The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-11-20 City Council - Full Agenda-2213Agenda Edmonds City Council COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 20, 2018, 7:00 PM Edmonds City Council Agenda November 20, 2018 Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2018 2. Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks. 3. Acknowledge receipt of Claims for an undetermined amount. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing of the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program (20 min) 2. Public Hearing on the 2019 Property Tax Ordinance (30 min) 3. 2019 Proposed Budget Public Hearing (30 min) 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal (30 min) 2. Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process (30 min) 3. Council Budget Amendments Discussion (20 min) 4. Presentation of Supplemental Agreement with Murraysmith for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project (10 min) 5. Drainage Easement at 1015 Bell Street (10 min) 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(I). 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/20/2018 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 13, 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: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes 4.1 Packet Pg. 2 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES November 13, 2018 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Michael Nelson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember (by phone) Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Nicholas Falk, Deputy 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. ROLL CALL Deputy City Clerk Nicholas Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas participated by phone. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO MOVE ACTION ITEM 8 AHEAD OF AGENDA ITEM 7. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. ACTION ITEMS 1. RENEWAL OF ILA WITH MILL CREEK PD FOR DV COORDINATOR SERVICES Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless explained this is the renewal of an ILA for a cost and time share of the Domestic Violence Coordinator with Mill Creek Police Department that originated in 2007. Via the 3-year agreement, the Domestic Violence Coordinator provides Mill Creek Police Department with Domestic Violence Coordinator services for 6 hours/week of her 20 hour/week schedule. Council President Nelson asked if there was any interest in increasing the Domestic Violence Coordinator’s hours for Edmonds or Mill Creek. ACOP Lawless answered staff met with Mill Creek Police Department to discuss that and agreed the hours are meeting both cities’ needs at this time. If a need to increase the Domestic Violence Coordinator’s hours arose, that would be proposed to the City Council along with a new ILA. 4.1.a Packet Pg. 3 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 2 Councilmember Teitzel asked the annual cost. ACOP Lawless estimated the annual cost of salary and benefits for this part-time position at $40,000/year; Mill Creek pays a percentage of both the salary and benefits. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY TEITZEL, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE ILA RENEWAL FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COORDINATOR SERVICES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. SNOHOMISH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ILA- RENEWAL Assistant Chief Jim Lawless explained when the previous emergency management organization, ESCA, dissolved, the City entered into an ILA with Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management for those services. The current ILA expires at the end of 2018; this item is to renew the ILA for 3 years. Edmonds’ 2019 assessment is approximately $53,000 which is based on a formula in the ILA for all participating agencies. Councilmember Teitzel observed most of the Snohomish County cities were accounted for in Schedule D except Everett and Marysville. He asked why those two cities were excluded. ACOP Lawless answered due to their size, those cities provide their own emergency management services. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE 2019-2021 AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Con’t) COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS, WIRE PAYMENTS AND PAYROLL CHECKS 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 2018 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR AN UNDETERMINED AMOUNT 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Eric Soll, Edmonds, urged the Council to pick the strategy that does the most to reject the flawed process that has been implemented which does not acknowledge what residents, especially homeowners in single family residential areas, want for Edmonds. The Highway 99 subarea plan has the potential for thousands of new residences that should meet the requirements of GMA as well as density advocates for decades to come. At last the last town meeting, he urged the Mayor to initiate a process to commission a survey of citizens regarding what they want for the City. Advisory groups are often nothing more than vehicles to confirm desired and favored outcomes. The survey should be a scientific poll that provides the true 4.1.a Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 3 alternatives homeowners will face, not have predetermined results and provide real examples of impacts to both the City and pocketbooks. For example, do homeowners desire to reside in neighbors that will have thousands of new residents such as are under consideration in Five Corners; do homeowners desire increased traffic, noise, pollution, and lack of parking as a result of thousands of new units; do single family homeowners wish to have out of proportion buildings such as 3-story townhouses and apartment buildings adjacent to their homes that overlook their backyards; are homeowners who have oversized buildings constructed next to them willing to lose 10-30% of their homes’ value to promote density and subsidized housing for others; and are homeowners and renters willing to pay higher taxes and rents to subsidize new residents and subsidized housing. He suggested using photos and illustrations in the survey to illustrate changes that may occur such as 3-story townhomes or 5-story apartment buildings that tower over existing single-family houses and to tabulate survey results by neighborhood; many are enthusiastic supporters until it impacts them directly. For example, wealthy residents residing adjacent to Puget Sound that will never be directly impacted will be less inclined to support increased density, upzoning and subsidized housing if it was implemented adjacent to their residences. The survey should differentiate between homeowners and renters as they have different interests and concerns. He expressed concern that throughout this process staff and City Council have been more interested in the needs of potential future residents than the legitimate issues raised by residents and homeowners. This process has turned the concept of no taxation without representation on its head by representation for non-residents without taxation. He urged the Council to focus on those they are responsible for, the citizens who reside in Edmonds and pay property taxes who have the most to lose via this process and to do that by starting the process over. Jim Van Tighen, Edmonds, on behalf of himself and friends in Edmonds, submitted a revised plan for the Housing Strategy adoption process along with a problem list (sent to City Council earlier today via email). Rather than abandon the adoption of a Housing Strategy or start over from scratch, they have collectively worked on this possible way to move forward. He was hopeful their proposal provided a direction to begin a more detailed, open, collaborate process for drafting and adopting this critical policy direction. They expect it to be modified, further refined and include more detail. Their proposal has been written, reviewed and circulated to members of the community including members of Save Edmonds. There is strong agreement for getting consensus around a vision for Edmonds, how do we want neighborhoods and business districts, the built environment, to look and feel. This is important to establish in light of the attention that has been brought to this critical issue of a Housing Strategy and because it will help find common ground to move forward. While work has been done on individual neighborhoods, there appears to be no over- arching vision for Edmonds as a whole. Simply calling for goals of livable communities is not adequate. While he acknowledged there would never be100% agreement, community members, council, the mayor and staff should be committed to obtaining consensus around a vision for the City and he offered their help. Lynne Chelius, Edmonds, addressed the issue of process in the Housing Strategy. Although staff and Council tried to be inclusive, they found the following issues with the process: 1. The task force had too may people with special interest in housing or development and not enough interest in impact to the current Edmonds resident population. 2. While the city tried to distribute information about the process to the public, it did not reach enough people. 3. The outside consultant did not instill trust or competency. 4. The foundational question of “what is the problem(s) we are trying to solve” needs to be much more clearly asked and answered. 5. Laying out strategies without specific details regarding the effects creates mistrust. Although strategies do not automatically lead to action, they lay a foundation for action. 6. The process and draft were not adequately put in to context regarding how it would fit in with existing documents and codes such as the Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan, GMA, existing zoning like Westgate, Five Corners and Hwy 99 and others. She supported moving forward with a revised plan and schedule as outlined in these documents. 4.1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 4 Erling Hesla, Edmonds, a professional electrical engineer, said the issue of homelessness is very divisive. The problem is very broad, and the solution includes determining how it works into the City’s overall plan as well as the cost of addressing the problem as the City has limited resources and those resources must be spent in ways that are the most effective for Edmonds residents. He noted some of the graphics in the Housing Strategy were difficult to understand and could be improved and the data needs to be checked to ensure the background information is correct and up-to-date. Several questions need to be answered including why there is a lack of housing, how broad is the problem, and how to help seniors, an issue that has not been addressed well. He recommended the draft Housing Strategy be checked for inaccuracies and omissions as well as consideration given to how the Housing Strategy fits with other City plans and services. Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, said previous speakers have identified the problem, concerns with the process and content with the current draft of the Housing Strategy. She relayed next steps that should include the following 1. Start any new rounds of public involvement with a true visioning process that seeks to find common vision for how Edmonds’ neighborhoods, commercial centers, public spaces and schools will look and feel in the future. 2. Conduct a thorough review by staff and any new advisory group to identify elements from the last draft that have merit and those that do not. Input into this process should include comments from the public, Councilmembers and Planning Board. 3. Ensure information gets out to the public in a survey or flyer form that allows for input from residents and businesses with questions as the process proceeds and allow opportunity to serve on any new advisory boards. Email signup lists need to be updated and kept current. 4. Develop a new timeline and work plan that extends to 2019. As Mr. Van Tighen stated, a letter, problem statement and draft strategy that includes a new timeline and work plan has been emailed to Councilmembers. She also provided hard copies to the City Clerk. She thanked the City Council, Planning Board, Mayor and staff for working with them and looked forward to a productive and position process during the next year. She assured they were available to help in any way appropriate because they all had a stake in what happens in Edmonds. She was encouraged to find Option 6 available on the sign-in table as it seems to be in line with much of their proposal. Eric Mikkelsen, Edmonds, referred to the Edmonds Lutheran Walkable Housing site, asking why the City wanted to encourage selling off church property to place temporary, box-style, mini units on their land. He acknowledged many churches were experiencing lean times, but unattractive sheds would fill the now open green space of Edmonds Lutheran Church. The manufacturer of the units is Blockables and the church would sell the land to Compass Housing Alliance, a Lutheran non-profit that builds low income housing on large lots of neighborhood churches that are struggling with low attendance. Although this may sound well and good, there will not be enough parking or sidewalks/street infrastructure in the neighborhood on 84th Street and it will be done without considering the neighborhood’s safety. He envisioned the daycare at Edmonds Lutheran Church would close because the housing endorsed by the plan would include low barrier tenants which includes and welcomes people with misdemeanor assault, felony backgrounds of auto theft, prostitution, burglary and drug convictions. He referred to the list of task force members selected by the Mayor; the first member on the list is Bill Anderson, a Woodway resident on the Woodway Town Council who secured $3.9 million in federal and county funds for green space reserves in Woodway. He questioned why Mr. Anderson was on the task force; he is a prominent member of Edmonds Lutheran Church and works for Compass Housing. If he is facilitating the sale of his church’s land to the company he represents and advising and influencing the Mayor’s task force of which he a member, he questioned how this was ethical and not a conflict of interest. He acknowledged more housing options for lower income people were needed, but suggested they be in the form of apartments in multi-family zoned parcels primarily on Highway 99 and not in single family zoned neighborhoods. He spoke in favor of residents’ right to be safe 4.1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 5 in their neighborhood. He recommended the Edmonds Lutheran/Compass Housing cabal put to an immediate end. Jeff Scherrer, Edmonds, said many people he has spoken with were surprised to learn a new housing advisory committee was formed after last week’s City Council meeting. Even after several citizens indicated they felt left out of process and asked for more notice to be given about the Housing Strategy, more questions arise like who formed the committee, how much notice was given to Edmonds citizens, is the committee open to anyone in Edmonds, what was the selection process, are the meetings public and will the public be provided enough notice. He urged the Council to make the process more transparent and open to the public so everyone can be involved. Dave Cooper, Edmonds, said he worked hard to be able to live in Edmonds and has been following the Housing Strategy since April 2017. He emphasized there was no need to rush into this and every reason to do a reboot, slow down and bring more Edmonds residents into the process. He found Kevin Ramsey, BERK Consulting, arrogant, condescending and evasive when pressed for answers. He suggested a different, more Edmonds-friendly consultant be brought in which would eliminate hostility that has developed over the Housing Strategy. He supports the concept of a Housing Strategy and was not opposed to increasing housing supply on Highway 99 but was adamantly to subsidized housing because a subsidy means taking money from one group and giving it to another. Michelle Goodman, Edmonds, thanked the Council for acknowledging citizens’ concerns regarding the Housing Strategy, recognizing everyone wants to see a vibrant, safe and inclusive Edmonds, and keep the quality of life in the community. It was her understanding the Housing Strategy started as a response to the City’s responsibility to provide a plan detailing how to accommodate growth in Edmonds. She referred to the Westgate Bartell project that predated the Housing Strategy and envisioned the 91 unit housing structure has opened the door to similar projects such as the Five Corners project under consideration. She has yet to receive answers to questions regarding forfeited tax revenue, zoning variances and other incentives given to developers. There has been a lack of transparency in answering questions related to parking, new roads and strategies to address increased traffic. At a meeting she attended, the Bartell group said they were already receiving calls inquiring when the units would be available. In other developments by the Bartell group in Ballard and Bellevue, their smallest studio, 700 square feet, rents for over $2300/month. Bartell will make millions on these projects; to suggest it is for anything else such as an avenue for affordable housing is naïve and lacks veracity and respect for Edmonds residents. She encouraged the Council to accept the revised Housing Strategy as others suggested, a transparent plan to accommodate growth that makes sense to most and requires input from all Edmonds citizens. Gerald Bernstein, Edmonds, recommended the Council stop the current process, identify what problems really exist and proceed to solve those problems. Edmonds citizens have become alarmed and resistant due to what they perceive as a lack of transparency. This was aggravated by the BERK report and many people do not understand the need for a Housing Strategy. What people see are problems that Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco are experiencing as a result of some of the concepts in the Housing Strategy. For example, the GMA was held up as a threat, the City must comply immediately because it is a mandate. He questioned how much of a mandate there was and whether there was a timeline. Another conflicting concept is housing people who work in Edmonds; from that, one could draw the conclusion that if someone accepts a job in Edmonds, they must be provided a place to live. He asked how and why the citizens advisory board was formed. While he agreed many of the problems identified are valid, they need to be individually confirmed and investigated. To restore confidence, he recommended stopping the process and starting over with the full support and input of Edmonds residents who will be impacted by the consequences. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said this reminds him of the tree issue, recalling the public’s negative reaction to the proposed tree ordinance. The Housing Strategy is on the wrong path which he opined was a program 4.1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 6 developed by staff, engineered by Mayor, that left the public out. He expressed concern with the way the task force and the latest committee were formed as well as the lack of meeting notice. He urged the Council to take a step back, noting when an issue affects this many people, it was time to start over and do it right. He suggested each Councilmember and the Mayor select committee members. He urged the Council to take a second look at this issue, start over and get the Mayor and Ms. Hope out of process and for the City Council to lead the process. Carol Nordstrom, Edmonds, agreed with most of the comments made by previous speakers. Although she admired what the church was trying to do and recognized it was a ministry, but she did not want to see Seattle’s problems spread to Edmonds. If it is the church’s ministry, it takes 30 minutes to drive to help the homeless in Seattle. Seattle is working on housing and is quietly moving some camps out of Seattle and she did not want them to end up in Edmonds. She lives in an area where the property behind her was rezoned and several 2-story homes constructed in a small area which destroyed their privacy. That is an important consideration and higher isn’t always better. She recommended restarting the process and trying not to bring Seattle’s problems to Edmonds and letting the church participate where the homeless already live. 6. STUDY ITEMS 1. DRAFT AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY DISCUSSION Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the public for their input and assured their voices are being heard. She explained the legislative branch does not typically not put itself in the middle of an administrative process. She recalled when the tree ordinance was proposed, people were angry, frustrated, anxious and mad that no one was listening to their concerns. There are five options for the Council to consider and a sixth option was recently proposed which she said was very similar to the third option. She suggested each Councilmember provide their opinion regarding how to move forward. She summarized the Council are not City administrators, the Council sets policy. She referred to the legislative options for Council: 1) Accept the Strategy 2) Accept the Strategy with amendments 3) Pause the Strategy and do a major rewrite 4) Reject the Strategy and remove Strategy option from Housing Element of Comprehensive Plan  City’s existing Comprehensive Plan has a Housing Element, but it needs to include the issues that are addressed in the Housing Strategy 5) Reboot – Perform a hybrid of the process  Could include the formation of a task force for which citizens could apply that would supplement the existing administrative task force or would be a separate Council task force Councilmember Buckshnis assured the Council is listening to citizens and want to resolve citizens’ frustration and anger. She recalled with the tree ordinance, once people get mad, they do not get “unmad.” She suggested each Councilmember provide their input and the Council can draft a policy for administration. Councilmember Mesaros found it satisfying as a Councilmember that there has been more public input on this process than any other issue the City has faced in the last four years which is a good thing. He observed that not everyone was operating with same set of facts and he preferred facts, not inuendo enter into the discussion. With regard to the tree ordinance, he recalled policies were developed, citizen input was provided, and changes were made which is how the system is supposed to work. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Council shelved the tree ordinance. Councilmember Mesaros agreed the Council listened to the public and took appropriate action. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Urban Forest Management Plan was the result. Councilmember Mesaros clarified his point was the Council was making a change and not ignoring citizen input. He recognized the five options for Council consideration, noting a sixth option 4.1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 7 has been proposed as well as a seventh option proposed by a community group. He assured the Council was not rushing, this is a study item and no votes will be taken although hopefully some consensus can be reach on a path forward. The Housing Strategy was still being discussed and citizen input was being sought. There is no firm end date for developing and approving the Housing Strategy and although some would like to have it completed by 2019, it was okay to get it done in 2020. There was time for a dialogue with the community to determine the City’s needs. Councilmember Teitzel echoed Councilmember Mesaros’ comments, relaying that as a Councilmember he far preferred passionate input from the community rather than apathy because it helps the City Council make better decisions and craft better policies. After reviewing the Council agenda memo, he developed Option 6, which he said differed from Option 3 and included elements of Option 5. He provided the following statement: As we think about housing strategies in our city, I am reminded of the very first goal in the housing element of our Comprehensive Plan, which states “Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances.” This worthy goal was unanimously approved by Council in 2015 and has provided direction as we’ve considered next steps toward creating a housing strategy. Unfortunately, economic circumstances have created difficulty for many of our neighbors, friends, relatives and coworkers in obtaining and maintaining affordable housing. These recent facts are revealing: - Snohomish County Assessor data shows homes in Edmonds sold for, on average, 59% more in 2018 than in 2010. - Census data shows Edmonds rental housing rates increased by 60% from 2010 to 2017. - Census data shows the median income of Edmonds residents increased by 13% from 2010 to 2016. This data suggests people living or working in Edmonds are increasingly challenged to find affordable housing, many are being driven toward housing instability and some may be driven into homelessness. It is incumbent on Council to proceed thoughtfully toward setting policies in place that can address this issue. While it is tempting to take an additional year or two beyond 2019 to complete a housing strategy, the housing challenges and pressures on many of our fellow citizens will continue to mount and delays in creating additional housing options are simply not responsive. I strongly believe our city can work collaboratively to create stronger community engagement, improved communications flow and a disciplined process to create a new housing strategy document by the end of 2019, as called for in the Comprehensive Plan. I have developed an additional option for Council’s consideration, which I’ll call Option 6, which outlines a clear process to achieve that goal. This process calls for significant public input, far better communication and regular check steps with Council and the public as work proceeds toward development of a new housing strategy draft. This improved process will help us achieve common agreement on strategic direction, which will help Council and the administration begin to develop more specific plans in 2020 and beyond for housing in Edmonds. It is important to note that, as future plans evolve for housing after the initial strategy is developed in 2019, the public will be involved every step of the way to help us ensure localized housing plans are consistent with Edmonds’ character. In other words, direct public outreach and involvement in development of the city’s housing plans will not end in 2019. Councilmember Teitzel submitted Option 6 for Council consideration. Council President Nelson said he has heard a lot of things from citizens and Councilmember about facts, about not rushing and about involving public. Although there has been a lot said about involving public but that is not what is seen. When he talked to the public at the two town halls he held, the public expressed a lot of opinions and he learned citizens care about the City and its future, and they want to be informed and 4.1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 8 included. He has not seen that inclusion to date. The administration handpicks a group of people to develop a Housing Strategy who product a draft report that receives massive public concern and outcry and concern with the lack of public involvement. The administration decides to go back to the drawing board and they handpick a second group of people to generate ideas, to provide advice and to get the Housing Strategy off the ground. Seven of the eleven members of this second group serve or have serve in City government in some capacity. The administration hastily arranged a meeting, with no notice until the day of the meeting and no news release or announcement to the media. He learned of the meeting on the day it was held by a colleague who was on the committee and an email to City Council that the new group had been formed. An email was sent to citizens who signed up to be informed about the Housing Strategy but did not mention the new group had been or that a meeting was scheduled although there was a post on the website that the public was welcome. He questioned whether the public was really welcome. Council President Nelson concluded the administration’s Housing Strategy process was FUBAR, Fouled Up Beyond All Repair. He has yet to see something that will actual work unless it involves citizens and they are involved and at the table at the beginning in the creation of the strategy. He would support something like that and agreed some sort of Housing Strategy was needed but the City needs to be smart about it, take the time necessary, be deliberate and include everyone. Councilmember Buckshnis said this is the same strategy with a different name. Edmonds has not been successful with strategies in the last eight years she has been on Council. The tree ordinance was not successful, and nothing was changed other drafting an Urban Forest Management Plan which has included hundreds of hours of citizen comments. She recommended rejecting the Housing Strategy, removing it from the Comprehensive Plan, everyone calming down and creating a vision via a process that involves citizens. A strategy could be added to the Comprehensive Plan in the future although the Comprehensive Plan already addresses these issues; the Housing Strategy is basically the Housing Element on steroids. Councilmember Tibbott said when he first heard about the proposed Housing Strategy, he realized it was part of a larger context and conversation. However, when he read the document, he found it short on essential data, was confused why did it did not allude to other zones in the City that already include housing strategies, there was nothing about population trends or the cost of constructing these new homes, it was repetitive and cookie cutter and staff did not seem to recognize that. The recommendations in the Housing Strategy sounded like ideas that should be immediately implemented rather than suggestions, the recommendations were not prioritized, and did not indicate which would work. Some of the suggestions were concepts that have been tried and failed in other cities. In addition, as the Housing Strategy was presented to the public, their questions were not adequately addressed and there was not adequate information provided regarding where the ideas came from. Councilmember Tibbott summarized he was not in the favor of the Housing Strategy as proposed. However, he was in favor of moving forward with some version of the strategy and developing a narrowed vision that focused on the Housing Strategy. He appreciated that Option 6 called for developing a new task force with input from the City Council, greater communication and opportunity for engagement from citizens. Narrowing the focus of the Housing Strategy needs to clearly articulate the problem to be solved and seek input related to the vision for that problem. Although he was weighing the possibility of removing the requirement for a Housing Strategy from the Comprehensive Plan, Councilmember Tibbott said many citizens need housing solutions. The City can do a better job starting with the base that has been provided and including citizen input moving forward. He wanted to harness the momentum, noting there are people involved now who have not been involved in a City process before as well as people who are proposing new ideas. He found Option 6 quite different than Option 3 as it included the formation of a new task force. He looked forward to a robust, citywide process 4.1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 9 and to interviewing citizens who would have an active role in the task force. Although the process could be delayed, he preferred to take advantage of the momentum and begin a deliberate process in early 2019. Councilmember Mesaros suggested Ms. Hope describe the purpose, participants and outcome of the first meeting of the advisory committee. Mayor Earling suggested that occur after Council comments. Councilmember Johnson said it was likely all seven Councilmembers have different points of view regarding how to proceed although there are also many similarities. There has been a lot of discussion about the process, what has been done right and what could be done better. As a professional planner, she had a lot of experience working through processes on complex, controversial projects and it was not uncommon to have a small group to work with a consultant or advise staff, but it was essential to include the public in a meaningful way so they have an opportunity to participate in the process, learn the facts and be part of the solution. Somehow that process broke down and comments to the Planning Board and City Council indicated there was a problem with the process. She was open to suggestions regarding how to move forward but it was clear citizens want to participate, the process needs to be transparent and be inclusive of all areas of the city and everyone’s concerns including single family homeowners. She was troubled by misinformation but recognized that was an example of the lack of communication which can be approved upon. Councilmember Johnson said the Housing Strategy developed by BERK Consulting is a compendium of all the options in the region that have been tried but it does not focus on Edmonds and not everything applies to Edmonds. For example, Edmonds does not allow 3-story skinny houses and there are not as many opportunities for urban infill. The City has already rezoned properties to allow greater density which has had the unintended consequence of removing smaller homes and historic buildings. She recalled a statistic that for every 100 homes bulldozed, 500 new units are built. It was her impression that new construction attracts new buyers but that may not be what the community needs. She was most concerned about seniors living on fixed incomes and programs and opportunities to help them stay in their own homes as well as housing for veterans and disabled individuals. The Housing Strategy needs to address that segment of the population, but it does not need to address the demands of the entire region, only what is best for Edmonds. Councilmember Johnson said it was difficult to consider Option 6 when she only received it tonight. She was willing to put off the Housing Strategy and start again in 2020 because a lot of important work needs to be done by the planning department although she was interested in hearing staff’s proposed timeline if the strategy proceeds. She was concerned that projects that began 8-10 years ago have not been completed such as the subdivision and Planned Unit Develop ordinances. She was leaning toward Options 3 and 4; if the City moved quickly and effectively, it would be possible to pause the strategy and do a major rewrite, but she questioned why. The 2019 deadline in the Comprehensive Plan is self-imposed; it may be preferable to redefine the City’s needs and how to proceed to ensure there is a robust process. She was reluctant to add 7 new people to the existing committee, anticipating it would be difficult for 18 people to be efficient and work together. Councilmember Johnson emphasized the need to discuss next steps and to clarify misinformation. She heard several things during public comment that did not register with her that need to be clarified. She thanked the public who have attended Council meetings and provided comment and she appreciated the community’s involvement. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in listening for the past several weeks, she was concerned with any Housing Strategy at this point. She preferred to take a timeout because the Council has lost the public’s trust. Using GMA as a reason for developing a Housing Strategy is probably inappropriate. Edmonds has primarily mid-income housing and above. What needs to be considered is senior housing, veterans housing, housing for the disabled and low-income housing. The Housing Strategy touched on those but did not 4.1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 10 outline a way to address housing for people living in the margins in Edmonds. Highway 99 is a great place to address this via transit-oriented development. Councilmember Teitzel was encouraged by Council President Nelson’s comments because Option 6 addressed his concerns. He believed a Housing Strategy could be developed in a disciplined, thoughtful and meaningful way in 2019 as identified in the Comprehensive Plan and include robust and complete public input throughout the process. If he believed there was no pressure in the market to address this issue and to create a strategy to encourage additional housing options for those who need them, he would not be as not concerned but there is pressure. Housing prices are increasing faster than income and more and more people are being pressured out of their homes which he did not want to see happen in Edmonds. He wanted to provide options for seniors, disabled, working wage families, etc. to stay in Edmonds. A good robust, well- thought out policy can be achieved in 2019 if it is done right and Option 6 lays out a process to get there. Councilmember Buckshnis said a code rewrite was started 11 years ago, many economic pressures can be addressed in the code. She referred to the building on 3rd Avenue that was permitted without onsite parking via a loophole in the code. The clearcutting the is occurring in subdivisions is also happening due to loopholes in the code. She questioned what was more important, the Housing Strategy or creating a visionary group and working on the code. Option 6 takes staff time away from the code rewrite. Deficiencies in the code allow 100-year old trees to be cut down and replaced with houses. She preferred to prioritize what is important and the most important thing is to focus on the code rewrite which can address senior housing, low income housing, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has heard Councilmembers refer to but not actually talk about rent control which is being done in other cities. She suggested the Council looking into what rent control means and how other cities are having success with it to serve people who need housing and cannot afford housing in Edmonds. Council President Nelson asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday what the process would be for the Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the requirement to adopt a Housing Strategy from 2019 to 2021. Mr. Taraday said a Comprehensive Plan amendment on any subject needed to be docketed before the end of 2018. The City Council could do that via adopting a resolution identifying an amendment to be considered in 2019; the Council basically has a month and a half to docket something. Councilmember Johnson asked Councilmember Tibbott to relay the information he shared with her regarding rent control. Councilmember Tibbott said it was his understanding rent control was not allowed in the State of Washington, so it was not an option the Council could consider. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Taraday for a formal ruling on the legalities of rent control and whether it was legal in Washington. Mr. Taraday said his general understanding was the same as Councilmember Tibbott’s, but he will research and report to the Council. Mayor Earling emphasized the Housing Strategy is a draft, it is not a plan, not a finality; it is a strategy that will eventually come forward for discussion. He asked Ms. Hope to summarize the memo she provided the Council. Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2015 includes a statement calling for a Housing Strategy to be developed by 2019 that would address affordable housing for a range of income levels and meet diverse housing needs which she always assumed meant seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and others with special needs, although it could include artist housing, etc. In 2017, work began on draft a Housing Strategy. Mayor Earling appointed a task force that consisted mainly of housing professional types, about half of whom live in Edmonds and a consultant worked on data 4.1.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 11 and ideas. The list of ideas included items that were not necessarily appropriate for Edmonds, but some were. The intent was to develop a strategy and framework and go through a public process. Some of that work was done and she acknowledged it could have been done more thoroughly. A draft Housing Strategy was developed with the intent of further revisions and a lot of public input. Ms. Hope advised she developed a Citizens Housing Advisory Committee to advise her on next steps but that is not necessarily the only task force or opportunity for public input; there will be opportunities for a great deal more public input. As Councilmember Johnson mentioned, it is not uncommon to have a small group begin the discussion. She listed the members of the Citizen Housing Advisory Committee: Treg Camper, Alicia Crank, Lindsey Crawford, Brian Goodnight, Pat McDevitt, Marla Miller, Dave Teitzel, Bob Throndsen, Rob Van Tassell, and Diana White. The committee members are all local citizens with concerns about the draft Housing Strategy; the intent of the Advisory Committee was to advise her on the process and keep things moving forward while more public input is sought. The committee’s meetings are open to the public and will be advertised in advance. Updates will be posted on the website devoted to housing issues and the Housing Strategy process. She recognized questions and answers and opportunities for people to share their ideas was an important part of the process. She looked forward to working with the public, the City Council and the Mayor. Councilmember Mesaros asked the purpose of the Advisory Committee’s November 8 meeting and the outcomes of the meeting. He pointed out the members of the Advisory Committee were selected to advise her, not the Council or the Mayor. Ms. Hope agreed it was intended to be advisory to her so she could continue working on the issues. The purpose of the meeting was to gather initial input from a variety of citizens with different perspectives. She viewed this as only the beginning; she would like to see focus groups on a variety of issues such as seniors’ needs, young families’ needs, veterans’ needs, etc., a single task force cannot adequately resolve or develop answers to all those issues. The intent is to get feedback and then go back to the public. Outcomes of the meeting included discussion of what a strategy is and discussion about the vision for the future, particularly related to housing. She offered to share her notes from the meeting. The goal is housing for a range of people and livable, walkable future. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 8:30-8:40 2. CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE REPORT Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien presented Critical Areas Biannual Report #4  ECDC 23.40.055 o The director will provide a report to the city council during the first and third quarter each year, summarizing critical area decisions that have been made since the previous report. The report will include information such as the number and type of critical area decisions that have been made, including information on buffers and enhancements approved for each applicable decision, a description of each approved restoration project, and other information specifically requested by the council following the previous report.  A critical area determination is the first review of a property to determine whether a waiver would be issued if there is no critical area and or study required if there is a critical area on the site  Critical area Determinations since May 2018 o Exhibit 1 contains spreadsheet of critical area determinations since May 2018  94 applications for critical area determinations since September - 47 “Waivers” Determinations - 40 “Study Required” Determinations - 7 Pending o Study Required  37 – Geo Hazard (erosion, landslide, and seismic) 4.1.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 12  7 – Stream  6 – Wetland  2 – Frequently Flooded o Subsequent Critical Area Determinations  New critical area determination is required for properties whose previous critical area determination is more than five years old  Reduced application fee for subsequent critical area determination  40 Subsequent Critical Area Determinations  Six went from “Waiver” to “Study Required”  Pre-2005 CAO update determined erosion and landslide hazards differently than current CAO  Suggested considering in future CAO update instead of requiring every five years, require if pre-2004  Critical Area Development Review o Projects on site with a “Study Required” determination requires review for consistency with critical area regulations o Exhibit 2 contains critical area determinations on projects since the May 2018 report  Far right column contains details on the critical area review o 40 project reviews associated with a study required since May 2018  One Interrupted Buffer Determination - Melody Lane  CAO Wetland Amendments o Completed CAO amendments updating wetland regulations consistent with Department of Ecology’s 2018 Wetland Guidance Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Lien for the report, acknowledging it takes a lot of time, but she found it very informative. She asked him to explain why a new critical area determination is required every five years and whether it was because a hazardous area becomes more hazardous in five years. Mr. Lien answered that was one of the code changes. A critical area study is valid for five years; tied to that five years, the code change required critical area determinations every five years which is also valid for five years. The initial critical area determination is $100 and subsequent determinations are $50. He said most of the changes are due to the change from the pre-2004 code so that seemed to be a good timeframe. Councilmember Buckshnis how much a critical area determination cost a property owner. Mr. Lien answered staff does a site visit and makes the initial determination regarding whether there is a critical area. Subsequent determinations are also done by staff. When a development application is submitted for a site with a critical area, further geotechnical studies are required which results in additional cost. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there were quite a few hazardous tree removals. She asked whether hazardous trees were identified by an arborist hired by the property owner. Mr. Lien reviewed the requirements for removal of hazardous tree:  Allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.2  Hazard documentation required  Trees must be replaced at a ratio of 2:1  Replacement trees must be native and indigenous  Arborist report not required if a tree is obviously dead Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a staff arborist reviews the arborist report. Mr. Lien answered the City does not have an arborist to review the arborist reports. 4.1.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 13 Councilmember Teitzel referred to the site assessment and functional analysis for the property at 693 Melody Lane that states a wetland rating was not completed. He asked why a wetland rating was not completed and if it had been, could that have affected the size of the setback. Mr. Lien answered the property owner and the wetland consultant had several options including a wetland determination to classify the wetland and determine the buffer. As the corner was 165 feet from the edge of wetland as measured in the aerial photo, he guessed it was a Category 2 wetland which puts in slightly in the buffer. The wetland consultant chose to do the Interrupted Buffer Determination and the wetland category does not matter for that. Councilmember Johnson asked if the goal of identifying critical areas in project reviews was for the purpose of mitigation if there was a critical area. Mr. Lien said it depends on the critical area; development within 50 feet of a steep slope does not necessarily require mitigation, it requires the geotechnical engineer to determine the development does not impact slope stability. Buffer averaging, buffer width reduction, etc. would require mitigation. In development reviews, the critical area determination and the development proposal determine whether any mitigation is required. Councilmember Johnson asked whether there were any denials in this reporting period. Mr. Lien answered no, everything that was proposed was consistent with the CAO. Councilmember Johnson observed sometimes a hazardous tree will not fall and cause destruction if the height is not in a fall zone and dead/dying tree or snags are often beneficial to the environment. She questioned whether the removal of hazardous trees went too far. Mr. Lien answered snags are encouraged; if a hazardous tree is not next to a house, property owners often turn them into wildlife snags to reduce the hazard. He referred to the Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form that includes identifying the targets. For example, if there is a dead/dying tree 200 feet from the house within a wetland buffer and there are no targets, it is not a hazard tree; that is considered in determining whether a tree is a hazard tree. Councilmember Johnson asked if topping could be considered to avoid the hazard, recalling examples of that in Yost Park. Mr. Lien said creating a snag is an option rather than cutting down a tree. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas discontinued her participation by phone at 8:52 p.m.) 7. BUDGET PRESENTATIONS 1. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2019-2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Engineer Rob English reviewed: Transportation Capital Program  DP 97 – 1,500,000: 2019 pavement preservation program o 3.7 lane miles o 20 curb ramp upgrades o $900,000 REET 125/126 o $500,000 General Fund o $100,000 Street Fund 112  DP 98 - $251,850 - 238th Island and ADA Curb Ramps o $211,000 CDBG grant o $50,000 REET o 238th island-ADA compliant walkway and landscaping o 12 curb ramp upgrades  Citywide pedestrian enhancement o $1.49M federal grant  DP 99 - $429,000 - Additional funding for replacement of pole and mast arm 4.1.