is significantly more than the $2 per capita required for "Tree City USA" designation that is cited by the Urban Forest Master Plan. More about a "Tree City USA" designation later.
Four recommendations suggested by the Urban Forest Master Plan that may interfere with either private
property rights, or dramatically increase the cost to taxpayers are:
The establishment of an Edmonds Tree Bank for developers and private homeowners to subsidize both the planting and replacing of trees in Edmonds.
A Heritage Tree program to be instituted in Edmonds focused on "exceptional" trees located on either
public or private property. Some of the case examples provided in the Urban Forest Master Plan as successful Heritage Tree government programs in other jurisdictions, specifically include trees on private
property, and that designation would transfer to the new owners in any conveyance.
A specific licensing program for those engaged in the business of tree management, rather than just a business license that is currently required to remove trees in Edmonds. This requirement is justified as tree ordinances are becoming more complex and further training is required. Increased licensing requirements by any professional group usually results in increased costs to the consumer.
The organization of a formal bureaucracy within the city of Edmonds charged with supervising and
implementing all aspects of tree management and maintenance, including the employment of a full time arborist.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
While certain goals enunciated in the Urban Forest Master Plan are important - (such as the removal of dangerous trees), many of these goals are secondary to the primary goals of operating the city of Edmonds in an effective and cost efficient manner. Edmonds city council should resist the temptation to transform any recommendations into another official layer of governmental bureaucracy. Not only are property taxes "too damn high" (as the popular saying
goes for rent) after property owners experienced the largest property tax increase in recent memory, but there are traditional governmental functions that are currently not being implemented in a timely and efficient manner that simply must take precedence. As demonstrated by its own study, Edmonds is currently spending more than the average American city does per capita on tree maintenance. Edmonds should focus on the following basic activities pertaining to tree maintenance:
The replacement of dead and dangerous trees on public property, and the prioritizing of limited future tree plantings that will impact the city's public image, desirability and enjoyment in heavily accessed public areas.
Planting of a limited pre determined number of trees each year to prevent erosion issues on a priority
basis within strict financial and assessment guidelines. The rejection of any "heritage tree" program that will impact the property rights of any private property.
The development of tree regulations so they are easily understood by not only tree professionals, but the public, removing the necessity of imposing increased licensing requirements for those working with trees
in the private sector, and creating confusion and concern amongst residents.
Reliance on the private and non profit sector to provide educational information about the importance and care of trees to private property owners.
A voluntary financing mechanism for those who wish to contribute to increasing the city's tree canopy at
public locations.
Resist the establishment of initiating a formal tree bureaucracy that will increase the cost of government through increased salaries, benefits and expanded governmental activities. The percentage of trees on
public property is only thirteen percent of the entire city inventory. The necessity to create a new layer of bureaucracy has not been demonstrated to be required over the past one hundred and twenty eight years
that Edmonds has been an incorporated city.
The Urban Forest Master Plan makes repeated references to a "Tree City USA" designation. What exactly is that Tree City USA designation anyway? It is a program sponsored by the Arbor Day
Foundation. The Arbor Day Foundation is not a governmental agency. It is a non profit 501(C)(3) organization.
To obtain Tree City USA designation, which the city of Edmonds attained in 2011, one year after the
Edmonds tree board was established, the applying jurisdiction must meet the four criteria established by the Arbor Day Foundation
Establish a Tree Board or Department Establish a Tree Care Ordinance.
Provide that the jurisdiction is spending at least two dollars per capita for tree maintenance activities.
Establish an annual Arbor Day celebration.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
While maintaining and increasing the tree canopy in Edmonds on pubic and private property may be a just and noble cause, there are thousands of private groups functioning in the United States, all believing that they too are promoting just and noble causes that take priority over all other issues. The fact that Edmonds has obtained the designation of "Tree City USA", is irrelevant to most residents of Edmonds. Of much greater concern to most residents are the appropriate and effective allocation of tax revenues, the limitation of further tax increases including but not limited to property tax increases, and the
protection of private property rights, which over the years have faced both greater risks and degradation than the Edmonds tree canopy. The December 2014 draft Tree Conservation ordinance that was ultimately rejected, declared in part that: " The City Of Edmonds makes the following findings:
A. The trees of Edmonds: ........................................................
12. Contribute to human health by lowering levels of fear of residents, and less violent and aggressive
behavior by its citizens; 13. Encourage better neighbor relations and better coping skills for its residents".
The above findings of fact are probably more fanciful wishful thinking than based upon empirical and verifiable evidence. If correct, Manhattan, NYC with its virtual total lack of neighborhood trees should
have one of the highest rates of violent crime with residents afraid to depart from their homes, The reality is that Manhattan is one of the safest and pedestrian traveled cities in the world. Furthermore, most
Manhattanites exhibit superior coping skills than most Americans, given the environment they must endure on a daily basis, and they do it often without ever encountering even a single tree the entire day.
More universally accepted is the concept that private property rights form the foundation of a free
society. It is suggested that for any proposed legislation that impacts private property rights, either directly or indirectly through increased taxation, the following finding of fact be included in any future
legislation.
The City Of Edmonds makes the following findings:
"So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the entire community"
William Blackstone, eminent English jurist, 1723 -1780.
After all, the issue at hand is not some undeclared war against trees by individuals who hate cleaning their gutters or roofs as a result of falling tree debris. It is part of a broader concern about the erosion of
property rights in general, and the expansion of and increased cost of government bureaucracy and its negative effects on property owners, renters and businesses.
There will be a public hearing on this matter on May 9th, 7PM in council chambers at Edmonds City
Hall. All who are interested in protecting private property rights, as well as preventing another potential expensive and intrusive expansion of local government should attend and voice their concerns. If citizens are not informed, not vigilant, and are unwilling to become politically involved when their property rights are threatened by special interests and government intrusion, those rights, as well as their
bank accounts will continue to be eroded over time.
Eric Soll Edmonds WA
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 8:11 PM
To: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Draft Urban Forest Management Plan Upcoming Hearing
I have reviewed the Urban Forest Management Plan Draft May 2018 and would like to add my comments and concerns. The City should limit its involvement to maintaining and keeping healthy the existing trees and where necessary for safety reasons, removing those trees. As stated in the Urban Forest Management Plan, 83% of the trees are privately owned. Therefore, the City owns only a small percentage of the trees and already seems to have expended a great deal of expense in staff time and consulting fees considering that their percentage is so small. Your goals are very far reaching, and while many are in fact admirable, I believe they are beyond the scope of what government should be
providing. The city government's role with respect to its "urban forest" should be limited to city owned property and limited to maintaining city owned trees in healthy condition and if necessary removing any unsafe trees. This proposal stretches far beyond this. It is not the City's role to “Illustrate the value and benefits of trees" and "educate" the public as stated in your Draft. There are many volunteer organizations that have that ground covered already and many public opportunities to share that knowledge such as at Puget Sound BirdFest, Edmonds Wildlife Habitat Project, Edmonds Watershed Fun Fair, etc.. The City's limited resources and dollars should be spent on legitimate City needs and functions. For instance, after 5 plus years of asking and being on a waiting list, we finally had our culdesac paved after living with potholes and the entire street's asphalt crumbling for many years. If it takes that long to maintain our streets, then perhaps we should be adding additional maintenance workers rather than an arborist and using staff time for surveys and draft proposals, not to mention the extensive consulting fees incurred in preparing a 115 page Draft. And speaking of roadways -- I would like to point out that a graph in your study states that 34% of the City of Edmonds consists of impervious surfaces - which would include parking lots and roadways - and a far higher percentage of impervious surfaces vs. trees. Should we hire a consultant to bring to the City's attention that there are now non-impervious or permeable paving options available - should we dig up our streets and roads and replace them all with permeable materials to aid in mitigating the run off into the Sound? Of course not. I have mason bee houses on our property to encourage and facilitate this pollinator - without bees we would not have all the flowers, plants, fruits and vegetables that we take for granted. Pesticides in the garden are not good for pollinators. Should the City contract with consultants to explore this issue and engage a Bee Board to restrict the use of pesticides in homeowners' gardens? Of course not. Trees, run off, mason bees - all are certainly noble causes. So whose favorite cause should receive the largesse of city government? Again, I cannot emphasize this enough - the City should restrict itself and the spending of its citizens' hard earned tax dollars to essential government functions. Regarding the current definition being used to describe trees in the UFMP, "Urban Forest" is described as "a combination of both public and private trees". Although the Draft purports to cover or have control over only community (City) owned trees, throughout the document when stating its goals, the Draft refers generally throughout to the Urban Forest. As by your own definition that includes both City and Private trees. This should be clarified so that it cannot at a later date be used to encompass trees on privately owned property. The City has a responsibility to maintain and care for community trees but trees on privately owned property should not be included in that mandate. The language in the Draft should be clear so that it is not misconstrued - that the goals in the Draft cover only City owned not privately owned property. I believe the City should limit itself in scope and not expand its role to this extent or spend limited resources in an area that seems to be managing quite well on its own. Please do not dismiss my comments as anti-tree. I have a certified wildlife backyard. I have planted over 40 trees and several hundred shrubs, plants and groundcovers on our 9,500 square foot residential lot in Edmonds. Many of these are native plants specifically selected for a wildlife garden. I have streams, ponds, mason bee houses, bat houses, bird houses, nesting boxes, bird feeders etc. But these are my personal choices to create a backyard habitat and increase the wildlife corridors, and I did not need advice or education from the City to accomplish this. In conclusion, please concentrate City resources on essential functions, do not expand governmental bureaucracy, and respect private property rights and do not impose the Draft UFMP on private property. Thank you for considering my comments. Kathleen Ryan, Edmonds resident.
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
May 9, 2018
Public Comment to Planning Board re Draft Urban Forestry Management Plan
Dear Esteemed Planning Board members,
My name is Val Stewart and I have lived in Edmonds over 30 years. I currently
reside in Bellevue and formerly served on the Planning Board for almost 8 years.
I have learned that 87% of the existing tree canopy is on private property. That
means public property only contains 13 percent. I was surprised to learn that. To
me that means we need to do public outreach to property owners in the greater
community to effectively increase our tree canopy.
I still have a house on the edge of the Bowl and have watched the transformation
of canopy loss over the last 3 decades. Edmonds is now down to 30% canopy
cover and losing more each month. There used to be so much more wildlife. Now
there’s a lot less habitat for them to use. My property is a National Wildlife
Federation certified Backyard Wildlife Habitat. That means I have committed to
providing water, shelter, food and a place to raise young for wildlife on my
property. Edmonds became a Community Backyard Wildlife Habitat over 10 years
ago. I was on the team that helped create that. There are hundreds of residences,
businesses, and City properties that have become certified since then. That’s a
commitment to providing native habitat including native trees and plants. The
Edmonds Wildlife Habitat Project should be mentioned in the plan. There needs to
be a renewed effort to rejuvenate this program.
It was heartening to see that Yost Park was recognized as an example of what native
habitat looks like. The Discovery Program through Parks, Recreation, and Cultural
Services utilizes Yost Park for interpretive hikes and nature awareness for
elementary school aged kids. I was once a part of that when I was a park ranger.
We are blessed in this community to have such a strong environmental education
program. It deserves ongoing support and also should be credited in the Draft
UFMP for educating our younger generation to become good stewards.
There is obvious forest fragmentation throughout the City. It’s essential that
connections be available for wildlife in neighborhood yards. Pretty soon we won’t
be hearing the birds sing. And someday our youth may have to go to the parks in
order to connect with nature since most new development we’re seeing takes a site
down to scratch and builds to the maximum footprint and hard surface area
allowable. For this reason, I am not a fan of a “fees in lieu” program since I see it as
giving developers permission to take down all trees indiscriminately and then
assuage guilt by paying a little money into a tree bank.
And whatever happened to the Green Building movement in this City? One of the
basic tenets of green building is to assess the site for its natural assets and
incorporate those into your project instead of eliminating them. It would be
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
worthwhile now if we want to preserve mature canopy to incentivize green building
by issuing priority permitting for those who go this route.
Allowing Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADU) on sufficiently sized mature
lots would also help protect what canopy exists in the older neighborhoods rather
than see all larger lots divided up and maxed out with buildings.
I’m in favor of a voluntary Heritage Tree Program. A permit could be required to cut
any tree over a designated Dbh. Permits could be inexpensive and education
provided for the homeowner and perhaps notice given to all neighbors within 300
feet. There could be a fund for donations along with some City money to help
maintain Heritage Trees. I support the Seattle criteria for their Heritage Tree
Program (paraphrased):
• A tree of exceptional size, form, or rarity
• A tree recognized by virtue of its age and its contribution to history
• Trees that are a landmark of a community or neighborhood
• A notable grove or collection of trees
When older trees are cut down, we set ourselves back generations and destroy a
complex ecosystem that has been evolving for often a hundred years or more. I was
struck by the following passage on p. 57 Draft UFMP: “Tree physiology for most trees
in Western Washington can take up to 7 years to establish after planting, and another
10 years before they reach functional maturity. Trees provide the majority of their
ecosystem services when they reach functional maturity.” That’s 17 years! So when
you take down a hundred year old tree ask yourself how many human generations it
will take to replace that complex ecosystem and all it supported.
I liked the idea on p. 45 Draft UFMP; UW-REN (UW-Restoration Ecology Network).
This would integrate students, faculty and community interests in ecological
restoration and conservation; a win-win all the way around. Anytime we can get
students involved, the better! Take Students Saving Salmon as an example.
Goal #UA7 (p. 65 Draft UFMP) asks the City to provide a report which documents
Ecosystem Services provided by Public Trees. I do think it’s critically important for
ecosystem services be quantified via dollar amounts to inform budgets and
planning.
There are native trees that could be used in public places and ROW. The consultant
is from out of the area so there was not much reference to our native species here in
the Northwest. The dominant species that occupy Yost Park are western red cedar,
red alder, big leaf maple, western hemlock and douglas fir; all of which get very tall.
These would certainly not be good choices along street corridors. There are
numerous smaller native trees such as bitter cherry and vine maple that could be
suitable. The street tree plan comes up for revision periodically as was mentioned
in the Draft UFMP. Understandably trees selected to be along streets and sidewalks
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
need to have certain characteristics and are often non-native. I think native trees
should be planted where possible though.
On p. 69 of the Planning Board packet, referencing a tree board comment:
trees “provide benefits to the community beyond property lines.” These benefits are
listed in the Draft UFMP. All of them contribute to the greater good including the
health and wellbeing of our collective community; humans and wildlife alike.
Maintaining an urban forest is critical to our survival and an integral component of our
complex ecosystem.
Thank you for all the work that has gone into this plan so far and your thoughtful
consideration of public comments.