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 14 - Awaiting decision on TIB grant which would replace DP 99  DP 110 - $1,181,873 (carry-forward)  9 intersections  Signal conversion at SR104/232  HAWK Signal at SR524/84th Ave  Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons  23 curb ramps  DP 100-$50,000: 2019 Ped Safety Program  DP 101-$70,000: Traffic Signal Upgrades  DP 102-$42,500: Audible Pedestrian Signals  DP 103-$20,000: Guardrail Installations  DP 104-$110,000: Admiral Way Ped Crossing  DP 105-$6,043,500: Dayton 3rd Ave to 9th Ave o [$200,000] Dayton Sidewalk west of 8th Ave  Awaiting TIB grant  DP 106-$1,290,870: 84th Ave Overlay (220th-212th)  DP 107-$10,000: 76th Ave/212th Intersection  DP 108-$8,750: 238th St Walkway (Hwy99-SR104)  DP 109 - $37,380: Hwy 99 Revitalization Phase 1 (220th-224th) o Begin 30% design/environmental review  DP 111 - $3,000,000: Waterfront Connector o Begin final design/environmental design o $6M State funding to be available in July 2019  Requesting early funding authorization Utility Funds  Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project o DP 13 - $492,400 and DP 22 - $1,302,600 (carry-forward)  1.5 MG reservoir to be completed by Dec 2018  Working with contractor on extra costs  3.0 MG reservoir to be completed by June 2019  Hoping better condition than 1.5 MG but unknown  Additional funds will be required to complete project, reason for two decision packages  Repairs are sequenced to ensure one reservoir is always operational Water Utility Capital  DP 19 - $980,000: Swedish & 76th Waterline  DP 20 - $300,000: Waterline Overlays  DP 21 - 15,000: 2019 Waterline Replacement  Dayton Street Pump Station o DP 25 - $500,000  Awaiting notification from FEMA on grant application  Also requesting $500,000 from legislature due to benefits to Marsh and to address flooding in ferry holding lanes  Decision package will provide stormwater funding in lieu of grant or legislature funding o DP 28 - $907,000 (carry-forward) o $2.4M in sewer capital funds Storm Utility Capital o DP 26 - $375,000 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-design 4.1.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 15  If the pre-design identifies a regional detention facility, some of the cost could be recovered by via latecomer agreements from development on Hwy 99 o DP 27 - $1,000,000: Phase 1 replacement project o DP 29 - $76,125: Seaview Infiltration Project o DP 30 - $441,000: Citywide Drainage Improvements o DP 32 - $200,000: Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Mr. Williams reviewed:  DP 35 - $3,670,438 (City’s share = $1.25M) o Phase 6 Carbon Recovery Design o Diagram of P-Five Pyrolisis System that will replace incinerator Mr. English reviewed: Sewer Utility Capital  DP 38 - $500,000: Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study  DP 42 - $165,000: Lake Ballinger Trunk Study (CF)  DP 39 - $5,000: 2018 sewer replacement  DP 40 - $706,680: CIPP Sewer rehabilitation  DP 41 - $75,000: LS#1 Metering & Flow Study  DP 43 - $75,000: 2019 Sewer Overlay  DP 44 - $5,000: 2019 Sewer Replacement Project Mr. Williams said there are three big, expensive sewer projects, the pyrolysis project, the LS#1 Metering and Flow Study, and the Lake Ballinger trunk line which is behind the homes, old, has grade issues and likely structural issues. The project funds include a pump-around to dry out the line and identify the problems and design a solution. The LS#1 Metering Flow Study identified a number of options; the best option is to eliminate the pump station due to its proximity to Puget Sound and install a gravity line. Consideration will need to be given to how to sequence and fund these three big sewer projects next year. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern staff was giving their presentation with decision packages that did not tie to the CIP/CFP. If the Council approved the CIP/CFP, she asked if it would be giving carte blanche approval to all the projects in the CIP/CFP that are not decision packages. For the past eight years, staff has reviewed the CIP/CFP line by line and now it was presented using decision packages. She requested a copy of staff’s PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Williams said there are a lot of projects on the CIP/CFP; for presentational purposes, staff tried to identify projects of interest, but he was happy to delve deeper. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the review of the CIP/CFP was not done the same way it was done in the past. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite said last year was the first year decision packages were done for capital projects and that continued this year. Recognizing there was some confusion last year with the CIP/CFP and decision packages, staff decided to include decision packages in the presentation. Parks’ decision packages all align to the CIP for 2019. Mr. English said for the most part, that was also true for Public Works. Councilmember Buckshnis said the decision packages for street paving does not identify the funding source and she did not think REET funds could be used for street paving. Ms. Hite explained both REET 125 and 126 can be used for street paving. Mr. Williams said funding from both sources has been used for several years. Councilmember Buckshnis requested next year staff provide Council their PowerPoint presentation in advance of the meeting. Councilmember Teitzel referred to DP 99, funding pedestrian safety improvements at nine intersections including three on state routes. He recalled Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ interest in a crosswalk on Highway 99 north of 238th. He acknowledged DP 99 would not address that and asked if there was a request 4.1.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 16 for funding for a crosswalk in that area. He agreed there was a safety issue in that area with people running across six lanes of high-speed traffic. Mr. English answered there was no active grant application at this time although it could be pursued in the future. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the City or the State would pursue funding for such a project. Mr. Williams answered the City would need to pursue the funding. Councilmember Teitzel asked if staff foresees such a request in the not-too-distant future. Mr. English answered staff’s recommended focus for the existing funding is on Phase 1 which is 220th to 224th. There would be challenges with installing a safe pedestrian crosswalk across the seven lane Highway 99. Typically, a crosswalk across that many lanes would be a signalized intersection not a HAWK signal; consideration would need to be given to how to make such a crossing work. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained there was more specificity in the decision package narratives in the budget book. She reviewed: Parks CIP/CFP 2019 o DP 114 - $4,298,266: Waterfront Development/Promenade/Walkway  $3.1M carry-forward  Other funds sources include REET 125/126, park impact fees and State grants  Includes ½ the cost of frontage improvements (other half is in DP 128)  DP 115 - $1,320,000: Civic Design Development, permitting o In process of second phase of geotech due to high water table and peat found during utility line replacement o Designing around the Boys & Girls Club building footprint  Expect to return to Council early next year with long-term land lease with the Boys & Girls Club  DP 116 - $100,000: Edmonds Marsh  DP 117 - $40,000: City Park Walkway (along north side of field from 3rd Avenue to spray pad)  DP 118 - $155,000 (carry-forward): Community Garden  DP 119 - $20,000: Fishing Pier Parking Lot  DP 120 - $120,000: Seaview Play Area  DP 121 - $35,000 (carry-forward): City Gateway Replacement  DP 122 - $175,000 (Verdant Grant): Outdoor fitness zone at Mathay Ballinger Park  DP 123 - $20,000: Flower Pole Replacements  DP 124 - $50,000: 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor  DP 125 - $10,000: Yost Park/Pool  DP 126 - $20,000 (carry-forward): Mathay Ballinger Park Trail  DP 127 - $200,000: Land Acquisition  DP 128 - $250,000: Waterfront Center Support – Parking Lot, frontage improvements Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Park decision packages in the presentation do not match the decision packages in the budget. With regard to the Marsh and land acquisition, she asked if consideration has been given to purchasing some of the Unocal site when it transfers WSDOT. The CIP/CFP shows $1.2M in 2022 for the Marsh. Ms. Hite said that is a discussion the Council can have; the property has not transferred yet and WSDOT is in the process of discussing their long-range plan with the community. Councilmember Buckshnis said Council may want to move the funding from 2022 to 2020. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the balance in park impact fees is $1.8M. Ms. Hite explained a lot of that is programmed in 2019 for the Waterfront Redevelopment and Civic. Councilmember Buckshnis asked who determines how park impact fees are used. Ms. Hite said the current balance in the fund is from the inception of park impact fees and is being programmed via CIP process. She looks at the projects, determines which may be eligible for park impact fees as well as matched with REET and grant funds. Some of the park impact fees need to be spent in 2019 as it is the sixth year since park impact fee were imposed. If those funds are not spent, they must be returned. 4.1.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 17 Councilmember Buckshnis questioned spending $155,000 for a community garden. Ms. Hite said the budget was originally $200,000 which was reduced to $155,000. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the $155,000 was to purchase the property. Ms. Hite answered no, it was to create the garden; the site is in poor condition and needs safety fencing, clean up, goats to eat the blackberries, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Garden Club did a community garden for $25,000. Ms. Hite said she will revise the decision package description to $155,000. Councilmember Teitzel referred to DP 113 regarding Civic, observing there are substantial funds in the budget for 2019 but none for the existing Boys & Girls Club building. He has heard the building is in poor condition and may have to be removed to make way for a new Boys & Girls Club. He asked if any of that work would occur in 2019 and if so, where those funds were expressed. Ms. Hite explained the Boys & Girls Club building is leased to the Boys & Girls Club through 2020 and their intent is to remain in the building until 2020. There have been discussions with Boys & Girls Club about remaining on site and the Master Plan allocates space to the Boys & Girls Club. It would be the Boys & Girls Club’s responsibility to demolish the building and build a new building or rehab the existing building. Civic is being designed around the Boys & Girls Club building and asphalt basketball court and they will remain as an as-in condition. In response to decision packages not matching the CIP/CFP, Mr. Williams said funds are transferred into the Street Construction Fund 112 for the pavement preservation program. In addition, the recommendation is to use 15% of the gas tax revenue supplemented by REET revenues to provide $100,000 for the pavement preservation program. Councilmember Johnson referred to carryover in the land acquisition fund, noting not all the funds were spent in 2018. She asked how much would be left over and whether it could be carried forward into 2019. Ms. Hite estimated the entire $200,000 would be spent in 2018 to purchase the property she mentioned previously. If not, the first budget amendment in January could identify capital carryover that was not spent in 2018 but was projected to be spent in 2019. Ms. Hite displayed a bar chart of grant awards 2012-2018 for Parks and Public Works, noting the CIP includes spending authority for grants as well as City funds. Mr. Williams summarized grants obtained during that period total approximately $55 million. 2. 2019 BUDGET PRESENTATIONS - REVENUE SOURCES Finance Director Scott James reviewed Staff’s Recommended Proposed Budget Book Changes: STAFF’S RECOMMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET BOOK CHANGES Item # Budget Book Page # Description Cash Increase (Decrease) GENERAL FUND 1 New Item 43 City Clerk Benefits Understated (15,125) 2 New Item 20 Culture & Recreation – Program Revenue ($45,000) 3 New Item 57 SnoCo DEM (Former ESCA)/SERS ($5,245) 4 New Item 57 SnoCo 911 (former SNOCOM) Merger Savings $169,180 5 New Item DP 95 Reduce Contribution to Sno Health District to $1/capita $42,000 Impacts to General Fund Ending Cash 145,810 Fund 017 Marsh Restoration and Preservation 6 124 Add Donation Revenues $6,800 Impacts to Fund 017 Ending Cash $6,800 Fund 112 Street Construction 4.1.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 18 7 DP 97 Correct pavement preservation expense for General Fund Transfer by increasing Fund 112 expense ($500,000) Impacts to Fund 112 Ending Cash ($500,000) EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 018 1 61 Move $250,000 Transitional Housing budget to REET Fund 125 $250,000 Impacts to Fund 018 Ending Cash $250,000 REET 2 FUND 125 1 167 $250,000 for Transitional Housing ($250,000) Impacts to Fund 125 Ending Cash ($250,000) Mr. James reviewed:  Context o The 2019 Proposed Budget acknowledges that the strong national economy is benefiting Edmonds o Our estimated 2018 operating revenues are 4.3% higher than 2017 o The 2019 proposed operating revenues will slow to a 3.1% increase over 2018 o Increasing property values o As 2019 starts to unfold, we will need to closely monitor development related revenues o November marks the 113th month of sustained economic growth  Economic Environment o Puget Sound economy continues to be one of the healthiest in the country o Home values are not seeing increases like we were experiencing o Housing sales remain healthy o For 2019, anticipate modest growth now and moderating further over the next couple of years  Graph of Seattle area versus National home price increases (Seattle Times 8/28/18 - Source: S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices) o Seattle-area now nation’s No. 2 fastest-rising housing market o Although Seattle-area home price increases no longer lead the nation, they continue to outpace the national average in year-over-year change  Seattle Area: 12.8% increase from June 2017 to July 2018  National: $6.2% increase from June 2017 to July 2018  Graph of Greater Seattle Area Unemployment Rates September 2008 – September 2018 o April 2008, Greater Seattle Area Unemployment rate hit its lowest pre-recession rate of 2.8%  Climbs as high as 9.9% in the beginning of 2010  Current rate is 3.5% as of September 2018 o Since peak unemployment in early 2010, the Greater Seattle Area unemployment rate has been trending significantly better than the national unemployment rate  Washington State Unemployment by County Sept 2017 versus Sept 2018 o In April 2007 the Washington State Unemployment pre-recession rate was at its lowest at 4.6%  Climbed as high as 10.4% in November 2009  Current rate is 4.6% as of September 2018 o In September 2017 Snohomish County’s unemployment rate was 4.3% and 3.7% in September 2018  Revenue Trend analysis bar graph (all funds) 2015 – 2018 o Chart tracks movement of revenue between categories  Revenue Trend Analysis (all funds) o Summary:  Taxes in 2015 accounted for $32,252,000 and anticipated to increase to $34,419,000 in 2019  Economic condition dependent revenue such as License & Permit revenues experienced growth in 2016 and 2017 but begins to slow in 2018 and 2019 4.1.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 19  Total revenues in 2015 were $77M and are projected to increase to $92M in 2019  Taxes account for 42% of total revenue in 2015 and are projected to decrease to 38% in 2019  Pie chart of Revenues by Type o Charges for Services: 37.53% o Taxes: 37.10% o Fines and Penalties: 0.69% o Miscellaneous: 5.55% o Transfers-In: 5.56% o Other Financing: 0.44% o Licenses and Permits: 2.56% o Intergovernmental: 10.57%  Expenditure Comparison (2017-2019 budget) o Summary:  2019 expenses are anticipated to grow approximately 19% or $17.2M over what the City is projecting to spend this year  Compared to the 2018 budget, 2019 increases by $8.8M  Majority of this increase is unexpended funds in 2018 that will carry-forward into 2019: - Street Construction Fund - $2.1M - Storm Utility - $2.7M - Sewer - $3M  Pie chart of Expenditures by Type o Other Services and Charges: 35.95% o Intergovernmental: 4.85% o Capital Outlays: 22.31% o Debt Service: 4.22% o Salaries and Benefits: 28.61% o Supplies: 4.06%  2018-2019 Comparison – General Fund Revenues o 2018 General Fund operating revenues are projected to increase by 3.2% over 2017 o 2019 General Fund operating revenues are projected to increase by 0.3% over 2018  Revenue Trend Analysis bar graph (General Fund) o Tracks movement of revenue between categories o Illustrates the degree of dependency on each source of revenue  Revenue Trend Analysis spreadsheet (General Fund) o Summary:  Taxes account for 74% of overall revenues in 2015 and 75% in 2019  Economic condition dependent revenue such as License & Permit revenues increased in 2016 and 2017 and begin moderating in 2018 and 2019  General Fund Key revenues Revenue 2018 YE Estimate 2019 Proposed Variance % Discussion Property Tax $10,368,000 $10,548,203 $180,203 1.7% Includes 1% Increase EMS Levy Tax $3,975,000 $4,044,220 $69,220 1.7% Includes 1% increase Sales Tax $8,100,000 $7,825,000 ($275,000) -3.4% Record growth moderating  Property Tax Revenues o Summary  Total Assessed Value in 2019 is $10,250,720,519  The Snohomish County Assessor’s Office is adding nearly $67,202,400 for new construction or $76,510 in regular property tax revenue from new construction  Graph of Sales Tax Revenues 4.1.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 20 o 2008: $4,852,373 o 2009: $4,425,996 o 2010: $4,468,237 o 2011: $4,690,244 o 2012: $5,007,511 o 2013: $5,429,060 o 2014: $5,976,940 o 2015: $6,811,908 o 2016: $6,905,124 o 2017: $7,409,525 o 2018: $8,100,000 (YE estimate) o 2019: $7,825,000 (budget)  Pie Chart of General Fund Expenditures o Non-Departmental: $13,402,411 o City Council: $376,647 o Municipal Court: $1,075,638 o Police: $11,703,250 o Community Services & Economic Dev: $666,232 o Development Services: $3,228,156 o Human Resources: $590,331 o Parks & Recreation: $4,276,226 o Public Works: $610,480 o Facilities Maintenance: $2,395,789 o Engineering: $2,713,070 o Mayor’s Office: $295,155 o City Clerk: $670,295 o City Attorney: $889,550 o Finance: $1,236,705  Graph of REET Revenues o 2008: $1,327,474 o 2009: $1,006,607 o 2010: $1,158,112 o 2011: $1,087,998 o 2012: $1,791,474 o 2013: $1,538,602 o 2014: $1,866,320 o 2015: $2,743,380 o 2016: $2,588,124 o 2017: $3,019,706 o 2018: $3,500,000 (YE Estimate) o 2019: $3,080,000 (budget) COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis said page 12 of the budget book shows property tax revenue of $14,345,500 which differs from the amount in the presentation. Mr. James advised the amount in the budget book includes property and EMS taxes. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the revenue from the two REET funds are also combined. Mr. James agreed they were. 4.1.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 21 Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the Council should provide comments/input regarding decision packages. Mr. James said last year the City Council suggested changes from the dais; he recorded the suggested changes and the Council voted on them when the budget neared adoption. Council President Nelson said Councilmembers could submit budget amendments at any time. Beginning next week, he will provide time in the agenda for Councilmembers to begin introducing amendments. Mr. James said suggested amendments could also be emailed to him and he would include them in a list of Council Requested Amendments. Councilmember Teitzel referred to page 13 of the budget book, Strategic Outlook General Fund Fund Balance and expressed concern the 2018 projection is for a 38.1% General Fund Fund Balance which steadily declines to 16.05% in the 2023 outlook. He asked what that was attributed to and what type of risk that presented to the City. Mr. James explained the Strategic Outlook does not assume increases in revenue from sources such as a voted increase in the EMS levy or an increase in the TBD fee which could be used to cover the proposed sidewalk crew. He was cautious about adding an ongoing service such as the sidewalk crew without ongoing revenue. Councilmember Teitzel summarized Mr. James’ response, the Strategic Outlook does not assume corrective action to correct the trend. Mr. James agreed, commented it would be unfair to include that in the Strategic Outlook without first having a discussion with the Council and Mayor. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported the Holiday Market began last Saturday. There were more vendors and a large turnout; he anticipated great success. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Teitzel was encouraged by what he saw last week in the uptick in the trend of youth voting. That has been a concern in the past but this year there was a strong performance. He applauded young people for voting. Councilmember Mesaros announced his appointment of Kevin Harris to the Economic Development Commission and described his background which includes working as a senior facilitator with the William D. Ruckelshaus House Center and an assistant professor at the UW and WSU teaching public policy. There were six well-qualified applicants for the position. Councilmember Johnson said communications between Council and staff could be better. She was frustrated that the Council did not know in advance about the Housing Advisory Committee meeting last week and that the Council was not told in advance that committees would not meet tonight. She had a conversation with Councilmember Tibbott and Mr. Williams during the break and they agreed there may need to be a Public Works and Parks Committee meeting prior to the December meeting, possibly next week. She expressed interest in going into greater depth on some of the CIP/CFP projects. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Teitzel’s comment about youth voters, finding it exhilarating to see more women and a very diverse of group of people voted in. 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION 4.1.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 13, 2018 Page 22 This item was not needed. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. 4.1.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 11-13-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/20/2018 Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #234068 through #234165 dated November 15, 2018 for $449,368.05 and wire payment of $28,655.59. Approval of payroll checks #63522 through #63575 dated November 15, 2018 for $143,923.50. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Attachments: claims 11-15-18 wire 11-15-18 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 holiday buy back 4.2 Packet Pg. 25 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23406811/15/2018076040 911 SUPPLY INC 67125INV#67125 - EDMONDS PD - R.G. ALLENNAME TAPE - EMBROIDERED - ~001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.00VELCRO FOR NAME TAPE001.000.41.521.22.24.00 5.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.30INV#67134 - EDMONDS PD - A. JAMES671348436W-04 BLAUER LS WOMENS UNIFORM SHIRTS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 139.988567W-04 BLAUER WOMENS 6 POCKET CARGO001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.99X158710B CLOTH NAME TAPE UNIFORM SHIRTS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.0015480 - ADD PATCHES001.000.41.521.22.24.00 3.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 24.10Total :279.3723406911/15/2018065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 15390WWTP: 10/12/18 PEST CONTROL SERVICE10/12/18 PEST CONTROL SERVICE423.000.76.535.80.41.00 73.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.52WWTP: 11/6/18 PEST CONTROL SERVICE16031Pest Control Service423.000.76.535.80.41.00 73.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 7.52Total :161.0423407011/15/2018072189 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 2909726STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 11/01/2018 - 11/30/STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 11/01/2018 -001.000.25.514.30.41.00 119.231Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 26Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :119.2323407011/15/2018072189072189 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT23407111/15/2018075132 AERZEN USA CORP SEPI-18-002809WWTP: OIL, AIR FILTER CARTRIDGES, OIL FIOIL, AIR FILTER CARTRIDGES, OIL FILTERS423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3,268.2210.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 336.64Total :3,604.8623407211/15/2018076827 ALICAT SCIENTIFIC INC 472751WWTP: CALIBRATE MASS FLOWMETERCALIBRATE MASS FLOWMETER & Expedit Fee423.000.76.535.80.41.00 300.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.41.00 39.68Total :339.6823407311/15/2018065568 ALLWATER INC 103118042FINANCE DEPT WATERFinance dept water001.000.31.514.23.31.00 35.7010.3% Sales Tax001.000.31.514.23.31.00 3.68WWTP: 11/6/18 DRINK WATER SERVICE11061802111/6/18 Water services, rental &423.000.76.535.80.31.00 56.7010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 5.84Total :101.9223407411/15/2018074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 5571761RETIREE PREMIUMS - DEC. 2018FIRE PREMIUMS617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,161.12LEOFF PREMIUMS009.000.39.517.20.23.10 8,160.69Total :9,321.8123407511/15/2018069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1990960426WWTP: UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATS2Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 27Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23407511/15/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICESMats/Towels423.000.76.535.80.41.00 58.38Uniforms423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 6.0110.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36WWTP: 11/7/18 UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATS1990970655Mats/Towels423.000.76.535.80.41.00 58.38Uniforms423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 6.0110.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1990970656PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 51.8210.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.24.00 5.34PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1990976469PUBLIC 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 MATS3Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 28Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23407511/15/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.6210.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.17FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1990976470FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.68FLEET DIVISION MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 17.3410.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.5910.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.78WWTP: 11/13/18 UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATS199980835Mats/Towels423.000.76.535.80.41.00 58.38Uniforms423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 6.0110.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36Total :322.7423407611/15/2018064341 AT&T MOBILITY 287283883350WIRELESS SERVICE FOR AIRCARDS4Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 29Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23407611/15/2018(Continued)064341 AT&T MOBILITYMobile Aircards512.000.31.518.88.42.00 46.75Total :46.7523407711/15/2018064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC S 100144ALERTON SYSTEM - PW - PM CONTRACTALERTON SYSTEM - PW - PM CONTRACT001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2,866.5010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 295.25Total :3,161.7523407811/15/2018070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 104155OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLSUB Outsourcing area Postage #421.000.74.534.80.42.00 331.07UB Outsourcing area Postage #423.000.75.535.80.42.00 331.0710.1 % Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.49.00 9.2310.1 % Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.49.00 9.2310.1 % Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.49.00 9.50UB Outsourcing area Printing #100422.000.72.531.90.49.00 91.35UB Outsourcing area Printing #100421.000.74.534.80.49.00 91.35UB Outsourcing area Printing #100423.000.75.535.80.49.00 94.12OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS104360UB Outsourcing area Printing #400422.000.72.531.90.49.00 126.70UB Outsourcing area Printing #400421.000.74.534.80.49.00 126.70UB Outsourcing area Printing #400423.000.75.535.80.49.00 130.545Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 30Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23407811/15/2018(Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFERUB Outsourcing area Postage #400421.000.74.534.80.42.00 459.61UB Outsourcing area Postage #400423.000.75.535.80.42.00 459.6010.1 % Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.49.00 12.8010.1 % Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.49.00 12.8010.1 % Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.49.00 13.18OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS104365UB Outsourcing area Printing #200422.000.72.531.90.49.00 90.31UB Outsourcing area Printing #200421.000.74.534.80.49.00 90.31UB Outsourcing area Printing #200423.000.75.535.80.49.00 93.04UB Outsourcing area Postage #200421.000.74.534.80.42.00 326.32UB Outsourcing area Postage #200423.000.75.535.80.42.00 326.3110.1 % Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.49.00 8.2910.1 % Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.49.00 8.2910.1 % Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.49.00 11.06OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS104458UB Outsourcing area Printing #700422.000.72.531.90.49.00 23.10UB Outsourcing area Printing #700421.000.74.534.80.49.00 23.10UB Outsourcing area Printing #700423.000.75.535.80.49.00 23.796Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 31Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23407811/15/2018(Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFERUB Outsourcing area Postage #421.000.74.534.80.42.00 104.11UB Outsourcing area Postage #423.000.75.535.80.42.00 104.1010.1 % Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.49.00 2.3310.1 % Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.49.00 2.3310.1 % Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.49.00 2.41Total :3,548.0523407911/15/2018001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 57470ROUGH BOX - PETERSROUGH BOX - PETERS130.000.64.536.20.34.00 493.00Total :493.0023408011/15/2018012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2018-174INV 2018-174 EDMONDS PD PRE-EMPLOY EXAMPRE-EMPLOY EXAM - DANIELS001.000.41.521.10.41.00 225.00Freight001.000.41.521.10.41.00 8.00Total :233.0023408111/15/2018075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 32781SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 11/07/2018SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 11/07/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 156.10Total :156.1023408211/15/2018073834 BATTERIES PLUS P7618384WWTP: 12V BATTERIES12V BATTERIES423.000.76.535.80.31.00 658.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 67.837Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 32Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :726.3323408211/15/2018073834 073834 BATTERIES PLUS23408311/15/2018066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 29706DIVERSITY COMMISSION AD FOR WORLD CAFEDiversity Commission advertise for001.000.61.557.20.41.40 275.00PM: CEMETERY DISPLAY AD29736PM: CEMETERY DISPLAY AD130.000.64.536.20.41.40 176.00Total :451.0023408411/15/2018003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 327922PM: CRUSHED ROCKPM: CRUSHED ROCK125.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,176.0010.3% Sales Tax125.000.64.576.80.31.00 121.13PM: CRUSHED ROCK327976PM: CRUSHED ROCK125.000.64.576.80.31.00 504.0010.3% Sales Tax125.000.64.576.80.31.00 51.92PM: CITY PARK STORAGE SHED CRUSHED ROCK329661CITY PARK STORAGE SHED CRUSHED ROCK125.000.64.594.76.65.00 1,743.0010.3% Sales Tax125.000.64.594.76.65.00 179.53PM: CITY PARK STORAGE SHED CRUSHED ROCK329869PM: CITY PARK STORAGE SHED CRUSHED ROCK125.000.64.594.76.65.00 1,203.5010.3% Sales Tax125.000.64.594.76.65.00 123.96Total :5,103.0423408511/15/2018003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN10181008WWTP: CYLINDER RENTAL+HAZMAT CHG nitrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide +423.000.76.535.80.31.00 108.0010.3% Sales Tax8Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 33Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23408511/15/2018(Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY423.000.76.535.80.31.00 11.12Total :119.1223408611/15/2018063615 CH MURPHY CLARK-ULLMAN INC 1810091CWWTP: INFLUENT PUMP SERVICERemoved, rebuilt & replaced 20"423.000.76.535.80.48.00 33,981.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 3,500.09Total :37,481.5923408711/15/2018003515 CH2M HILL INC 676649CH001 WWTP: 8/25-11/2/18 TO 4.20168/25-11/2/18 TO 4.2016423.000.76.535.80.41.00 331.20WWTP: 8/25-11/2/18 TO 5.2016676649CH001-18/25-11/2/18 TO 5.2016423.000.76.535.80.41.00 49.50Total :380.7023408811/15/2018076829 CRYE PRECISION LLC IN00163398INV#IN00163398 - EDMONDS PD - SWATAPRFSE90LGR - FIELD SHIRT G3 MULTICAM001.000.41.521.23.24.00 359.00APRCSE9LGR - COMBAT SHIRT G3 MULTICAM001.000.41.521.23.24.00 346.80APRCPE9034R - COMBAT PANT G3 MULTICAM001.000.41.521.23.24.00 547.80APRFSE90SMR - FIELD SHIRT G3 MULTICAM001.000.41.521.23.24.00 179.50APRCPE9030R - COMBAT PANT G3 MULTICAM001.000.41.521.23.24.00 273.90HC3 - AIRFLEX COMBAT KNEE PAD STYLE 03001.000.41.521.23.24.00 96.30Freight001.000.41.521.23.24.00 32.00APRCSE90SMR - COMBACT SHIRT G3 MULTICAM001.000.41.521.23.24.00 173.409Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 34Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :2,008.7023408811/15/2018076829 076829 CRYE PRECISION LLC23408911/15/2018005965 CUES INC 519201SEWER TV CAMERA REPAIRSSewer TV Camera Repairs423.000.75.535.80.48.00 1,701.9910.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.48.00 175.27Total :1,877.2623409011/15/2018006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3341819BUSINESS RECRUITMENT ADS OCTOBER 2018Business recruitment ads for October001.000.61.558.70.41.40 400.00Total :400.0023409111/15/2018076013 DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP 75799URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANUrban Forest Management Plan001.000.62.558.60.41.00 1,550.00Total :1,550.0023409211/15/2018068654 DIJULIO DISPLAYS INC 8807PM: PLAZA TREE HOLIDAY LIGHTSPM: PLAZA TREE HOLIDAY LIGHTS125.000.64.576.80.31.00 4,568.3810.3% Sales Tax125.000.64.576.80.31.00 470.54Total :5,038.9223409311/15/2018076172 DK SYSTEMS 21333CITY HALL - THERMOSTAT REPLACEMENTCity Hall - Thermostat Replacement001.000.66.518.30.48.00 780.80Prevailing Wage Affidavit001.000.66.518.30.48.00 40.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 80.42PS - REPAIRS21583PS - Repairs001.000.66.518.30.48.00 210.0010Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 35Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds11 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23409311/15/2018(Continued)076172 DK SYSTEMS10.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 21.63Total :1,132.8523409411/15/2018070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 18-2838.2E8FC.(194TH & 88TH) SERVICES THRU 10/28/E8FC.(194th & 88th).Services thru422.000.72.594.31.65.41 2,271.58Total :2,271.5823409511/15/2018066356 EDMONDS IN BLOOM 20180820TREE BOARD PARTNERED WITH EDMONDS INTree Board partnered with Edmonds in001.000.62.524.10.31.00 200.00Total :200.0023409611/15/2018038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2018-11-0111/18 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE11/18 Recreation Services Contract Fee001.000.39.569.10.41.00 6,250.00Total :6,250.0023409711/15/2018008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5-00080IRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINEIRRIGATION AT HWY 99/CITY LINE001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.59INTERURBAN TRAIL5-10351INTERURBAN TRAIL001.000.64.576.80.47.00 129.59Total :177.1823409811/15/2018031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 184463RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENTRadix Monthly Maint Agreement - Dec421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00Total :152.0023409911/15/2018009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH831975CITY ORDINANCES 4130 & 4131CITY ORDINANCES 4130 & 4131001.000.25.514.30.41.40 36.12CITY NOTICES - CITY COUNCIL MEETING 2019EDH83307211Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 36Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds12 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23409911/15/2018(Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALDCITY NOTICES - CITY COUNCIL MEETING001.000.25.514.30.41.40 55.04CITY ORDINANCE 4312EDH833607CITY ORDINANCE 4132001.000.25.514.30.41.40 30.96Total :122.1223410011/15/2018076624 FORAN, SHANNON 6911 ZUMBA CLASS 6911 ZUMBA CLASS INSTRUCTION6911 ZUMBA CLASS INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 232.00Total :232.0023410111/15/2018071562 FORMADSP-03-10.29.18GATEWAY SIGN DESIGN SERVICESGATEWAY SIGN DESIGN SERVICES125.000.64.594.76.65.41 781.25Total :781.2523410211/15/2018011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNTTELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT421.000.74.534.80.42.00 265.78TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT423.000.75.535.80.42.00 265.78425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LINE425-776-5316425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LINE001.000.64.576.80.42.00 103.69Total :635.2523410311/15/2018076851 FROSTED CUPCAKES AND CAKES FROSTED103118 ESCC HEKINAN WEEKHekinan week halloween138.200.21.557.21.49.00 180.0010.3% Sales Tax138.200.21.557.21.49.00 18.54Total :198.5423410411/15/2018071467 GATEWAY PET MEMORIAL WA70014-I-0014INV#WA70014-I-0014 - EDMONDS PD12Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 37Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds13 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23410411/15/2018(Continued)071467 GATEWAY PET MEMORIAL8 ANIMAL DISPOSALS @ $12.47 = $99.76~001.000.41.521.70.41.00 99.76Total :99.7623410511/15/2018076542 GRANICUS 105226LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA & MINUTELEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT - AGENDA &001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1,417.50Total :1,417.5023410611/15/2018074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 854528OLD PW - SECURITYOLD PW - SECURITY001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00Total :55.0023410711/15/2018012560 HACH COMPANY 11200712WWTP: 1/26/19-1/25/20 HACH121836 SUBSCRI1/26/19-1/25/20 HACH121836 SUBSCRIPTION423.000.76.535.80.41.00 3,310.0010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 340.94Total :3,650.9423410811/15/2018010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I4969434WATER - PARTSWater - Parts421.000.74.534.80.31.00 618.3210.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 63.69Total :682.0123410911/15/2018013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 66REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSMENT009.000.39.517.20.23.00 391.43Total :391.4323411011/15/2018074746 HIGUCHI, ROD 6785 UKULELE CLASS6785 UKULELE AQUIRING THE BASICS CLASS I6785 UKULELE AQUIRING THE BASICS CLASS001.000.64.571.22.41.00 178.2013Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 38Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds14 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :178.2023411011/15/2018074746 074746 HIGUCHI, ROD23411111/15/2018067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1014071PS - SUPPLIESPS - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 65.6110.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.56MUSEUM - SUPPLIES3010855Museum - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 118.6810.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.87MUSEUM WINDOW REPAIR SUPPLIES3025310Museum Window Repair Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 33.9110.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.39CITY PARK GREEN HOUSE - SUPPLIES31605City Park Green House - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 65.2410.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.52MUSEUM - SUPPLIES4012101Museum - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 129.8510.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.99FS 20 - SUPPLIES4022621FS 20 - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 52.2810.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.23PW - FILTERS, SUPPLIES4022699PW - Filters, Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 32.9110.0% Sales Tax14Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 39Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds15 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23411111/15/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.29ROADWAY - WHEEL BARRELS, SLEDGE4022702Roadway - Wheel Barrels, Sledge111.000.68.542.31.31.00 300.7310.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 30.07MUSEUM - SUPPLIES5011948Museum - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 163.1110.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.31FAC - SUPPLIES5011952FAC - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 94.2510.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.43WATER - SUPPLIES5082251Water - Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 92.6110.0% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.26FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES6025010Fac Maint Shop Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 40.9710.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.10FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES6025031Fac Maint - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 69.2110.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.92SEWER - SUPPLIES7202841Sewer - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.6615Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 40Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds16 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23411111/15/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES10.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 0.67MUSEUM - WINDOWS REPAIR SUPPLIES8024731Museum - Windows Repair Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 111.9210.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.19TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES8092341Traffic - Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 11.9110.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.19SEWER - SUPPLIES9014462Sewer - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 35.0210.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 3.50FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES9025820Fac Maint - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.1110.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.41WATER - SUPPLIES9084423Water - Supplies421.000.74.534.80.31.00 46.4810.0% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.65SEWER - SUPPLIES9578039Sewer - Supplies423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.7110.0% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.37STREET - RAKES, SUPPLIES9593202Street - Rakes, Supplies16Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 41Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds17 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23411111/15/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES111.000.68.542.71.31.00 123.5810.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.71.31.00 12.36Total :1,796.0323411211/15/2018061013 HONEY BUCKET 0550851812HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKETHICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 607.62YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET0550851813YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 309.21HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET0550851814HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 218.78PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET0550851815PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET0550851816SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET0550851817WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 215.05CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET0550851818CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85MARINA BEACH PARK/DOG PARK HONEY BUCKET0550851819MARINA BEACH PARK/DOG PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,394.23CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY BUCKET0550851820CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET0550851821CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.8517Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 42Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds18 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23411211/15/2018(Continued)061013 HONEY BUCKET6801 N MEADOWDALE RD HONEY BUCKET05508518226801 N MEADOWDALE RD HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 175.00MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET0550857868MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET001.000.64.576.80.45.00 111.65Total :3,600.7923411311/15/2018073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3166890UB - PRINTER INK CARTRIDGEUB - Printer Ink Cartridge421.000.74.534.80.31.00 49.15UB - Printer Ink Cartridge423.000.75.535.80.31.00 49.15UB - Printer Ink Cartridge422.000.72.531.90.31.00 49.1610.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.31.00 5.0610.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.0610.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.31.00 5.07WWTP: C-FOLD TOWELS, DIAL BODY/HAIR WASH3170886C-FOLD TOWELS, DIAL BODY/HAIR WASH423.000.76.535.80.31.00 227.9110.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 23.47CALENDARS FOR DSD3172201Calendars for DSD001.000.62.524.10.31.00 529.37OFFICE SUPPLIES - WKLY/MNTHLY PLANNER3172815Office supplies - Wkly/Mnthly Planner001.000.62.524.10.31.00 24.21Total :967.6123411411/15/2018076828 INSTRUMENT TECHNOLOGIES INC B181019WWTP: CALIBRATE VACUUM GAUG18Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 43Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds19 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23411411/15/2018(Continued)076828 INSTRUMENT TECHNOLOGIES INCCALIBRATE VACUUM GAUGE, BAROMETER,423.000.76.535.80.41.00 532.50Total :532.5023411511/15/2018065947 INTL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE ISA RENEWAL DILL ISA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL DILLPROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL $135,001.000.64.576.80.49.00 185.00Total :185.0023411611/15/2018073950 KUBWATER RESOURCES 08083WWTP: 10/26/18 POLYMER10/26/18 Polymer423.000.76.535.80.31.51 11,372.2910.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.51 1,171.35Total :12,543.6423411711/15/2018016850 KUKER RANKEN INC INV-045506WHITE MARKING PAINTWhite Marking Paint001.000.67.518.21.49.00 32.1810.3% Sales Tax001.000.67.518.21.49.00 3.31Total :35.4923411811/15/2018075848 KUOW PUGET SOUND PUBLIC RADIO IN-1181033146BUSINESS RECRUITMENT DIGITAL AD KUOW 10/Business recruitment online digital001.000.61.558.70.41.40 250.00BUSINESS RECRUITMENT RADIO SPOTS OCTOBERIN-1181033155Business recruitment radio spots001.000.61.558.70.41.40 3,200.00Total :3,450.0023411911/15/2018066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC 68209WATER - EZ STREET ASPHALTWater - EZ Street Asphalt421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,502.2810.0% Sales Tax19Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 44Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds20 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23411911/15/2018(Continued)066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC421.000.74.534.80.31.00 150.23Total :1,652.5123412011/15/2018018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 1048449PM: FAN COVERPM: FAN COVER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 105.0210.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.82Total :115.8423412111/15/2018075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC E0101692CITY HALL - PAINTCity Hall - Paint001.000.66.518.30.31.00 59.9910.0% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.00Total :65.9923412211/15/2018019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 67REIMBURSEMENTREIMBURSEMENT009.000.39.517.20.29.00 8,067.50Total :8,067.5023412311/15/2018020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 77395199WWTP: HOSE COUPLINGSHOSE COUPLINGS423.000.76.535.80.48.00 197.30Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.9610.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 21.35WWTP: AIR DRAIN VALVE77467415AIR DRAIN VALVE423.000.76.535.80.48.00 187.50Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 8.6210.3% Sales Tax20Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 45Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds21 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23412311/15/2018(Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO423.000.76.535.80.48.00 20.20WWTP: VALVE78126963Actuated on/Off Valve423.000.76.535.80.48.00 262.40Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 11.0910.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 28.17Total :746.5923412411/15/2018069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 17234SCANNING FOR DSD BUILDING DIVISIONScanning for DSD Building Division001.000.62.524.10.41.00 21,708.86Total :21,708.8623412511/15/2018020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 293904SEWER - 2 CYCLE OILSewer - 2 Cycle Oil423.000.75.535.80.31.00 62.1510.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.40PM: GLOVES294026PM: GLOVES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 59.9010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.17Total :134.6223412611/15/2018064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0521987-INSEWER - SENSORSSewer - Sensors423.000.75.535.80.31.00 120.00Freight423.000.75.535.80.31.00 14.1310.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.8221Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 46Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds22 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :147.9523412611/15/2018064570 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC23412711/15/2018067694 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO. PSCS0623139 WWTP: BATTERIES & XPO STANDBATTERIES & XPO STAND423.000.76.535.80.48.00 999.5210.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 102.95Total :1,102.4723412811/15/2018075770 NEOFUNDS BY NEOPOST 122511587900044080303286 POSTAGE 10/23/2018POSTAGE ADDED TO THE MAIL MACHINE001.000.25.514.30.42.00 4,000.00Total :4,000.0023412911/15/2018065720 OFFICE DEPOT 217594504001 PW OFFICE SUPPLIESPW Office Supplies001.000.65.518.20.31.00 85.8510.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.31.00 8.84PW OFFICE SUPPLIES217612589001PW Office Supplies001.000.65.518.20.31.00 71.4410.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.31.00 7.36INV#222230258001 ACCT#90520437 - EDMONDS2222302580011588285 - PURELL ALOE SANITIZER 4001.000.41.521.10.31.00 57.1310.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.88INV#226230898001 ACCT#90520437 - EDMONDS226230898001613175 A7072100B - LARGE BINDER CLIPS001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.18463314 30252 - DYMO ADDRESS LABELS 2001.000.41.521.10.31.00 33.64765798 MB-OP5798 - WRBND MEMO BOOKS - 2001.000.41.521.10.31.00 15.1622Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 47Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds23 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23412911/15/2018(Continued)065720 OFFICE DEPOT444770 LF-63 CORK BOARD CLIPS001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.9910.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.20INV#226272004001 ACCT#90520437 - EDMONDS226272004001796171 98108 - CD / DVD STOMPER LABELS001.000.41.521.10.31.00 47.9810.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.94Total :366.5923413011/15/2018070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER October, 2018COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTALEmergency Medical Services & Trauma001.000.237.120 1,407.74PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account001.000.237.130 29,078.09Building Code Fee Account001.000.237.150 329.50State Patrol Death Investigation001.000.237.330 77.76Judicial Information Systems Account001.000.237.180 6,919.86School Zone Safety Account001.000.237.200 70.14Washington Auto Theft Prevention001.000.237.250 2,816.54Traumatic Brain Injury001.000.237.260 558.33Accessible Communities Acct001.000.237.290 277.75Multi-Model Transportation001.000.237.300 277.75Hwy Safety Acct001.000.237.320 291.6623Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 48Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds24 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23413011/15/2018(Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURERWSP Hwy Acct001.000.237.340 441.77Total :42,546.8923413111/15/2018076846 ORTMAN, MICHAEL REFUNDREFUND FOR HOLIDAY MARKET WIRefund of Holiday Market vendor fee001.000.347.93.000.00 150.00Total :150.0023413211/15/2018027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 18-T1057152PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130PM YARD WASTE DUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00Total :84.0023413311/15/2018073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 29892INV 29892 EDMONDS PD - OCTOBER 2018WEB BASED PEP TEST001.000.41.521.10.41.00 20.00Total :20.0023413411/15/2018028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY T656928PM SUPPLIES: FOAM CONDUIT PISTONSPM SUPPLIES: FOAM CONDUIT PISTONS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.9710.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.34PS - SUPPLIEST696472PS - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 49.1810.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.07Total :68.5623413511/15/2018029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 11-01-18EDMONDS PD FUEL CARD - CHARGES 10/3/18TOP OFF BEFORE DNDO EXERCISE001.000.41.521.22.43.00 16.57REFUEL AFTER DNDO EXERCISE24Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 49Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds25 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23413511/15/2018(Continued)029117 PORT OF EDMONDS001.000.41.521.22.43.00 113.61Total :130.1823413611/15/2018064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525ALARM MONITORING CITY HALLALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N001.000.66.518.30.42.00 56.87Total :56.8723413711/15/2018070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 18-2387COURT SECURITY 10/29/2018-10/31/2018COURT SECURITY 10/29/2018-10/31/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.00 412.50PROBATION MRT SECURITY 10/31/2018001.000.23.523.30.41.00 96.25Total :508.7523413811/15/2018061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE WFIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W001.000.66.518.30.47.00 213.64PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW3-0197-0800897PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW001.000.65.518.20.47.00 33.52PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW111.000.68.542.90.47.00 127.38PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW421.000.74.534.80.47.00 127.38PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW423.000.75.535.80.47.10 127.38PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW511.000.77.548.68.47.00 127.38PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW422.000.72.531.90.47.00 127.36FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW3-0197-0801132FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW001.000.66.518.30.47.00 203.16CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD3-0197-082972925Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 50Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds26 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23413811/15/2018(Continued)061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD001.000.66.518.30.47.00 71.95Total :1,159.1523413911/15/2018033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2437677PM: E-BLOCKS - CITY PARK STORAGE SHEDPM: E-BLOCKS - CITY PARK STORAGE SHED125.000.64.594.76.65.00 600.0010.1 % Sales Tax125.000.64.594.76.65.00 60.60PM: CITY PARK STORAGE SHED - SERVICE CHA2439755PM: CITY PARK STORAGE SHED - SERVICE125.000.64.594.76.65.00 9.91Total :670.5123414011/15/2018070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 103868PW - GEOTECH EVALUATIONPW - GeoTech Evaluation001.000.66.518.30.41.00 125.00E4FD.TO 18-02.SERVICES THRU 10/20/18103875E4FD.TO 18-02.Services thru 10/20/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 1,987.00Total :2,112.0023414111/15/2018076850 SHOOBY DOO CATERING E06014/E06183 HEKINAN WEEK HALLOWEENHekinan week Halloween138.200.21.557.21.49.00 1,171.20Hekinan week 30th anniversary reception138.200.21.557.21.49.00 1,254.1610.3% Sales Tax138.200.21.557.21.49.00 249.81Total :2,675.1723414211/15/2018037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0255-4WWTP: 10/3-10/31/18 FLOWMETER 100054149310/3-10/31/18 FLOW METER 2400 HIGHWAY423.000.76.535.80.47.62 16.60CITY PARK RESTROOMS2006-5085-126Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 51Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds27 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23414211/15/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1CITY PARK RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.38PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP2006-5164-4PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 362.46HICKMAN PARK2011-8453-8HICKMAN PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 25.63CITY PARK GAZEBO2013-8327-0CITY PARK GAZEBO001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.45CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS2014-5305-7CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 77.55ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / MET2017-9000-3ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 20.309TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED2022-5062-79TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.45SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW2025-4064-7SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.74LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / METER 102051-8438-5LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 19.22VETERANS PLAZA METER 10005972782217-3208-4VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597278001.000.64.576.80.47.00 89.24Total :677.0223414311/15/2018063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2018-4707INV#2018-4707 EDMONDS JAIL - SEPT 2018334.67 BASE RATE - HOUSING DAYS @001.000.39.523.60.51.00 33,041.9756.17 BOOKINGS @ $121.42 EA27Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 52Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds28 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23414311/15/2018(Continued)063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE001.000.39.523.60.51.00 6,820.1636.83 MEDICAL/SPECIALTY HOUSING PREMIUM001.000.39.523.60.51.00 2,089.7332 MENTAL HEALTH HOUSING PREMIUM @001.000.39.523.60.51.00 4,383.6813 VIDEO COURT HOURS @ $134.70001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,751.10Total :48,086.6423414411/15/2018065176 SNOHOMISH CO TOURISM BUREAU LTAC-Edm0618SNO CO VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER AWARDLTAC award to Sno Co Visitor120.000.31.575.42.41.00 3,200.00Total :3,200.0023414511/15/2018006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 73666PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEESPARKS MAINT DUMP FEES001.000.64.576.80.47.00 549.00DUMP FEES - MUSEUM001.000.66.518.30.49.00 96.00DUMP FEES422.000.72.531.10.49.00 20.00Total :665.0023414611/15/2018067809 SNOHOMISH COUNTY FINANCE I0004859372ND HALF 2018 P&I 800 MHZ BILLING2nd Half 2018 800 MHZ Billing -001.000.39.591.21.71.00 98,118.782nd Half 2018 800 MHZ Billing - Interest001.000.39.592.21.83.00 5,034.392ND HALF 2018 SNOCOM P&I BILLINGI0004859382nd Half 2018 SnoCom Billing - Principal001.000.39.591.21.71.00 26,852.772nd Half 2018 SnoCom Billing - Interest001.000.39.592.21.83.00 1,377.80Total :131,383.7428Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 53Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds29 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23414711/15/2018037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE 18-0029Q3-18 EMS BILLING & POSTAGEQ3-18 Ambulance billings & postage001.000.39.522.70.41.00 15,438.50Total :15,438.5023414811/15/2018038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584WWTP: RECYCLINGRecycling + taxes423.000.76.535.80.47.66 38.75PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING103587PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,022.94Total :1,061.6923414911/15/2018039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L12794110-18 AUDIT FEES10-18 Audit Fees001.000.39.514.20.51.00 166.1010-18 Audit Fees111.000.68.543.30.51.00 4.9110-18 Audit Fees421.000.74.534.80.51.00 60.4810-18 Audit Fees422.000.72.531.90.51.00 32.4710-18 Audit Fees423.000.75.535.80.51.00 85.4810-18 Audit Fees423.000.76.535.80.51.00 22.4010-18 Audit Fees511.000.77.548.68.51.00 8.56Total :380.4023415011/15/2018076474 STROMME, JOANNE 6880 6874 6878 CLASS6880 6874 6878 YOGA CLASS INSTRUCTION6880 YOGA TH W/JOANNE CLASS INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 324.506874 YOGA TU W/JOANNE CLASS INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 470.006878 YOGA FRI W/JOANNE CLASS INSTRUCTION29Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 54Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds30 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23415011/15/2018(Continued)076474 STROMME, JOANNE001.000.64.571.27.41.00 470.00Total :1,264.5023415111/15/2018076799 SWIFT GLASS COMPANY 458493WWTP: POL QUARTZ DISCS POL QUARTZ DISCS423.000.76.535.80.48.00 330.00Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 13.05Total :343.0523415211/15/2018070774 ULINE INC 102763840 INV#102763840 CUST#2634605 - EDMONDS PDS-13807 PURELL 80Z PUMP BOTTLE001.000.41.521.10.31.00 70.20S-15348 SALINE -EYESALINE REFILL001.000.41.521.10.31.00 32.00Freight001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.9710.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.97Total :128.1423415311/15/2018070902 ULVESTAD, KAREN 6790 PHOTOGRAPHY6790 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY CLASS INSTRUCTI6790 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY CLASS001.000.64.571.22.41.00 177.10Total :177.1023415411/15/2018071549 UNIVAR USA INC KT557534WWTP: SOD. BISULFITESOD. BISULFITE423.000.76.535.80.31.54 1,883.0710.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.54 193.96Total :2,077.0323415511/15/2018043935 UPS00002T4T13428INV#00002T4T13428 - EDMONDS PDUPS CHG - CASE #18-024861 - OVER CHARGE30Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 55Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds31 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23415511/15/2018(Continued)043935 UPS001.000.41.521.10.42.00 60.88Total :60.8823415611/15/2018068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0810142-WAINV 0810142-WA ACCT 001447 EDMONDS PD -LEAD W/ZPP001.000.41.521.40.41.00 61.00VENIPUNCTURE FEE FOR LEAD TEST001.000.41.521.40.41.00 28.00LEAD W/ZPP001.000.41.521.40.41.00 61.00VENIPUNCTURE FEE FOR LEAD TEST001.000.41.521.40.41.00 28.00Total :178.0023415711/15/2018075496 VALERIE INC 2018-NovemberHOLIDAY MARKET MANAGER FOR NHoliday market manager for November 2018001.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,000.00Total :2,000.0023415811/15/2018067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9817502780C/A 442201730-00001iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office001.000.21.513.10.42.00 35.12Total :35.1223415911/15/2018075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3282.04-6CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 9/26/18-10/CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE125.000.64.594.76.65.41 29,877.79Total :29,877.7923416011/15/2018065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I19002960INV#I19002960 ID#EDM301 - EDMONDS PD - OBACKGROUND CHECKS - OCT 2018001.000.237.100 288.00Total :288.0023416111/15/2018075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 10931310FAC MAINT - SUPPLIESFac Maint - Supplies31Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 56Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds32 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23416111/15/2018(Continued)075635 WCP SOLUTIONS001.000.66.518.30.31.00 174.3010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.95FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES10931311Fac Maint - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,666.5010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 171.65FAC MAINT - JANITORIAL TECH SVC18767Fac Maint - Janitorial Tech Svc001.000.66.518.30.48.00 272.2010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 28.04FAC MAINT - JANITORIAL SVC18768Fac Maint - Janitorial Svc001.000.66.518.30.48.00 149.8010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 15.43Total :2,495.8723416211/15/2018074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH 1398307INV#1398307 CUST ID EDMONDS PD - OCT 201BAY RENTAL 10/25/2018 2 @ $55.00001.000.41.521.40.41.00 110.00RANGE USAGE:~001.000.41.521.40.41.00 122.4010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.40.41.00 12.60Total :245.0023416311/15/2018072627 WEST SAFETY SERVICES INC 7008883MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINTMonthly 911 database maint512.000.31.518.88.48.00 200.00Total :200.0023416411/15/2018064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 25752PM: PLANTS: VETERANS PLAZA32Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 57Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds33 8:29:01AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount23416411/15/2018(Continued)064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDSPM: PLANTS: VETERANS PLAZA001.000.64.576.80.31.00 67.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.90Total :73.9023416511/15/2018075122 YAKIMA CO DEPT OF CORR YAKIMA OCT 2018INMATE HOUSING - OCT 2018 - EDMONDS PD2 INMATES-33 DAYS TOTAL @$59.85001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,975.05Total :1,975.05Bank total : 449,368.0598 Vouchers for bank code :usbank449,368.05Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report9833Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 58Attachment: claims 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds111:48:27AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1115201811/15/2018062693 US BANK 1683COURT FRONT COUNTER COPY MACHINE RENTALCOURT FRONT COUNTER COPY MACHINE RENTAL001.000.23.512.50.45.00 7.81PROBATION COPY MACHINE RENTAL001.000.23.523.30.45.00 11.25PASSPORT MAILING LABELS001.000.23.512.50.42.00 87.10COURTROOM FAX MACHINE TONER001.000.23.523.30.31.00 53.99COURT/PROBATION SHREDDING 09/26/2018001.000.23.512.50.49.00 9.8610.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.512.50.45.00 0.8010.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.523.30.45.00 1.1610.3% Sales Tax001.000.23.523.30.31.00 5.56INV#1885 - POLICE #2 - EDMONDS PD1885PILOT - FLYING J - GAS, SPOKANE - D.001.000.41.521.40.43.00 42.75MIRABEAU PARK HOTEL - SPOKANE VALLEY -001.000.41.521.40.43.00 116.35BRONCO INN - RITZVILLE, WA - HIT A DEER001.000.41.521.40.43.00 102.02EXXON MOBIL RITZVILLE, WA - D. SMITH001.000.41.521.40.43.00 33.48FISHERIES - UNIT M16 - SUPPLIES1937Fisheries - Unit M16 - Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.10 552.57Fisheries - Unit 400 - Ignition Switch511.000.77.548.68.31.10 25.19Tri-Cities - Unit 400 - Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.29Good to Go - Unit 2821Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 59Attachment: wire 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds211:48:27AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1115201811/15/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK511.000.77.548.68.48.00 2.75Amazon - Unit 66 - Truck Lite511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.19B&B Towing - Unit 183 - Towing511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,303.17Creative Interiors - Units 904,928,960511.000.77.548.68.31.10 496.35Amazon - Unit 48 - Headlight lens,511.000.77.548.68.31.10 110.51WA DOL - Lic Units 91, P11,P9511.000.77.548.68.49.00 32.00Pacific Power Batteries - Unit 9 -511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.10Good to Go - Unit 145511.000.77.548.68.48.00 7.50Good To Go - Unit 411511.000.77.548.68.48.00 10.00Amazon - Unit 106 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 88.24WA DOL - Units 65, 32, 38, 68, 413 Lic511.000.77.548.68.34.12 177.25Home Depot - Unit 110 - Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.10 63.23Fisheries - Unit 69 - Water Pump511.000.77.548.68.31.10 179.68Good to Go -Auto Replenish511.000.77.548.68.48.00 30.00Lowes - Unit 110 - Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.73Good To Go - Auto Replenish511.000.77.548.68.48.00 30.00Fisheries - Unit 66 - Solenoid511.000.77.548.68.31.10 54.84PayPal - Fleet - Volume Knobs for2Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 60Attachment: wire 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds311:48:27AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1115201811/15/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK511.000.77.548.68.31.10 39.50Home Depot - Unit 628 - Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.10 25.92Walgreens - Supplies511.000.77.548.68.49.00 14.32FISHERIES - RETURNS1937Fisheries - Returns511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -415.00INV#2519 10/06/2018 - POLICE #1 - EDMOND2519FEDEX - WSP SEATTLE CRIME LABORATORY -001.000.41.521.10.42.00 16.72WWTP: ERASERS,PENS,BULBS,TRAINING/HOTEL,2985Amazon: Bd erasers, pens, light bulbs,423.000.76.535.80.31.00 384.54Approved Environment: Dan G: $40 class423.000.76.535.80.49.71 1,151.92Amazon: Ear Muffs & iPhone Charger423.000.76.535.80.35.00 187.98INV#3215 11/06/2018 - COMPAAN - EDMONDS3215UBER TRIP 10-10-18 - IACP CHIEFS OF001.000.41.521.40.43.00 21.29UBER TRIP TIP 10-10-2018001.000.41.521.40.43.00 3.00BAG-2215 MOLLE BELT RIG / LOW PROFILE001.000.41.521.23.24.00 377.92INV#3314 11/06/2018 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS3314THE HOME DEPOT - 1002703646 21.7 CU FT.001.000.41.521.70.35.00 864.86AMAZON - 5 CYALUME SNAPLIGHT GREEN GLOW628.000.41.521.23.31.00 330.75AMAZON - 12 ALEENES ALL PURPOSE TACKY628.000.41.521.23.31.00 78.96ACTION TARGET - 4000 RESTON GROUP628.000.41.521.23.31.00 1,245.743Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 61Attachment: wire 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds411:48:27AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1115201811/15/2018(Continued)062693 US BANKCANVA - MO SVC CHARGE -001.000.41.521.40.41.40 12.95BUSHNESLL MO CHARGE DATE ON TRAIL -001.000.41.521.22.42.00 9.99ECO - STORM ECO3 TRAINING FOR M3355ECO - Storm ECO3 Training for M422.000.72.531.90.43.00 600.00MONO PRICE - PW - APPLE CHARGING CORDS3535Mono Price - PW - Apple Charging Cords001.000.65.518.20.31.00 122.41Amazon - Library - Outdoor Wall Mount001.000.66.518.30.31.00 166.01Stoneway - City Hall - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.47Win-911 - Software Update421.000.74.534.80.48.00 247.50Win-911 - Software Update423.000.75.535.80.48.00 247.50SNOCO Solid Waste - Water/Sewer -421.000.74.534.80.48.00 38.00SNOCO Solid Waste - Water/Sewer -423.000.75.535.80.48.00 38.00Appliance Recycle - 2 Refridge from 200111.000.68.542.90.49.00 90.00Costco - PW Supplies001.000.65.518.20.31.00 84.08Amazon - City - Gas Cartidges001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.12COUNCIL US BANK VISA - SUPPLIES & VOLUNT4474Trader Joes - Beverages & Dessert for001.000.11.511.60.43.00 47.03PCC - Supplies for Volunteer Reception001.000.11.511.60.31.00 8.59Westway Cleaners - Laundering the4Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 62Attachment: wire 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds511:48:27AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1115201811/15/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.11.511.60.49.00 51.84Office Depot Paper Supplies001.000.11.511.60.31.00 42.55LANSING - B & G CLUB - DOWNSPOUTS4519Lansing - B & G Club - Downspouts001.000.66.518.30.31.00 90.46NYRPCORP.Com - FS 16 - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 68.724675 PARKS CREDIT CARD4675AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: TOYS001.000.64.571.29.31.00 63.19TUMBL TRAK: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES: RAMP,001.000.64.571.28.35.00 802.70AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: TRIPOD LADDER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 449.21PANERA: WOTS SUPPLIES117.100.64.573.20.31.00 2,004.56FACTORY DIRECT PARTY: GYMNASTICS PARTY001.000.64.571.28.31.00 58.50AMAZON: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES: WHITE001.000.64.571.28.31.00 15.32ORIENTAL TRADING: GYMNASTICS PARTY001.000.64.571.28.31.00 44.34SURVEY MONKEY: WOTS MONTHLY PLAN117.100.64.573.20.49.00 37.00AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: PANTS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.87AMAZON: SUPPLIES: PAPER CLIPS001.000.64.571.22.31.00 23.33LANDSCAPE DISCOUNT SUPPLY: PM SUPPLIES:001.000.64.576.80.31.00 519.62ISTOCK: SUPPLIES001.000.64.571.22.31.00 12.00AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: PANTS5Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 63Attachment: wire 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds611:48:27AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1115201811/15/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.64.576.80.31.00 88.23NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION: CARRIE001.000.64.571.21.31.00 164.79AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: PANTS WITH BIBS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 93.72AMAZON: SUPPLIES: FILE FOLDERS001.000.64.571.22.31.00 17.33MEAD AT-A-GLANCE: SUPPLIES: 2019001.000.64.571.22.31.00 32.75CITY OF EDMONDS: PM: PERMIT FOR SEAVIEW001.000.64.576.80.41.00 201.88ISSUU: DIGITAL CRAZE SUBSCRIPTION001.000.64.571.22.49.00 39.00AMAZON: SUPPLIES: 2019 CALENDARS001.000.64.571.22.31.00 60.62AMAZON: SUPPLIES: 2019 WALL CALENDAR001.000.64.571.22.31.00 24.05AMAZON: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES: JUGGLING001.000.64.571.28.31.00 24.18AMAZON: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES: STAGE001.000.64.571.28.31.00 85.03AMAZON: SUPPLIES: 2019 DESK CALENDARS001.000.64.571.22.31.00 19.01AMAZON: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES: BELLY001.000.64.571.28.31.00 35.52HEKINAN WEEK4697ESCC logo backpacks138.100.21.557.21.49.00 199.99napkins138.100.21.557.21.31.00 4.82retirement poster framing001.000.21.513.10.49.00 56.79message pads001.000.21.513.10.31.00 30.166Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 64Attachment: wire 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds711:48:27AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1115201811/15/2018(Continued)062693 US BANKESCC halloween decorations138.100.21.557.21.31.00 19.99ESCC Hekinan week Halloween138.100.21.557.21.31.00 128.46ESCC 30th Anniversary Reception138.200.21.557.21.49.00 150.44ESCC welcome bag138.100.21.557.21.31.00 84.57ESCC first aid supplies138.100.21.557.21.31.00 15.28compostable cups001.000.21.513.10.31.00 59.99ESCC Hekinan week Mayor's Welcome138.100.21.557.21.49.00 660.00ESCC 30th anniversary rentals138.100.21.557.21.49.00 234.90ESCC Hekinan Week138.100.21.557.21.49.00 41.36ESCC Hekinan Week138.200.21.557.21.49.00 770.00ESCC Hekinan Week Mayor's Welcome138.100.21.557.21.49.00 110.61ESCC 30th Anniversary reception138.200.21.557.21.49.00 10.00ESCC supplies bus cards138.100.21.557.21.31.00 13.94ESCC Hekinan Week138.200.21.557.21.49.00 320.6110.3% Sales Tax138.100.21.557.21.49.00 112.7910.3% Sales Tax138.100.21.557.21.31.00 6.3910.3% Sales Tax001.000.21.513.10.49.00 5.857Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 65Attachment: wire 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds811:48:27AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1115201811/15/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK10.3% Sales Tax001.000.21.513.10.31.00 9.28INV#4787 11/06/2018 - DAWSON - EDMONDS P4787HAND UP HOUSING - INV #1009 -001.000.39.565.40.41.00 550.00DSD OFFICE SUPPLIES4929DSD Office Supplies001.000.62.524.10.31.00 489.68Squarespace subscription for Shipley001.000.62.524.10.49.00 237.17ICC Membership dues for Chuck Miller001.000.62.524.20.49.00 135.00Basic Eng. Concepts for Builders and001.000.62.524.20.49.00 35.00Adobe Creative Cloud - Shipley001.000.62.524.10.41.00 58.45Book for Shipley001.000.62.558.60.49.00 18.70Bluebeam Revue Workshop for Johns001.000.62.524.20.49.00 20.00Bluebeam Revue Workshop for Bjorback001.000.62.524.20.49.00 20.00RECORDING FEES, AMAZON, LEMAY SHREDDING5593SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING - COVENANTS001.000.25.514.30.49.00 206.00SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING - SHORT PLAT001.000.25.514.30.49.00 187.50AMAZON - STAPLE CARTRIDGES001.000.25.514.30.31.00 42.90SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING - LIENS421.000.74.534.80.49.00 437.00SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING - LIENS423.000.75.535.80.49.00 437.00STARBUCKS - COFFEE TRAVELER FOR SUCCESS8Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 66Attachment: wire 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds911:48:27AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1115201811/15/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.25.514.30.49.00 18.70AMAZON - COPY PAPER FOR CITY CLERKS001.000.25.514.30.31.00 87.30AMAZON - PENS FOR CITY CLERKS OFFICE001.000.25.514.30.31.00 14.11LEMAY SHREDDING - INVOICE # 4583830001.000.25.514.30.31.00 9.86LEMAY SHREDDING - INVOICE # 4583830001.000.31.514.23.41.00 9.86WAPRO REGISTRATION - NICHOLAS FALK001.000.25.514.30.49.00 175.00IIMC REGISTRATION - CMC DESIGNATION001.000.25.514.30.49.00 165.00PARKING FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING001.000.25.514.30.49.00 2.00SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING - COVENANTS001.000.25.514.30.49.00 103.00ADVERTISING, MEETING REFRESHMENTS, SUBSC5923LTAC Tourism Facebook advertising120.000.31.575.42.41.40 50.00Diversity Commission World Cafe001.000.61.557.20.41.40 37.29Diversity Commission Film Series001.000.61.557.20.41.40 40.00OfficeSpace commercial space on webpage001.000.61.558.70.41.00 100.00Business recruitment ad on 425 Business001.000.61.558.70.41.40 1,400.00Holiday Market posters001.000.61.558.70.49.00 16.51Diversity Commission World Cafe001.000.61.557.20.31.00 38.95Digital subscription to The Herald001.000.61.557.20.49.00 99.959Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 67Attachment: wire 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1011:48:27AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1115201811/15/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK6254 PARKS CR CARD6254SNOHOMISH COUNTY GARAGE: PARKING HITE001.000.64.571.21.43.00 6.00HOPE- PARKING FOR MTGS. SNO CNTY PAC~7000Hope- Parking for mtgs. Sno Cnty PAC~001.000.62.524.10.43.00 26.00PARKING DISCUSSION7483parking discussion w/Port lunch001.000.21.513.10.49.00 22.39ENG CREDIT CARD OCTOBER 20188017Zulauf.New Monitor001.000.67.518.21.49.00 496.34Lambert.iPhone case001.000.67.518.21.49.00 25.24SD Card for Green Resource Center001.000.67.518.21.49.00 15.94E5JB.Open House Mailer126.000.68.595.61.65.41 13.30E5JB.Open House Mailer421.000.74.594.34.65.41 56.82E5JB.Open House Mailer422.000.72.594.31.65.41 57.78E5JB.Open House Mailer423.000.75.594.35.65.41 41.47Rivera,Training "It's Not What We Say,001.000.67.518.21.49.00 119.00White Board Marker Set001.000.67.518.21.49.00 9.87White Board001.000.67.518.21.49.00 65.73SEPA for Maintain City Creeks,422.000.72.531.90.41.20 807.64Mesh Nets422.000.72.531.40.31.00 39.3210Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 68Attachment: wire 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1111:48:27AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1115201811/15/2018(Continued)062693 US BANKITUNES - PW - PHIL'S CITY CELL CLOUD8305ITunes - PW - Phil's City Cell Cloud001.000.65.518.20.42.00 0.99INV#8349 11/06/2018 - ANDERSON - EDMONDS8349NATIONAL ADVOCATE CREDENTIAL REF ID001.000.41.521.10.41.00 140.00INV#9821 11/06/2018 - GREENMUN - EDMONDS9821AKER LEATHER - A550BWBL - BASKETWEAVE001.000.41.521.40.31.00 151.99NORDTREE, INC - NATIONAL STUDENT SAFETY001.000.41.521.40.49.00 1,085.00AMAZON - STARBUCKS COFFEE, CUPS, MIND001.000.41.521.40.31.00 295.50AMAZON - 5 PACK 64 GB USB FLASH DRIVES001.000.41.521.21.31.00 61.48DICK'S SPORTING GOODS - 4 BOIL/BITE001.000.41.521.40.31.00 319.20GALLS - SMITH & WESSON M&P 9MM BLUE001.000.41.521.40.31.00 283.42TRANSUNION - BILLING STATEMENT TLOXP001.000.41.521.40.41.00 27.80AKER LEATHER - 5 A510BWH3 DOUBLE001.000.41.521.40.31.00 262.50GALLS -DISPOSABLE SINGLE SPARE CUFFS001.000.41.521.40.31.00 140.07GALLS - 3 SAFARILAND PADDLEBACK001.000.41.521.10.31.00 152.18GALLS - DOUBLE MAG POUCH - ACCUMOLD001.000.41.521.40.31.00 220.49GALLS - PVC VINYL RAINCOAT (ALERT -001.000.41.521.40.31.00 33.78SAFEWAY GAS - FUEL NEEDED TO FILL CAR -001.000.41.521.40.43.00 51.49COSTCO - 2 SHEET PROTECTORS FOR MAPBOOK11Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 69Attachment: wire 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 11/15/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1211:48:27AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount1115201811/15/2018(Continued)062693 US BANK001.000.41.521.40.31.00 25.37COSTCO - VIZIO SPEAKER SYSTEM FOR001.000.41.521.40.31.00 496.79AMAZON - CORD CHANNEL CABLE MANAGEMENT001.000.41.521.40.31.00 71.65AMAZON - HDMI CABLES (SPEAKER SYSTEM IN001.000.41.521.40.31.00 33.06OAKLEY, INC - SI BALLISTIC M FRAME 3.0001.000.41.521.23.35.00 250.16AMAZON - 2 SPORT SKILL INSTRUCTION FOR001.000.41.521.40.31.00 92.22PASADO SAFE HAVEN - ANIMAL LEGAL001.000.41.521.40.49.00 25.00BID/ED! FACEBOOK ADVERTISING, WINDOW CLIBID-1687/0907BID/Ed! window clings AlphaGraphics140.000.61.558.70.41.00 89.85BID/Ed! Facebook advertising140.000.61.558.70.41.40 106.90CM3314 11/06/2018 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS PDCM3314CREDIT MEMO - SPEAKER FOR EPD EVENT001.000.41.521.10.41.00 -781.40Total :28,655.59Bank total : 28,655.591 Vouchers for bank code :usbank28,655.59Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report112Page:4.2.bPacket Pg. 70Attachment: wire 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 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 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB 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 STR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA Revised 11/15/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 E8FC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 E8JB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB 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. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 E8DC 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 Revised 11/15/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD 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 11/15/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 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 WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update Revised 11/15/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title 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 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 Revised 11/15/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title 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 STR E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc Ramps STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement UTILITIES E8JB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program Revised 11/15/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 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 STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station Revised 11/15/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study 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 STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays Revised 11/15/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project WTR 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 STR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program STR E8DC i037 238th St.Island & Misc. Ramps STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update 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 UTILITIES E8JB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update Revised 11/15/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 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 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB 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 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 E8FC 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 11/15/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 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 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA 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. Island & Misc Ramps i037 E8DC 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 11/15/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) 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 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 E8JB 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 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA 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 11/15/2018 4.2.c Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-15-18 (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) Payroll Earnings Summary ReportCity of EdmondsPay Period: 945 (11/15/2018 to 11/15/2018)Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class DescriptionHOLIDAY BUY BACKHOLIDAY1534,283.00 193,216.10Total Net Pay: $143,923.50$193,216.104,283.0011/15/2018Page 1 of 14.2.dPacket Pg. 83Attachment: holiday buy back (Approval of claim checks, wire payment and payroll checks.) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/20/2018 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for an undetermined amount. Staff Lead: WCIA Claim Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Nicholas Falk Background/History n/a Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages by minute entry. Narrative Charles Manger submitted a claim for damages for an undetermined amount. Attachments: Manger, Charles CFD 4.3 Packet Pg. 84 4.3.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Manger, Charles CFD (Claim for Damages) 4.3.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Manger, Charles CFD (Claim for Damages) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/20/2018 Public Hearing of the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On November 13, 2018, staff presented the proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program to Council. Staff Recommendation Consider public comment and discuss possible changes and/or forward both documents to the consent agenda for approval at the November 27th City Council meeting. Narrative The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified within the six-year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects. CIP vs. CFP The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. The proposed 2019-2024 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2019-2024 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. Exhibit 3 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects between last year's CFP/CIP to the proposed CFP/CIP. The CFP and CIP were presented to the Planning Board on October 10th and a public hearing was held on October 24th. The Planning Board recommended the CFP and CIP be forwarded to the City Council for approval. The minutes (draft for October 24th) from the Planning Board meeting are attached as Exhibits 4 and 5. 6.1 Packet Pg. 87 The Powerpoint Presentation for the Public Hearing is attached as Exhibit 6. Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP Exhibit 3 - CIP-CFP Comparison Exhibit 4 - PB181010f Exhibit 5 - PB181024d Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation 6.1 Packet Pg. 88 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2019-2024 DRAFT 1 6.1.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 2 6.1.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CFP GENERAL 3 6.1.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 4 6.1.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)Parks, General, and Regional Projects (2019-2024)$4,350,000Grants$4,350,000$1,815,985REET 1/2$1,815,985$0Design $500,000Park Impact Fees$500,000$2,000,000GF$2,000,000$3,334,185 G.O. Bonds or Vote$3,334,185$12,000,170Total$0 $12,000,170$0$12,000,170$0Capital CampaignRCO Phase1 $0REET 2Complete $0School District$0Foundation$0Grants$0Total8M$0Public VoteUnknown Conceptual $0G.O. Bonds$0$0Total$3-4M$1,980,431REET $1,139,398 $841,033RCO WWRP Design $1,875,000Grants$1,125,000 $750,000ALEA Permitting $1,100,000 Park Impact Fees$1,100,000Construction $933,868 Private Partnership$933,868$5,889,299Total$4,298,266 $1,591,033$5,889,299EIS $0Federal (Unsecured)US DOT Completed $0State Funds$0TotalUnknownUnknown Conceptual $0Grants$0TotalUnknownTotal CFP$17,889,469 Annual CFP Totals $4,298,266 $13,591,203 $0$0$0$0Grant Opportunity Civic Center Development 2025-2039202420232022202120202019Revenue Source(2019-2024) Total CostCurrent Project PhaseRCO Local ParksEdmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal FacilityPublic Market (Downtown Waterfront)PurposeProject NameCommunity Park / Athletic Complex - Old Woodway High School: Phase 2 and 3Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations BuildingWaterfront Redevlopment/Waterfront Walkway CompletionDevelop the recently adopted master plan for Civic Park. Develop plan adding amenities and recreation components, restrooms to accommodate increased growth.In cooperation with ESD#15 develop a community park and athletic complex.Replace / Renovate deteriorating building in City Park.Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett’s Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums.Relocate ferry terminal to Marina Beach.Acquire and develop property for a year round public market. 5 6.1.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 6 6.1.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) This page intentionally left blank 7 6.1.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,750,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition. Develop the recently adopted master plan for Civic Park, including demolition of the stadium. Develop plan adding amenities and recreation components, restrooms to accommodate increased growth. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Civic Center Development. The acquisition and development of Civic Center is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Design $1,000,000 Construction $10,000,000 TOTAL $11,000,000 8 6.1.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted or unlighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project for all 3 phases. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and under maintained facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. Phase 1 was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phases 2 & 3 will be completed in the future for an additional $6-8M. SCHEDULE: 2018-2038 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025- 2038 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $6-8M *all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6-8 M 9 6.1.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City parks and Capital facilities for the long term. SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real estate taxes. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2038 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $3m - $4m * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 10 6.1.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment / Waterfront Walkway Completion ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,595,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett’s Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2018-2023 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $1,170,000 0 0 0 0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 11 6.1.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 12 6.1.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CFP TRANSPORTATION 13 6.1.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2019-2024)Safety / Capacity Analysis$0(Federal or State secured)$375,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$75,000 $300,000 $8,690,000Possible Grant Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$1,356,000$375,000Total$0$0$0$0 $75,000 $300,000 $10,046,000$10,000(Federal or State secured)$10,000$0(Federal or State unsecured)Construction $0(Local Funds)$10,000Total$10,000$0$0$0$0$0$0$9,437,376 (Federal or State secured) $437,376$3,000,000 $6,000,000State$28,000,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,250,000 $750,000 $9,000,000 $15,000,000 $2,000,000 $137,000,000Appropriation Design $290,000(Local Funds)$290,000$37,727,376Total$437,376 $1,540,000 $3,750,000 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 $2,000,000 $137,000,000(Federal or State secured)(Federal or State unsecured)Possible Grant Conceptual(Local Funds)Total(Federal or State secured)(Federal or State unsecured)Possible Grant Conceptual(Local Funds)Total(Federal or State secured)(Federal or State unsecured)Possible Grant Conceptual(Local Funds)Total(Federal or State secured)(Federal or State unsecured)Possible Grant Conceptual(Local Funds)Total$0(Federal or State secured)$744,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$122,000 $87,500 $535,000Possible Grant Conceptual $158,500(Local Funds)$71,000 $87,500$903,000Total$0$0$0 $193,000 $175,000 $535,000$0$0(Federal or State secured)$896,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$120,000 $776,000Possible Grant Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$896,000Total$0$0$0 $120,000 $776,000$0$0$702,000 (Federal or State secured)$400,000 $302,000$7,173,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$473,000 $3,000,000 $3,700,000Conceptual $251,000(Local Funds)$133,000 $118,000$8,125,000Total$0$0 $533,000 $892,000 $3,000,000 $3,700,000$0$0(Federal or State secured)$179,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$15,000 $164,000Possible Grant Conceptual $15,000(Local Funds)$15,000$194,000Total$0$0$0 $30,000 $164,000$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)$495,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$75,000 $420,000Possible Grant Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$495,000Total$0$0$0 $75,000 $420,000$0$0Project Costs included in Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costsProject Costs included in Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costsProject Costs included in Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costsProject Costs included in Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costsHwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection ImprovementsWiden 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200' storage length and an eastbound left turn lane.Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection ImprovementWiden 216th St. SW to add a left turn lane for eastbound and westbound movements.Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection ImprovementWiden 220th St. SW and Hwy 99 to add a westbound right turn lane (for 325' storage length) and a soutbound left turn lane (for 275' storage length). SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection ImprovementsConvert EB and WB LT along SR-104 to protected LT phasing; upgrade ADA curb ramps; and add C-Curb for access managementHwy 99 @ 234th St. SW Traffic SignalInstall new traffic signal at Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW to provide safer vehicular / pedestrian crossings, combined with corner widenings. SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection ImprovementsExtend left turn storage area for WB movement on SR-104 w/ various bicycle and pedestrian improvements. 2025-20392022 2023 2024Grant Opportunity(2019-2024) Total CostPurpose20212019 2020Funding SourceProject PhaseProject NameInstall two-way left turn lanes and sidewalks to improve capacity and pedestrian safety (project split with Snohomish County)228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl. W.76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection ImprovementsIntersection improvements to improve intersection delay and level of service (LOS).Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization Install gateway elements and safety improvements along SR-99 Corridor. SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave W Intersection ImprovementsImprove intersection safety by converting a stop controlled intersection for NB and SB movements to a signalized intersection. Install traffic signal to improve intersection delay and Level of Service (mini roundabout is an alternative solution).Main St. and 9th Ave S 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Intersection ImprovementsConvert split phasing operation for EB and WB movements to concurrent through movements, with protected / permissive LT phasing.14 6.1.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2019-2024)2025-20392022 2023 2024Grant Opportunity(2019-2024) Total CostPurpose20212019 2020Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name$0(Federal or State secured)$1,311,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$173,000 $1,138,000Possible Grant Conceptual $27,000(Local Funds)$27,000$1,338,000Total$0$0$0 $200,000 $1,138,000$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)$0(Federal or State unsecured)$1,183,000Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0 $1,183,000$0(Federal or State secured)$0(Federal or State unsecured)$15,441,000Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0 $15,441,000$0(Federal or State secured)$1,017,468 (Federal or State unsecured)$150,000 $867,468Possible Grant Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$1,017,468Total$0$0$0 $150,000 $867,468$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)$0(Federal or State unsecured)$3,017,000Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0 $3,017,000$0(Federal or State secured)$0(Federal or State unsecured)Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$610,000$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0 $610,000$140,195 (Federal or State secured)$140,195Possible$1,870,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$1,870,000RCO / TIB Grant Design $879,805(Local Funds)$154,805 $725,000for construction$2,890,000Total$0$0$0 $295,000 $2,595,000$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)$1,305,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$200,000$1,105,000Possible Grant Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$1,305,000Total$0$0$0$0 $200,000 $1,105,000$0$0(Federal or State secured)$1,288,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$106,500 $1,182,000Possible Grant Conceptual $106,500(Local Funds)$106,500$1,395,000Total$0$0$0 $213,000 $1,182,000$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)$90,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$90,000 $495,000Possible Grant Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$90,000Total$0$0$0$0$0 $90,000 $495,000$0(Federal or State secured)$1,199,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$200,000 $999,000Possible Grant Conceptual $797,000(Local Funds)$133,000 $664,000$1,996,000Total$0$0$0$0 $333,000 $1,663,000$0$0(Federal or State secured)$0(Federal or State unsecured)Conceptual $30,000(Local Funds)$30,000$30,000Total$0$0$0 $30,000$0$0$084th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW)Install two-way left turn lanes and sidewalk to improve capacity and pedestrian safety (split with Snohomish County)SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway80th Ave. W from 212th St SW to 206th St. SW Improve pedestrian safety along 80th Ave. W, within proximity to Edmonds-Woodway High School.Install traffic signal to improve Level of Service and intersection delay. Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW Intersection ImprovementsSR-104 @ 100th Ave. W Intersection ImprovementsImplement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, midblock pedestrian crossings along 100th Ave. W, and rechannelization with bike lanes / sharrows along 100th Ave. W.Provide safe sidewalk along short missing link.Improve pedestrian safety along 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to SR-104. 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104236th St SW from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. WImprove pedestrian safety along 236th St. SW, creating a safe pedestrian connection from Madrona ElementaryImprove pedestrian safety along 84th Ave. W. from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW. 84th Ave. W from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SWSR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Intersection ImprovementsAdd a 2nd WB left turn lane (split with Shoreline). Non-motorized Pedestrian / Bicycle ProjectsSunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St. Provide walkway on the west side of Sunset Ave, with various utility upgrades.Install traffic signal to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety; revise geometry to allow for safer turns. Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection ImprovementsInstall traffic signal to reduce the intersection delay and improve Level of Service.15 6.1.