Respectfully,
Val Stewart
Edmonds property owner
7.1.g
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Att. 7: Public Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Proposed Urban Forest Management Plan)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Ordinance Approving the Vacation of Unopened Right-of-Way Adjacent to the Southern Boundaries of
10410 and 10430 231st St. SW (PLN20170052)
Staff Lead: Jen Machuga
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
Ken Gunn submitted a petition to vacate that portion of unopened right-of-way lying directly south of
10430 231st St. SW beginning at the western boundary of 10430 231st St. SW and running east to the
eastern boundary of 10410 231st St. SW in the fall of 2017. The City Council considered the right-of-way
vacation request in a public hearing on March 20, 2018. Following the close of the public hearing, the
City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to Vacate (Exhibit 2) stating certain conditions that must be
met within 90 days prior to the City completing the vacation.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Ordinance in Exhibit 1 vacating that portion of unopened
right-of-way lying directly south of 10430 231st St. SW beginning at the western boundary of 10430 231st
St. SW and running east to the eastern boundary of 10410 231st St. SW.
Narrative
An application and petition was filed with the City to vacate that portion of unopened right-of-way lying
directly south of 10430 231st St. SW beginning at the western boundary of 10430 231st St. SW and
running east to the eastern boundary of 10410 231st St. SW. This right-of-way is 20 feet wide and
extends a length of approximately 320 feet. No public utilities are located within this portion of
unopened right-of-way; however, one known private utility (a stormwater line owned by the Edmonds
School District) has been confirmed to be located within this portion of unopened right-of-way. The
application included a petition signed by more than two-thirds of the adjacent property owners.
Following the close of the public hearing on March 20, 2018, the Council adopted a Resolution of Intent
to Vacate (Resolution No. 1405). The resolution identified two conditions to be met within 90 days of
the adoption of the resolution before the City would complete the vacation. These conditions are
provided in italics below with reference to the exhibits documenting compliance with the stated
conditions:
1. The petitioners shall deposit $28,800 with the City of Edmonds, which is one-half the appraised
value of the vacation property, and which money, upon adoption of an ordinance vacating the
property, shall belong to the City of Edmonds.
Staff Response: Kenneth Gunn submitted a check in the amount of $28,800 to the City on May
8, 2018 (Exhibit 3).
8.1
Packet Pg. 394
2. The abutting underlying fee owner(s) shall convey easement(s) to the Edmonds School District
allowing the continuing use, repair, and maintenance of the District’s stormwater line after the
City’s vacation of the right-of-way. The easement(s) shall be recorded with Snohomish County’s
real property records.
Staff Response: A private utility easement to the Edmonds School District for their stormwater
line was recorded on May 8, 2018 under Snohomish County Auditor’s File No. 201805080063
(Exhibit 4).
The meeting minutes from the March 20, 2018 hearing are included for reference as Exhibit 5.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - Street Vacation Ordinance
Exhibit 2 - Resolution of Intent to Vacate (No. 1405)
Exhibit 3 - Receipt for Payment of 1/2 Appraisal Value
Exhibit 4 - Recorded Easement AFN201805080063
Exhibit 5 - City Council Minutes Excerpt 3-20-18
8.1
Packet Pg. 395
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, VACATING THAT PORTION OF
UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE
SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES OF 10410 AND 10430 231ST STREET SOUTHWEST AS SET FORTH IN THE RESOLUTION OF INTENT NO. 1405, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018 the Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution
No. 1405 stating its intent to vacate that portion of unopened right-of-way lying directly south of
10430 231st St. SW beginning at the western boundary of 10430 231st St. SW and running east to
the eastern boundary of 10410 231st St. SW; and,
WHEREAS, certain conditions were set forth therein for the vacation; including
1) payment of $28,800 for one-half the appraised value of the vacated right-of-way, and 2)
reservation of easement(s) to the Edmonds School District allowing the continuing use, repair,
and maintenance of the District’s stormwater line within the vacated right-of-way.
WHEREAS, the staff has reported to the City Council that all such conditions
have been met within the ninety (90) day period set in the resolution; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
EXHIBIT 1
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Street Vacation Ordinance (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
- 2 -
Section 1. That portion of unopened right-of-way lying directly south of 10430
231st St. SW beginning at the western boundary of 10430 231st St. SW and running east to the
eastern boundary of 10410 231st St. SW as described in the attached Exhibit A and shown on the
attached Exhibit B, is hereby vacated.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY ______ JEFFREY B. TARADAY, CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ________
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ________ PUBLISHED: ________ EFFECTIVE DATE: ________ ORDINANCE NO. _____
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Street Vacation Ordinance (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
- 3 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of June, 2018, 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, VACATING THAT PORTION OF UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES OF 10410 AND 10430 231ST STREET SOUTHWEST AS SET FORTH IN THE RESOLUTION OF INTENT NO. 1405, 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 June, 2018.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Street Vacation Ordinance (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Street Vacation Ordinance (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Street Vacation Ordinance (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Street Vacation Ordinance (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Street Vacation Ordinance (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
EXHIBIT 2
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Resolution of Intent to Vacate (No. 1405) (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Resolution of Intent to Vacate (No. 1405) (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Resolution of Intent to Vacate (No. 1405) (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Resolution of Intent to Vacate (No. 1405) (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020
PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221
PERMIT FEES/ RECEIPT
DATE:Thursday, May 31, 2018
PERMIT #:PLN20170052
PROJECT ADDRESS: 10430 231ST ST SW, EDMONDS
PROP OWNER:
10430 231ST ST SW
EDMONDS, WA 98020-5105
(206) 542-1549
*FEE SUMMARY:
Date Description Fee Amount Paid Balance Due
10/30/2017 P-Land Use Fee $6,350.00 ($6,350.00)$0.00
10/30/2017 X-Technology Fee $35.00 ($35.00)$0.00
03/21/2018 E-Street Vacation (1/2 Appriased Value of ROW)$28,800.00 ($28,800.00)$0.00
Total Due:$35,185.00 ($35,185.00)$0.00
*FEES ARE ESTIMATED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED AT SUBMITTAL-SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS:
DATE RECEIPT #METHOD PAYEE/COMMENT AMOUNT
10/30/2017 REC071183 CHECK - 3588 KENNETH W & MARLA KAY GUNN ($6,385.00)
001.000.345.81.000.00 P-Land Use Fee ($6,350.00)001.000.321.99.100.00 X-Technology Fee ($35.00)
05/08/2018 REC073045 CHECK - 3582 KENNETH + MARLA KAY GUNN ($28,800.00)
111.000.395.10.000.00 E-Street Vacation ($28,800.00)
EXHIBIT 3
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Receipt for Payment of 1/2 Appraisal Value (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
EXHIBIT 4
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Recorded Easement AFN201805080063 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Recorded Easement AFN201805080063 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Recorded Easement AFN201805080063 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Recorded Easement AFN201805080063 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Recorded Easement AFN201805080063 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Recorded Easement AFN201805080063 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Recorded Easement AFN201805080063 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Recorded Easement AFN201805080063 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Recorded Easement AFN201805080063 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.d
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Recorded Easement AFN201805080063 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
EXHIBIT 5
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - City Council Minutes Excerpt 3-20-18 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - City Council Minutes Excerpt 3-20-18 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - City Council Minutes Excerpt 3-20-18 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
8.1.e
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - City Council Minutes Excerpt 3-20-18 (Ordinance Approving Gunn Street Vacation (PLN20170052))
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Job Descriptions -Public Works Senior Accountant
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: MaryAnn Hardie
Background/History
Public Works is requesting approval for a Senior Accountant job description and position. This position
will have an integral role in the daily financial work and budgeting performed in the Public Works
Department and the work performed in this position will be directly connected with the Finance Senior
Accountant position.
The wage range for this EEA/WSCCCE union position is NE 15. The current wage range will be $6,221 -
$8,336 per month (2017 wages). With the wage range for this position for the Senior Accountant
position (reporting to Finance, that was approved in the 2018 budget), this position had 7 steps (on the
non-represented position pay scale). This updated position, when classified into the union will also have
an additional step (of 5%) added (Step 7) to ensure comparability to the existing, approved pay range to
ensure pay equity and recruitment competitiveness. The pay range noted reflects the additional 7th step.
Staff Recommendation
Discussed at the 6/12/18 Public Safety, Personnel & Planning and Finance Committee meeting(s).
Approval by Council for the consent agenda at the 6/26/18 meeting.
Narrative
The Public Works Senior Accountant position will provide data and evaluation for updating Public Works
capital asset records, provide periodic reports to the Public Works Director and Finance Department to
ensure assets are accurately recorded in the City’s capital asset system; and will accurately record and
document Public Works capital asset dispositions and trade-ins. This position will also prepare and
submits accurate and timely Public Works Department Capital Work In Progress status reports as
required by the Finance Department. Additionally, this position is responsible for preparing Public Works
Department grant agency invoicing and reimbursements to ensure that grant and contract work is
reimbursed to the City in a timely manner and providing similar services for other departmental grants
being managed by the Public Works Department and is responsible for working as the key Public Works
Department team member in developing the text and data necessary to prepare any revenue bond
statements for reports on existing debt as well as for new borrowings.
This position will be vital to assisting in the management and auditing of financial processes specific to
the capital asset, CIP and grant and contract work at the City as well as risk and compliance.
The draft job description is attached.
Attachments:
8.2
Packet Pg. 422
Draft - PW Senior Accountant Job Description -6.18
8.2
Packet Pg. 423
Draft Senior Accountant Job Description June 2018
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS ACCOUNTANT
Department: Public Works Pay Grade: NE-15
Bargaining Unit: EEA/WSCCCE FLSA Status: Non-exempt
Revised Date: May 2018 Reports To: Public Works Director
POSITION PURPOSE: Under the supervision of the Public Works Director (Director), performs professional
accounting activities and functions for the Public Works Department. Responsibilities include departmental project
and grant accounting; management of utility rate studies, rate calculations, and comparative rate analyses;
participating and acting as a financial advisor to the Director and Departmental Managers in the development of
the City’s Capital Improvement Program, Transportation Improvement Program, and Comprehensive Plans for
Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Divisions; organizing and participating in the preparation of the Department’s
annual budget and financial reports; developing the Public Works Department long-range financial planning inputs
to the Finance Department; consistently applying Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP),
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) principles, guidelines established by granting or contracting
agencies, and City financial policies; understanding and applying the Washington State Budgeting, Accounting,
and Reporting System (BARS); and ensuring accuracy and confidentiality of information. Provides leadership,
procedural support, and guidance to staff assigned to work on capital projects and grants. Provides guidance and
direction to professional, technical, clerical, temporary and/or intern personnel as needed.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees
in this classification, but only as a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s)
assigned to this position are expected to perform the responsibilities of the Accountants and may or may not be
required to perform all duties listed, and may be required to perform additional, position-specific duties.
Provides data and evaluation for updating Public Works capital asset records, provide periodic reports to
the Public Works Director and Finance Department to ensure assets are accurately recorded in the City’s
capital asset system; accurately records and documents Public Works capital asset dispositions and
trade-ins.
Prepares and submits accurate and timely Public Works Department Capital Work In Progress status
reports as required by the Finance Department.
Responsible for preparing Public Works Department grant agency invoicing and reimbursements to
ensure that grant and contract work is reimbursed to the City in a timely manner. Provides similar services
for other departmental grants being managed by the Public Works Department.
Responsible for working as the key Public Works Department team member in developing the text and
data necessary to prepare any revenue bond statements for reports on existing debt as well as for new
borrowings.
Responsible for providing Public Works Department forecasts and summaries to the Finance Department
and the Public Works Director for use in the development of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Following guidance and policies established by the Finance Department, establishes and maintains
project accounting codes and structures to ensure a consistent application of these policies across all
Divisions in the Public Works Department.
Responsible for providing confidential research reports and analysis as requested for the Public Works
Department labor negotiating representatives.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Draft - PW Senior Accountant Job Description -6.18 (Job Description-Public Works Senior Accountant)
Draft Senior PW Accountant Job Description June 2018
Responsible for developing the information required by the Director to respond to budget questions and
accounting inquiries from other department directors, Councilmembers, and citizens.
Responsible for coordinating Public Works Department submittals to Finance for completion of the fixed
asset reconciliation.
Responsible for preparing and maintaining a variety of reports, including preparing and presenting staff
reports and other necessary correspondence as requested by the Director
Responsible for preparing ad hoc reports as requested by Public Works Department Divisions, and/or
outside agencies as requested by the Director, and working on a variety of special projects as assigned
by the Director.
Responsible for participating in the preparation of the City’s annual budget by assisting Public Works
Department Division Managers with their budgets; analyzing requested funding levels; preparing assigned
portions of the budget document in coordination with the Director and other staff.
Responsible for providing information as requested by the Director in the preparation of the City’s Long-
range Financial Plan.
May be required to serve as staff on a variety of internal committees.
Attendance at occasional evening meetings may be required to represent the division or department at
City Council meetings.
Responsible for attending and participating in professional group meetings, and maintaining awareness
of new trends and developments in the fields related to the areas assigned.
Responsible for incorporating new developments in management and accounting as assigned, and
ensuring processes, policies and practices are interpreted and applied consistently and effectively within
the Public Works department.
Performs other duties as required.
Required Knowledge of:
Operational characteristics, services and activities of governmental financial management and
accounting.
Public sector accounting principles and practices, including generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP), GASB, BARS, state laws and regulations, city codes and departmental policies.
Preparation of information for inclusion in overall City financial statements and comprehensive accounting
reports, including producing data to be used by the Finance Department in preparing the CAFR and
annual budgets.
Grant recording and reporting for compliance with BARS.
Computer hardware and automated accounting/financial systems.
Techniques in data verification and data entry and proper coding of documents.
Analysis of complex financial statements, reports and systems.
Performing a variety of professional accounting duties, including financial analyses and forecasts.
Principles of customer service and public relations.
Research methods and report preparation and presentation.
Advanced mathematical computations adequate to correctly perform work.
Record-keeping and report writing techniques.
Effective oral and written communication principles and practices, to include public relations.
Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment, including computers and computer applications such
as: word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases.
English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Principles of business letter writing.
Principles and practices of governmental budget preparation and administration.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Draft - PW Senior Accountant Job Description -6.18 (Job Description-Public Works Senior Accountant)
Draft Senior PW Accountant Job Description June 2018
Required Skill in:
Meeting deadlines, working with multiple projects and overseeing, verifying and validating the work of
others, occasionally including those in other departments.
Operating automated accounting systems and general office equipment.
Familiarity with and competency in Microsoft Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Outlook. Competency in Eden,
asset management, and GIS systems desired.
Identifying and reporting discrepancies.
Analyzing and interpreting fiscal and accounting reports.
Preparing informative and statistical reports.