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2019-2024)2025-20392022 2023 2024Grant Opportunity(2019-2024) Total CostPurpose20212019 2020Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name$0(Federal or State secured)$650,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$100,000$550,000Possible Grant Conceptual $655,000(Local Funds)$100,000$555,000$1,305,000Total$0$0$0$0 $200,000 $1,105,000$0$0(Federal or State secured)$105,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$105,000Possible Grant Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$105,000Total$0$0$0 $105,000$0$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)$137,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$137,000Possible Grant Conceptual $20,000(Local Funds)$20,000$157,000Total$0$0$0 $157,000$0$0$0$4,000(Federal or State secured)$4,000$0(Federal or State unsecured)Construction $1,750(Local Funds)$1,750$5,750Total$5,750$0$0$0$0$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)$637,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$137,000 $500,000Possible Grant Conceptual $193,000(Local Funds)$38,000 $155,000$830,000Total$0$0$0 $175,000 $655,000$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)$2,330,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$436,000 $947,000 $947,000Possible Grant Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$2,330,000Total$0$0$0 $436,000 $947,000 $947,000$0$0(Federal or State secured)$250,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$250,000Construction $2,500(Local Funds)$2,500$252,500Total$252,500$0$0$0$0$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)$585,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$100,000 $485,000Possible Grant Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$585,000Total$0$0$0 $100,000 $485,000$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)Possible Grant$746,400 (Federal or State unsecured)$138,400 $608,000Conceptual $115,600(Local Funds)$21,600 $94,000$862,000Total$0$0$0 $160,000 $702,000$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)Possible Grant$1,160,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$174,000 $986,000Conceptual $50,000(Local Funds)$50,000$1,210,000Total$0$0$0 $224,000 $986,000$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)$0(Federal or State unsecured)$630,000Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0 $630,000Maplewood Dr. From Main St. to 200th St. SWProvide safe sidewalk, connecting to ex. Sidewalk along 200th St. SW (direct link to Maplewood Elementary School).Provide sidewalk on one side of Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. SProvide short missing link.216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave WProvide sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W (completing missing link)238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99Provide sidewalk on north side of 238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 (completing missing link)191st St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. WProvide sidewalk on one side of 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. to 76th Ave. (completing missing link)Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. SRailroad St. Sidewalk from Dayton St. to Main St. / SR-104Reconstruct and widen existing sidewalk along Railroad St. SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Non-Motorized Transportation ImprovementsExtend bike lanes within proximity of intersection and install new ADA compliant curb ramps95th Pl. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SWProvide sidewalk on one side of 95th Pl. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW completing missing link. Dayton St. from 3rd Ave. to 9th Ave. Complete missing link along Dayton St. from 3rd Ave. to 9th Ave. 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. WProvide safe sidewalk along a missing link of 218th St. SW. from 76th Ave. to 84th Ave. Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S Walkway16 6.1.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2019-2024)2025-20392022 2023 2024Grant Opportunity(2019-2024) Total CostPurpose20212019 2020Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name$0(Federal or State secured)$0(Federal or State unsecured)$990,000Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0 $990,000$0(Federal or State secured)$0(Federal or State unsecured)$315,000Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0 $315,000$0(Federal or State secured)$0(Federal or State unsecured)$315,000Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0 $315,000$0(Federal or State secured)$0(Federal or State unsecured)$765,000Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0 $765,000$0(Federal or State secured)$0(Federal or State unsecured)$1,170,000Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0 $1,170,000$0(Federal or State secured)$1,506,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$315,000 $1,191,000Possible Grant Conceptual $629,000(Local Funds)$125,000 $504,000$2,135,000Total$0$0$0 $440,000 $1,695,000$0$0$0(Federal or State secured)$0(Federal or State unsecured)$585,000Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$0Total$0$0$0$0$0$0 $585,000$0(Federal or State secured)$357,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$357,000Conceptual$0(Local Funds)$357,000Total$0$0$0 $357,000$0$0$0Edmonds St. Waterfront Connector$6,000,000 (Federal or State secured) $3,000,000 $3,000,000$21,000,000 (Federal or State Unsecured)$12,000,000 $9,000,000Possible GrantConceptual $500,000(Local funds)$500,000$27,500,000Total$3,000,000 $3,000,000 $12,500,000 $9,000,000$0$0$0Total CFP$96,421,094Annual CFP Totals $3,705,626 $4,540,000 $16,783,000 $28,352,000 $31,595,468 $11,445,000 $172,562,000TotalsSource2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039$16,293,571Total FederaL, State, CDBG (Secured)$3,451,376 $3,000,000 $3,400,000 $6,442,195 $0$0$0$75,406,868Total Federal & State (Unsecured) $250,000 $1,250,000 $12,750,000 $21,133,900 $29,796,968 $10,226,000 $170,596,000$4,721,655Local Funds$4,250 $290,000 $633,000 $776,905 $1,798,500 $1,219,000 $1,966,000104th Ave. W / Robinhood Lane from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. WProvide sidewalk on west side of 104th Ave. from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W (completing missing link)Ferry/RailroadFerry Storage Improvements from Pine St. to Dayton St. Improve ferry queueing by extending ferry storage area along SR-104 (striping changes). 80th Ave. W from 218th St. SW to 220th St. SWProvide sidewalk on one side of 80th Ave. W from 218th St. SW to 220th St. SW (completing missing link)Traffic Planning ProjectsInstall a grade-separated overcrossing over the railroad tracks as an extension of Edmonds Street connecting to Brackett's Landing North park. Revenue Summary by Year84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SWProvide sidewalk on one side of 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. WProvide sidewalk on one side of 236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. WProvide sidewalk on one side of 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave W189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. WProvide sidewalk on one side of 189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr.Improve pedestrian safety along 80th Ave. W, within proximity to Seaview Elementary and Seaview Park.17 6.1.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W to three lanes (with two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety and traffic flow along this corridor. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2023 (pending funding). These project costs would be split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is within Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, & ROW $75,000 $300,000 $1,200,000 Construction $8,846,000 1% for Art TOTAL $75,000 $300,000 $10,046,000 PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,421,000 18 6.1.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,700,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left-turn lane to convert the signal operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected-permissive phasing. Add a right-turn lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. The project also consists of various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level of service to LOS C. SCHEDULE: Substantial completion will be reached in October 2018 and the remaining Federal documentation will be completed in 2019. Federal and State transportation grants were secured to complete the different project phases (through CMAQ and TIB secured grants). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 19 6.1.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 Gateway/Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. SCHEDULE: The conceptual phase began in September 2017 and should be completed by November 2018. The design phase for the stretch from 224th St SW to 220th St. SW is scheduled to begin in 2019 (pending additional funding). A HSIP grant application was submitted to fund a portion of the design / ROW phases (pending response). $10M from Connecting Washington allocation has been secured, of which $9M isn’t available until 2021. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $437,376 $1,540,000 $3,750,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $16,000,000 Construction $15,000,000 $13,000,000 $121,000,000 1% for Art TOTAL $437,376 $1,540,000 $3,750,000 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 $2,000,000 $137,000,000 20 6.1.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,806,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200’ storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300’ storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements.(ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #4). The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2022 and 2024 (unsecured funding).The project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the project is within Lynnwood. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering, ROW, & Administration $175,000 $1,091,000 Construction $1,540,000 1% for Art TOTAL $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000 21 6.1.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,335,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected-permissive left turn phases for eastbound and westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2022 and 2024 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $204,000 $334,000 Construction $1,837,000 1% for Art TOTAL $204,000 $334,000 $1,837,000 22 6.1.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,215,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325’ storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275’ storage length. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #2). The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce intersection delay and improve traffic flow and safety. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2022 and 2024 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $175,000 $1,085,000 Construction $1,955,000 1% for Art TOTAL $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 23 6.1.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,300,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW to provide safer crossing of Hwy. 99 for vehicles and non-motorized transportation (project identified in Hwy. 99 Sub Area Plan). These intersection improvements are included as part of the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project. The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety and pedestrian conditions along the corridor. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2022 and 2024 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $300,000 $300,000 Construction $1,200,000 $1,500,000 1% for Art TOTAL $300,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 24 6.1.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: 196th St. SW (SR-524) @ 88th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $903,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). This project was ranked #6 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St. SW. SCHEDULE: All project phases are scheduled between 2022 and 2024 (unsecured funding). In order to allow the installation of a traffic signal, the MUTCD traffic signal warrants must be met and the installation must be approved by WSDOT (since 196th St. SW is a State Route / SR-524). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $193,000 $175,000 Construction $535,000 1% for Art TOTAL $193,000 $175,000 $535,000 25 6.1.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $896,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal or mini-roundabout. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City’s concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015 Transportation Plan. In Fall 2018, turn lanes will be added to the intersection to improve safety and traffic flow through the intersection. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2022 and construction in 2023. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration & ROW $120,000 Construction $776,000 1% for Art TOTAL $120,000 $776,000 26 6.1.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $8,125,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected-permitted phase for eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The projected LOS in 2035 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D. SCHEDULE: A STP Federal grant was secured in 2018 for the Design Phase (funds not available until 2021). The ROW phase is scheduled to be completed in 2022 and construction in 2024 (pending additional funds). * All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $533,000 $892,000 Construction $3,000,000 $3,700,000 1% for Art TOTAL $533,000 $892,000 $3,000,000 $3,700,000 27 6.1.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $194,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend the left turn lane for the westbound movement on SR-104. Complete various pedestrian and bicycle intersection improvements. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve non-motorized transportation safety at the intersection and improve traffic flow along the SR-104 corridor. SCHEDULE: 2022-2023 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $30,000 Construction $164,000 1% for Art TOTAL $30,000 $164,000 28 6.1.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $495,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access management. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles. SCHEDULE: 2022-2023 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $75,000 Construction $420,000 1% for Art TOTAL $75,000 $420,000 29 6.1.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) To Hwy 99 PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,338,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The warrants are met for such an installation. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2022-2023 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $200,000 Construction $1,138,000 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,138,000 30 6.1.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,183,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #11). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is below the City’s concurrency standards (LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2025 and 2039 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, & ROW $200,000 Construction $983,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,183,000 31 6.1.a Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,441,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #6 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided. SCHEDULE: All project phases are scheduled between 2025 and 2039 (unsecured funding). The project costs would be split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is located within Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, & ROW $2,000,000 Construction $13,441,000 1% for Art TOTAL $15,441,000 32 6.1.a Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid-block pedestrian crossing along 100th Ave. W, improve safety to access the driveways within proximity to the intersection, and re-striping of 100th Ave. W with the potential addition of bike lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non-motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2022 and 2023 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $150,000 Construction $867,468 1% for Art TOTAL $150,000 $867,468 PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W Intersection Improvements / Access Management ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,017,468 33 6.1.a Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a 2nd left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non-motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2039. The project costs would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds since half the intersection is located within Shoreline. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $453,000 Construction $2,564,000 1% for Art TOTAL $3,017,000 PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000 34 6.1.a Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $610,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50’ storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2025 and 2039 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $100,000 Construction $510,000 1% for Art TOTAL $610,000 35 6.1.a Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,050,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a walkway on the west side of the street, facing waterfront (~ 1/2 mile / more recent project). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements were installed in 2017 through striping, in order to evaluate the alignment of the proposed walkway and parking alternatives The design phase is scheduled to be completed in 2022. Construction isn’t scheduled to occur until 2023 when utility improvements are scheduled to be completed along this stretch. No grant funding has been secured for the construction phase. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $295,000 Construction $2,595,000 1% for Art TOTAL $295,000 $2,595,000 36 6.1.a Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: 232nd St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to SR-104 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104. This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List of 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction $1,105,000 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000 SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 (unsecured funding) 37 6.1.a Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW Walkway from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,395,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236nd St. SW from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W. This project ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $213,000 Construction $1,182,000 1% for Art TOTAL $213,000 $1,182,000 SCHEDULE: 2022-2023 (unsecured funding) 38 6.1.a Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 238th St .SW to 234th St. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Begin design in 2024 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $90,000 Construction $495,000 1% for Art TOTAL $90,000 $495,000 PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th St. SW to 234th ST. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000 39 6.1.a Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W Walkway from 206th St. SW to 212th ST. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,199,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve non-motorized transportation safety (including for school kids due to proximity of several schools). SCHEDULE: 2022-2023 (funding unsecured). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $333,000 Construction $1,663,000 1% for Art TOTAL $333,000 $1,663,000 40 6.1.a Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S Walkway from James St. to Main St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 100’) on 2nd Ave. S between Main St. and James St. (Ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: 2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 30,000 1% for Art TOTAL $30,000 41 6.1.a Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: 218th St. SW Walkway from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $200,000 Construction $1,105,000 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000 42 6.1.a Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $105,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350’) on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2022 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $10,000 Construction $95,000 1% for Art TOTAL $105,000 43 6.1.a Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $157,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150’ sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). This project ranked #3 in the Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2022 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $30,000 Construction $127,000 1% for Art TOTAL $157,000 44 6.1.a Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to SR-104 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $712,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #10 in Long Walkway list from 2015 Transportation Plan. Install 7’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: The construction phase began in May ’18 and was completed in August ’18. Documentation will be completed in 2019. A TIB grant was secured to fund the design and construction phases. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $5,750 1% for Art TOTAL $5,750 45 6.1.a Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S. This project ranked #6 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2022-2023 (funding unsecured). A Safe Routes to School grant was submitted in April 2018 to fund the design and construction phases (pending response). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $175,000 Construction $655,000 1% for Art TOTAL $175,000 $655,000 PROJECT NAME: Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $830,000 46 6.1.a Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,330,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW (~ 2,700’). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #18 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non-motorized transportation to walk to / from school. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2022 and construction in 2023 / 2024 (funding unsecured). A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program grant application was submitted in 2018 to fund the design phase (response pending). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $436,000 Construction $947,000 $947,000 1% for Art TOTAL $436,000 $947,000 $947,000 47 6.1.a Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Dayton St Walkway between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $252,500 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S and additional sidewalk improvements along the rest of the stretch (ranked #1 in Short Walkway Project list in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled for 2019 (as part of the Dayton St. Utility Improvements project). A Complete Streets grant is reasonably expected to be secured in 2019 to fund the construction of this project. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $252,500 1% for Art TOTAL $252,500 48 6.1.a Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 95th Pl. W from 224th ST. SW to 220th ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2022 and construction in 2023 (funding unsecured). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $100,000 Construction $485,000 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $485,000 PROJECT NAME: 95th Pl. W Walkway from 224th ST. SW to 220th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000 49 6.1.a Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Railroad Ave. Sidewalk from Dayton St. to SR-104 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $862,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install new and wider sidewalk along Railroad St. from Dayton St. to SR-104. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve non-motorized transportation safety along Railroad St. from Dayton St. to SR-104, key stretch since connects to various destination points (such as Senior Center, Port of Edmonds, Downtown Edmonds…). SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2022 and 2023 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $160,000 Construction $702,000 1% for Art TOTAL $160,000 $702,000 50 6.1.a Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W non-motorized transportation safety improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,210,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend bike lanes within proximity of the intersection in northbound and southbound directions. Install APS on all corners and new ADA curb ramps. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve non-motorized transportation safety along this section of the Interurban Trail. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2022 and 2023 (unsecured funding for all phases). This intersection is shared with Shoreline and they own the traffic signal. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $224,000 Construction $986,000 1% for Art TOTAL $224,000 $986,000 51 6.1.a Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2039 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $90,000 Construction $540,000 1% for Art TOTAL $630,000 PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW Walkway from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $630,000 52 6.1.a Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104th Ave. W from 238th ST. SW to 106th Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2039 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $150,000 Construction $840,000 1% for Art TOTAL $990,000 PROJECT NAME: 104th Ave. W Walkway from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $990,000 53 6.1.a Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 218th ST. SW to 220th ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2039 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $55,000 Construction $260,000 1% for Art TOTAL $315,000 PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W Walkway from 218th St. SW to 220th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000 54 6.1.a Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2039 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $60,000 Construction $255,000 1% for Art TOTAL $315,000 PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000 55 6.1.a Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2039 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $115,000 Construction $650,000 1% for Art TOTAL $765,000 PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $765,000 56 6.1.a Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2039 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $175,000 Construction $995,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,170,000 PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,170,000 57 6.1.a Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to OVD. This project ranked #13 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2022-2023 (unsecured funding). A Safe Routes to School grant application was submitted in April 2018 to fund the design and construction phases (pending response). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering, ROW, & Administration $440,000 Construction $1,695,000 1% for Art TOTAL $440,000 $1,695,000 PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W / 180th St. SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,135,000 58 6.1.a Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #14 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2039 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $115,000 Construction $470,000 1% for Art TOTAL $585,000 PROJECT NAME: 189th Pl. SW Walkway from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000 59 6.1.a Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Ferry Storage Improvements from Pine St. Dayton St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $357,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle storage for ferry users. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to local driveways. SCHEDULE: 2022 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $50,000 Construction $307,000 1% for Art TOTAL $357,000 60 6.1.a Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project builds a grade-separated overcrossing over the railroad tracks as an extension of Edmonds Street connecting to Brackett’s Landing north park (project identified in Edmonds Waterfront Alternatives Access Study completed in 2016). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide access for emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. The overpass could be utilized to offload passenger vehicles from a ferry during an extended closure of the railroad track crossings. SCHEDULE: 2019-2022. A State Appropriation for $700,000 was secured in 2017. In 2018, an additional State Appropriation for $6,000,000 was secured. BUILD, FMSIB, TIGER, FASTLANE, and Pedestrian and Bicycle Program grants were submitted in 2018 to fund the remaining costs to complete the project (pending response). In 2019, RCO and Ecology grants will be submitted. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025-2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Right of Way / Environment Mitigation $12,500,000 $9,000,00 Construction TOTAL $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $12,500,00 $9,000,000 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $29,885,000 61 6.1.a Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 62 6.1.a Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CFP STORMWATER 63 6.1.a Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) County (12/2017)$545,000 (Federal or State secured)$545,000FEMA (1/2019)Design $500,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$500,000$877,000 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$877,000$1,922,000 Total $1,922,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 RCO SRF Grant $0 (Federal or State secured)Possible Grant/TBD Study $25,000 (REET)$25,000$1,915,000 (Debt/Stormwater)$75,000 $940,000 $675,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000$1,940,000 Total $100,000 $940,000 $675,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 Ecology Grant $0 (Federal or State secured)Possible Grant/TBD Study $510,450 (Federal or State unsecured)$510,450$363,625 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$76,125 $125,000 $125,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500$874,075 Total $76,125 $125,000 $125,000 $522,950 $12,500 $12,500 Total CFP $4,736,075 Annual CFP Totals $2,098,125 $1,065,000 $800,000 $597,950 $87,500 $87,500 Totals Source 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 $545,000 Total Federal & State (Secured)$545,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,035,450 Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$525,000 $0 $0 $510,450 $0 $0$3,155,625 Debt / Stormwater Fees $1,028,125 $1,065,000 $800,000 $87,500 $87,500 $87,500 2024Revenue Source 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Project Name Purpose Grant Opportunity Grant/Date Current Project Phase (2019-2024) Total CostDayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements. Add lift station and other new infrastructure to reduce intersection flooding. Revenue Summary by Year Edmonds Marsh / Willow Creek/Daylighting Daylight channel to allow better connnectivity with the Puget Sound to benefit fish and reduce flooding. Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project - Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Find solution to high peak stream flows caused by excessive stormwater runoff that erodes the stream, causes flooding and has negative impacts on aquatic habitat.646.1.aPacket Pg. 152Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2.4M PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station in the Beach Place parking lot and other new stormwater infrastructure. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and State Hwy 104. SCHEDULE: Construction scheduled for 2019. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $23,000 Construction $1,884,000 1% for Art $15,000 TOTAL $1,922,000 65 6.1.a Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh / Willow Creek Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: TBD Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source: www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/gallery.php PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Building on the studies completed in 2013 and 2015 that assessed the feasibility of daylighting the Willow Creek channel, this project will likely construct a new tide gate and 1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for design and construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in the early 1960s. This project will provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. This project, along with its companion CIP projects “Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements” and “Dayton Street Pump Station,” will also help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton Street. SCHEDULE: Actual schedule dependent on available funding. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $100,000 $940,000 $675,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $940,000 $675,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 66 6.1.a Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction/Management Project ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2M to $10M Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that will be addressed by restoration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study for the Perrinville Creek basin was completed in 2014. This study recommended a number of flow control and water quality projects to improve the conditions in Perrinville Creek. The City applied for and won a grant from the Department of Ecology for $633,750 to design and construct a stormwater infiltration facility in Seaview Park. This facility is being constructed and will be completed by the end of 2018. The dollars allocated in the out years are to implement additional water quality and flow control projects in the Perrinville Creek basin as recommended by the Flow Reduction Study. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low-gradient downstream reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be controlled or these improvements will be washed away. SCHEDULE: Construction at Seaview park taking place in 2018. Other open sites to be determined in the future. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $10,000 $125,000 $125,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 Construction $65,000 $510,450 1% for Art $1,125 TOTAL $76,125 $126,250 $126,250 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 Perrinville Creek 67 6.1.a Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 68 6.1.a Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2019-2024 DRAFT 1 6.1.b Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 2 6.1.b Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2019-2024) Table of Contents FUND DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT PAGE GENERAL Building Maintenance Public Works 7 112 Transportation Public Works 9 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 12 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 14 332 Parks Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 15 421 Water Projects Public Works 17 422 Storm Projects Public Works 18 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 20 423.76 Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Works 21 PARKS – PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 24 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 52 332 Parks Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 57 3 6.1.b Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 4 6.1.b Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CIP GENERAL 5 6.1.b Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 6 6.1.b Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) Capital Improvements ProgramBuilding MaintenancePROJECT NAMECFP2018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Total (2019-2024)ADA Improvements- City Wide$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $30,000Anderson Center Accessibility$20,000$5,000$25,000Anderson Center Window Sill Tuck Pointing$0Anderson Center Interior Painting$60,000$20,000 $10,000 $90,000Anderson Center Exterior Painting$300,000$250,000$15,000$565,000Anderson Center HVAC Design$25,000$450,000 $450,000Anderson Center Radiator Replacement$85,000$40,000$125,000Anderson Center Exterior Repairs$50,000$50,000Anderson Center Lobby Remodel$30,000$5,000$35,000Anderson Center Exterior Flashing$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000$25,000Anderson Center Blinds$5,000 $5,000$10,000Anderson Center HVAC control install$5,000$5,000Anderson Center Steam Radiator Retrofits$5,000 $10,000 $5,000$20,000Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement$50,000$20,000$70,000Anderson Center Flooring/Gym$60,000$15,000$75,000Anderson Center Countertop Replacement$20,000$20,000$40,000Anderson Center Carpeting Hard Flooring$10,000$10,000Anderson Center Oil Tank Decommissioning$50,000$100,000 $150,000Anderson Center Elevator Replacement$225,000$225,000Anderson Center Roof Flashing Replacement$75,000$75,000Anderson Center Roof Replacement$390,000$50,000$440,000Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement$12,000$12,000City Hall Carpet/Flooring Replacement$100,000$25,000$125,000City Hall Window Failed Window Seal Replacements$5,000$5,000$10,000City Hall Elevator Replacement$297,000$5,000$5,000$10,000City Hall Exterior Cleaning and Repainting$160,000$10,000$170,000City Hall Roof Repairs$5,000$100,000$100,000City Hall HVAC Design$20,000$5,000 $5,000City Hall Electrical Infrastructure Design$35,000$0City Hall Building Controls Upgrade$10,000$1,500,000 $1,500,000City Hall HVAC$10,000 $30,000 $20,000 $25,000 $25,000 $20,000$120,000City Hall Lobby Remodel/Design$50,000$5,000$55,000City Hall FF&E 3rd Floor Conference Rooms$2,500$2,500City Hall Security Measures$10,000$5,000$15,000City Park Maintenance Building Gutters$20,000$0City Park Maintenance building Electrical Service replacement$150,000$150,000City Park Maint. Bldg. Roof$5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $45,000 $2,500 $5,000$57,500ESCO III Project$0ESCO IV Project$0ESCO __ Project$200,000$200,000City Wide Electric Vehicle Charging Station Replacement$80,000$80,000Fishing Pier Rehab$10,000 $10,000Fire Station #16 Painting$60,000$60,000Fire station #16 Generator $5,000$5,000Fire Station #16 Carpet$20,000 $10,000$5,000$35,000Fire Station #16 HVAC Replacement$50,000$50,000Fire Station #17 Ceiling repairs$85,000$90,000$5,000 $180,000Fire Station #17 Carpet$15,000$15,000Fire Station #17 Exterior Painting$50,000$5,000 $55,000Fire Station #17 Interior Painting$15,000$15,000Fire Station #20 Carpet$0Fire Station #20 Exterior Painting$90,000$15,000 $105,000Projects for 2019-20247 6.1.b Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) Fire Station #20 Interior Painting$20,000$20,000Fire Station #20 Stairs and Deck Replacement$1,525$60,000$1,500 $61,500Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs$0Library Plaza Appliance Replacement$20,000$5,000$25,000Library Skylight Replacement$0Library Plaza Brick Façade Addition$350,000$45,000$395,000Library Wood Trim$5,000$5,000$10,000Library West Deck Waterproofing and Garage Repair$100,000$60,000 $5,000$165,000Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement$50,000$50,000Meadowdale Flooring Replacement$35,000$35,000Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement$0Meadowdale Clubhouse Ext. Surface Cleaning$8,000$8,000Meadowdale Clubhouse Flooring Replacement Partial$5,000$5,000Meadowdale Clubhouse Fire Alarm Replacement$25,000$5,000 $30,000Misc. Fire Sprinkler System Repairs$10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000$55,000Museum East Window Replacement$70,000$0Museum Exterior Repairs Masonry$80,000$15,000$95,000Museum Lighting and electrical $73,900$73,900Museum Exterior Door Replacement$5,000$5,000City Wide Capital renewal$12,000$12,000Misc. / Unanticipated Building Maintenance$25,000 $35,000 $50,000 $60,000 $100,000$245,000Public Safety/Fire Station #17 Soffit Installation$10,000$10,000Public Safety Exterior Door Replacement$75,000$75,000Public Safety Exterior Painting$100,000$100,000Public Safety /Council Chamber Carpet$80,000$5,000$85,000Public Safety HVAC Repairs & Maintenance $30,000$10,000 $10,000$50,000Public Works Failed Window Seal Replacement$5,000 $1,000 $5,000$11,000Public Works Carpeting $30,000$5,000$35,000Public Works South Elevation Concrete and Drainage Repairs$75,000$5,000$5,000 $10,000 $20,000Public Works Decant Improvements$0Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maintenance$0Senior Center Siding/ Sealing (CDBG)$0Yost pool house doors$5,000 $5,000Total Projects$603,525$1,351,400$484,500$2,558,000$418,500$337,500$2,188,500$7,338,400Secured Grants 2018-20242018201920202021202220232024Snohomish County Historical Preservation Grant$10,000WA State HCPF Grant Funding (Secured)$0 $73,900Total Grants$10,000$73,900$0$0$0$0$08 6.1.b Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) Capital Improvements ProgramFund 112 - Transportation ProjectsPROJECT NAMECFP2018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Total (2019-2024)Preservation / Maintenance ProjectsAnnual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc.)$300,000$600,000$750,000$1,350,00084th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW$76,000$614,200$614,20076th Ave. W Overlay from 196th St. SW to Olympic View Dr.$118,000$584,000$702,000Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades$75,000$425,000$500,000Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW$750,000$750,000Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades$75,000$300,000$375,000Safety / Capacity Analysis228th St. SW Corridor Safety ImprovementsX$74,143$0228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl. W CorridorX$75,000$300,000$375,00076th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection ImprovementsX$447,881$10,000$10,000Hwy 99 Gateway / RevitalizationX$440,000$437,380$1,250,000$3,750,000$15,000,000$15,000,000$2,000,000$37,437,380Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection ImprovementsXHwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection ImprovementsXHwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection ImprovementsXHwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW Intersection ImprovementsXSR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W - Intersection ImprovementsX$193,000$175,000$535,000$903,000Main St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection ImprovementsX$120,000$776,000$896,00076th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW - Intersection ImprovementsX$53,343$533,000$892,000$3,000,000$3,700,000$8,125,000SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection ImprovementsX$30,000$164,000$194,000SR-104 @100th Ave W. Intersection Improvements / Access ManagementX$150,000$867,468$1,017,468SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection ImprovementsX$75,000$420,000$495,000SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection ImprovementsX$200,000$1,138,000$1,338,000Non-motorized transportation projectsSunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.X$398$170,000 $1,870,000$2,040,000232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to SR-104X$200,000$1,105,000$1,305,000236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona ElementaryX$5,399$0236th St. SW from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. WX$213,000$1,182,000$1,395,00084th Ave. W from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW X$90,000$90,00080th Ave. W from 212th St. SW to 216th St. SWX$200,000$999,000$1,199,00080th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr. X$315,000$1,191,000$1,506,0002nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. WalkwayX$30,000$30,000218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. WX$200,000$1,105,000$1,305,000Walnut St. from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. WalkwayX$105,000$105,000216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave WX$157,000$157,000238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99X$469,526$5,750$5,750238th St. SW Island and ADA Curb Ramps$201,850$201,850Citywide Pedestrian Crossings Project$305,849$1,181,873$1,181,873Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. SX$137,000$500,000$637,000Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW WalkwayX$436,000$947,000$947,000$2,330,000Dayton St. from 3rd Ave. to 9th Ave. X$202,500$202,50095th Pl. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SWX$100,000$485,000$585,000Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3) $1,644$0Railroad St.Walkway from Dayton St. to Main St. / SR-104X$160,000$702,000$862,000SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Non-Motorized Transportation ImprovementsX$224,000$986,000$1,210,000Hwy. 99 Pedestrian Improvements (SR-104 Off-Ramps)$50,000$200,000$250,000Bike-2-Health$146,055$0Ferry ProjectsFerry Storage Improvements from Pine St. to Dayton St.X$357,000$357,000Traffic CalmingTraffic Calming Program$15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $90,000Projects for 2019-2024project costs included in Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization project costsproject costs included in Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization project costsproject costs included in Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization project costsproject costs included in Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization project costs9 6.1.b Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) Traffic Planning ProjectsCitywide ADA Transition Plan$150,000$150,000Pavement Rating Study$30,000$30,000$60,000Transportation Plan Update$175,000$175,000Railroad-track related projectsEdmonds Street Waterfront ConnectorX$785,000$3,000,000$3,000,000$12,000,000$9,000,000$27,000,000Trackside Warning @ Main St and Dayton St. Crossings$39,000$0Total Projects$3,159,238 $6,268,553 $4,295,000 $16,591,000 $29,538,000 $31,723,468 $11,096,000 $99,512,021Debt Service Debt Service on Loan (1) 220th St Design $18,597$18,507$18,416$18,325$18,234$73,482Debt Service on Loan (2) 220th St Construction$21,918$21,812$21,706$21,600$21,495$21,389$108,002Debt Service on Loan (3) 100th Ave Road Stabilization$34,362 $34,197 $34,033 $33,869 $33,704 $33,539$169,342Total Debt $74,877$74,516$74,155$73,794$73,433$54,928$0$350,826Revenues and Cash Balances 2018-2024CFP2018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Beginning Cash Balance$728,770$1,079,851$1,334,961$1,574,806$1,537,012$950,674$778,246Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax & Multimodal Transportation$194,000$194,000$194,000$194,000$194,000$194,000$194,000Contribution - General Fund for Annual Street Preservation Program$300,000 $500,000Reimbursement - Utility Companies for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements$28,734Contribution - General Fund for Edmonds St. Waterfront Connector$150,000Contribution - Various Agencies for Edmonds St. Waterfront Connector$165,000Contribution - General Fund Trackside Warning$16,946Contribution - General Fund Traffic Calming Program$15,000$15,000$15,000$15,000$15,000$15,000$15,000Traffic Impact Fees$225,000$250,000$150,000$150,000$150,000$150,000$150,000Total Revenues$1,823,450$2,038,851$1,693,961$1,933,806$1,896,012$1,309,674$1,137,246Grants 2019-2024CFP2018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024(Federal) 84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW$76,000$614,200(Federal) 76th Ave. W from 196th St. SW to Olympic View Dr.$118,000$584,000(Federal) 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements$52,829(TIB) 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements$32,130(Federal) 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $309,038$7,000(TIB) 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements / Bike2Health$153,096$3,000(State) Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization$440,000$437,376$3,000,000$6,000,000(Federal) 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements$400,000$302,000(Federal) Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.$344$140,195(State) 238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy 99$300,266$4,000(CDBG) 238th St. SW Island and ADA Curb Ramps$201,850(Federal) 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary$5,399(Federal) Citywide Pedestrian Crossings Enhancements$305,849$1,116,201(TIB) Bike-2-Health$131,800(State) Edmonds St. Waterfront Connector$653,765$3,000,000$3,000,000Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured$2,460,516$5,383,627$3,000,000$3,518,000$7,026,195$0$0Grants 2019-2024 (Not Secured)CFP2018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc)$750,000Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades$75,000$425,000Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave W @ 238th St SW$750,000Main St @ 3rd Ave Signal Upgrades$75,000$300,000228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th Pl. W$75,000$300,000Hwy. 99 Gateway / Revitalization$1,250,000$750,000$9,000,000$15,000,000$2,000,000196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Intersection Improvements$122,000$87,500$535,000Main @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements$120,000$776,00010 6.1.b Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements$367,000$3,000,000$3,700,000SR-104 @ 226th / 15th Intersection Improvements$15,000$164,000SR-104 @ 100th Ave W. Intersection Improvements / Access Management $150,000$867,468SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements$75,000$420,000SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements$173,000$1,138,000Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Caspers St$1,870,000232nd St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. to SR-104$200,000$1,105,000236th St. SW Walkway from Madrona Elementary to 97th Pl W.$106,500$1,182,00084th Ave. W Walkway from 238th to 234th$90,00080th Ave. W Walkway from 212th to 206th $200,000$999,99980th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr. $315,000$1,191,000218th St. SW Walkway from 76th to 84th $100,000$550,000Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd to 4th $105,000216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 72nd Ave W$137,000Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S$137,000$500,000Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th$436,000$947,000$947,000Dayton St. from 3rd Ave. to 9th Ave. $202,50095th Pl. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW$100,000$485,000Railroad St. Sidewalk from Dayton St. to Main St. / SR-104$138,400$608,000SR-104 @ 76th Ave. Non-Motorized Transportation Improvements$174,000$986,000Hwy. 99 Pedestrian Improvements (SR-104 Off-Ramps)$50,000$200,000Ferry Storage Improvements$179,000Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector$12,000,000$9,000,000Total Grants (not secured) $0$202,500$1,250,000$12,750,000$21,724,900$31,246,968$10,526,999Grants Subtotal (Secured & Not Secured)$2,460,516$5,586,127$4,250,000$16,268,000$28,751,095$31,246,968$10,526,999Total Revenues & Grants$4,283,966$7,624,978$5,943,961$18,201,806$30,647,107$32,556,642$11,664,245Total Projects($3,159,238)($6,268,553)($4,295,000)($16,591,000)($29,538,000)($31,723,468)($11,096,000)Total Debt($74,877)($74,516)($74,155)($73,794)($73,433)($54,928)$0Ending Cash Balance$1,049,851$1,281,909$1,574,806$1,537,012$1,035,674$778,246$568,24511 6.1.b Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) Capital Improvements ProgramFund 125 - Capital Projects FundcarryoverPROJECT NAMECFP 2018 Estimate 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Total (2019-2024)Park Development Projects*Anderson Center Field / Court / Stage$150,000$5,000 $20,000$5,000$5,000$35,000Brackett's Landing Improvements$0$0$5,000$5,000$5,000$15,000City Park Improvements$0 $40,000$5,000$5,000$50,000Civic stadium removal$45,886$0Civic Center ParkX$430,000 $70,000$70,000Fishing Pier & Restrooms$75,000 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000$70,000Community GardenX$0$155,000$155,000Maplewood Park Improvements$5,000$5,000$10,000Marina Beach Park Improvements$500,000$500,000 $500,000$1,500,000Mathay Ballinger Park$0 $20,000$5,000$5,000$30,000Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds$5,000$5,000Pine Ridge Park Improvements$5,000$5,000$10,000Seaview Park Improvements$50,000 $120,000$5,000$5,000$130,000Sierra Park Improvements$75,000$75,000Waterfront Center Redevelopment Parking lot/frontage$195,000$195,000Waterfront Redevelopment / Waterfront Walkway CompletionX$200,000 $824,800 $500,000$1,324,800Yost Park / Pool Improvements$63,747 $10,000 $50,000 $25,000 $30,000 $25,000 $25,000$165,0004th Ave cultural corridor$0 $50,000 $100,000 $500,000$650,000City Gateway replacements$5,000 $35,000$35,000Edmonds Marsh Walkway$30,000$0City Park Storage Building$115,000$0Veteran's Plaza$41,000$0Hickman Park$25,000$300,000$300,000Outdoor Fitness Zones$75,000$75,000Citywide Park Improvements*Citywide Beautification $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000$126,000Flower Pole Replacement$20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000$120,000Citywide Park Improvements/Misc Small Projects$50,000$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000$300,000Sports Fields Upgrade / Playground Partnership$0$25,000$25,000$50,000Trail Development*Misc Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements$10,000$10,000$10,000$30,000PlanningEdmonds Marsh Feasibility & RestorationX$25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000$150,000Total Parks Projects$1,346,633 $1,730,800 $901,000 $996,000 $701,000 $661,000 $686,000 $5,675,800Projects for 2019-202412 6.1.b Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) Public Works ProjectsAnnual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chips Seals, etc.)$550,000 $450,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,450,000ADA Curb Ramp Improvements$28,000$0Audible Pedestrian Signals$6,269 $42,500$42,500Minor Sidewalk Program$29,325$0238th St. Island and ADA Curb Ramps$50,000$50,000Building Maintenance$150,000$100,000$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000Total Public Works Projects$763,594$542,500$500,000$500,000$500,000$500,000$500,000$592,500Total Project Costs (Parks & Public Works) $2,110,227 $2,273,300 $1,401,000 $1,496,000 $1,201,000 $1,161,000 $1,186,000 $6,268,300Revenues and Cash Balances 2018-20242018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st) $ 1,901,004 $ 1,601,357 $ 925,657 $ 736,922 $ 251,551 $ 55,318 $ (104,702)Real Estate Tax 1/4% $ 1,750,000 $ 1,540,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Donations Interest Earnings $ 60,580 $ 57,600 $ 12,265 $ 10,629 $ 4,767 $ 980 $ 830 Total Revenues3,711,584$ 3,198,957$ 2,137,922$ 1,747,551$ 1,256,318$ 1,056,298$ 896,128$ Total Revenue3,711,584$ 3,198,957$ 2,137,922$ 1,747,551$ 1,256,318$ 1,056,298$ 896,128$ Total Projects-$2,110,227-$2,273,300-$1,401,000-$1,496,000-$1,201,000-$1,161,000-$1,186,000Ending Cash Balance1,601,357$ 925,657$ 736,922$ 251,551$ 55,318$ (104,702)$ (289,872)$ *Projects in all categories may be eligible for 1% for art with the exception of planning projects. 13 6.1.b Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) Capital Improvements ProgramFund 126 - Special Capital/Parks AcquisitionPROJECT NAMECFP2018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Total (2019-2024)Debt Service Marina Beach$80,830 $79,630 $83,430 $82,130 $80,180 $83,880 $82,660 $491,910Debt Service on PSCC Purchase$54,300 $53,400 $52,500 $56,600 $60,100 $59,000 $58,040 $339,640Debt Service on FAC Seismic retrofit $26,850 $26,840 $27,190 $27,090 $26,970 $27,200 $27,010 $162,300Total Debt$161,980$159,870$163,120$165,820$167,250$170,080$167,710$993,850Parks ProjectsCivic development$0 $750,000 $425,185$1,175,185Land Misc. Open Space$0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000Waterfront Center Parking lot/frontage improvements$0 $55,000$55,000Waterfront Redevelopment$0 $314,598 $250,000$564,598Total Parks Projects$0$1,319,598$875,185$200,000$200,000$200,000$200,000$2,994,783Public Works ProjectsAnnual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, etc.)$1,097,000$450,000$300,000$200,000$300,000$300,000$300,000$1,850,00084th St SW Overlay from 220th to 212th$19,000$153,800$153,800Hwy 99 Gateway / RevitalizationX$290,000$290,000Protective/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion$14,762$0220th Signal Coordination from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W$47,000$089th Pl. Retaining Wall$126,438$0238th Walkway from SR-104 to Hwy. 99X$19,125$1,834$1,834Dayton St. Walkway from 3rd Ave. S to 9th Ave. SX$47,500$2,500$2,500Traffic Calming Program$20,000$0Trackside Warning @ Main St and Dayton St. Crossings$377,418$0Edmonds St. Waterfront ConnectorX$500,000$500,000Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project$429,000$429,000Guardrail Installations$20,000$20,0002019 Pedestrian Safety Program$50,000$50,000Traffic Signal Upgrades$70,000$70,000Admiral Way Crossing$110,000$110,000Building Maintenance $200,000$200,000$200,000$200,000$800,000Total Public Works Projects$1,768,243$1,287,134$590,000$900,000$500,000$500,000$500,000$4,277,134Total Project Cost (Parks and Public Works)$1,768,243$2,606,732$1,465,185$1,100,000$700,000$700,000$700,000$7,271,917Revenues and Cash Balances 2019-20242018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$2,165,210 $2,047,407 $884,825 $489,482 $230,840 $370,590 $507,245Real estate Tax 1/4%/1st Qtr % $1,750,000 $1,540,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000Interest Earnings$62,420 $64,020 $32,962 $7,178 $7,000 $6,735 $6,420Total Revenues$3,977,630$3,651,427$2,117,787$1,496,660$1,237,840$1,377,325$1,513,665Total Revenue$3,977,630$3,651,427$2,117,787$1,496,660$1,237,840$1,377,325$1,513,665Total Debt($161,980)($159,870)($163,120)($165,820)($167,250)($170,080)($167,710)Total Projects($1,768,243)($2,606,732)($1,465,185)($1,100,000)($700,000)($700,000)($700,000)Ending Cash Balance$2,047,407$884,825$489,482$230,840$370,590$507,245$645,955Projects for 2019-202414 6.1.b Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) Capital Improvements ProgramFund 332 - Parks ConstructionPROJECT NAMECFP 2018 Estimate 2019 2020 20212022 2023 2024Total (2019-2024)4th Ave Corridor $500,000$500,000Cultural Heritage Tour and Way-Finding Signage$0Civic CenterDevelopment$33,184$500,000$8,509,000$9,009,000Waterfront Redevelopment / Waterfront Walkway Completionx$0$3,158,868$750,000$3,908,868Community Garden$0Wetland Mitigation$0Edmonds Marsh/Daylighting Willow Creek/Marina Beach$1,500,000$1,500,000$1,500,000$4,500,000Fishing Pier Rehab$0Public Market (Downtown Waterfront)X$0Outdoor Fitness Zones$0$100,000$100,000$200,000City Park Maintenance Storage Building$87,000$0Veteran's Plaza$2,278$0Total Projects$122,462$3,758,868$9,359,000$500,000$1,500,000$1,500,000$1,500,000$18,117,868Revenues and Cash Balances 2019-20242018 Estimate201920202021202220232024Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$1,804,600$2,322,624$2,322,624$2,322,624$2,322,624$2,322,624$2,322,624Beg Balance Park Impact Fees$1,242,030$1,511,264Park Impact Fees$262,864$588,901Beginning Cash Balance MilltownBeginning Cash Balance Cultural Heritage TourReimbursement from Fund 125 Waterfront developmentReimbursement from Fund 126 for Waterfront developmentPark Impact Fees/Waterfront developmentReimbursement from Fund 117-200 for Cultural Heritage TourReimbursement from Fund 120 for Cultural Heritage TourReimbursement from Fund 125 for City Park Storage BuildingReimbursement from Fund 127-200 for Cultural Heritage TourReimbursement from Fund 120 for Way-Finding Signage Grant MatchReimbursement from Fund 125 for Outdoor Fitness ZonesReimbursement from Fund 125 for Veteran's PlazaReimbursement from Fund 125 for Civic DemolitionReimbursement from Fund 125 for Community GardenReimbursement from Fund 125 for Waterfront RedevelopmentReimbursement from Fund 126 for Civic AcquisitionContribution from 01 for Edmonds MarshReimbursement from Fund 125 for Marsh/Marina Beach Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Fishing PierInvestment InterestTotal Revenues$3,309,494$4,422,789$2,322,624$2,322,624$2,322,624$2,322,624$2,322,624Grants 2019-20242018 Estimate201920202021202220232024Grants/ Loans (Secured)4th Ave / Cultural Heritage Tour (Preserve America/National Park Service)Civic Park: Hazel Miller Foundation$500,000$500,000$500,000Civic Park: General Fund$2,000,000Fire Insurance City park storage$60,000RCO Waterfront development$1,000,000Snohomish County grant: waterfront development125,000Snohomish County Tourism for Way-FindingWetland MitigationOutdoor Fitness Zones grantRCO/Fishing PierProjects for 2019-202415 6.1.b Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured$2,560,000$1,625,000$500,000$0$0$0$0Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured)4th Ave Corridor Enhancement (state, federal, other)$500,000Outdoor Fitness Zones$100,000$100,000Edmonds Marsh/Marina Beach$1,500,000$1,500,000$1,500,000Sr. Ctr 50% of parking lot and frontage$933,868Civic: RCO$1,350,000Civic: Sno Cty$1,000,000Civic: State approp$500,000Bond funding/Civic$5,334,185Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought (not secured) $0$1,033,868$8,284,185$500,000$1,500,000$1,500,000$1,500,000Grants Subtotal$2,560,000$2,658,868$8,784,185$500,000$1,500,000$1,500,000$1,500,000Total Revenues & Cash Balances & Grants$5,869,494$7,081,657$11,106,809$2,822,624$3,822,624$3,822,624$3,822,624Total Construction Projects(122,462)($3,758,868)($9,359,000)($500,000)($1,500,000)($1,500,000)($1,500,000)Ending Cash Balance$5,747,032$3,322,789$1,747,809$2,322,624$2,322,624$2,322,624$2,322,624*Projects may be partially eligible for 1% for Art16 6.1.b Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) Capital Improvements Program Fund 421 - Water ProjectsPROJECT NAMECFP 2018 Estimate 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Total (2019-2024)Swedish & 76th WL Repl$120,000$870,000$870,000Dayton Ave 3rd to 9th Utility Improvements$86,139 $1,717,000 $1,000,000$2,717,000Annual Replacement Program (Phase 8)$658,056$0Annual Replacement Program (Phase 9)$1,525,707$02018 Waterline Overlays$200,000$0Annual Replacement Program (Phase 10)$299,079 $15,000 $1,103,510$1,118,5102019 Waterline Overlays$300,000$300,000Annual Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements, Phase 7 $12,000$0Annual Replacement Program (Phase 11)$449,946 $2,399,050$2,848,996Annual Replacement Program (Phase 12)$467,944 $2,684,412$3,152,356Annual Replacement Program (Phase 13)$486,661 $3,389,788$3,876,449Annual Replacement Program (Phase 13)$506,128 $3,525,379 $4,031,507Annual Replacement Program (Phase 14)$526,373 $526,373Five Corners Reservoir Recoating$2,169,672 $1,795,000$1,795,000212th & 76th Improvements$76,003$0Sunset Ave Walkway$75,000 $575,000$650,0002016 Water System Plan Update$748$0Total Projects$5,147,405$4,697,000$2,553,456$2,941,994$3,746,073$3,895,916$4,051,752$21,886,191Reimbursements & ContributionsReimbursement to Fund 117 ( )$0Total Reimbursements $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Total Water Projects$5,147,405$4,697,000$2,553,456$2,941,994$3,746,073$3,895,916$4,051,752$21,886,191 Projects for 2019-202417 6.1.b Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CFP2018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Total (2019-2024)105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project. $2,608$0Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements- Dayton St Pump Station (See Note 1)X$82,134 $1,922,000$1,922,000Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study / Design/Construction (See Note 1)X$47,187$75,000$940,000$675,000$75,000$75,000$75,000$1,915,000Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr - Assessment / Stabilization$0Rehab/Replace of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr$438,360$0Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects - Seaview Infiltration (See Note 1)X$366,268 $76,125$76,125Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Note 1)X$125,000 $125,000 $522,950 $12,500 $12,500 $797,950Improvements - 88th Ave W and 194th St SW$0Improvements - Dayton 3rd to 9th$87,562$1,717,000$1,000,000$70,250Improvements - Waterline Replacement Program Phase 8$62,789$3,000Improvements - Sierra Pl- 12th Ave N to Olympic$54,646$0Improvements - Waterline Replacement Program Phase 9$102,650$0Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design$375,000$375,000City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects $161,299 $441,000$441,000Lake Ballinger Associated Projects $37,000 $68,000 $68,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $416,000Phase 1 Annual Storm Replacement Project$1,000,000Phase 2 Annual Storm Replacement Project$800,000 $1,500,000Phase 3 Annual Storm Replacement Project$300,000 $1,560,000Phase 4 Annual Storm Replacement Project$312,000 $1,622,400$1,934,400Phase 5 Annual Storm Replacement Project$324,480 $1,687,296 $2,011,776Phase 6 Annual Storm Replacement Project$337,460 $337,460238th Walkway (SR-104 to Hwy 99)$42,729$1,166$70,711236th St. SW WalkwayX$20484th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW$85,662$522,870$522,87080th Ave. W Walkway from 212th St. SW to 206th St. SWX$133,000$664,000 $797,00080th Ave. W Walkway from 188th St. SW to Olympic View DrX$125,000$504,000$629,00076th @ 212th Intersection ImprovementsX$4,636Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. SX$38,000 $155,000$193,000Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset management plan)$5,000 $200,000$200,000$1,580,733$6,398,161$2,933,000$2,670,000$2,702,950$2,896,380$2,846,256$12,712,542Compliance-Related ProjectsTotal ProjectTransportation-Related ProjectsEdmonds Marsh Related Projects Northstream ProjectsPerrinville Creek Basin Projects Storm Drainage Improvement ProjectsAnnually Funded ProjectsCapital Improvements ProgramFund 422 Storm Projects for 2019-2024PROJECT NAMESW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Projects18 6.1.b Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 2018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Total (2019-2024)Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects - Seaview Infiltration $622$0Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements- Dayton St Pump $15,000$15,000Total Reimbursements $622$15,000$0$0$0$0$0$15,0002018 201920202021202220232024$25,000$545,000X$546,750$571,750$545,000$0$0$0$0$02018201920202021202220232024X$510,450XX$500,000$0$500,000$0$0$510,450$0$0Notes: 1. All or part of this project funded by secured grants or grants will be pursued, see Revenue section for details.Grants (Secured) - Dayton St & Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements (See Note 1)Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management -Seaview Total Secured RevenuesProceeds of Long-term debt (Bonds)Grants (Unsecured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Total Unsecured RevenuesGrants (Unsecured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Grants (Unsecured) - Dayton St & Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements (See Projects for 2019-2024ReimbursementsUnsecured Revenue 2019-2024To 117 - ArtsSecured Revenues 2018-2019Grants (Secured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Final 19 6.1.b Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CFP2018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Total (2019-2024)212th & 76th ImprovementsX$118,785$0Sunset Ave. Walkway$50,000$150,000$200,000Dayton 3rd to 9th$64,685 $2,407,000 $1,000,000$3,407,000Annual Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements, Phase 4 $45,107$02018 Sewerline Overlays$109,722$02019 Sewerline Overlays$75,000$75,000Annual Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements, Phase 6 $1,631,526 $5,000$5,000Annual Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements, Phase 7 $290,726 $5,000 $695,809$700,809Annual Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements, Phase 8 $313,736 $1,696,683$2,010,419Annual Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements, Phase 9 $323,148 $1,666,550$1,989,698Annual Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements, Phase 10 $336,074 $1,889,212$2,225,286Annual Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements, Phase 11 $349,517 $1,964,780$2,314,297Annual Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements, Phase 12 $363,498$363,498Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation Phase 2$100,000 $706,680$706,680Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation$450,204 $463,710 $482,258 $501,549 $521,611$2,419,332Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Study $88,089 $75,000$75,000Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study$48,973 $665,000$665,000$2,497,613 $3,938,680 $2,459,748 $2,533,541 $2,634,882 $2,740,278 $2,849,889 $17,157,0181% for the Arts (Annual SS Rehab, Phase 6)$3,185$0$3,185$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$2,500,798 $3,938,680 $2,459,748 $2,533,541 $2,634,882 $2,740,278 $2,849,889 $17,157,018Capital Improvements ProgramFund 423 - Sewer ProjectsProjects for 2019-2024PROJECT NAMETotal Projects, Transfers & ReimbursementsSewer Main Replacement and CIPPInfiltration & Inflow Study & ProjectsTotal ProjectsReimbursements & ContributionsTotal Reimbursements20 6.1.b Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) Capital Improvements ProgramFund 423.76 - Wastewater Treatment PlantPROJECT NAMECFP2018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Total (2019-2024)Construction Projects - In House $0Construction Projects Contracted $600,863 $2,434,187 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $350,000 $350,000$18,134,187Debt Service - Principle and Interest$255,371 $255,929 $256,371 $256,902 $222,847 $550,000$1,542,049Total Project$856,234$2,690,116$7,756,371$7,756,902$572,847$900,000$0Projects less revenue from outside partnership$821,184$2,665,066$7,741,321$7,641,852$557,797$900,000$0Revenues and Cash Balances 2018-20242018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st)$200,000$200,000 -$1,604,745 $550,000 -$1,250,531 -$1,250,531 -$1,250,531Intergovernmental$821,184 $860,321 $7,741,321 $5,841,321 $557,797 $900,000$0Interest Earnings$50$50$50$50$50Miscellaneous (biosolids, Lynnwood, etc)$15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Grants, Incentives and Rebate for Engergy Eff. Projects$20,000 $10,000$100,000Subtotal$1,056,234$1,085,371$6,151,626$6,506,371-$677,684-$350,531-$1,250,531Total Revenue$1,056,234$1,085,371$6,151,626$6,506,371-$677,684-$350,531-$1,250,531Total Project($856,234)($2,690,116)($7,756,371)($7,756,902)($572,847)($900,000)$0Ending Cash Balance$200,000-$1,604,745-$1,604,745-$1,250,531-$1,250,531-$1,250,531-$1,250,531Interest earned estimated at 0.75% per yearContribution breakdown by agency2018 Estimate2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Edmonds50.79% $417,055 $1,353,507 $3,931,585 $3,881,067 $283,288 $457,083$0Mountlake Terrace23.17%$190,301 $617,602 $1,793,974 $1,770,923 $129,264 $208,566$0Olympic View Water & Sewer District16.55%$135,914 $441,095 $1,281,266 $1,264,803 $92,321 $148,959$0Ronald Sewer District9.49%$77,914 $252,861 $734,497 $725,059 $52,924 $85,392$0TOTALS100.00%$821,184$2,665,066$7,741,321$7,641,852$557,797$900,000$0*In 2019 per the agreement, fund balance will increase to $550,000.Projects for 2018-202321 6.1.b Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 22 6.1.b Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 23 6.1.b Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 125 - CAPITAL PROJECTS 24 6.1.b Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) 25 6.1.b Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000 80th Street West and 191th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Playground replacement. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities, basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 0 $75,000 $0 0 $0 0 1% for Art TOTAL 0 $75,000 $0 0 $0 0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 26 6.1.b Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Project ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,150,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final design and construction of 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. Starting from 2009 public process and concept design, develop site design and construction documents for a safe, pedestrian friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong visual connection along 4th Avenue N between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Interim work on this project since the concept was developed includes a 2015 temporary light artwork “Luminous Forest”, installed to draw attention and interest to the corridor and enhance the visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, was implemented in 2011-2014 with 8 artist made historic plaques on 4th Avenue. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown retail. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown. The project has been supported by the community in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and in the recently established goals and priorities for the State certified Creative District application. Timing for final design development is crucial as the City begins to address utility projects in the area. Design completion will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study 50,000 Engineering & Administration Construction 100,000 1,000,000 1% for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 27 6.1.b Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center Field/Court/Stage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $35,000 700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities and children’s play equipment. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Professional services Engineering & Administration Construction $ $5,000 $20000 $5,000 $5000 1% for Art TOTAL $ $5,000 $20000 $5,000 $5000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 28 6.1.b Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $126,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include Library, Senior Center, outdoor plazas, City Park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree plantings, streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 . COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21000 $21,000 1% for Art TOTAL $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21000 $21,000 29 6.1.b Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 30,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with engineering funding. SCHEDULE: 2019 - 2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 * all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 30 6.1.b Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Brackett’s Landing Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,000 South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park through Deed-of-Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom upgrades. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park, regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $ $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5000 1% for Art TOTAL $ $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 31 6.1.b Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh Feasibility & Restoration / Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $150,000 South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL 23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support daylighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Continue to maintain current sidewalk / pathway/boardwalk. For 2018, a section of the boardwalk will be replaced. Continue to work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, Earthcorps and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of design of daylighting Willow Creek using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan, as well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2019 - 2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Professional Services $25000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25000 $25,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $25000 $25000 $25000 $25000 $25000 $25,000 32 6.1.b Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Flower Pole Replacement ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $120,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Flower Poles in various places as needed throughout City. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Replacement of Flower Poles in various places as needed throughout City. SCHEDULE: 2019 - 2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Construction $20000 $20000 $20000 $20000 $20000 $20000 TOTAL $20000 $20000 $20000 $20000 $20000 $20000 33 6.1.b Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Continued pathway, access improvements and ongoing upgrades to City Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Make ongoing upgrades to City Park as referenced in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $40,000 $5,000 $ $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $40,000 $5,000 $ $5,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts 34 6.1.b Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park Improvements / Misc Small Projects ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway entrances into the city and 4th Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities and streetscape improvements in public areas. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering / Administration Construction $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 1% for Art TOTAL $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 35 6.1.b Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,170,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Improvements / Stadium Demolition As part of the master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition of the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has some grant funds available to assist with this. In addition, the City will begin the design development process for the completion of the master plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant funds applied for in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2019 - 2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning and Study $70,000 $1,930,000 Construction $10,000,170 TOTAL 36 6.1.b Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / Playground Partnerships ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create neighborhood park facilities at non-City facilities. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create additional facilities. SCHEDULE: 2018-2023 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $25,000 $0 $25000 0 0 1% for Art TOTAL $0 $25,000 $0 $25000 0 0 37 6.1.b Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $70,000 LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and renovate restroom facilities. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10000 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10000 $10,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 38 6.1.b Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Locate and develop a community garden site. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This was formerly planned for the Former Woodway HS site. This is adopted as part of the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $155,000 1% for Art TOTAL $155,000 *all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts PROJECT NAME: Community Garden ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $155,000 39 6.1.b Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $10,000 89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and natural trail system to Maplewood Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 0 $ $5,000 $0 $5000 0 1% for Art TOTAL 0 $ $5,000 $0 $5000 0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 40 6.1.b Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $8-10M South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed-of-Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin development of Master plan, daylighting Willow Creek. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $ $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 1% for Art TOTAL $ $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 41 6.1.b Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 78th Place W. & 241st St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to Mathay Ballinger Park. This next year the City will be creating a pathway from the park to the Interurban trail to promote both pedestrian and bicycle access to/from the park and neighborhood. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $20,000 $0 $5,000 $0 0 0 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $0 $5,000 $0 0 $5000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 42 6.1.b Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds ESTIMATED COST: $5,000 6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care, recreation classes and preschool activities. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $5,000 $0 $0 0 0 1% for Art TOTAL $0 $5,000 $0 $0 0 0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 43 6.1.b Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 83rd Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County 22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street connecting to Yost Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional trail connections. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5000 1% for Art TOTAL $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 New additions meet the 1% for the Arts Ordinance requirements 44 6.1.b Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $130,000 80th Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed-Of-Right PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Maintenance of tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area. Replace roof on restrooms. Replacement of play equipment in 2019. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court, parking and tennis courts. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $120,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5000 1% for Art TOTAL $120,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 45 6.1.b Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment / Waterfront Walkway Completion - Fund 125 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,889,299 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett’s Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. This project includes the City’s support for the parking lot and frontage improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 624,800 500,000 $0 $0 0 0 1% for Art TOTAL $1,019,800 $500,000 $0 $0 0 0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 46 6.1.b Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Yost Park / Pool Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $165,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and unanticipated repairs. Add in-pool play amenities. Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping, parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 $50,000 $25,000 $30,000 $25000 $25,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 $50,000 $25,000 $30,000 $25000 $25,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 47 6.1.b Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: City Gateway Replacements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $35,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and construct new gateway elements at SR 104 and 5th Ave. S and at Sunset and Main St. to replace aging and deteriorated signage. In addition, find a new location on the north entrance to Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The PROS Plan, Community Cultural Plan and Streetscape Plan all refer to the importance of these visual “gateways” to the City of Edmonds. New signage with artistic elements will enhance the gateways and reinforce Edmonds reputation as a cultural destination for visitors. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Repairs & Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 Construction $35,000 TOTAL $35000 $0 $0 $0 0 0 48 6.1.b Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Hickman Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install new restrooms at park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project seeks to enhance one of our busiest parks and is identified in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Construction $0 $0 $300000 $0 0 0 TOTAL $0 $0 $300000 $0 0 0 49 6.1.b Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within the park system. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while their children play. This is a priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Professional Services Construction $75,000 $0 $0 $0 0 0 TOTAL $75,000 $0 $0 $0 0 0 50 6.1.b Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 20,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with engineering funding. SCHEDULE: 2019 - 2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 51 6.1.b Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 126 – SPECIAL CAPITAL/ PARKS ACQUISITION 52 6.1.b Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved Capital Projects and Acquisitions ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $988,118 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on: Marina Beach / Library Roof: $80,830 PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $54,300 Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $26,850 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art Principal & Interest $159,868 $163,120 $165,820 $167,250 $170,080 TOTAL $159,868 $163,120 $165,820 $167,250 $170,080 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 53 6.1.b Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open Space / Land ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens that fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open space. SCHEDULE: 2019 - 2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Land $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 1% for Art TOTAL $0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 54 6.1.b Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment / Waterfront Walkway Completion – Fund 126 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,889,299 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett’s Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. This project includes the City’s support for the parking lot and frontage improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study $239,598 Eng. & Admin. $130,000 Construction $0 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $369,598 $0 $0 55 6.1.b Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $510,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition. As part of the Master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition of the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has some grant funds available to assist with this. In addition, develop a signature downtown park at this site. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition. The Civic Master plan will be complete by early 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant funds applied for in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2019 - 2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning Construction $0 $0 $ $ TOTAL $0 $0 $ $ 56 6.1.b Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 332 – PARKS CONSTRUCTION 57 6.1.b Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,170,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Improvements / Stadium Demolition As part of the master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition of the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has some grant funds available to assist with this. In addition, the City will begin the design development process for the completion of the master plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant funds applied for in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2019 - 2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning and Study 2,000,000 Construction $ 10,000,170 TOTAL 58 6.1.b Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh / Willow Creek Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6-8M PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 0 500,000 500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 1% for Art TOTAL 500,000 500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 59 6.1.b Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment / Waterfront Walkway Completion – Fund 332 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,889,299 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett’s Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. This project includes the City’s support for the parking lot and frontage improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Planning/Study 150000 Eng. & Admin. 70000 Construction 3,158,868 $1,371,033 $0 $0 0 0 1% for Art TOTAL $3,158,868 $1,591,033 $0 $0 0 0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 60 6.1.b Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within the park system. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while their children play. This is a priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2019-2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Professional Services Construction $100000 $100000 $0 $0 0 0 TOTAL $100000 $100000 $0 $0 0 0 61 6.1.b Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) FUND PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION 112 76th Ave. W Overlay from 196th St. SW to Olympic View Dr. Overlay along 76th Ave. W from 196th St. SW to Olympic View Dr., with stormwater improvements, ADA curb ramp upgrades, and addition of flashing beacons at existing crosswalk. 112 80th Ave. Walkway from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr. X Install walkway along 80th Ave. W Walkway from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr. (also funded by Fund 422 / pending grant application response). 112 238th St. SW Island and ADA Curb Ramps Reconstruct existing island on west side of Hwy. 99 @ 238th St. SW and upgrade various curb ramps throughout the City (also funded by Fund 125). 112 Pavement Rating Study Evaluation of the pavement condition of every City street , in order to determine the future priority overlay stretches (to be completed every 3 years). 126 Civic Park design x Ongoing, anticipated completion in 2020/2021 126 Waterfront Redevelopment/Ebb tide walkway design x Ongoing, anticipated completion in 2019/2020 126 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project Complete pedestrian crossing enhancements at (9) locations throughout the City, through the installation of flashing beacons, fully-actuated traffic signal, or HAWK signal. 126 Guardrail installations Install new guardrails at various locations throughout the City, since the existing one needs to be upgraded or none currently exists. 126 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program Complete various pedestrian improvements throughout the City. 126 Traffic Signal Upgrades Complete traffic signal upgrades at various intersections (such as new detection and / or new cabinets) 126 Admiral Way Crossing Install new pedestrian crossing on Admiral Way with flashing beacons, bub-outs, and lighting improvements. 421 Annual Replacement Program (Phase 14)Estimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 Swedish & 76th Waterline Replacement Estimated future costs for waterline replacements and replacement of existing water meter service Swedish Edmonds. 421 2019 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements. CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2018 TO 2019) ADDED PROJECTS Page 1 of 3 11/15/2018 6.1.c Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - CIP-CFP Comparison (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities 422 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design Preliminary Data gathering for determining feasibility for regional drainage facility in the Lake Ballinger Basin. 422 Phase 1 Annual Storm Replacement Project Estimated future cost for Storm pipe replacements 422 Phase 2 Annual Storm Replacement Project Estimated future cost for Storm pipe replacements 422 Phase 3 Annual Storm Replacement Project Estimated future cost for Storm pipe replacements 422 Phase 4 Annual Storm Replacement Project Estimated future cost for Storm pipe replacements 422 Phase 5 Annual Storm Replacement Project Estimated future cost for Storm pipe replacements 422 Phase 6 Annual Storm Replacement Project Estimated future cost for Storm pipe replacements 422 84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW Complete stormwater improvements as part of the 84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW 422 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S and 9th Ave. S X Install sidewalk along Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S. (pending grant application response) 422 80th Ave. W Walkway from 212th St. SW to 206th St. SW X Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 212th St. SW to 206th St. SW (pending grant application response). 423 Phase 12 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr. 423 2019 Sewerline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewerline repl/rehab/impr. Page 2 of 3 11/15/2018 6.1.c Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - CIP-CFP Comparison (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities FUND PROJECT NAME CFP DESCRIPTION 112 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements X Completed in 2018 112 236th St. SW Walkway from Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary X Completed in 2018 (removed from Fund 126 as well) 112 Bike-2 Health Completed in 2018 112 Trackside Warning System Anticipated completion in 2018 125 Anderson Center playground Completed 125 Civic Stadium removal Completed 125 Veterans Plaza Completed 125 City Park Storage Anticipate completion 125 ADA Curb Ramp Improvements Two new employees are proposed in the 2019 budget to create a concrete crew that will construct new pedestrian curb ramps compliant with ADA standards. This new program will replace the ADA Curb Ramp Improvements. 125 Minor Sidewalk Program Two new employees are proposed in the 2019 budget to create a oncrete crew that will construct short sections of missing sidewalk throughout the City. This new program will replace the Minor Sidewalk Program. 126 Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal conversion Completed in 2018 at (3) signalized intersections (SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W, SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W, and 100th Ave. W @ 238th St. SW) 126 220th St. SW Signal Coordination from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Anticipated completion in 2018 126 Trackside Warning System Anticipated completion in 2018 421 2016 Replacement Program Completed in 2017. 421 2017 Waterline Overlays Completed in 2017. 422 Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements Combined into Willow Creek Feasibility Study/Design/Construction 422 Willow Creek Pipe Rehab Combined into Willow Creek Feasibility Study/Design/Construction 423 2017 Sewerline Overlays Completed in 2017. CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2018 TO 2019) DELETED PROJECTS Page 3 of 3 11/15/2018 6.1.c Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - CIP-CFP Comparison (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities APPROVED OCTOBER 24TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 10, 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 Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank Mike Rosen STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Rob English, City Engineer Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the September 12th minutes was postponed to the October 24th meeting. 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 TO PLANNING BOARD Board Member Lovell asked if the draft Regional Transportation Improvement Program includes any projects in Edmonds. Mr. English answered that several City projects are included in the plan. They include the improvements recently completed at the 76th Avenue/212th Street intersection, an overlay project on SR-524 north of 76th Avenue, and design work for the right-of-way improvements at the intersection of 76th Avenue and 220th Street. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2019-2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is required by the Growth Management Act and covers a planning horizon of 6 to 20 years. It is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to the City’s Level of Service (LOS) Standards. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, and it ties the projects to the various City funds and revenues. The CFP is required to be consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions on how often it can be amended. There are no restrictions tied 6.1.d Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - PB181010f (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 10, 2018 Page 2 to the CIP. The two plans intersect when identifying 6-year capital projects with funding sources. The CIP is organized based on the City’s financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six-year period. Mr. English explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation Plan and Utilities Plans all go through extensive public processes of updating and establishing policies and goals. The PROS Plan was last updated in 2016. The Transportation Plan was updated in 2015 and includes the Walkway Plan, Bicycle Plan, Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Plan, Pavement Preservation Rating Study, List of Priority Projects, and Financial Plan. The Comprehensive Water Plan was updated in 2017 and the Comprehensive Sewer Plan in 2013. The Storm and Surface Water Management Plan is an older version adopted in 2010, and funding is identified in the 2019 budget to start a major update. Mr. English advised that a number of factors are considered when selecting projects for the CIP and CFP, including input from the City Council, available funding, concurrency, safety, project delivery capacity, Comprehensive Plan priority, grant sources and competitiveness, and maintenance issues. The CIP is tied to the City’s budget and several funds make up the overall document: • Fund 112 is a Transportation Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the gas tax. • Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). • Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET. • Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. It is funded by grants. • Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. Mr. English shared highlights of 2018 Projects: • The Pavement Preservation Program is a key part of the program for maintaining City streets. In 2018, the City overlaid 8.22 lane miles using funding from both the Street Overlay Program and the Utility Programs. • The 238th Street Walkway Project was completed in early summer and provides a continuous sidewalk on the north side of 238th Street between SR-104 and Highway 99. It also provides a mid-block crossing near the bus stop on the east side of the street. • The Highway 99 Revitalization/Corridor Study is wrapping up. It provides a footprint and plan for the City’s improvements on Highway 99, using a concept similar to the City of Shoreline to the south. Mr. English also shared highlights of 2019 Projects: • The Highway 99 Revitalization effort will continue with design work in 2019 for the first phase of the project, which will focus on the segment between 220th and 224th Streets to primarily address the accident history of the area. A grant request has been submitted to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for $2 million to help fund construction. The City received $10 million from the State Legislature for this project, and $1 million was advanced to fund the Corridor Study and design. The balance of the grant will be used for construction, which is expected to start in 2021. • The Waterfront Connector Project continues to move forward, and Mayor Earling will make a recommendation to the City Council on October 16th regarding the preferred alternative. Final design and permitting are expected to move forward in 2019 based on the preferred alternative, but additional funding will be needed for construction. • The Dayton Street Walkway Project between 3rd and 9th Avenues will be done as part of the Dayton Street Utility Project. This project was identified in the Walkway Plan as a top priority. • The Citywide Pedestrian Crosswalk Project will continue using REED contributions. The intent is to improve nine intersection crossings to make them safer by installing rapid flashing beacons or High-intensity Activated crossWalK 6.1.d Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - PB181010f (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 10, 2018 Page 3 (Hawk) Signals. For example, a HAWK Signal is planned at the intersection of SR-524 and 8th Avenue, similar to the HAWK signal on SR-104 near City Park. • REET funds would also be used for the 84th Street Overlay Project between 220th and 212th Streets. The City received a Federal grant for the project, which will also include some stormwater improvements to correct deficiencies. • The 238th Street Island and ADA Ramp Upgrades will also use REET funding, as well as funding from a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The City was able to remove the paved area on the north side and provide an ADA walkway through the island and landscaping to improve its appearance. The intent is to do the same on the south side. • The Pavement Preservation Program would continue in 2019 with a budget of $1.5 million. • The annual Pedestrian Safety Program would continue in 2019 to help solve traffic calming concerns, provide crosswalks, etc. • Traffic signal upgrades would be done at several intersections. Currently, a lot of left turns are permissible and some of these would be changed to flashing arrow movements. Advance signal systems would be installed at some intersections, as well, to be more reliable and provide signals to the control. • Audible pedestrian signals would be installed at some intersections to help people with vision impairments. • Guardrails will be installed to address geographic situations and existing guardrails that are at the end of their useful life will be upgraded. • A crosswalk will be installed at the intersection of Admiral Way and Dayton Street, west of the railroad tracks. • The Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project will continue in 2019, and the intent is to upgrade 9 pedestrian crossings. • Construction of the 84th Avenue Overlay Project will move forward in 2019. • The City has incurred challenges with peat and the underlying soils with the sewer replacement project on Edmonds Street. A new approach will be used next week in an effort to solve the problem. • The Five Corners Reservoir Project is well underway. The smaller reservoir should be completed within the next month and work on the larger one will start soon after. • The Water Utility will replace 2,400 feet of watermain, recoat the Five Corners Reservoir and overlay 1.6 lane miles of street affected by waterline replacement. • The Stormwater Utility will replace 3,200 feet of pipe, complete the Dayton Street Pump Project, do pre-design work for the Ballinger Regional Facility, overlay 0.3 lane miles of street affected by stormwater replacement, and update the Storm and Surface Water Management Plan. The Dayton Street Pump Station Project was delayed waiting for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds. The City received an email indicating that the grant will go forward in 2019, and they have a decision package before the City Council for the same amount. The City Council could decide not to wait for FEMA funding and use money from the Stormwater Utility Fund to go forward with the project. • The Sewer Utility will replace 1,260 feet of sewer main and rehabilitate 6,500 feet of sewer pipe using the cured-in-place method, overlay 0.5 lane miles of street affected by sewer main replacement, and complete the Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study. Vice Chair Cheung asked how the City determines which street projects to work on and how a private citizen can make recommendations to the City. Mr. English answered that projects in the CIP and CFP are also identified in the Transportation Plan, PROS Plan and utility plans, which are all elements of the Comprehensive Plan and were adopted following a robust public outreach program that solicited input from citizens. In addition, issues such as concurrency, available funding, safety and grant funding are all considered. Private citizens can submit their suggestions and concerns to the Engineering Division or the Public Works Department. Board Member Lovell asked if the crosswalk project at the corner of Dayton Street and Admiral Way would be coordinated with the installation of warning signals for the railroad tracks. Mr. English answered that the projects are entirely separate. The City has been waiting for BNSF to complete its improvements before installing the wayside warning signals on Main Street and Dayton Street. Board Member Lovell asked if the permit work has been completed. Mr. English answered yes, except for the contractor permit, which should only take three or four weeks. Vice Chair Cheung said he likes the rapid flashing beacons that are used at some intersections, especially near schools. He suggested that beacons should be added on 76th Avenue near Woodway Edmonds High School and College Place Elementary School where the crosswalks are heavily used. Mr. English agreed that beacons are good improvements around schools. 