Producing rapid and accurate mathematical computations.
Gathering data and verifying information.
Responding to inquiries from customers, regulatory agencies, audit firms or members of the business
community.
Interpreting and applying federal, state and local policies, laws and regulations.
Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work, and
in compiling and preparing spreadsheets.
Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside
agencies, community groups and the general public.
Interpreting and administering policies and procedures sufficient to administer, discuss, resolve and
explain them.
Maintaining confidentiality and communicating with tact and diplomacy.
Communicating effectively verbally and in writing, including public relations.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
Bachelor’s Degree in Accounting, Finance, Business Administration or related field and three years of
progressively responsible professional accounting and/or financial management experience that includes
experience developing financial reports and recordkeeping, and budget preparation in a medium to large scale
municipal or private sector organization, two years budgeting and accounting experience related to municipal
utilities; OR an equivalent combination of education, training and experience.
Required Licenses or Certifications:
CPA license preferred.
Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check & credit check.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Environment:
Office environment.
Constant interruptions.
Physical Abilities
Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone.
Operating a computer keyboard or other office equipment.
Reading and understanding a variety of materials.
Sitting or otherwise remaining stationary for extended periods of time.
Bending at the waist, reaching above shoulders and horizontally or otherwise positioning oneself to
accomplish tasks.
May have to occasionally lift up to 25 pounds.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Draft - PW Senior Accountant Job Description -6.18 (Job Description-Public Works Senior Accountant)
Draft Senior PW Accountant Job Description June 2018
Hazards:
Occasional contact with angry and/or dissatisfied customers.
Incumbent Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ________________________
Department Head: _______________________________________ Date: ________________________
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Draft - PW Senior Accountant Job Description -6.18 (Job Description-Public Works Senior Accountant)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Edmonds Youth Commission Ordinance
Staff Lead: Maureen Judge
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
At the June 5th City Council meeting, Council President Mike Nelson put forth a proposal to invest in
Edmonds youth by drafting an ordinance to create an Edmonds Youth Commission.
Edmonds-Woodway High School students, Stephany Janssen and Kaleb Nichols made a presentation to
City Council supporting the creation of a Youth Commission. They said there is a need for creating a
place for teenagers to advocate for themselves and to bring attention to issues that affect them. This
commission will give youth an opportunity to gain governing skills; accountability and learn the structure
of local government.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
This ordinance will create the Edmonds Youth Commission. This commission will serve as an advocate
for youth needs and improvement in youth policies, directly engaging the community in the process.
This commission will draft policy proposals and present these proposals to the Mayor and the City
Council; organize forums of Edmonds youth to better educate the City about the opinions of youth on
civic issues affecting both their communities and the city at large; recognize accomplishments of youth
and promote the value of youth in our community.
Attachments:
Youth Commission Draft Ordinance
8.3
Packet Pg. 428
ORDINANCE NO.________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WA AMENDING
THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, TITLE 10, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 10.55 CREATING A YOUTH COMMISSION _______________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, youth civic engagement programs are critical for empowering young people
to develop their skills and talents and become agents of positive change in their communities. WHEREAS, young people raise genuine concerns about their education, health and safety and offer workable options and solutions. Youth efforts and recommendations have
resulted in more accessible services, improved school curricula, and youth-driven safety policies
have helped save lives. WHEREAS, institutionalizing youth voice in the policymaking process both engages young people and helps policymakers make wiser investments and policy decisions responsive to
youth needs.
WHEREAS, it is important to be inclusive in planning and working with youth, placing emphasis on engaging young people who have not traditionally been included in community youth opportunities and recognizing and valuing diversity.
WHEREAS, civic engagement provides young people with opportunities to gain work experience, acquire new skills, and to learn responsibility and accountability—all while contributing to the good of their community.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Code, Title 10, is hereby amended by the adoption of a new
chapter 10.55 Edmonds Youth Commission to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as set forth in full.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance
should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect forty-five
(45) days after final passage of this ordinance.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Youth Commission Draft Ordinance (Edmonds Youth Commission Ordinance)
Attachment A
Ch. 10.55 Edmonds Youth Commission
Sections:
10.55.010 Establishment and purpose of the Commission 10.55.020 Appointment, membership and terms of appointment 10.55.030 Officers of the Commission -Meetings
10.55.040 Powers and Duties
10.55.010 Establishment and purpose of the Commission
There is hereby created an Edmonds Youth Commission and shall consist of 11 members.
The Edmonds Youth Commission is a youth led commission whose mission is to protect,
preserve, and enhance the quality of life for Edmonds youth by advising the City Council and the
public on issues relating to youth policies, programs, and opportunities.
10.55.020 Appointment, membership and terms of appointment
The youth commission may consist of 9 voting members and 2 alternates.
The members of the commission shall be appointed in the following manner:
1. Each council member may appoint one member, positions 2 through 8.
2. The mayor may appoint four members, positions 1 and 9 and alternates 10 and 11.
3. Each member shall serve a term of two years.
4. An alternative commissioner shall be appointed to serve in the event any regular
commissioner is absent or disqualified for any reason. In the event a regular commissioner is
absent or disqualified for any reason, the alternate shall have all the powers of a regular
commissioner.
5. The city council and mayor shall appoint new members to fill the expiring terms on the youth
commission. If, for any reason, a vacancy occurs during the term of a youth commission
member, that position may be deemed vacant by the holder of the office that appointed the
commissioner (e.g., mayor or council member) and such office holder may appoint a
replacement commissioner for the remainder of the unexpired term for that position. Persons
appointed to serve on the commission shall reside within the city of Edmonds city limits.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Youth Commission Draft Ordinance (Edmonds Youth Commission Ordinance)
10.55.030 Officers of the Commission -Meetings
Members of the commission shall meet and organize by election, from the members of the commission, a chair and vice chair and other officers as may be determined by the commission. It shall be the duty of the chair to preside at all meetings. The vice chair shall perform this duty
in the absence of the chair. Five members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business. If a regular member is not present, the alternate member may fulfill the quorum requirement for that meeting and vote accordingly. Otherwise, the alternate may not vote.
10.55.040 Powers and Duties
The duties of the Commission include but are not limited to:
1. Serve as an advocate for youth needs and improvement in youth policies, directly engaging the community in the process;
2. Drafting policy proposals on topics of its choosing and presenting these proposals to the Mayor and the City Council;
3. Organizing forums of Edmonds youth to better educate the City about the opinions of
youth on civic issues affecting both their communities and the city at large;
4. Recognize accomplishments of children and youth and promote the value of youth in our community; and
5. Providing an annual report to the City Council about the Commission's activities.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Youth Commission Draft Ordinance (Edmonds Youth Commission Ordinance)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Council 2019 Budget Goals Discussion
Staff Lead: Maureen Judge
Department: City Council
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The City Council held a budget retreat on Saturday, June 9, 2018. Council roles and responsibilities for
the budget were reviewed and discussed. Councilmembers participated in an exercise where they were
asked to identify goals they would ask the administration to respond to in preparing the preliminary
budget for Council consideration.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Council President Nelson will facilitate a discussion to begin to identify Council Budget goals and next
steps for prioritizing these items for the 2019 Budget. The attached worksheet is an incomplete list of
items brought up at the Budget Retreat that Council may consider for this discussion.
Attachments:
Draft Council Budget Retreat Goals Worksheet
9.1
Packet Pg. 432
DRAFT Council Budget Retreat Goals Worksheet
Categories Subcategories
Land Use
More focus on development code
Art Corridor constructed
Create an Historic District for Downtown Edmonds - BD1
Capital investment to address homelessness in Edmonds
$ for South County Mayor Homeless Project (hotel in Lynnwood)
Protect Neighborhoods
Attract additional high-tech businesses
North & East Edmonds branding program (street banners)
Design and implement the 4th Ave. Cultural Corridor
Environment
More focus on the environment
Restore salmon runs
Meet renewable energy goals
Single-use plastics reduction
Protect the stream corridors in Edmonds
Maintain or improve tree canopy in Edmonds
Restore the ecological function of the Edmonds Marsh
Pedestrian Safety
Safer streets for pedestrians & vehicles
Street safety projects identified & prioritized
High priority short walkways completed
Increase pedestrian safety/Admiral Way crosswalk
Improve fiscal mgmt/ budget process
A new budget process
Create a new budget & calendar approved by the Council
Reserve fund fully funded
Budget fund ordinances reviewed
Uncatergorized Art District designation application completed
More focus on Diversity Education
Add 10 hours per month to Diversity Commisison contract staff
Enhance school safety (like armed school resource officer)
*Capitol Projects
Start 99 improvements
Yost pool replacement
Rebuild Waterfront Center parking lot (city fund 100%)
Additional off-leash dog park
Community/Senior Center Funding
Civic Field construction started
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Draft Council Budget Retreat Goals Worksheet (Council 2019 Budget Goals Discussion)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/19/2018
Council Committee Reports and Minutes
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
This is an opportunity for the Council to report on items discussed in their committee meetings. The
committee meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
FC061218
PPW061218
PSPP061218
10.1
Packet Pg. 434
Minutes
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
June 12, 2018
_________________________________________________________________________________
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Councilmember Dave Teitzel (Chair) Scott James, Finance Director
Councilmember Diane Buckshnis Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Mayor Dave Earling Leif Bjorback, Building Official
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
The meeting was called to order at 7:20 p.m. in the Jury Meeting Room.
2. Development Services Fee Adjustments
Mr. Bjorback reviewed adjustments to the Development Services Fee Schedule, advising the costs
would be passed through to the customer:
Increase in fees to reflect the increase in the state’s surcharged effective July 1
Minor adjustments proposed by the Fire Marshal to standardize permit fees for fire alarms and
fire sprinklers
New fees added to the Engineering Fee section
o Cost recovery for fabrication of private development-related fire and aid signage and private
drive signs performed by City’s sign shop
o Fee for staff completion of water and sewer availability letters
Discussion followed regarding who pays for private drive signs and engineering fees based on costs.
Action: Schedule on Consent
1. Salaries & Benefits Budget Amendment - City Clerk's Office
Mr. Passey explained this proposed amendment would allow Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd to train her
successor for two weeks; the cost is approximately $3,500. Ms. Hynd has been with City for 18 years;
she is the fifth employee in five years to retire from the City Clerk’s office, resulting in a complete
turnover of the department during that time. Hynd’s. If approved, the additional amount will be included
with the second quarter budget amendments next month. Staff is interviewing for the position now.
Action: Include in second quarter budget amendments
3. Budget Amendment for LicenseTrak Permit System Implementation
Mr. Chave explained the City is in the midst of implementing a new electronic permitting system; the
cost to implement the entire system is $340,000. The licensing portion of the system was scheduled to
be implemented in 2019 and intended to be included in the 2019 budget. It would be advantageous to
push the licensing implementation into 2018 so that all permit integration and training on the new system
can be done at the same time. A $10,200 discount has also been quoted if the City acquires the licensing
module this year. The licensing was separated into 2019 due to the state’s implementation of the web
portal in 2019. The intent is to include the cost of licensing in the second quarter budget amendments.
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: FC061218 (Council Committee Reports)
06/12/18 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
Action: Include in second quarter budget amendments
4. April 2018 Monthly Financial Report
Mr. Turley reviewed:
33% through year
Many expenses lag behind revenue
Technology Rental Fund (512)
o $300,000 in Small Equipment being moved to Machinery/Equipment for telephone system
Annual interest income is up
REET is up (includes sale of three apartment buildings)
Mr. James reported on the Senior Accountant position, explaining due to differences in job duties in the
departments, a decision was made to split it into two positions, one for Finance and one for Public
Works. This was presented to the PSPP Committee tonight; amending the Senior Accountant-Finance
position will be on the Consent Agenda as it was approved in the 2018 budget and the Senior Public
Works Accountant will have to go through full Council. He commented on the job duties for each
position.
Discussion followed regarding Footnote 1 related to grant billings, hiring of a Senior Accountant,
justification for another 1.0 FTE Senior Accountant for Public Works, job responsibilities for Finance
Senior Accountant and the Senior Public Works Accountant, why no funds are budgeted for the BID,
BID expenditures in 2017 and 2018, the cost of WCIA driven by claims, water fund construction project
carryover, moving the CIP/CFP process earlier in year, carryforwards in first quarter budget
amendments, timing of Police Department holiday buyback, Police Department overtime and unfilled
positions, and overtime in Development Services & Planning. Mr. James suggested project decision
packages state whether it is a multiyear project so Council is aware there may be carryover.
Suggestions:
Add footnote regarding BID Fund 140 regarding why no funds are budgeted
Add footnote to Other Misc Revenue/Expense regarding bridge loan to PFD
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
5. Review of City Travel Policy
Mr. James explained finance policies are adopted by resolution; travel policies are in the code. He
preferred travel policies remain in the code as that carries more weight. He also recommended travel
policies in the personnel policy refer to the code. He recommended other minor amendments to the
code to reference Uber, Lyft, etc., to omit telephone expenses, etc. Discussion followed regarding the
requirement for travel and training requests for Council and boards and commission to be approved by
the Council President, guidelines for the Council President to approve travel and training requests, and
non-allowable expenses. Minor amendments were suggested to the language in the policy.
Action: Make minor amendments to the code language and amend the personnel policy to refer to the
code. Present to PSPP Committee (revisions do not need to come back to Finance Committee).
6. Long-range Financial Planning Committee Presentation of Draft Update to Reserve
Policy
Mr. James explained the reserve policy was developed in 2012; things have changed since then
including fund balance definitions and how rating agencies review financials. The City of Fresno’s policy
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: FC061218 (Council Committee Reports)
06/12/18 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 3
was used as a basis for the proposed draft policy. The City’s current reserve policy is 8-16%. During
discussion, Mr. James and Mr. Turley distributed and reviewed:
Bainbridge, Everett, Lynnwood, Shoreline’s reserve fund amounts
Graph of sales tax revenues 2007-2014
Recession Revenue Loss & Expenditure Reduction Summary
Budget and expenditures from Risk Management Fund 2015-2017
Mr. James described the goal to increase the City’s bond rating from AA to AAA. The proposed policy
is comprehensive; it describes the policy, objectives, definitions, and criteria for establishing appropriate
fund balance reserve levels. He reviewed the proposed policy and recommended the committee
consider:
Incorporating the Contingency Reserve into the General Fund – committee agreed
Eliminating Risk Management Reserve – committee agreed
Establishing a capital fund for utilities – vet with Public Works Director first
Establishing a policy related to the Pavement Condition Index and fund to that level instead of
a Street Construction reserve fund
Discussion included the purpose for revising the reserve policy, other local cities’ reserve policies, the
City’s experience during the recession, GFOA recommendation regarding reserve policy, concern the
draft policy is too complicated, projects the City may need to bond for such as construction of Civic
Park, a suggestion to bring a decision regarding bonding for Civic to Council, savings to the City via a
good bond rating, how bond ratings are established, effect reserve amounts have on bond ratings, cost
of bonding with AAA versus AA rating, Equipment Rental fund (Fund 511) balance, purpose of the Risk
Management Fund, staff’s research of the way cities insure against risk, General Fund Operating
Reserve versus General Fund Stabilization Reserve, increasing reserves during good economic times,
ensuring the policy is as clear and streamlined as possible, policy for use of funds in the Stabilization
Reserve, researching how other cities have achieved a AAA rating, Council approval for use of reserve
funds, basing reserve fund percentage on revenue or expense, establishing a policy regarding LEOFF
1 expenditures, lack of financial reporting in 2010, and the purpose of reserve amounts.