6.1.d Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - PB181010f (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 10, 2018 Page 4 Ms. Hite advised that, in addition to the project selection criteria described earlier by Mr. English, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department uses additional criteria when selecting parks projects for the CIP and CFP. These include an assessment of resources and acknowledging opportunities to connect and expand, enhance identity, advance big ideas and leverage funding to maximize grants. Ms. Hite shared highlights of 2018 projects: • The consultant recently submitted schematic designs for Civic Park, and these will be reviewed internally and by stakeholder groups for feedback. • The City partnered with the City of Lynnwood on the Meadowdale Playfield Project. The fields are owned by the Edmonds School District and operated and maintained by the City of Lynnwood. The City of Edmonds pays half the maintenance costs and put capital dollars into the project, as well. There are now three softball fields and two multi-use fields, all with synthetic turf that allows for year-round play. The fields have been used heavily and are booked through July of 2019. • The City is still working to address concerns with the contractor relative to the center joints on the Fishing Pier. While the final solution is still unclear, it is important to note that the facility is safe for people to use. • The City’s Waterfront Redevelopment and Walkway Project has been moving forward parallel with the Senior Center’s effort to rebuild the center. The City’s plan is to pull back the creosote pier and introduce beach habitat and a filtration system from the parking lot to the Sound. Phase 2 of the project would be a walkway south of the Senior Center. The City owns an easement in front of the Ebbtide Condominiums and is working with a designer to figure out the best option for connecting the walkway all the way from the Senior Center to Olympic Beach Park. Currently, the City is in litigation with the Ebbtide property owners, so design work has been paused until the legal issues have been resolved. • The City continues to work with the Engineering and Public Works Departments on a project to daylight Willow Creek. The goal is to rehabilitate the marsh and reintroduce salmon habitat and to improve stormwater retention. Grant funding was used to complete the required feasibility studies and early design work. • The City Park Storage Building should be completed in the next month or two. • City staff is currently working with a citizen who is interested in donating a plot of land that could be used to host a community garden. The hope is to have an agreement in place by the end of the year so that the community garden can be started in 2019. • The playfield at the Frances Anderson Center was replaced and is well loved by the community. • Other projects funded by the 2018 CIP include the fishing pier restrooms, Mathay Ballinger Trail, Seaview Park improvements, Yost Pool locker room updates, Hickman Park hill erosion, and rehabilitation of the Marsh Walkway. Next, Ms. Hite shared highlights of the proposed 2019 projects: • Design of Civic Park will continue to move forward, with the goal of construction starting in 2020. Staff is working to put together a $12 million funding package. They have $6 to $7 million secured or pending so far, and they are hoping to reach a place where the City can bond several million dollars on the back end so that construction can start in 2020. • Design and Permitting for the Waterfront Development and Walkway Project will continue to move forward. The intent is to have the project ready to start in April so that the in-water work can be done during the fish window (July and August). • Consistent with the City’s goal of replacing at least one play area per year, a new play area will be installed at Seaview Park in 2019. • Again, the City’s hope is to acquire land to establish a community garden in 2019. • Money has been set aside in the 2019 budget to take the Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Plan off the shelf and start mapping out its implementation. • The City recently received a grant from Verdant Health Care to install two outdoor fitness zones. The first will be installed at Mathay Ballinger Park in 2019 and the second at Civic Park in 2020. 6.1.d Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - PB181010f (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 10, 2018 Page 5 Board Member Lovell asked if implementation of the Marina Beach Master Plan is tied to the Willow Creek Project. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. However, she emphasized that the daylighting project is still three to five years out. As they get closer to 60% design for the marsh and Willow Creek, the City will start design work for implementing the Marina Beach Master Plan. At this time, further study is being done before starting design work for the marsh project. One hold up is that the grant agency, the Salmon Recovery Board, and design team have decided the best solution is to have more of a broad channel that goes through the culvert and out into the marina as opposed to a long-linear channel. However, this option is currently restricted by the ownership of the UNOCAL property. It is hoped that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will take ownership of the property next year. WSDOT has indicated it is amenable to participating in a collaborative approach to making Willow Creek a salmon-bearing stream. Mr. English summarized that staff started development of the capital budgets in July and proposals were submitted to the Finance Department in August and September so that the draft CIP and CFP could be prepared. A public hearing before the Planning Board is scheduled for October 24th. Following the hearing, the Board will be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The plans will be presented to the City Council on November 5th, and the Council will hold a public hearing on November 20th. It is anticipated the City Council will adopt the plans in late November or early December. Board Member Rubenkonig complimented staff on a great presentation. Being able to see all of the sources helped her understand how all of the components fit together. She particularly liked the map that was provided to identify exactly where each project would be located. She recalled that when the CIP and CFP was last presented to the Board in October of 2017, there was concern about 88th Avenue and Maplewood School. She asked if a sidewalk in this location was moved up on the priority list. Mr. English explained that the City works hard to find funding for all sidewalk projects. However, it is challenging because the need is much greater than the funding sources available. At this point, they do not have funding designated for the project, and it will remain on the list with no forward progress. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City is on track with the 220th Street improvements that will assist commuters to use the improved Mountlake Terrace Park-and-Ride in the coming years. Mr. English responded that the City is hoping to work in partnership with Mountlake Terrace to complete improvements from the east side of Interstate 5 to the signal at 220th Street to help peak period commuters get through the corridor easier. In addition, the City completed improvements on 228th Street and added a signal where it intersects with Highway 99. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the traffic numbers have increased since the 228th Street improvements were completed, and Mr. English answered affirmatively. He added that, at last check, they were very close to the growth that was anticipated. Board Member Rubenkonig said she lives close to the intersection of 76th Avenue and 212th Street where work was just completed. She commented that when she reviewed the project during the design phase, she did not anticipate there would be such wide-open spaces. She asked if the City has any plans to add vegetation and other elements that would soften the appearance. While the intersection improvements function well, she felt that more urban design elements could have been added such as landscaping, trees, flower baskets, memorial signs, and pedestrian graphics. Mr. English responded that said the City considers the project complete and does not have any plans to add landscaping or other elements as mentioned above. However, the historic street sign would be reinstalled soon. He explained that the intent of the project was to provide the capacity needed to meet the level of service needs of that intersection. One option was to create two lanes in both directions, but they backed off this approach and eventually decided on a three-lane solution that would result in a smaller footprint and less impact yet still provide the level of service needed. One significant element of the project was the underground utilities that improved the appearance of the intersection. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that eliminating the utility poles created a larger expanse of space. She pointed out that there is no room for landscaping at the corner of the Dairy Queen property, and the landscaping that was there prior to the improvements has been removed. One option would be to use hanging flower baskets at the intersection to soften the hardscape and add more interest. She summarized that this is an important intersection that matters to the community and it lost something in the redesign. Ms. Hite said she gets at least ten requests each summer for flower baskets in different locations of the City. Unless the City adds more money to the flower program, it cannot be expanded beyond its current level. This expansion would have to be balanced against the other needs and priorities in the City. 6.1.d Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - PB181010f (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 10, 2018 Page 6 Vice Chair Cheung asked if the City has ever considered providing some type of cover at the intersection of 212th Street and 76th Avenue for weather protection for the students who are waiting. Mr. English agreed that is a good idea and said he would give it some thought, but there are no plans to do so at this time. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that it would be a wonderful pedestrian amenity and add urban design to the intersection. Board Member Robles commented that staff did a great job with the CIP and CFP proposals. He said he enjoys seeing projects move from concepts to design and then to construction. He said he appreciates how the City has done a great job of grinding and marking places where sidewalks are heaving. He asked if the proposed CIP identifies funding to fix these situations. Mr. English answered that these situations are more operational issues. The proposed 2019 budget includes funding for two new concrete crew positions, and their focus would be on solving existing problems such as heaving sidewalks, as well as installing curbs and ramps to make sidewalks ADA compliant and filling in small gaps of sidewalks within the City. Board Member Robles asked about the City’s plan for dealing with the beautiful trees that have grown large and are causing the sidewalks to heave. Mr. English said this was a topic of discussion at the recent City Manager’s meeting. It requires a balance between retaining the beautiful trees and keeping the infrastructure safe. Board Member Robles commented that the Meadow Playfields are incredible. He noted that there are several informal entries, as well as an informal pathway behind the baseball fields. He asked if there are plans to maintain these locations. Ms. Hite said the City of Lynnwood is responsible for managing this park. She suggested that these informal spaces are more of a convenience and are not intended to be access points and trails. They are not part of the current maintenance plan, but she agreed to bring up the issue with the City of Lynnwood to see what their plans are for them. Board Member Robles suggested that these areas could be dressed up or, at the very least, lighting could be added to make them safer. Board Member Robles recalled that when the CIP and CFP were last discussed in October of 2017, concerns were raised about Meadowdale Beach Road being wet and slippery, with no sidewalks. Mr. English reported that the street was overlaid, but no sidewalk was added. Board Member Lovell commented that, collectively, the City does a very good job of managing its facilities and projects, as well as going after grant funding for future projects. Regarding Board Member Rubenkonig’s comments about the intersection improvements at 212th Street and 76th Avenue, he said he drives through the intersection nearly every day and finds it to be absolutely fabulous. Any landscaping that is needed should be the responsibility of the property owners at the four corners. He summarized that, overall, the draft CIP and CFP appear viable. He said it is good to see the plan work not only to the infrastructure, but the parks, as well. He commented that the City is in the midst of a major growth pattern, with a lot of people and traffic being added. The City needs to be proactive to deal with these changes. Chair Monroe asked if City staff tracks the actual cost of projects compared to budgeted costs. Mr. English described some recent projects where change orders were required and project costs escalated. He said the City tracks the changes and uses the information to manage future cost estimates. Chair Monroe asked if the information was factored into the proposed CIP and CFP. Mr. English answered affirmatively and explained that not only does the City monitor City project costs, but they also seek information from WSDOT and other sources. They try to provide heavy management research on projects when they know there will be problems. Staff does its best to estimate and plan for unforeseen issues, as well. Chair Monroe requested clarification about why funding for projects would increase dramatically in 2021. Mr. English explained that the first three years are treated as a constrained list of the projects for which there is either secure funding or they feel secure funding will be available. Funding for projects identified in the last three years of the CIP is unconstrained. This is where they place all of the projects they would like to do but do not have funding for. It is important to include these projects and costs estimates so they are eligible if and when grant funding becomes available at some point in the future. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it was a mistake for her to assume that trees would be planted on the high school and Burger King sites as part of the 212th Street and 76th Avenue intersection improvements. Mr. English pointed out that there is no room to plant trees on the Burger King property given that there is limited space for right-of-way and parking. However, he agreed to follow up with the school district to find out if trees should be planted on the Edmonds Woodway High School corner of the intersection. 6.1.d Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - PB181010f (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 10, 2018 Page 7 Board Member Rubenkonig commented that there are tree-planting techniques that direct root growth downwards so as to avoid interference with the hardscape. She suggested the City seek input from landscape architects regarding these opportunities so that street trees are planted in ways that encourage root growth to grow deeper rather than branching out and remaining closer to the surface. This will help minimize the conflict between trees and hardscape. DISCUSSION ON MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHOUT PARKING IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS (BD) ZONES. Mr. Chave reviewed that, in the interest of encouraging smaller buildings in the BD zone, a previous City Council decided not to require parking for residential development in buildings with a total footprint of less than 4,800. At the time, there was already no parking requirement for commercial uses in the BD zones. Until recently, there had been no projects to take advantage of this residential parking incentive. However, an application for a 9-unit apartment building was recently approved that will have no on-site vehicle parking, which is consistent with the existing code for the BD2 zone. Other property owners on the street raised concern that no on-site parking would be provided and how this would impact the available on-street parking. In response to these concerns, the Council adopted a moratorium on August 21st to give the Planning Board time to study the issue and forward a recommendation to the Council on any potential code amendments regarding this code provision. Mr. Chave referred to Attachment 3 of the Staff Report, which contains the general downtown parking provisions. He highlighted that ECDC 17.50.010.C normally requires one parking space for each residential unit, but the language in ECDC 16.43.D.3 specifies an exemption to the parking requirement for residential uses in buildings with a total footprint of less than 4,800. The easiest approach to reinstate a minimum residential parking standard for downtown development in small buildings would be to simply delete this section so the exemption no longer exists and then default to ECDC 17.50.010.C. Chair Monroe pointed out that ECDC 17.50.010.C speaks to the parking requirement for residential uses associated with mixed-use development, but it does not specifically speak to buildings with only residential units. Mr. Chave agreed that the language in ECDC 17.50.010.C could be amended to clarify that it would apply to buildings that are entirely residential, too. Mr. Chave advised that the City Council is seeking feedback and a recommendation from the Board so that code amendments can be in place before the moratorium expires in February. That means the Board needs to conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation by December. Again, he said staff is recommending that the residential parking exemption for small buildings (ECDC 16.43.D.3) should be eliminated. That would mean that the parking requirement for all residential units in the BD zone would be the same (one space per unit). If that is the direction the Board wants to go, staff would review the remainder of the BD zoning standards to make sure the parking requirements are consistent throughout. For example, it may be necessary to add additional language to ECDC 17.50.010.C to make it clear that all residential units in the BD zone must provide one parking space per unit. Vice Chair Cheung asked how “dwelling unit” is defined in the City’s code. Mr. Chave said it is defined as a place where one family resides. “Family” is defined as related individuals or up to five unrelated individuals. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that although there is an opportunity for several unrelated individuals to live in a single dwelling unit, only one parking space would be required in the BD zone. Vice Chair Cheung said the proposed change to require one parking space per dwelling unit seems to make sense, but perhaps there could be some exceptions to the requirement to accommodate units that are occupied by people who do not own vehicles. Mr. Chave explained that parking spaces in a multifamily building are not typically assigned to individual units. They are generally provided for the residential property, and it is up to the property owner and residents to parcel them out. The City does not enforce having one space per unit whether or not you have a car. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City has provisions that would allow an exception for a multifamily project that is located close to a bus stop and other public transportation. Mr. Chave said there is no exception in the BD zone, but this option does exist on Highway 99 if a proponent can produce a study that supports the lower parking standard. Board Member Robles asked if there are size requirements for the parking spaces. Mr. Chave said there are depth and width requirements, but not height requirements. 6.1.d Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - PB181010f (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 10, 2018 Page 8 Board Member Robles asked if there are other options for incentivizing affordable housing. He is concerned about requiring large parking areas for residential units that do not necessarily need the space. Mr. Chave said some jurisdictions have taken the approach of eliminating the parking requirement altogether for properties located near transit. He agreed that the parking requirement has an impact on the ability to develop affordable housing, but it also impacts lenders when determining whether or not a project is viable. He pointed out that a 1 parking space per unit requirement would still be less than the City’s requirement for multifamily development in other zones. Elsewhere, the lowest parking requirement is 1.2 spaces for a studio apartment. Board Member Robles asked if allowing residential development without any parking could result in any externalized risks. Chair Monroe answered that it could tax the public good by reducing costs to developers and putting the costs on the public instead. While it would allow a developer to maximize the building area, it would push cars out onto the streets. Vice Chair Cheung pointed out that almost all on-street parking in the BD zone is restricted to a certain number of hours. He asked if it would be possible for residents to purchase permits that allow them to park on the street for longer periods of time. Mr. Chave said the City already offers permits for commercial employee parking, but it is fairly limited. Vice Chair Cheung suggested that perhaps the program could be expanded to accommodate residential parking, as well. This would help limit the residual affect of having no parking requirement, and having no parking requirement could result in more opportunities for affordable housing. Vice Chair Cheung suggested that before making a blanket requirement of one parking space per unit, the Board should consider other options further. Chair Monroe said he would not feel comfortable reducing the parking requirement to less than one stall per unit. There is a race to eliminate single-occupancy vehicles, but it is not yet a reality. Vice Chair Cheung summarized that the point of the proposed amendment is to avoid driving multiple cars into the streets where there are already parking issues. However, it may be possible to address the issue better by providing flexibility for less parking so that units can be more affordable. For the purpose of the discussion at hand, Chair Monroe suggested that the best solution would be to require one parking space per unit, which is consistent with all other residential development in the BD zones. The Board could then discuss a more comprehensive approach to address parking and affordable housing in the BD zones at some point in the future. Board Member Robles observed that the City Council has debated this issue, and they will make the ultimate decision. Getting their input on the record is the most important thing the Board can do. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how stakeholders and property owners who would be most impacted by the proposed change could be notified of the public hearing. Vice Chair Cheung suggested it would be helpful to hear from the developer of the apartment complex that caused the issue to come to the forefront, as well. Mr. Chave advised that the public hearings regarding the proposed amendments will be published in the local newspapers, posted on the City’s website, and posted in various locations throughout the City. A public hearing before the Planning Board is set for November 14th. At that time, staff will present proposed language that would reflect a requirement of one parking space per unit. Board Member Cloutier advised that a quick search of the issue reveled that a parking requirement of one space per unit is actually quite low compared to other jurisdictions. Many require one space per bedroom. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that the October 24th agenda will include a public hearing on the 2019-2023 CIP and CFP. The November 14th agenda will include a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the BD zone parking requirement and a public hearing on the Shoreline Master Program Update. The November 28th meeting was cancelled. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe commented that he enjoyed the presentation on the CIP and CFP. It is a lot of fun watching projects go from conception to design and then development. 6.1.d Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - PB181010f (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 10, 2018 Page 9 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rubenkonig thanked the City for putting on the Volunteer Recognition Event on October 9th in the Brackett Meeting Room at City Hall. Not only was there good food, but those in attendance were able to meet others who serve on boards and other City groups. There are excellent people involved as volunteers in the City. She reported that some concern was raised that perhaps people didn’t see the invitation because it was sent out via the City’s email system. It was suggested that it should have been sent out to private email accounts, as well. Chair Monroe reminded the Board of the City Attorney’s counsel that all City business should be done on the City’s account rather than personal accounts. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. 6.1.d Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - PB181010f (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) SUBJECT TO NOVEMBER 14TH APPROVAL CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 24, 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 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Rob English, City Engineer Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG 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 TO PLANNING BOARD Board Member Lovell urged Board Members to review the Washington State Ferries Long-Range Plan and comment during the public comment period. He observed that there appears to be some misconceptions amongst the public that the ferry system is planning to construct a new terminal south of the existing one. In fact, building a new terminal is not included in the long-range plan. Chair Monroe noted that the public comment period closes on October 25th. Chair Monroe pointed out that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is seeking public comments on an environmental assessment of new commercial airline service at Paine Field. It was noted that a public workshop and hearing is scheduled for October 29 at the Lynnwood Convention Center from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., and the public comment period will remain open until 6.1.e Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - PB181024d (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 2 that time. Board Member Crank announced that the Airport Commission will meet on October 25th at the Future of Flight. At that meeting the Commission will receive a general update on the airport, as well as an update on actions taken relative to a presentation they heard about sex trafficking that can happen through airports. The intent is to combat the issue ahead of time before Paine Fields opens for commercial flights in February. She said she would chair the meeting and would report back to the Board. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2019-2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is required by the Growth Management Act and covers a planning horizon of 6 to 20 years. It is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to the City’s Level of Service (LOS) Standards. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects and ties the projects to the various City funds and revenues. The CFP is required to be consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions on how often it can be amended. There are no restrictions tied to the CIP. The two plans intersect when identifying 6-year capital projects with funding sources. The CIP is organized based on the City’s financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six-year period. Mr. English explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation Plan and Utilities Plans all go through extensive public processes of updating and establishing policies and goals. The PROS Plan was last updated in 2016. The Transportation Plan was updated in 2015 and includes the Walkway Plan, Bicycle Plan, Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Plan, Pavement Preservation Rating Study, List of Priority Projects, and Financial Plan. The Comprehensive Water Plan was updated in 2017 and the Comprehensive Sewer Plan in 2013. The Storm and Surface Water Management Plan is an older version adopted in 2010, and funding is identified in the 2019 budget to start a major update. Mr. English advised that, in addition to the priorities identified in the various plans contained in the Comprehensive Plan, a number of other factors are considered when selecting projects for the CIP and CFP. These include input from the City Council, available funding, concurrency, safety, project delivery capacity, grant sources and competitiveness, and maintenance issues. The CIP is tied to the City’s budget and several funds make up the overall document: • Fund 112 is a Transportation Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the gas tax. • Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). • Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET. • Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. It is funded by grants. • Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. Mr. English shared highlights of 2018 Projects: • The Pavement Preservation Program is a key part of the program for maintaining City streets. In 2018, the City overlaid almost 9 lane miles using funding from both the Street Overlay and Utility Programs. The last paving project on 244th Street was just finished this week. They are currently testing a new application called slurry seal, which is supposed to provide a tougher surface that can withstand heavier traffic. Pavement preservation projects are funded by both REET revenue and the General Fund. • The 238th Street Walkway Project was completed in June and provides a continuous sidewalk on the north side of 238th Street between SR-104 and Highway 99. It also provides a mid-block crossing near the bus stop on the east side of the street. • The Highway 99 Revitalization/Corridor Study is in the final stages and staff will present a report to the City Council in December. It provides a footprint and plan for the City’s improvements on Highway 99, using a concept similar 6.1.e Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - PB181024d (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 3 to the City of Shoreline to the south. The City received $10 million from the State as a starter package and the overall project costs, including underground utilities, are estimated at about $200 million. • The sewer replacement project on Edmonds Street was finished on October 22nd, and the roadway will be repaved next week. Mr. English also shared highlights of 2019 Projects: • The Highway 99 Revitalization effort will continue with design work in 2019 for the first phase of the project, which will focus on the segment between 220th and 224th Streets. • The City Council approved a preferred alternative for the Waterfront Connector Project, and final design and permitting are expected to move forward in 2019. • The Dayton Street Walkway Project between 3rd and 9th Avenues will be done as part of the much larger Dayton Street Utility Project. This project was identified in the Walkway Plan as a top priority. • The Citywide Pedestrian Crosswalk Project will continue using REET contributions. The intent is to improve nine intersection crossings to make them safer by installing rapid flashing beacons or High-intensity Activated crossWalK (Hawk) Signals. • REET funds will also be used for the 84th Street Overlay Project between 220th and 212th Streets. The City received a Federal grant for the project, which will also include some stormwater improvements to correct deficiencies. • The 238th Street Island and ADA Ramp Upgrades on the south side of SR-104 will also use REET funding, as well as funding from a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The City was able to remove the paved area on the north side and provide an ADA walkway through the island and landscaping to improve its appearance. The intent is to do the same on the south side. • The Pavement Preservation Program will continue in 2019 with a budget of $1.5 million. • The annual Pedestrian Safety Program will continue in 2019 with $50,000 to help solve traffic calming concerns, provide crosswalks, etc. • Traffic signal upgrades will be done at several intersections. • Audible pedestrian signals will be installed at some intersections to help people with vision impairments. • Guardrails will be installed in some locations to address geographic situations and existing guardrails that are at the end of their useful life will be upgraded. • A crosswalk will be installed on Admiral Way, and the Public Works Department is currently working with the Port of Edmonds to identify the exact location. • The Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project will continue in 2019, and the intent is to upgrade nine pedestrian crossings. • Construction of the 84th Avenue Overlay Project will move forward in 2019. • The Five Corners Reservoir Project is well underway. Work is wrapping up on the smaller reservoir, and the intent is to start work on the larger reservoir in 2019. • The Water Utility will replace 2,400 feet of watermain, recoat the larger Five Corners Reservoir and overlay 1.6 lane miles of street affected by waterline replacement. • The Stormwater Utility will replace 3,200 feet of pipe, complete the Dayton Street Pump Project, overlay 0.3 lane miles of street affected by stormwater replacement, update the Storm and Surface Water Management Plan, and do pre-design work for the Ballinger Regional Facility that would help with Lake Ballinger Flooding and provide stormwater infiltration options for the Highway 99 project. The Dayton Street Pump Station Project was delayed waiting for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds. However, the City Council decide not to wait for FEMA funding and use money from the Stormwater Utility Fund to go forward with the project, instead. • The Sewer Utility will replace 1,260 feet of sewer main and rehabilitate 6,500 feet of sewer pipe using the cured-in-place method, overlay 0.5 lane miles of street affected by sewer main replacement, and complete the Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study. Board Member Crank asked if the preferred alternative for the Waterfront Connector, which was recently approved by the City Council, will be available on the City’s website. Mr. English answered that the website will be updated soon to include the approved alternative. Ms. Hite advised that, in addition to the project selection criteria described earlier by Mr. English, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department uses additional criteria when selecting parks projects for the CIP and CFP. These include an 6.1.e Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - PB181024d (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 4 assessment of resources and acknowledging opportunities to connect and expand the current system, enhancing identity, advancing big ideas and leveraging funding to maximize grants. Ms. Hite shared highlights of 2018 projects: • Civic Park is in the design development stage. A master plan was adopted in 2017 and a consultant has been doing design development and working with stakeholder groups in the community to review the schematic designs. • The City partnered with the City of Lynnwood on the Meadowdale Playfield Project. The fields are owned by the Edmonds School District and operated and maintained by the City of Lynnwood. The City of Edmonds pays half the maintenance costs and put capital dollars into the project, as well. There are now three softball fields and two multi-use fields, all with synthetic turf. The fields have been used heavily. • The City is still working with the contractor to address needed repairs at the fishing pier, and staff is hoping to wrap the project up soon. In meantime, the facility remains safe for people to use. • The City’s Waterfront Redevelopment and Walkway Project has been moving forward parallel with the Senior Center’s effort to rebuild the center. The City’s intent is to redevelop the beachfront and connect the walkway. • The City continues to work with the Engineering and Public Works Departments on a project to daylight Willow Creek. The goal is to rehabilitate the marsh and reintroduce salmon habitat and to improve stormwater retention and reduce flooding on Dayton Street. Grant funding was used to complete the required feasibility studies and early design work. • The City Park Storage Building will arrive soon. • City staff is currently working with a citizen who is interested in donating a plot of land that could be used to host a community garden. The hope is to have an agreement in place by the end of the year so that the community garden can be started in 2019. • The playfield at the Frances Anderson Center was replaced and is well loved by the community. • Other projects funded by the 2018 CIP include the fishing pier restrooms, Mathay Ballinger Trail, Seaview Park improvements, Yost Pool locker room updates, Hickman Park hill erosion, and rehabilitation of the Marsh Walkway. Board Member Lovell said he recently read comments from the public that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has taken over the Unocal property. It has been suggested that part of the property could be utilized to expand the marsh and facilitate the daylighting of Willow Creek. Ms. Hite responded that WSDOT is expected to take over the property next year, but she does not know the exact timeline. City staff continues to have discussions with WSDOT regarding opportunities to daylight Willow Creek as they explore opportunities to develop the property to address ferry issues. The intent is to continue this collaboration and eventually reach an agreement. Next, Ms. Hite shared highlights of the proposed 2019 projects: • Design of Civic Park will continue to move forward, with the goal of construction starting in 2020. Staff is working to put together a $12 million funding package. They have $6 to $7 million secured or pending so far, and the plan is to start construction in 2020. • Design and permitting for the Waterfront Development and Walkway Project will continue to move forward. The intent is to have the project ready to start in April so that the in-water work can be done during the fish window (July and August). • Design work for the Edmonds Marsh/Willow Creek Project will continue on to reach 60% design. Keely O’Connell is the project manager, and she has been very aggressive in going after grant funding to support the project. • Consistent with the City’s goal of replacing at least one play area per year, a new play area will be installed at Seaview Park in 2019. • Again, the City’s hope is to acquire land to establish a community garden in 2019. • Money has been set aside in the 2019 budget to take the Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Plan off the shelf and start mapping out its implementation. • The City recently received a grant from Verdant Health Care to install two outdoor fitness zones. The first will be installed at Mathay Ballinger Park in 2019 and the second at Civic Park in 2020. The CIP identifies $75,000 in 2019 as matching funds for the Verdant Health Care Grant. In addition, the City has secured a tentative $30,000 grant from the National Fitness Campaign. 