Action: Staff make revisions to the draft policy and schedule for study session at City Council in July
Mr. Williams explained a Senior Accountant position that would be shared by Finance and Public Works
was approved in the 2018 budget. Issues have arisen regarding the capacity of one person, their skill
set and focus and who they would report to. Public Works and Utilities has a $40 million budget and
needs a staff person to assist with daily financial work, budgeting, CIP, rate studies, grant management,
capital asset management, etc. He referred to the job description for the Senior Public Works
Accountant and the Senior Accountant-Finance.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
10.1.a
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: FC061218 (Council Committee Reports)
Minutes
PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
June 12, 2018
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Councilmember Neil Tibbott (Chair) Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Councilmember Kristiana Johnson Rob English, City Engineer
Mayor Dave Earling (portion of meeting)
The meeting was called to order at 7:25 p.m. in the Council Chambers. An Update on Transportation
Projects was added as agenda item 7.
1. 238th St. SW No Parking Ordinance
Mr. English identified the proposed no parking zones on the south side of 238th Street SW from 100th
Avenue to 101st Place and from 102nd Avenue to 104th Avenue. He identified areas where parking will
be allowed. He identified the Klahaya Pool on 238th where swim meets create additional parking needs,
noting the no parking zones will allow the Police Department to provide enforcement. Mr. English
responded to questions regarding parking for people attending swim meets at Klahaya, width of paved
area where parking is allowed, installation of no-parking signs and input from neighbors.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
2. Presentation of Supplemental Agreement with Stantec Consulting
Mr. English provided background since 2014 when the City hired Stantec to provide design for the 2015
Waterline Replacement project which included work within the Swedish Edmonds Hospital Campus. At
that time Swedish was also planning a parking structure and hospital addition and requested the work
be delayed until those were completed. It was also determined Swedish had only one source of water
and the meter needed to be replaced.
Mr. English reviewed the initial replacement alignment and an alternate alignment identified in 2016
which, 1) reduces the project risk, 2) reduces overall construction time by 2-3 weeks, and 3) $200,000-
$250,00 cost savings. The supplemental agreement is the additional cost to complete the design work
for the new alignment; the proposed fee is approximately $75,000 paid by the Waste Utility Replacement
Fund. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2019. In addition to the new meter, the hospital will make
improvements to their plumbing to allow a source connection near the meter so that an emergency
supply of water could be connected if necessary. Discussion followed regarding Swedish’s replacement
of much of the waterline during their improvements, funding provided by the annual waterline
replacement program, how the savings would be used, and backup water supply for the hospital.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
3. Presentation of a Utility Easement for a New Ground Water Monitoring Well at 16116
72nd Ave
Mr. English explained the 2018 budget included stormwater funding to complete a geotechnical
evaluation of the slope adjacent to the Lorain Woods neighborhood, the location of a slope failure in
October 2017. Data collection requires two borings; the upper boring is on private property at 16116
10.1.b
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: PPW061218 [Revision 1] (Council Committee Reports)
06/12/18 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 2
72nd Ave W. The borings will also be used to monitor groundwater levels over time. The property owner
gave permission for the City to install and monitor the well. Discussion followed regarding the easement
running with the property and no compensation required for the easement.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
4. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Murraysmith for the Five Corners
Reservoir Recoating Project
Mr. English provided background on previous professional services supplemental agreements with
Murraysmith. The original scope assumed 20 submittals and Murraysmith has now reviewed 32. The
additional budget proposed in the supplement agreement will provide funding for 15 additional
submittals for a total of 45 and will be paid by the Water Utility Fund. The project is currently within
budget. Discussion followed regarding responsibility for maintaining the site, oversight of the contractor,
removal of trees and protection of existing trees, seismic upgrades,
Councilmember Johnson referred to a cluster of trees that were removed and another cluster that were
retained and required to be protected to the drip line. She requested the tree protection be inspected.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
5. Final Acceptance and Report on Final Construction Costs for the 2017 Sanitary Sewer
Replacement Project
Mr. English explained the project was awarded to Shoreline Construction in May 2017. The contract
award amount was $924,171 with a management reserve of $92,417. The project replaced
approximately 2,500 linear feet of 10-inch to 18-inch sewer main. Three change orders as well as a
reconciliation change order brought the final cost to $958,796. The project is now complete. Mr. English
responded to a question regarding the reconciliation change order.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
6. Supplemental Agreement with KBA for the 76th Ave and 212th St Intersection
Improvements Project
Mr. English relayed plans for paving, striping and other miscellaneous work this summer to complete
the intersection. KBA was hired to provide construction management support. This supplemental
agreement in the amount of $24,025 will provide additional construction management services to
support the City’s project manager in preparing and securing the necessary documentation for the
upcoming work and to closeout the project once the work is completed. Discussion followed regarding
why paving was delayed until this summer, the boundaries of the new paving and the visual effect of
undergrounding utilities.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
7. Updates
Senior Accountant (Finance) & Senior Accountant (PW)
Mr. Williams explained the 2018 budget included a Senior Accountant-Finance, a position that was
intended to be shared with Finance and Public Works. Due to the difficulty finding suitable candidates
with skills sets for both departments, it was agreed there needed to be two separate Senior Accountants,
one for Finance and one Public Works. Public Works has a $40 million budget and needs its own finance
person. The Senior Accountant-Finance was previously approved by Council; staff recommends
10.1.b
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: PPW061218 [Revision 1] (Council Committee Reports)
06/12/18 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 3
Council authorize an additional position. Discussion followed regarding the PW Senior Accountant’s
responsibilities such as grant management, current lack of capacity in Public Works for these tasks,
who this person would report to, whether this position could do tasks that are currently outsourced to
consultants, Finance Director’s support for a PW Senior Accountant, amending the Senior Accountant-
Finance job description to eliminate reference to Public Works, the Finance Department’s need for a
Senior Accountant, discussion of this position with the PSPP and Finance Committees, concern with
adding a new position, and how the PW Senior Accountant will coordinate with Finance.
Transportation Projects
Pine Street – Mr. Williams reported staff is planning a meeting with the neighbors (will inform
Council of date/time), considering design solutions and meeting with the Police Department
regarding enforcement. Discussion followed regarding this being a street engineering issue not
a traffic calming issue, improving pedestrian safety, drivers using Pine Street as an arterial
although it is a local street, new technology than can gather data where traffic is coming from
and going to, residents’ description of traffic patterns, who is using Pine Street as a cut-through
to the ferry, concern with drivers not stopping at stop signs, concern with the lack of sidewalks,
amount of right-of-way on Pine Street, and increasing traffic enforcement.
Bell Street & 7th Parking – Mr. Williams explained the street is narrower with the construction
of sidewalks, but it was constructed according to City code (24 feet curb to curb). Staff is meeting
with the neighborhood on Monday.
Olympic View Drive – Mr. Williams acknowledged issues include the right-of-way, the terrain
and the length. Discussion followed regarding replacing the deteriorated asphalt curbs, previous
reduction in the speed limit, police enforcement and radar feedback signs that found limited
problems with speeding, perception of speed when walking on the sidewalk, other projects on
the long walkway list, developing a strategy for addressing high priority projects in the short and
long walkway plans, cost to construct sidewalks, and an Admiral Way crosswalk.
In-house walkway construction crew – Mr. Williams commented the booming economy
makes short-term hiring members of the concrete union nearly impossible. Discussion followed
regarding difficulty having existing staff construct sidewalks due to existing responsibilities, and
a recommendation for Public Works to include an in-house crew in their budget.
Councilmember Johnson reported the Council retreat identified four top issues, one of which
was pedestrian safety. Councilmember Tibbott explained of the numerous issues the Council
identified, one of the top four was pedestrian safety which includes walkways, crosswalks, radar
feedback signs.
Meeting between Edmonds School District and Olympic View Water & Sewer District
regarding Madrona K-8 construction project – Mr. Williams reported one meeting was held
and both sides found there may not be as many differences as previously thought. Another
meeting is scheduled this week. The deadline for the district regarding water service is Thursday,
June 21. He described the City’s role in approving the stormwater system and Olympic View’s
concerns with downstream water quality which will likely require longer term monitoring.
Discussion followed regarding concern with drainage to the south and proximity of the school to
the Deer Creek water source.
Councilmember Tibbott requested the PPW Committee be informed of traffic calming requests
submitted by residents. Discussion followed regarding interest in implementing radar feedback signs in
all the locations that make sense, data provided by radar feedback signs, current practice of installing
poles and rotating radar feedback signs, permanently mounted radar feedback signs on Olympic View
Drive, and trailer-mounted versus pole-mounted radar feedback signs.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how the monthly committee meetings were working for staff. Mr. English
answered it was okay, there have been times when items have had to go directly to Council due to
timing.
10.1.b
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: PPW061218 [Revision 1] (Council Committee Reports)
06/12/18 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 4
Action: Staff provide a strategy/options for completing high priority short walkways at next month’s
Finance Committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
10.1.b
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: PPW061218 [Revision 1] (Council Committee Reports)
Minutes
PUBLIC SAFETY, PERSONNEL & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
June 12, 2018
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Councilmember Tom Mesaros (Chair) Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Mayor Dave Earling Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Other Guests Present Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Noal Leonetti, Student Representative Leif Bjorback, Building Official
The meeting was called to order at 7:22 p.m. in the Police Training Room.
3. Job Descriptions - Senior Accountant (Finance) & Senior Accountant (PW)
Ms. Hardie explained the Senior Accountant job description was approved by Council in March 2018.
After further consideration by staff, it was determined two positions would be more appropriate, one
specific to Public Works and one specific to Finance as the job duties and their focus is different.
Mr. Williams explained the original intent was to be efficient with one position, however, 1) there is
enough work for two positions, 2) the job duties are very different and 3) he has wanted/needed a
staff person in Public Works focused on finances as Public Works & Utilities is the largest department
with the most expenditures in the City and the department manages numerous grants. The PW Senior
Accountant would work closely with Finance. Discussion followed regarding the need for Council
approval of a new job title and job description for the Public Works Senior Accountant, Council’s
previous approval of the Senior Accountant (Finance), difficulty filling the Senior Accountant position,
how the PW Senior Accountant would be funded, budget amendment if the PW Senior Accountant is
approved by Council, pay grade and cost of the position, coordination between the positions, and
justification for the PW Senior Accountant position.
Mr. James relayed changes that would be made to the Finance Senior Accountant job description with
the addition of the PW Senior Accountant position such as removing supervisory duties which makes
it a union position and adding disaster response and risk management.
Mayor Earling expressed support for adding the Senior Accountant Public Works position, recognizing
the difficulty filling a combined position due to the differences in each department.
Action: Schedule change in job description for Senior Accountant-Finance on Consent Agenda and
schedule new Public Works Senior Accountant position for full Council
4. Job Descriptions (updates) - Water/Sewer & Street/Stormwater Manager
Mr. Williams explained the Water/Sewer and Street/Stormwater Manager job descriptions include a
requirement to possess and maintain a valid commercial driver's license (CDL) with a Class A
airbrake and tanker endorsement. Continuing to require the CDL (which also requires a periodically
medical examination by a DOT certified physician) is an added expense as well to maintain. These
two exempt, managerial positions do not operate equipment in their work duties that requires a CDL.
He recommended their job descriptions be updated to remove the CDL requirement. Discussion
followed regarding managers operating equipment in an emergency, other cities not requiring
manages to have a CDL, and other requirements in their job descriptions.
10.1.c
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: PSPP061218 (Council Committee Reports)
06/12/18 PSPP Committee Minutes, Page 2
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
5. Job description - Building Inspector (Updated)
Mayor Earling expressed support for the proposed change, recognizing the difficulty in attracting high
quality candidates.
Mr. Bjorback explained the entry level Building Inspector position and the next level position,
Combination Building Inspector have nearly the same educational experience requirements and a 9-
10% difference in salary. He reviewed the proposed changes to the education and experience
requirements for the Building Inspector:
Eliminate requirement for two years of building code enforcement experience
Require ICC Certified Building Inspector within 90 days of hire date
Under essential functions and responsibilities, eliminate structural and non-structural plan
review for multifamily and commercial
Ms. Hardie commented these minimum qualifications were similar to other cities. Due to the
competitive market, the salary range is low compared to comparative cities, but that is a separate
issue. Discussion followed regarding educational requirements for the position and allowing a
candidate to obtain the ICC Certified Building Inspector within 90 days of hire date.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
1. Snohomish County Diversion Center Participation Agreement
ACOP Lawless explained Snohomish County Sheriff and Department of Public Health created a
Diversion Center adjacent to the Snohomish County Jail. They are offering agencies the ability to use
the Diversion Center for short-term, transitional housing for homeless individuals with chemical
dependency or mental health issues and will provide a higher level of assistance and supervision.
Participating agencies are required to have an imbedded social worker who also serves as the
individual’s case manager while in the Diversion Center. There is no cost to the City for housing
individuals in the Diversion Center as it is currently operated with grant funds. The agreement has
been approved as to form by the City Attorney.
Discussion followed regarding payment of incidental costs identified by the social worker such as
clothing funded via flex funds the Police Department obtained, the total number of beds (16), number
of beds cities can occupy (2 for Lynnwood and Edmonds combined as they share a social worker),
intent to include funding for a social worker flex fund in the 2019 budget, and other cities that have
embedded social workers.
Action: Schedule for full Council
2. Ordinance Amending ECC 5.05 Adopting New Provision (Leaving Animal Unattended in
Motor Vehicle)
ACOP Lawless relayed the Police Department has the ability to charge a person for cruelty to animals
but the ECC does not currently have a provision specifically prohibiting leaving or confining an animal
unattended in a motor vehicle. The proposed ordinance outlines parameters such as exposure to
excessive heat, cold, lack of ventilation or necessary water. The first and second occurrences would
be infractions and a third or subsequent occurrence would be a misdemeanor.
Action: Schedule for full Council
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
10.1.c
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: PSPP061218 (Council Committee Reports)