6.1.e Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - PB181024d (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 5 Mr. English explained that in 2017, Fund 16 (Building Maintenance) was closed by the Finance Department. The initial plan did not include a list of building maintenance projects, but the list has since been added (Pages 7 and 8). All of the projects on the list will now be funded via the General Fund. Mr. English summarized that staff started development of the capital budgets in July and proposals were submitted to the Finance Department in August and September so that the draft CIP and CFP could be prepared. The draft plans were presented to the Board on October 10th. Following the hearing, the Board will be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The plans will be presented to the City Council on November 5th, and the Council will hold a public hearing on November 20th. It is anticipated the City Council will adopt the plans in late November or early December. Chair Monroe complimented staff on their presentations and said he enjoyed hearing about the process for selecting projects and funding. He said he has been particularly impressed with the City’s method of addressing American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps and experimenting with the slurry seal alternative to cut costs. Chair Monroe referred to the Ballinger Townhouse Project and noted that it does not appear that traffic mitigation will be required. He asked how that intersection would be addressed in the future if level of service is significantly impacted by the new development. Mr. English responded that the project is actually located in the City of Lynnwood, so it is difficult for the City to address impacts the development might have on Edmonds streets. However, the City tries to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions on projects that intersect jurisdictional boundaries. For example, the City is working with Mountlake Terrace and Snohomish County on the Highway 99 Corridor Study, and they anticipate that both jurisdictions will be funding partners as the project moves forward. Chair Monroe commented that the intersection is already difficult and no mitigation funds are being used to address the problem. Mr. English agreed to contact the City of Lynnwood regarding the concern and report back. Chair Monroe noted that $39,000 was allocated in 2018 for trackside warnings at the Main Street and Dayton Street crossings, yet the project has not yet been completed. He asked if the money would be rolled over to 2019. Mr. English explained that the City has been waiting for Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) to complete its project to fix the crossing arms at Main Street. This work needs to be finished before the City can move forward with the trackside warning project. The goal is to have the work completed in 2018, and staff will have discussions with the City Council about the need for additional funding to complete the work. Board Member Cloutier asked how the annual replacement of sewer, water and stormwater facilities compares to the overall scope of the existing problems and the City’s ability to maintain the facilities to the standard level. Mr. English responded that the City currently has a 100-year replacement program for its watermains, which equates to about 7,500 feet of watermain replaced each year. Right now, the City has enough revenue to fund the projects without bonding, but there are large projects forecast for the future that will require additional funding. For example, the watermain replacement program may be reduced in 2019 so that funds can be used for the reservoir project. However, he concluded that the overall outlook for maintaining the 1% per year replacement program is healthy. The issue is more difficult for the sewer utility. Although the City has been able to maintain more sewer mains using the cured-in-place process, there are a number of large projects coming down the pike, including the Sunset Avenue Lift Station, the Lake Ballinger Sewer/Stormwater Study where improvements will require trenching and excavation between the homes and the lake, and a big project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The rate revenue will be sufficient to continue the replacement program, but it will not be enough to fund these three additional projects. The 2018 budget included funded to purchase a storm video inspection truck that will allow City staff to video the insides of the pipes to evaluate their condition. Until the truck comes on line in early 2019, it is difficult for staff to identify the replacement program that is needed to maintain the system. Board Member Crank asked if there are any projects in the plan that staff is particularly concerned about as far as funding. Mr. English noted the three large sewer projects he described earlier. These projects need to go forward in the coming years, yet the City does not have funding for them yet. It is likely that some type of bonding will have be approved to fund the projects, and staff is currently working to develop a scope of work and identify the costs. Ms. Hite said the City really wants to start developing Civic Park in 2020 and she is concerned that the longer the plan sits on the shelf, the less interest there will be and people will start wanting to redesign the project. It is likely that bond funding will be needed for the project. Another project of concern is the Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh/Marina Beach Park Project, which is currently a three to five-year plan. The 6.1.e Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - PB181024d (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 6 estimated cost of the project is between $8 and $10 million, and staff continues to work on funding opportunities. While there aren’t a lot of local grant opportunities, there may be some Federal grants the City could tap into. She noted that it is easier for the City to obtain grants for smaller projects, but the phased projects are more difficult. Board Member Robles asked if the proposed new fields at the former Woodway High School site would be crumb rubber. Ms. Hite said no decision has been made regarding the second set of fields. If the project moves forward while the City’s moratorium is in place, then crumb rubber would not be an option. The City is expecting a Federal report out any day. At this time, there has been no effort on the part of the City or the school district to move the second phase of the project forward. Board Member Robles questioned the statement in the plan that there are 150,000 residents within five miles of the park. Ms. Hite agreed to review the statement and revise it as appropriate. Board Member Robles recalled that, at the last meeting, he raised the concern that there are no sidewalks on Meadowdale Park Way and the roadway is wet and slippery. Since the last meeting, a stop sign was added at the intersection. He commented that there are a large number of signs along the roadway. Mr. English pointed out that the roadway is actually located in Lynnwood. He said the City has received similar complaints from other citizens about the large number of signs, and staff intends to have a discussion with Lynnwood about the number of signs, as well as their close proximity to the pavement. Board Member Robles referred to the project description for the Parks and Facilities Maintenance and Operations Building, which anticipates a 6,600 square foot building. He asked if the estimated cost of between $3 and $4 million is accurate for a building of that size. Ms. Hite responded that the estimated cost might actually be low for a building that would house both the parks maintenance and facility staff. As proposed, the building would include a number of technical areas such as a sign-making shop and a nursery. Vice Chair Cheung asked staff to describe the City’s current process for finding grants. In particular, he asked if it would behoove the City to hire a grant writer. Ms. Hite commented that the City is fortunate to have two private grant sources that honor and support civic projects in Edmonds: the Hazel Miller Foundation and the Verdant Health Commission. In addition, the State has about 20 different grant types, mostly through the Recreation and Conservation Office. The City submitted four applications in 2018 for a total request of $2.2 million. She said she writes the grant applications for parks with the help of staff. She briefly described the process of writing and presenting grant applications, as well as how the grant committees review and score applications. She reported that the City’s application for funding for the youth athletic fields at Civic Park scored #1, and their local parks project grant application scored #5. The land conservation grant application for Civic Park scored #5, as well, but this grant is a federal fund that is in jeopardy right now. The City’s application for a waterfront project did not score well. She concluded that she keeps her eyes open for other grant opportunities, as well. Mr. English commented that the applications for grant funding are always significantly more than the funding available, and transportation is where the Public Works Department has the most opportunity. The City’s Traffic Engineer typically tracks these opportunities and prepares the applications. While the City has never considered having a dedicated grant writer, they have hired consultants to help write grants. For example, the application for the grant the City recently received for the Waterfront Connector Project had a lot of parts to it, and a consultant was hired to assist staff. Vice Chair Cheung noted that the City is still looking for $6 million to fund construction of Civic Park, and there is only so much City staff can do. He suggested that hiring a consultant would be helpful in this situation. Ms. Hite said this option is being considered. There are also other sources of funding to look at. For example, Snohomish County has a parks fund that is funded via Conservation Futures Park Impact Fees or REET dollars, and the City received a $500,000 grant to help purchase Civic Field. In addition, City staff and Mayor Earling work strategically with local representatives in Olympia during the budget season to bring State money home to the Edmonds area. The City received $6 million from the State for the Waterfront Connector Project and over $1.3 million in Federal grants for the intersection improvements at 220th and 76th and the preservation project on 76th Avenue north of SR-524. They also have an additional 6 applications that are currently being reviewed and secured. Board Member Lovell said he finds the information relative to grant funding very important and suggested the City find a way to publish the information and inform the local citizens of the City’s aggressive efforts to pursue and secure grant funding. Grant opportunities are very competitive, and the City of Edmonds consistently rates very high. This reflects staff’s attentiveness in seeking out and applying for grants, meeting with legislators, etc. Their efforts are clearly making a difference 6.1.e Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - PB181024d (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 7 and the public would appreciate knowing more about it. Ms. Hite agreed that is a great idea. She noted that Mayor Earling recently submitted an article to THE EDMONDS BEACON relative to all the grants the City has received. He is preparing another submission to talk about 2019 grant opportunities, as well. Board Member Lovell observed that, over the last several months, there has been a lot of citizen conversation about the City spending too much money, taxes going up, the need to be more selective about what is funded, and cutting back on wishes and demands. At some point, the City will need to pass some type of levy lid in order to allocate sufficient funding for infrastructure improvements and parks. At this time, the City is lucky to have accomplished so much. Amber Groll, Edmonds, introduced herself as the City’s newest planner. She noted that the presentation did not include any bicycle improvements. While the City encourages and incentivizes bicycling, employees are less likely to use this mode of transportation if they do not feel safe. Mr. English advised that the Transportation Plan, which is part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, includes a bicycle plan that identifies designated bike lanes and routes throughout the City. Over the past few years, the City has installed a number of bike lanes including 212th Street and 76th Avenue and 220th Street to State Route 524. In addition, sharrows were added where they cannot quite get the lane configuration to work. Also, the City has added right-of-way and lane width and signage to make vehicular and bike traffic aware of the system. The effort is ongoing and the City’s Traffic Engineer has done a good job of finding money for the improvements over the last five years. Ms. Hite added that the Verdant Health Commission also funded a huge bike project last year that the City of Edmonds did in conjunction with the cities of Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood to provide connections between the cities. She noted that most of the bicycle improvements, such as sharrows and signage, are identified in the operational budget rather than the capital budget. Board Member Robles referred to the map that is included in the Bicycle Plan, noting that a lot of the bike activity was moved from the main roads to the smaller side streets for safety reasons. Ms. Hite added that maps and signage have been funded by a grant from the Verdant Health Commission. There is also a website called “Bike to Health,” that was launched by the City of Lynnwood and the Verdant Health Commission as part of the project that was mentioned above. The public portion of the hearing was closed. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THEH BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) AND DRAFT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that the November 14th meeting agenda will include a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Downtown Business (BD) parking requirements and a public hearing on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. The December 12th meeting agenda is set aside for the Board to finalize its recommendation on the SMP, if needed. The second meetings in November and December were cancelled. They agreed to elect officers for 2019 at their November 14th meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Crank welcomed the City’s newest planner, Amber Groll. She also announced that she would attend an Airport Commission meeting on October 25th. In addition, she said she received an email from Director Hope inviting her participate on a community task force to redo the draft Housing Strategy. No date has been set for the meetings to start, but the intent is to assemble a group of community members. She agreed to share information as it becomes available. Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the October 17th Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting where Mark Craig, the developer of the Westgate Project (Bartells) provided an update on the process they went through with the City to get the project approved. While he did not put it in negative terms, he summarized that the process was quite 6.1.e Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - PB181024d (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) DRAFT Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2018 Page 8 challenging. Overall, the fees and expenses to execute the project were the highest he had ever encountered. He further reported that the EDC has forwarded a memorandum to the City recommending that the Public Works Department undertake a public relations and information process in conjunction with the Dayton Street Utility Project. The memorandum recommends there be a central information gathering and distribution point for businesses and residents along the route that might be impacted by construction. Lastly, he reported that the EDC appointed a subcommittee (himself, Patrick Doherty and Darrel Haug) to review the entire Strategic Action Plan that was adopted in 2016 and identify the status of each action item. A memorandum with the subcommittee’s findings will available on the EDC’s website. Board Member Rosen said he continues to attend most of the meetings related to the draft Housing Strategy, and he has monitored and tracked all of the public comments. He gave a shout out to Mayor Earling and Director Hope because they have heard a lot of comments from a lot of different sources and it became very obvious that a lot of work still needs to be done. The City has hit pause and the process will be revised to include significantly more community involvement. This action is a testimony to the system working: create a draft, present it for public comment, and then course correct as a result of the public comment. Currently, Director Hope is working on a very detailed process and schedule for how the strategy will move forward, and it will be released very soon. Board Member Rosen said he is encouraged by the number of things that everyone agrees on, which reflects the values of the community: safety, seniors, kids, and preserving those things that are special about the community. He is seeing a chain of public discourse and public process and things get done when that happens and better decisions are made. It is important to recognize that there are things they all want and they will not get all of them, but the plan will be better if they all participate. He asked that the City staff and City Council use one coordinated process moving forward. It is very confusing to residents and participants and you create significant potential to compromise the process when that is not the case and the two groups create their own processes in parallel. He also asked that everyone collectively come together because they want to make the plan better. He urged those who not like the process or what is in the strategy to come together to make it better. That is what will be in the best interest of the City. Board Member Robles advised that the committee that was formed to review designs for the SR-104 entry sign will begin meeting again in the near future. He reminded the Board that he participates as a member of this group. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. 6.1.e Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - PB181024d (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program) Capital Facilities Plan & Capital Improvement Program City Council November 20, 2018 6.1.f Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Transportation Capital Program 2 6.1.f Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital DP 97 - $1,500,000 2019 Pavement Preservation Program •3.7 Lane Miles •20 curb ramp upgrades •$900k REET 125/126 •$500k General Fund •$100k Street Fund 112 3 6.1.f Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital DP 98 - $251,850 238th Island and ADA Curb Ramps •$211k CDBG Grant •238th Island-ADA compliant walkway and landscaping •12 curb ramp upgrades 4 6.1.f Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Citywide Pedestrian Enhancements $1.49M Fed Grant DP 99 - $429,000 DP 110 - $1,181,873 (carry-forward) 9 intersections Signal Conversion at SR104/232nd HAWK Signal at SR524/84th Ave Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons 5 6.1.f Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Transportation Capital Program Cont. •DP 100- $50,000 2019 Ped Safety Program •DP 101- $70,000 Traffic Signal Upgrades •DP 102- $42,500 Audible Pedestrian Signals •DP 103- $20,000 Guardrail Installations •DP 104- $110,000 Admiral Way Ped Crossing •DP 105- $6,043,500 Dayton 3 rd Ave to 9th Ave [$200,000] Dayton Sidewalk w/o 8th Ave •DP 106- $1,290,870 84 th Ave Overlay (220th-212th) •DP 107- $10,000 76 th Ave/212th Intersection •DP 108- $8,750 238 th St Walkway (Hwy99-SR104) 6 6.1.f Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital DP 109 - $437,380 Highway 99 Revitalization Phase 1 (220th -224th) Begin 30% Design/Environmental Review 7 6.1.f Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital DP 111 - $3,000,000 Waterfront Connector Begin Final Design/Environmental Permitting 8 6.1.f Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Utility Funds 9Edmonds St. – new sewer line – Aug. 2018 6.1.f Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital DP 13 - $492,400 DP 22 - $1,302,600 (carry-forward) 1.5 MG Reservoir to be completed by Dec 2018 3.0 MG Reservoir to completed by June 2019 Additional funds will be required to complete Project 10 5 Corners Reservoir Recoating Project 6.1.f Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Water Utility Capital •DP 19- $870,000 Swedish & 76 th Waterline •DP 20- $300,000 Waterline Overlays •DP 21- $15,000 2019 Waterline Replacement 11 6.1.f Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital DP 25 - $500,000 DP 28 - $907,000 (Carry forward) 12 Pump vault/equipment (subsurface) New Generator (loss of 3 stalls) Dayton Street Pump Station 6.1.f Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Storm Utility Capital •DP 26- $375,000 Ballinger Regional Facility PreDes •DP 27-$1,000,000 Ph 1 Replacement Project •DP 29- $76,125 Seaview Infiltration Project •DP 30- $441,000 Citywide Drainage Replacement •DP 32- $200,000 Stormwater Comp Plan 13 6.1.f Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital DP 35 - $3,670,438 Phase 6 Carbon Recovery Design 14 6.1.f Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Sewer Utility Capital •DP 38 - $500,000 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study •DP 42 - $165,000 Lake Ballinger Trunk Study (CF) •DP 39 - $5,000 2018 Sewer Replacement •DP 40 - $706,680 CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation •DP 41 - $75,000 LS#1 Metering & Flow Study •DP 43 - $75,000 2019 Sewer Overlay •DP 44 - $5,000 2019 Sewer Replacement Project 15 6.1.f Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Parks Recreation and Open Space 16 6.1.f Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Parks CIP/CFP 2019 DP 112 - $4,298,266 Waterfront Development/Walkway 17 6.1.f Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital DP 113 - $1,320,000 Civic Design Development, Permitting 18 6.1.f Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital DP 114 - $100,000 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility and Restoration 19 6.1.f Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital •DP 115 – City Park Walkway - $40,000 •DP 116 – Community Garden - $155,000 •DP 117 – Fishing Pier Parking lot- $20,000 20 6.1.f Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital DP 118 - $120,000 Seaview Play Area 21 6.1.f Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital •DP 119 – City Gateway Replacement - $35,000 •DP 120 – Outdoor Fitness Zones - $175,000 •DP 121 – Flower Pole Replacement- $20,000 22 6.1.f Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital DP 122 - $50,000 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor 23 6.1.f Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital •DP 123 – Yost Park/Pool- $10,000 •DP 124 – Mathay Ballinger Park- $20,000 •DP 125 – Land Acquisition- $200,000 24 6.1.f Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital DP 126 - Waterfront Center Support – Parking Lot, Frontage Improvements - $250,000 25 6.1.f Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital CFP/CIP Schedule •July –City Staff Begins Development of Capital Budgets •August/September –Submit Proposed Capital Budget to Finance –Prepare Draft CFP and CIP •October –Planning Board; Public Hearing (October 10th & 24th) •November/December –Nov 13th Presentation –Nov 20st Public Hearing –Adopt CFP w/ Budget into the Comprehensive Plan 26 6.1.f Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital 27 $7,648,163 $2,800,677 $9,416,331 $5,908,750 $4,024,000 $13,766,400 $10,262,000 $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $16,000,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Grant Awards Parks Public Works 6.1.f Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital Questions 28 6.1.f Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - CFP-CIP Nov 20th Presentation (Public Hearing the Proposed 2019-2024 Capital City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/20/2018 Public Hearing on the 2019 Property Tax Ordinance Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James Background/History Mayor Earling presented the Proposed 2019 Budget to City Council during their October 9th City Council meeting. On October 16th, the Public Works Department presented their 2019 budget requests to Council. On October 23rd, the Economic Development & Community Services, Development Services, Parks, Human Resources, City Attorney and Municipal Court presented their requests to Council. Department presentations continued on November 5, with Police, City Clerk, Mayor's Office, Council, Finance, Information Services and Non-departmental. On November 13th, Finance presented the 2019 Proposed revenue budget to Council. Staff Recomendation: There is one recommendation for Council. The recommendation is for Council to make a motion: Motion to approve Ordinance XXXX providing for the annual tax levy by increasing the regular property tax levy and the Emergency Medical Service property tax levy by the current 101% levy limit, thereby levying an estimated regular property tax levy of $10,559,264 and an Emergency Medical Service levy of $4,048,199. Narrative: On November 20, 2018, Council will hold a Public Hearing on the 2019 Regular Property Tax and the Emergency Medical Services property tax levy. The items for this meeting include the following: 1) Staff presentation on property taxes. 2) Council to open a Public Hearing. 3) Accept public comment. 4) Council to close the Public Hearing. 5) Council will be asked to approve the attached 2019 Property Tax Ordinance. The action item before Council is an ordinance authorizing the levy for collection of City Property Taxes. The levy amounts in the attached Ordinance are included in the 2019 Proposed Budget. The following narrative explains the levy amounts in the Ordinance. The recommended 2018 regular property tax levy for collection in 2019 is the amount levied in 2017 for collection in 2018, plus an increase of $103,687 which is a percentage increase of 1%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $10,559,264. 6.2 Packet Pg. 266 The recommended 2018 EMS property tax levy for collection in 2019 is the amount levied in 2017 for collection in 2018, plus an increase of $39,751 which is a percentage increase of 1.0%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $4,048,199. Attachments: 2019 Property Tax Ordinance 6.2 Packet Pg. 267 2019 Property Tax Ordinance Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY AND THE EMS PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $10,559,264 AND AN EMS LEVY OF $4,048,199, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the City of Edmonds have properly given notice of the public hearing held on November 20, 2018, to consider the City's current expense budget for 2019, pursuant to RCW 84.55.120; and WHEREAS, the City Council in the course of considering the budget for 2019 have reviewed all sources of revenue and examined all anticipated expenses and obligations; and WHEREAS, the district’s actual levy amount for the previous year was $10,368,698 for regular property levy, and $3,975,140 for EMS levy, and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines following public hearing that it is in the best interest of and necessary to meet the expenses and obligations of the City to increase the regular property levy by 1%; and increase the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy by 1%, and WHEREAS, the population of this district is greater than 10,000, and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office has requested that all Snohomish County Taxing Districts submit their levy certifications to the county on the State Department of Revenue standardized form REV 64 0100; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 6.2.a Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: 2019 Property Tax Ordinance (Public Hearing on the 2019 Property Tax Ordinance) 2019 Property Tax Ordinance Page 2 of 5 Section 1. The limit factor for the regular levy to be collected in budget year 2019 shall be limited to the 101%, or 100% plus inflation, whichever is lower of the highest amount of regular property taxes that could have been levied in the City in any year since 1985. Section 2. Regular Property Tax. The 2018 regular property tax levy for collection in 2019 is the amount levied in 2017 for collection in 2018, plus an increase of $103,687 which is a percentage increase of 1%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $10,559,264. Section 3. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) property tax levy. The 2018 EMS property tax levy for collection in 2019 is the amount levied in 2017 for collection in 2018, plus an increase of $39,751 which is a percentage increase of 1%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $4,048,199. Section 4. The levies contained in sections 2 through 3 are subject to amendment upon receipt of 2018 assessed valuation from Snohomish County. Section 5. Pursuant to the request by the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office, the Finance Director is hereby authorized to submit to the Snohomish County Council certification of the hereby approved levies on the State Department of Revenue standardized form REV 64 0100 attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity 6.2.a Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: 2019 Property Tax Ordinance (Public Hearing on the 2019 Property Tax Ordinance) 2019 Property Tax Ordinance Page 3 of 5 or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically 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. It is enacted on a vote of a majority plus one of the City Council. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY BY CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: _________ PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: _________ PUBLISHED: _________ EFFECTIVE DATE: _________ ORDINANCE NO. ____ 6.2.a Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: 2019 Property Tax Ordinance (Public Hearing on the 2019 Property Tax Ordinance) 2019 Property Tax Ordinance Page 4 of 5 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 20th day of November, 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, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY AND THE EMS PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $10,559,264 AND AN EMS LEVY OF $4,048,199, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 20th day of November, 2018. CITY CLERK, 6.2.a Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: 2019 Property Tax Ordinance (Public Hearing on the 2019 Property Tax Ordinance) 2019 Property Tax Ordinance Page 5 of 5 Exhibit A – Levy Certification Levy Certification Submit this document to the county legislative authority on or before November 30 of the year preceding the year in which the levy amounts are to be collected and forward a copy to the assessor. In accordance with RCW 84.52.020, I, Scott James, Finance Director, for the City of Edmonds, do hereby certify to the Snohomish County legislative authority that the Council of said district requests that the following levy amounts be collected in 2019 as provided in the district’s budget, which was adopted following a public hearing on November 20, 2018. Regular Levy: $10,559,264 EMS Levy: $4,048,199 ___________________________________________ Signature Date 6.2.a Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: 2019 Property Tax Ordinance (Public Hearing on the 2019 Property Tax Ordinance) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/20/2018 2019 Proposed Budget Public Hearing Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James 2019 Proposed Budget Public Hearing Staff Recommendation 1) Council Open Public Hearing. 2) Accept Public Comment 3) Close Public Hearing. 4) Council can deliberate further on budget, make amendments, and ask staff questions. Narrative The November 13th Council meeting marked the end of department presentations on the 2019 Proposed Budget. Tonight's Council meeting is the first of two scheduled Public Hearings on the 2019 Proposed Budget. The 2019 Proposed Budget can be found at the City of Edmonds website at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Administrative_Services/Finance/ Budget/2019/2019_Preliminary_Budget.pdf The remaining 2019 Budget Presentations are scheduled as follows: November 27th: The second and final scheduled Public Hearing on the 2019 Budget and Public Comment. November 27th: 2019 Budget Review and/or Adoption of the 2019 Budget. December 4th: 2019 Budget Review and Adoption of the 2019 Budget (if necessary). 6.3 Packet Pg. 273 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/20/2018 Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Carrie Hite Background/History The City entered into a facility lease with the Sr. Ctr in 2008, with options to extend through 2030. The City entered into an option to lease the grounds of the current Sr. Ctr to allow for a capital campaign and eventual rebuild of the center on the site. This was signed in January 2015. See attached. Staff Recommendation Discuss proposed amendments and either approve or give staff further direction. Narrative The City has entered into an Option to Lease with a proposed 40 year ground lease with the Edmonds Senior Center. This has been in effect since January 2015. The option expires in June 2019, with some allowance for extension. The long term land lease gives the Sr. Ctr the option to demolish the current building and build a new one on the property. The Senior Center has approached the City with some requested amendments to the lease. See attached. The proposed lease amendment changes include: 1. The current lease stipulates that the parking lot will be shared 50/50 for all costs. The frontage improvements, which include sidewalk to back of curb, utility hookups for the building, storm detention and curb cuts for driveway and ADA options were not called out in the original lease. The frontage improvements are required by City code for any construction of buildings. The City has maintained that this should be a cost covered by the Sr. Ctr, because of the building construction. The Sr. Ctr has maintained that this should be paid for by the City because it is the entrance to the park. We have thus far split costs for design in order to submit land use permits. As Council knows, the City will be doing some significant work in front of the Sr. Ctr on the waterfront. We will be removing the creosote pier, reintroducing beach habitat, improving ADA accessibility to the waterfront, and connecting the continuous walkway. In addition, the City has been exploring and planning for connecting the walkway in front of the Ebbtide condominiums. The project costs for design and construction of the Ebbtide walkway, Waterfront redevelopment, parking lot and frontage improvements are attached. The 50% of the Sr. Ctr share, for the parking lot and frontage 7.1 Packet Pg. 274 improvements is $933,868. This is the estimated cost at 30% design. This number could go up or down as we get further in design to construction documents. The proposed language gives the full responsibility of the construction and maintenance of the parking lot and frontage improvements to the City. The estimated cost of this is $1,866,000. The City currently has $933,000 in the budget for this. In order to accept this change, the City Council will need to allocate an additional $933,000. Currently, the Mayor has allocated $250,000 in the budget to go towards this. If Council agrees to fund an amount more than $250,000, the Mayor has determined a path forward up to the full amount. 2. The amended lease clarifies some language about the parking lot and frontage included the complete footprint around the Waterfront Center. It also includes a legal description of the footprint of the building. 3. There are two exhibits added that establish an easement of the parking lot and utility rights under the parking lot. In addition, the City will need to grant a Temporary Construction Easement before construction can begin, which we will bring at a later date. 4. In section 4.1.1, the City added language to allow the City Council to consider the capital and/or financing from the senior center as a condition to approve the demolition and construction. There are a few touch points in the lease that allow the City Council to continue making decisions about this project. In section 4.1.1 there are approval steps the Sr. Ctr needs to complete. The Sr. Ctr has presented to council and received approval for the schematic design. The other touch points are for the design development and construction documents. The Council will have the opportunity to review these. In addition this section also states, " Senior Center shall undertake no demolition, construction, alteration, or changes ("Work") on or to the Property without the prior written consent of the City, which shall be within the discretion of the City to withhold or deny. In applying its discretion, the City shall consider, among other factors deemed relevant by the City Council, the extent to which the Senior Center has secured sufficient capital and/or financing to complete the construction of the Building, the construction of the other improvements of the property, and related financial obligations ( including having an adequate contingency fund for the contemplated work), the intended uses of the Property as described in Section 1.2 as well as the Property's functionality as a park." One of the measures the City could use is their funding and potential financing plan. If the City Council is not confident that they have raised enough, or they won't meet their goal, they can withhold consent. The Senior Center did complete a feasibility study at the beginning of the project. They have also updated this recently, and it is included in the Council packet. The key decision points for the council are the following: 1. Whether you want to accept the proposed amendments to the long term lease. This will have financial impact for the City. 2. The review and acceptance of the development and construction documents. 3. Final decision to give consent to demolish, construct, alter, or change the property. 7.1 Packet Pg. 275 Attachments include: 1. Current ground lease. 2. Proposed ground lease redline version 3. Lease and Options final revisions clean version 4. Exhibit - Parking easement final 5. Exhibit - Utility easement final 6. Detail cost of SD estimates for the Frontage Improvements with VE. 7. Detail cost of SD estimates for the Parking Lot with VE 8. EWC Budget Summary 9. Detail cost of the SD estimates for the Waterfront Center with VE 10. City budget for full waterfront redevelopment project, including frontage and parking lot. 11. Building replacement feasibility for WC project. 12. Campaign Feasibility Study 13. Waterfront Center Campaign Update 14. Senior Center operational proforma 2018-2023. Attachments: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease 2018-11-14 clean option and lease 2018-11-14 redline pdf 2018-11-13 parking final 2018-11-13 utility final Edmonds Waterfront.Frontage Engineers estimate SD Edmonds Waterfront.Parking Engineers Cost Estimate SD EWC SD Budget Summary 9-13-18 Building Replacement Feasibility Review FINAL Campaign Feasibility Study FINAL Campaign Update 9-11-18 EWC SD BCL 7-2-18 Waterfront Redevelopment and Sr Ctr parking lot draft budget EWC Operational Draft Pro forma 8-23-18 7.1 Packet Pg. 276 7.1.a Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.a Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Sr. Ctr-Op to Lease-Ground Lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) AMENDMENT TO OPTION TO LEASE THIS AMENDMENT TO OPTION TO LEASE (this "Option Amendment") is made and entered into as of this ____ day of _________, 2018, by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, (the "City"), and the EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, (the "Optionee"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the strong and enduring partnership of the City and the Senior Center began in 1967 with the establishment of the Edmonds Senior Center on the present waterfront site, enabling the City to acquire the Senior Center property in 1973; the parties’ collaboration having resulted in the service to the seniors of Edmonds and the region with robust activities and programs for the last 50 years. WHEREAS, the City’s Strategic Action Plan of March 26, 2013, in Action 3a.1, defines this strategic objective of “Develop a long-term solution for maintaining and updating the Senior Center,” and gave the lead roles to the Senior Center and the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department, and by so doing authorized the Senior Center to develop and implement the plan to construct the Edmonds Waterfront Center on the waterfront site. WHEREAS, on January 30, 2015, Optionee and the City entered into an Option To Lease certain real property from the City for development and operation of a Senior Center and related uses (the “Original Option To Lease”), which had lease terms and conditions specified for a ground lease between the parties (the proposed “Initial Ground Lease"); and WHEREAS, Optionee and the City currently have a lease for the Property whereby the Optionee leases the Property and an existing building for a remaining term until 2020 together with two five-year extension periods (the "Current Lease"). WHEREAS, the Current Lease would have been superseded by the proposed Initial Ground Lease which was the subject of the Option entered into by the parties. WHEREAS, through this Option Amendment and appended Ground Lease, Optionee and the City desire to modify certain terms and conditions of the Original Option To Lease and the proposed Ground Lease as well as the area of real property that will be the subject of the Ground Lease and that would be exercised through the Option. WHEREAS, the revised legal description of the property that will be the subject of the Ground Lease is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Property”) and the Ground Lease that specifies the modified terms and conditions to be entered into when the Option is exercised is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the performance and observance of the terms, covenants and conditions hereafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. GRANT OF OPTION: Subject to the conditions set forth in this Amendment to Option Lease, the City hereby grants to Optionee an Option To Lease the Property ("Option") for the Term (as defined in Section 2 below) and in accordance with the covenants and conditions set forth in the Ground Lease. 2. OPTION TERM: Unless otherwise extended by written agreement of the parties, the term ("Term") of this Option shall commence on __________, 2018 ("Commencement Date") and shall expire at 5:00p.m. on __________, 20__; provided, however, Optionee, in its sole and absolute discretion, may extend the dates for completion of the conditions in Section 5 below and elsewhere herein and the Term of this Agreement by up to Eighteen (18) Months, if Optionee has reached the fundraising thresholds specified in Section 5 below. Optionee may exercise its right to extend this Option following (i) written request from Optionee to the City requesting such extension(s); and (ii) Optionee documenting in writing that it has reached the fundraising threshold necessary for extension. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Option, Optionee's right to exercise the Option and execute the Lease will terminate and be of no further force and effect if the conditions set forth in this Option are not timely satisfied, and the Option is not exercised, before the expiration of the Term. 3. OPTIONEE'S PROJECT: Optionee's development is a non-profit community resource center serving the needs of the local senior citizen population, including, without limitation, operation of a thrift store and cafe along with programs serving poor, infirm and otherwise vulnerable seniors. Optionee also understands that this facility is to be used as a Community Center benefitting the whole community. Optionee and the City have defined terms for City use in the Ground Lease . The Optionee may, from time to time, utilize portions of the property for revenue generating events, including, but not limited to, weddings, dances, class reunions, holiday activities and similar types of festivities. 4. OPTION AGREEMENT CONSIDERATION: Optionee shall pay to the City the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) as consideration for this Amendment To Option To Lease (the "Option consideration"). The Option consideration shall be paid to the City at the time Optionee executes and delivers the Option To Lease. 5. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT: Optionee will have no right to exercise the Option until it has commitments, through private donations, grants and other sources (not including city funds), for $12,000,000.00 which is 75% of the projected cost of the new center. 6. EXERCISE OF OPTION: If, at any time before the expiration of the Term or earlier termination of this Option, all of the conditions precedent to the exercise of the Option set forth in this Amendment to Option to Lease have been satisfied by the dates specified herein, the City shall prepare the Ground Lease negotiated and approved under the terms of this Option Amendment for execution, which preparation shall include, but is not limited to, 7.1.b Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) inserting the Commencement Date, Termination Date, among other final details. Optionee may exercise the Option by delivering to the City written notice of its election to do so, accompanied by properly executed copies of the Ground Lease in duplicate, including the Lease Guaranty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease Option as of the date and the year first above written. CITY OF EDMONDS By:___________________________________ Printed Name: David O. Earling EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a non-profit corporation By:__________________________ Printed Name: Farrell B. Fleming Printed Title: Executive Director Approved as to form: CITY ATTORNEY By:_____________________________ Printed Name: Jeff Taraday Attest: CITY OF EDMONDS CITY CLERK By:__________________________ Printed Name: Scott Passey 7.1.b Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) EXHIBIT A Property Description Parcel Number 27032300104200 Property Address: 220 Railroad Ave., Edmonds, WA 98020-4133 Property Description 7.1.b Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) Exhibit B GROUND LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 7.1.b Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS.....................................................................................................................ii GROUND LEASE......................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY .......................................................... 3 SECTION 2. TERM..................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 3. RENT ..................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER'S OTHER OBLIGATIONS. ............................................... 5 SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS...................................................... 7 SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE ............................................................................... 9 SECTION 7. DEFAULT. ........................................................................................................... 12 SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS ....................................................................................... 13 SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS................................................................................. 14 7.1.b Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) LIST OF EXIBITS EXHIBIT A Property Description EXHIBIT B Access and Parking Easement EXHIBIT C Utility Easement 7.1.b Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 GROUND LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER THIS GROUND LEASE (this "Lease"), effective the ____day of _________, 201_ ("Effective Date") is between THE CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the "City") and THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Washington (the "Senior Center"). WHEREAS, the City and the Senior Center entered into a Lease dated December 1, 2008 (the “2008 Lease”), the Term of which was scheduled to expire in 2020 unless extended by one or both of the two five-year extensions in the 2008 Lease. WHEREAS, the 2008 Lease encompasses a portion of the real property that is subject to this Lease and the parties intend that this Lease supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound by the terms and conditions of this Lease, agree as follows: SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY 1.1 Agreement to Lease and Description of Property. The City hereby leases to the Senior Center and the Senior Center leases from the City that certain real property described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto together with all improvements located thereon or to be located thereon (the "Property"). The Property is the ____ square foot area upon which the Senior Center is to construct its Edmonds Waterfront Center Building (the “Building”) . 1.1.1 Access and Parking Easement. During the term of this Lease, Senior Center shall have a non-exclusive easement for a term of years over and across the real property legally described in and on the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit B (the “Access and Parking Easement”) for ingress, egress and parking for the Property. Nothing herein or in the Access and Parking Easement shall prevent the City from signing and regulating the parking lot to make it time-limited, to reserve certain spots for electric vehicles, or to make other similar modifications to the way the parking lot is used. Senior Center shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that its rental activities do not overburden the parking lot, particularly during daylight hours. Such reasonable efforts may include the use of valet parking, the use shuttle buses from an off-site parking location, and/or other means, PROVIDED THAT the determination as to whether such means are necessary, and, if so, which to employ, shall be mutually agreeable and subject to the dispute resolution process in Section 9.18, in the event that the parties cannot agree. 1.1.2 Utility Easement. During the term of this Lease, Senior Center shall have a non-exclusive easement for a term of years over, under and across the real property legally 7.1.b Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 2 described in and on the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C (the “Utility Easement”) to allow utility connections to and from the Property. 1.2 Use of the Property. 1.2.1 Allowed Uses of the Property by the Senior Center. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Senior Center shall use the Property for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating a non-profit community resource center to be known as the “Edmonds Waterfront Center” serving the needs of the local population, in particular, poor, infirm and otherwise vulnerable seniors and other members of the community. 1.2.1.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Senior Center may from time to time utilize portions of the Property for revenue-generating activities including, but not limited to, rentals, events and the operation of a thrift store and cafe, provided that all revenues generated therefrom shall be utilized by the Senior Center exclusively for the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.1, above. 1.2.2 Allowed Uses of the Property by the City. The City of Edmonds shall be given access to the Building so it may offer recreational and other programs to the public. Except for the thrift shop and café areas, the City will be allowed first-priority use of the Building Monday through Thursday, 4:00pm – close. The Senior Center shall have first-priority use of the Building at all other times. The City and Senior Center agree to meet on a regular on-going basis (at least quarterly) to review their respective program schedules and determine whether there is any unprogrammed (surplus) time after accounting for each party's program needs during that party's first-priority time periods. At these meetings each party shall offer its remaining unprogrammed first-priority time slots to the other party for use by the other party. Senior Center acknowledges that the grounds surrounding the Property are a public park and shall remain open to the public subject to the City's reasonable regulations relate to uses, hours, etc. 1.2.3 The City is not responsible for repair and/or maintenance of the Building; provided, however, as part of the City's allowed use of the Building, the City may be charged for mutually agreed upon costs directly associated with its use of the Building (i.e. utilities, site monitor, cleaning, etc.). SECTION 2. TERM 2.1 Initial Term. The term of this Lease ("Lease Term") shall extend for a period of Forty (40) years commencing on ______, 201_, and terminating on ________, 20_, subject to the right of the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term as provided herein. 2.2 Extension Term. The Lease Term may be extended by the Senior Center for an additional period of Fifteen (15) years 2.2.1 Conditions of Extension. In order for the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term, it shall (i) not be in material default at the time of providing Notice of its Lease Extension and thereafter; (ii) it shall provide written Notice of its Lease Extension at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the Termination of the Lease Term. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 3 2.2.2 Process for Extension. No sooner than three hundred sixty-five (365) days and no later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term, Senior Center shall provide written notice of its intention to exercise the Extension Term. The City and Senior Center shall meet no later than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term to confirm the Extension Term, discuss any matters pertaining thereto and sign a Lease Addendum incorporating the Extension Term and any mutually acceptable matters pertaining to the Extension Term. SECTION 3. RENT 3.1 Rent. In consideration for the use of the Property as specified in this Lease, the Senior Center shall pay to the City a total payment of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per year, and such sum shall be paid within ten (10) days from the date of execution of this Lease and within ten (10) days following January 1st of each calendar year of each year during the Term of this Lease. The parties mutually agree and acknowledge that the Senior Center's operation of the Senior Center upon the Property effectuates a fundamental government purpose and public benefit such as to obviate the necessity of additional rental payment compensation. Furthermore, because the Senior Center's mission is to enrich the social, physical, and intellectual wellbeing of seniors, the City is able to lease this property to the Senior Center for less than fair market value under the poor and infirm exception to the constitutional (Article 8, Section 7) prohibition on gifting or loaning of public funds. SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER'S OTHER OBLIGATIONS 4.1 Construction of Improvements. The Senior Center and City are, through this Lease, undertaking respective obligations to design, construct and maintain various improvements, which improvements will be jointly used as described in this Lease and its attached exhibits. Unless expressly stated otherwise, the Senior Center shall be obligated to design, construct, and maintain, at its sole expense, the Building and all other improvements that are to be located on the Property. Unless expressly stated otherwise, as, for example, in Section 4.4, the City shall be obligated to design, construct, and maintain, at its sole expense, the parking lot, frontage improvements, and all other improvements contemplated herein that are not to be located on the Property. These respective obligations are described in more detail below. 4.1.1 City Approval and Ownership. Senior Center shall undertake no demolition, construction, remodeling, alteration, or changes ("Work") on or to the Property without the prior written consent of the City, which shall be within the discretion of the City Council to withhold or deny. In applying its discretion, the City Council shall consider, among other factors deemed relevant by the City Council, the extent to which the Senior Center has secured sufficient capital and/or financing to complete the construction of the Building, the construction of other improvements to the Property, and related financial obligations (including having an adequate contingency fund for the contemplated Work ), the intended uses of the Property as described in Section 1.2, as well as the Property's impacts upon the adjacent park. The consent contemplated in this subsection 4.1.1 is separate and apart from the City's regulatory authority and the discretion to withhold or deny approval under this subsection 4.1.1 is not limited in the same way that the City's regulatory discretion is limited. 4.1.1.1 In addition to the need to obtain the consent required above, no later than 7.1.b Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 4 21 days prior to commencing any Work on the Property, Senior Center shall also obtain a temporary construction easement from the City to the extent that any portion of the City’s other property (outside the boundaries of the Property) will need to be used for construction purposes related to the Work. The City shall cooperate with the Senior Center in the negotiation and execution of the temporary construction easement and shall not unreasonably withhold its issuance. The temporary construction easement shall address, among other factors, the means, methods, and timing for coordinating the Senior Center’s Work with the City’s Work, if the City has a contemporaneous construction project, as it will during the construction of the Building. Any deviation from approved plans must also be approved, in writing, by the City. 4.1.1.2 Improvements constructed by the Senior Center during the term of this Lease shall be considered the Senior Center's property until the date this Lease is terminated. Upon termination of the Lease Term, together with Extension, if applicable, all improvements located on the Property shall become the property of the City, excepting trade fixtures, which may be removed by Senior Center at its option. 4.1.1.3 The Senior Center will bring forth the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, to the City Council for approval. The City Council will consider and may opt to hold one or more public hearings on the schematic design prior to taking action. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the design development phase of the design process until the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, is approved by the City Council. The Senior Center will also bring forth the design development phase drawings of the facility to the City Council for approval. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the construction document phase of the design process until the drawings from the design development phase have been approved by the City Council. Any proposed substantive design changes that are inconsistent with a previous design approval (schematic or design development), including proposed changes to the facility's footprint on the Property, shall also be subject of City Council approval and shall be returned to the City Council as soon as practicable and not be deferred until the approval of the next phase. 4.1.1.4 In the event there are any disputes that arise concerning decisions made by the City under this Section 4.1.1, those disputes shall be subject to the dispute resolution provisions in Section 9.18. 4.1.2 Permits. Once approvals have been given by the City under 4.1.1, above, no Work may commence until Senior Center obtains and delivers to the City copies of all necessary governmental permits. Senior Center must also supply the City with a copy of any occupancy permit required and any certification required by the fire marshal, prior to Senior Center's occupancy of the Property. 4.1.3 Construction Schedule. Construction Work must be completed within the earlier of two (2) years of the receipt of consent to perform the Work obtained under Section 4.1.1 or three (3) years of the Commencement Date of this Lease. If construction is begun within one (1) year of the receipt of consent and diligently performed thereafter, the City will grant Senior Center a one (1) year extension to complete construction, if needed, so long as Senior Center notifies the City of its need for additional time at least thirty (30) days in advance of the completion deadline. Failure to complete construction within the specified time shall be an event of Default under Section 7.1 unless any delay in construction occurred as a result of 7.1.b Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 5 failure by the City to allow Senior Center's construction to commence in a timely manner in which case, the Senior Center shall be given a commensurate amount of time for completion of construction. All Work done on the Property at any time during the term of this Lease must be done in a good workman-like manner and in accordance with all applicable laws and all building, land use, and other permit requirements. All Work shall be done with reasonable dispatch. If requested by the City, within thirty (30) days after the completion of any Work, Senior Center shall deliver to the City complete and fully detailed as-built drawings of the completed Work, in both electronic and paper forms, prepared by an architect licensed by the State of Washington. All landscaping shall be designed by a landscape architect licensed in the State of Washington. 4.2 Maintenance. At all times during the Lease Term and any Extension Term, Senior Center shall reasonably keep and maintain the Building and other improvements located on the Property in good repair and operating condition and shall make all necessary and appropriate preventive maintenance, repairs, and replacements. On each fifth anniversary of this Lease (meaning every five years), the City and Senior Center shall conduct a thorough inspection of the Building and other improvements on the Property and City shall inform Senior Center of any needed repairs, maintenance or clean-up to be done in order to maintain the quality of any Building and other improvements to the Property, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Such repairs, maintenance and clean-up shall be done with reasonable dispatch at the sole cost of the Senior Center. Prior to entering into any Extension Term of this Lease such an inspection will also be required and all reasonable repairs and maintenance needed to be done must be done to the Building and other improvements before an Extension Term of the Lease commences. 4.3 No Liens. Senior Center agrees to pay, when due, all sums for labor, services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery, or equipment which have been provided to the Property. If any lien is filed against the Work which Senior Center wishes to protest, then Senior Center shall immediately deposit cash with the City, or procure a bond acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of removing the lien from the Work. Failure to remove the lien or furnish the cash or bond acceptable to the City within thirty (30) days shall constitute an Event of Default under this Lease and the City shall automatically have the right, but not the obligation, to pay the lien in full with no notice to Senior Center and Senior Center shall immediately reimburse the City for any sums so paid to remove any such lien. Senior Center shall not encumber the Property or any Improvements thereon without prior written approval of the City. Senior Center shall obtain a performance bond in the full amount of the contract it has signed with its contractor to complete the facility and provide such performance bond to the city prior to demolition of the existing facility. The performance bond shall ensure that the construction of the facility is completed and that all workers, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers will be paid. 4.4 Utilities and Services. Senior Center must make arrangements for all utilities and shall promptly pay all utility charges before they become delinquent. Senior Center is solely responsible for verifying the existence, location, capacity and availability of all utilities it may need for Senior Center's planned use of the Property. Notwithstanding Section 4.1, Senior Center shall be solely responsible for the cost of designing, constructing and extending any necessary utility lines from the right of way or adjacent properties into the Property even though much of this work will occur outside of the Property. Senior Center shall be solely 7.1.b Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 6 responsible for meeting and securing all permits and for meeting all requirements necessary to achieve all of the above, including the payment of any required permit fees and/or connection fees. If the parties cannot agree upon terms for the means, methods, and timing related to the construction of the utilities described above, or if any conflict arises during construction, the City shall have the right to have its contractor construct the Senior Center’s utilities, or any portion thereof. If the City elects to undertake such construction, it will still be done at the Senior Center’s sole cost and invoices for such construction shall be paid within no later than 30 days of receipt. 4.5 Signs. Any signs erected by Senior Center must comply with all local sign ordinances. To the extent that any signs for the Edmonds Waterfront Center will be located outside of the Property, e.g., on the parking lot property, Senior Center must obtain permission from the City as to the location of such signs. Senior Center shall remove all signs and sign hardware upon termination of this Lease and restore the sign location(s) to its (their) former state(s), unless the City elects to retain all or any portion(s) of the signage. Signage requirements may reasonably change during the term and, to maintain uniformity and continuity, Senior Center will comply with any new sign code requirements within a reasonable time after the adoption of such new requirements. SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS 5.1 Delivery of Property. Senior Center shall have the right to possession of the Property as of the Commencement Date. In the event the City shall permit Senior Center to occupy the Property prior to the Commencement Date, such occupancy shall be subject to all provisions of this Lease. Early or delayed possession shall not advance or defer the Expiration Date of this Lease. 5.2 Quiet Enjoyment. Subject to Senior Center performing all of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease and subject to the City's rights under this Lease and its rights of condemnation under Washington law, Senior Center's possession of the Property will otherwise not be disturbed by the City. Any sublease shall be subject to prior approval by the City and if approval is granted this quiet enjoyment provision shall apply to senior center's sub lessees. 5.3 Condition of Property. The City makes no warranties or representations regarding the condition of the Property, including, without limitation, the suitability of the Property for Senior Center's intended uses or, the availability of accessible utilities or roadways needed for Senior Center's intended purposes. Senior Center has inspected the Property, conducted its own feasibility and due diligence analysis, and, as of the date its environmental audit is completed and the report provided to Senior Center or Senior Center's commencement of construction, whichever occurs first, Senior Center accepts the Property in "AS IS" condition, upon taking possession. 5.4 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Design, Construction and Repair Obligations. 5.4.1 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Design. The City and Senior Center shall work together to design a Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements that meet the requirements for the shared use by the Edmonds Waterfront Center and the City's Regional Park 7.1.b Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7 facilities. The total number of parking spaces incorporated into the design for the Parking Lot shall accommodate as closely as possible the anticipated parking demands for the Edmonds Waterfront Center activities and the City's Regional Park activities. The Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements shall be located outside the boundaries of the Property on the City’s abutting property. The costs of planning and design of the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements shall be paid by the City. 5.4.2 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Construction. The City shall design, permit, procure and engage a general contractor and pay the cost of construction of the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements adjacent to and which serves the Property and the City’s regional park according to the design plans as provided to Senior Center in Section 5.4.1, above. The Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements must be constructed in coordination with Senior Center's construction of the Edmonds Waterfront Center Building so that it is substantially complete before the Building and related improvements are occupied. 5.4.3 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Maintenance and Repair. The City shall have full responsibility for repair, maintenance and any capital improvements required for the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements after its initial construction, except for work associated with the Senior Center’s utilities, which shall be the Senior Center’s responsibility. The City shall undertake regular inspections of the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements consistent for a property of that type and implement necessary and appropriate maintenance activities at reasonable intervals to keep the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements in good condition. When capital renovations are required to restore the Parking Lot and/or Frontage Improvements to good condition during the Lease Term, the City shall undertake such capital improvements. 5.4.4 Beach Restoration and Walkway. The City has other areas of its regional park that are located adjacent to the Property. Two of these other areas are the City beach and the City walkway. The City is undertaking a beach restoration project for its regional Park area and it shall complete that restoration project, and walkway completion and pay the cost thereof. The City shall also complete the design, permitting, construction of and payment for the City walkway project adjacent to the Property, and any other contemplated improvements not located on the Property. 5.4.5 Senior Center's Location within Regional Park Grounds and Park Maintenance Responsibility. The Property is owned by the City and is adjacent to a City-owned regional park. The City shall define maintenance standards and intervals for the grounds adjacent to the Property, including landscaping, irrigation, and general refuse removal (not inclusive of the garbage utility from the Senior Center facility on the Property). This park area will be within the control of the City. The Senior Center acknowledges that, as a public park, the grounds adjacent to the Property likely constitute a public forum for First Amendment purposes and that there may be circumstances in which the City may need to allow constitutionally protected activity to occur on the site adjacent to the Property. Such circumstances shall not constitute a constructive eviction of the Senior Center and may not be grounds for damages to be paid from the City to the Senior Center. The Senior Center may not exclude the public from the park grounds, or any other area outside the Property, unless it has obtained the applicable event permit or reservation from the City. SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE 6.1 General Indemnity. Upon the Commencement Date of this Lease, the Senior 7.1.b Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 8 Center agrees to defend (using legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold the City harmless from and against any and all actual or alleged claims, suits, actions, or liabilities for injury or death of any person, or for loss or damage to property, damages, expenses, costs, fees (including, but not limited to, attorney, accountant, paralegal, expert, and escrow fees), fines, and/or penalties, (collectively "Costs"), which may be imposed upon or claimed against the City, and which, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, arise from or are in any way connected with Senior Center's use of the Property or the Parking Lot, or from the conduct of Senior Center's business, or from any activity, work or thing done, permitted, or suffered by Senior Center in or about the Property or the Parking Lot, except only such injury or damage as shall have been occasioned by the sole negligence of the City including: Any act, omission or negligence of the Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or its event space renters; any use, occupation, management or control of the Property or the Parking Lot by the Senior Center; any condition created in, on or about the Property or the Parking Lot by Senior Center, an agent, sub lessee, or event space renter, including any accident, injury or damage occurring in, on or about the Property or the Parking Lot after the Effective Date; any breach, violation, or nonperformance of any of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease by Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters; any damage caused by Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters on or to the Property or the Parking Lot. The Senior Center's obligations and liabilities hereunder shall commence on the Effective Date of this Lease, if earlier than the Commencement Date and if caused by the activities of the Senior Center or its agents or invitees on the Property or the Parking Lot. As used herein, the indemnification provided by the Senior Center is intended to include indemnification for the actions of the Senior Center and its employees and other agents and all of the Senior Center's Sub lessees, event space renters and all of their respective employees and other agents. The Senior Center's obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City hereunder include indemnification of the employees, agents and elected officials of the City. 6.2 Insurance Requirements. The Senior Center shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Lease insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the Senior Center's operation and use of the Property or the Parking Lot. Senior Center's maintenance of insurance as required by the Lease shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Senior Center to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. The amounts listed indicate only the minimum amounts of insurance coverage the City is willing to accept to help insure full performance of all terms and conditions of this Lease. All insurance required by Senior Center under this Lease shall meet the following minimum requirements: 6.2.1 Certificates: Notice of Cancellation. On or before the Commencement Date, Senior Center shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the existence of all insurance required under Section 6.3. Thereafter, the City must receive notice of the expiration or renewal of any policy at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration or cancellation of any insurance policy, PROVIDED THAT the Senior Center shall provide the City with written notice of any policy expiration or cancellation, within two business days of its receipt of such notice. No insurance policy may be canceled, revised, terminated or allowed to lapse without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice being given to the City. Insurance must be maintained without any lapse in coverage during the entire Lease Term and any Extension Term. Insurance shall not be canceled without City consent. The City 7.1.b Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 9 shall also be given copies of Senior Center's policies of insurance, upon request. 6.2.2 Additional Insured. The City shall be named as an additional insured in each required policy using ISO Additional Insured-Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage and, for purposes of damage to the Property or the Parking Lot, as a loss payee to the extent of its interest therein. Such insurance shall not be invalidated by any act, neglect or breach of contract by Senior Center and shall not in any way be construed by the carrier to make the City liable for payment of any of Senior Center's insurance premiums. 6.2.3 Primary Coverage. The required policies are to contain or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Senior Center's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 6.2.4 Company Ratings. All policies of insurance must be written by companies having an A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. The City may, upon thirty (30) days written notice to Senior Center, require Senior Center to change any carrier whose rating drops below such rating. 6.3 Required Insurance. At all times during this Lease, Senior Center shall provide and maintain the following types of coverage: 6.3.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain an occurrence form commercial general liability policy (including coverage for broad form contractual liability; and personal injury liability) for the protection of Senior Center and the City, insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damages because of personal injury, bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring on or in any way related to the Property or the Parking Lot or occasioned by reason of the operations of Senior Center. Such coverage shall name the City as an additional insured using ISO Additional Insured-Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover premises and contractual liability. 6.3.2 Property Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during the Lease Term, "All Risk" property insurance covering all buildings, fixtures, equipment, and all other Improvements located on the Property or the Parking Lot. Coverage shall be in an amount equal to One Hundred Percent (100%) of the new replacement value thereof with no coinsurance provisions. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and loss payee as to its full interest in the insured property and shall include the insurer's waiver of subrogation in accordance with Section 6.4. 6.3.3 Automobile Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or the Parking Lot or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property or the Parking Lot an occurrence form automobile 7.1.b Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 10 liability policy insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damage because of bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring in any way related to the use, loading or unloading of Senior Center's owned, hired, leased and non- owned vehicles on and around the Property or the Parking Lot. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence. 6.3.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain in force Workers' Compensation insurance for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or the Parking Lot or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property or the Parking Lot, including coverage for Employer's Liability. In lieu of such insurance, Senior Center may maintain a self-insurance program meeting the requirements of the State of Washington and a policy of Excess Workers' Compensation with a limit of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident above the self-insured retention. Senior Center has indicated that none of its employees will be on the Property or the Parking Lot since Senior Center intends to hire a management company to oversee the Property or the Parking Lot. In that case, Senior Center shall be responsible to require that its management company provides workers' compensation insurance for its employees on the Property or the Parking Lot and Senior Center shall fully defend and indemnify the City against any workers' compensation claim. 6.3.5 Builder's Risk. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during construction of Senior Center's facility described in this Lease, Builders Risk insurance covering interests of the Senior Center, the City, the Contractor, Subcontractors, and Sub- subcontractors in the work. Builders Risk insurance shall be on a all-risk policy form and shall insure against the perils of fire and extended coverage and physical loss or damage including flood, earthquake, theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, collapse, temporary buildings and debris removal. Coverage shall include: 1) formwork in place; 2) all materials and equipment on the Property or the Parking Lot; 3) all structures including temporary structures; and 4) all supplies related to the Work being performed. The insurance required hereunder shall have a deductible of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), which will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Higher deductibles for flood and earthquake perils may be accepted by the City upon written request by the Contractor and written acceptance by the City. Any increased deductibles accepted by the City will remain the responsibility of the Contractor. The Builders Risk insurance shall be maintained until final acceptance of the work. 6.4 Waiver of Subrogation. Senior Center and City hereby release and discharge each other from all claims, losses and liabilities arising from or caused by any hazard covered by property insurance on or in connection with the premises or said facility. This release shall apply only to the extent that such claim, loss or liability is covered by insurance. 6.5 Periodic Review. The City shall have the right to periodically review the limits and terms of insurance coverage. In the event the City determines that such limits, and/or terms should be changed, the City will give Senior Center a minimum of thirty (30) days' notice of such determination and Senior Center shall modify its coverage to comply with the new insurance requirements of the City. The City agrees that it shall be reasonable in any coverage change required, and that such change will be in accordance with standard market requirements for senior center facilities or similar activity centers. Senior Center shall also provide the City with proof of such compliance by giving the City an updated certificate of insurance within 7.1.b Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 11 thirty (30) days. 6.6 Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Senior Center to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of lease, upon which the City may, after giving five business days' notice to the Senior Center to correct the breach, terminate the Lease or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand. SECTION7. DEFAULT 7.1 Senior Center Default. 7.1.1 The occurrence of any one or more of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this Lease by the Senior Center: 7.1.1.1 Vacating the Property. The vacating or abandonment of the Property by the Senior Center for more than thirty (30) days. 7.1.1.2 Failure to Pay Rent. The failure by the Senior Center to make any payment of rent or any other payment required to be made by the Senior Center under this Lease, as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by the City to the Senior Center. 7.1.1.3 Unpermitted Use of the Property. The use of the Property for any purpose not authorized by Section 1.2.1 of this Lease where such unpermitted use of the Property shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof shall be grounds for default. 7.1.1.4 Failure to Perform. Failure by the Senior Center to observe or perform any of the covenants or provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by the Senior Center, specifically including, without limitation, the Senior Center's utilization of the Property for purposes materially inconsistent with those set forth in this Lease where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from the City to the Senior Center. Provided, that if the nature of the Senior Center's default is such that more than thirty (30) days are reasonably required for its cure, then the Senior Center shall not be deemed to be in default if the Senior Center shall commence such cure within the thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligent prosecute such cure to completion. 7.1.2 Remedies in Default. In the event of any default or breach by the Senior Center under this Lease, in addition to any other remedies at law or in equity, the City may: 7.1.2.1 Terminate the Lease. Terminate the Senior Center's right to possession of the Property by providing written notice of at least thirty (30) days; 7.1.b Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 12 7.1.2.2 Continue the Lease. Maintain the Senior Center's right to possession in which case the Lease shall continue in effect whether or not the Senior Center shall have abandoned the Lease Premises. In such event, the City shall be entitled to enforce all Landlord's right and remedies under this Lease; and/or 7.1.2.3 Other remedies. Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to a Landlord under the laws of the State of Washington. The City expressly reserves the right to recover from the Senior Center any and all actual expenses, costs and damages caused in any manner by reason of the Senior Center's default or breach. 7.1.3 Legal Expenses. If either party is required to bring or maintain any action (including insertion of any counterclaim or cross claim or claim in a proceeding in bankruptcy, receivership or other proceeding instituted by a party hereto or by others) or otherwise refers this Lease to any attorney for the enforcement of any of the covenants, terms or conditions of this Lease, the prevailing party in such action shall, in addition to all other payments required herein, receive from the other party all costs incurred by prevailing party, including reasonable attorney's fees. 7.2 Default by the City. The City shall not be in default unless the City fails to perform obligations required of the City under this Lease within a reasonable time, but in no event later than thirty (30) days after written notice by the Senior Center to the City provided, that if the nature of the City's obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for performance then the City shall not be in default if the City commences performance within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to completion. The notice shall specify the portion of the Lease that the City has failed to perform and the action that the Senior Center seeks to be taken by the City to prevent the default. The Senior Center further agrees not to invoke any remedies until such thirty (30) days have elapsed. SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Representations of Senior Center. 8.1.1 Senior Center is a duly organized and legally existing corporation under the laws of the State of Washington. 8.1.2 Senior Center's execution, delivery and performance of all of the terms and conditions of this Lease have been duly authorized by all requisite corporate action on the part of Senior Center. This Lease constitutes Senior Center's legal, valid and binding obligations, enforceable against Senior Center in accordance with its terms subject to the effects of bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance or similar laws affecting creditor's rights and to equitable principles. Execution of the Lease does not conflict with any provision of Senior Center's Articles of lncorporation, Bylaws or other corporate documents. 8.1.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of Senior Center, threatened in writing, nor is there any legal determination or injunction that calls into question Senior Center's authority or right to enter into 7.1.b Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 13 this Lease or perform the obligations specified in the Lease. 8.1.4 Senior Center has not employed any broker, finder, consultant or other intermediary in connection with the Lease who might be entitled to a fee or commission in connection with Senior Center and the City entering into the Lease. 8.2 Representations of the City. 8.2.1 The City is a municipal corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Washington, with full power and authority to own and lease the Property. The City has the power to enter into and perform its obligations pursuant to this Lease. 8.2.2 The City's execution, delivery and performance of this Lease have been duly authorized consistent with its requirements under Washington law. 8.2.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of the City, threatened in writing, nor is there any outstanding judicial determination or injunction that calls into question the City's authority or right to enter into this Lease. SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.1 No Partnership. It is understood and agreed that this Lease does not create a partnership or joint venture relationship between the City and Senior Center. The City assumes no liability hereunder or otherwise for the operation of the business of Senior Center. The provisions of this Lease with reference to rents are for the sole purpose of fixing and determining the total rents to be paid by Senior Center to the City. 9.2 Governing Law. This Lease shall be governed and construed according to the laws of the State of Washington, without regard to its choice of law provisions. Venue shall be in Snohomish County. 9.3 No Benefit to Third Parties. The City and Senior Center are the only parties to this Lease and as such are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Lease gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit, direct, indirect, or otherwise to third parties. Nothing in this Lease shall be construed as intending to create a special relationship with any third party; neither the City not the Senior Center intend to create benefits in favor of any third parties as a result of this Lease. 9.4 Notices. All notices required or desired to be given under this Lease shall be in writing and may be delivered by hand delivery, in certain cases sent by facsimile, or by placement in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, as certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the City at: 7.1.b Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 14 The City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: City Clerk And to Senior Center at: Edmonds Senior Center P.O. Box 717 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: Executive Director Any notice delivered by hand delivery shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee upon actual delivery; any notice delivered by certified mail as set forth herein shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee on the third Business Day after deposit. The addresses to which notices are to be delivered may be changed by giving notice of such change in accordance with this notice provision. 9.5 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of and adherence to each and every covenant and condition of this Lease. 9.6 Non-waiver. Waiver by the City or Senior Center of strict performance of any provision of this Lease shall not be deemed a waiver of or prejudice the City's or Senior Center's right to require strict performance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision. 9.7 Survival. Any covenant or condition (including, but not limited to, indemnification agreements), set forth in this Lease, the full performance of which is not specifically required prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, and any covenant or condition which by their terms are to survive, shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease and shall remain fully enforceable thereafter. 9.8 Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Lease is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each provision of this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 9.9 Calculation of Time. All periods of time referred to in this Lease shall include Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, if the last day of any period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the period shall be extended to include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. "Legal Holiday" shall mean any holiday observed by the Federal Government. As used in this Lease, "Business Days" shall exclude Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and the week between December 25 and January 1. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 15 9.10 Headings. The article and section headings contained herein are for convenience in reference and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provisions of this Lease. 9.11 Exhibits Incorporated by Reference. All Exhibits attached to this Lease are incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 9.12 Modification. This Lease may not be modified except by a writing signed by the parties hereto. 9.13 Engagement of Brokers. Senior Center and the City each represent to one another that if a broker's commission is claimed, the party who engaged the broker shall pay any commission owed and shall defend, indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any such claim. 9.14 Right of Parties and Successors in Interest. The rights, liabilities and remedies provided for herein shall extend to the heirs, legal representatives, successors and, so far as the terms of this Lease permit, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The words "City" and "Senior Center" and their accompanying verbs or pronouns, wherever used in this Lease, shall apply equally to all persons, firms, or corporations which may be or become such parties hereto. 9.15 Execution of Multiple Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one instrument. 9.16 Defined Terms. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings given them in the text of this Lease. 9.17 No Limit on City's Powers. Nothing in this Lease shall limit, in any way, the power and right of the City to exercise its governmental rights and powers, including its powers of eminent domain. 9.18 Non-Binding Mediation. Should any dispute arise between the parties to this Lease, other than a dispute regarding the failure to pay Rent or other payments (including taxes) as required by this Lease, it is agreed that such dispute will be submitted to a mediator prior to any arbitration or litigation. The parties shall exercise good faith efforts to agree on a mediator. The mediation fee shall be shared equally by the City and Senior Center. Mediation shall be non- binding and will be conducted in Edmonds, Washington. Both parties agree to exercise good faith efforts to resolve disputes covered by this section through this mediation process. If a party requests mediation and the other party fails to respond within ten (10) days, or if the parties fail to agree on a mediator within ten (10) days, a mediator shall be appointed by the presiding judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court upon the request of either party. The finding of the mediator shall only become binding upon the parties if both parties so agree and thereafter execute a settlement agreement based on the mediator's findings or recommendation. 9.19 This Lease Supersedes. This Lease shall replace and supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties hereby terminate the 2008 Lease in its entirety; provided, however, the 2008 Lease shall remain in place, operative and complimentary to the Ground Lease until demolition is commenced on the current Senior Center Building located at 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, WA. 7.1.b Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 16 9.20 Recording. A Memorandum of this Lease may be recorded after execution by the Parties. 9.21 Entire Agreement. This Lease represents the entire agreement between the City and Senior Center relating to Senior Center's leasing of the Property. It is understood and agreed by both parties that neither party nor an official or employee of a party has made any representations or promises with respect to this Lease or the making or entry into this Lease, except as expressly set forth in this Lease. No claim for liability or cause for termination shall be asserted by either party against the other for, and neither party shall be liable by reason of, any claimed breach of any representations or promises not expressly set forth in this Lease; all oral agreements with the parties are expressly waived by both parties. This Lease has been extensively negotiated between the parties. Therefore, no alleged ambiguity or other drafting issues of the terms of this Lease shall be construed, by nature of the drafting, against either party. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have subscribed their names hereto effective as of the day, month and year first written above. LESSEE: EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER ________________________________________ By: ____________________________________ Its: ____________________________________ LESSOR: THE CITY OF EDMONDS _______________________________________ By: David Earling As its Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________________ By: Jeff Taraday City Attorney APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: ATTEST: _______________________________________ City Clerk 7.1.b Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 17 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I have evidence that David Earling is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to executed the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED:________________ PRINTED NAME: NOTARY PUBLIC In and for the State of Washington My commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I have evidence that ________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to executed the instrument and acknowledged it as the President of the Edmonds Senior Center, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED:________________ PRINTED NAME: NOTARY PUBLIC In and for the State of Washington My commission expires: 7.1.b Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 18 -------------------------------------------- EXHIBIT A Property Description Property Description -------AT R/ A FR TPB TH SELY TPB BOTH PER WD 683-545 2/23/73 --------- 7.1.b Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: 2018-11-14 clean option and lease (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) AMENDMENT TO OPTION TO LEASE THIS AMENDMENT TO OPTION TO LEASE (this “"Option”) Amendment") is made and entered into as of this 28th____ day of January, 2015_________, 2018, by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, ( the "City"), and the EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a non--profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington, (the "Optionee"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the strong and enduring partnership of the City and the Senior Center began in 1967 with the establishment of the Edmonds Senior Center on the present waterfront site, enabling the City to acquire the Senior Center property in 1973; the parties’ collaboration having resulted in the service to the seniors of Edmonds and the region with robust activities and programs for the last 50 years. WHEREAS, the City’s Strategic Action Plan of March 26, 2013, in Action 3a.1, defines this strategic objective of “Develop a long-term solution for maintaining and updating the Senior Center,” and gave the lead roles to the Senior Center and the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department, and by so doing authorized the Senior Center to develop and implement the plan to construct the Edmonds Waterfront Center on the waterfront site. WHEREAS, on January 30, 2015, Optionee desires to obtainand the City entered into an Option To Lease certain real property from the City, for development and operation of a Senior Center and related uses (the “Original Option To Lease”), which is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the “Property”), and whichhad lease terms and conditions are specified in the for a ground lease between the parties (the proposed “Initial Ground Lease attached hereto as Exhibit B the “Ground Lease”);"); and WHEREAS, Optionee and the City currently have a lease for the Property whereby the Optionee leases the Property and an existing building for a remaining term until 2020 together with two five-year extension periods (the “"Current Lease”)."). WHEREAS, the Current Lease would behave been superseded by the proposed Initial Ground Lease which iswas the subject of the Option entered into by the parties. WHEREAS, through this Option Amendment and appended Ground Lease, Optionee and the City is willingdesire to enter into anmodify certain terms and conditions of the Original Option To Lease the and the proposed Ground Lease as well as the area of real property that will be the subject of the Ground Lease and that would be exercised through the Option. Style Definition ... Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Bold, Font color: Text 1, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted: Normal, Centered, Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.56", Right: 2.57", Space Before: 3.2 pt, Tab stops: Not at 3.3" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.2 pt, Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at -0.5" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.09", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.58", Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at -0.5" Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.3 pt, Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at 3.3" Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted: Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.89",Right: 2.91", Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at 3.3" Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.4 pt, Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at -0.5" Formatted ... Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.58", Hyphenate, Tab stops:Not at -0.5" Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.45 pt, Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at -0.5" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 0.51", Right: 0.58", Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at -0.5" Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.2 pt, Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at -0.5" Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) WHEREAS, the revised legal description of the property that will be the subject of the Ground Lease is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Property”) and the Ground Lease that specifies the modified terms and conditions to Optionee for development and operation of a Senior Center and related usesbe entered into when the Option is exercised is attached hereto as Exhibit B. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the performance and observance of the terms, covenants and conditions hereafter set forth, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. GRANT OF OPTION: Subject to the conditions set forth in this Amendment to Option Lease, the City hereby grants to Optionee an Option To Lease the Property (“("Option”)") for the Term (as defined in Section 2 below) and in accordance with the covenants and conditions set forth in the Ground Lease. 2. 2. OPTION TERM: Unless otherwise extended by written agreement of the parties, the term (“("Term”)") of this Option shall commence on February 1, 2015 (“__________, 2018 ("Commencement Date”)") and shall expire at 5:00 p00p.m. on June 30, 2019;__________, 20__; provided, however, Optionee, in its sole and absolute discretion, may extend the dates for completion of the conditions in Section 5 below and elsewhere herein and the Term of this Agreement by up to Eighteen (18) Months, if Optionee has reached the fundraising thresholds specified in Section 5 below. Optionee may exercise its right to extend this Option following (i) written request from Optionee to the City requesting such extension(s); and (ii) Optionee documenting in writing that it has reached the fundraising threshold necessary for extension. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Option, Optionee’sOptionee's right to exercise the Option and execute the Lease will terminate and be of no further force and effect if the conditions set forth in this Option are not timely satisfied, and the Option is not exercised, before the expiration of the Term. 3. OPTIONEE’S OPTIONEE'S PROJECT: Optionee’sOptionee's development is a non-profit community resource center serving the needs of the local senior citizen population, including, without limitation, operation of a thrift store and café cafe along with programs serving poor, infirm and otherwise vulnerable seniors. Optionee also understands that this facility is to be used as a Community Center benefitting the whole community. Optionee and the City will definehave defined terms for City use in the Ground Lease Agreement.. The Optionee may, from time to time, utilize portions of the property for revenue generating events, including, but not limited to, weddings, dances, class reunions, holiday activities and similar types of festivities. 4. OPTION AGREEMENT CONSIDERATION: Optionee shall pay to the City the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) as consideration for this Amendment To Option To Lease (the “"Option consideration”). "). The Option consideration shall be paid to the City at the time Optionee executes and delivers the Option To Lease. 5. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT: Optionee will have no right to exercise the Option until it has commitments, through private donations, grants and other sources (not Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.09", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.58", Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at -0.5" Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Space Before: 0.9 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.1", Right: 0.49" Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) including city funds), for $7,462,50012,000,000.00 which is 75% of the projected cost of the new center and parking lot. . 6. EXERCISE OF OPTION: If, at any time before the expiration of the Term or earlier termination of this Option, all of the conditions precedent to the exercise of the Option set forth in this Amendment to Option to Lease have been satisfied by the dates specified herein, the City shall prepare the Ground Lease negotiated and approved under the terms of this Option Amendment for execution, which preparation shall include, but is not limited to, inserting the Commencement Date, Termination Date, among other final details. Optionee may exercise the Option by delivering to the City written notice of its election to do so, accompanied by properly executed copies of the Ground Lease in duplicate, including the Lease Guaranty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease Option as of the date and the year first above written. CITY OF EDMONDS By: By:___________________________________ Printed Name: David O. Earling EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a non-profit corporation By: By:__________________________ Printed Name: Farrell B. Fleming Printed Title: Executive Director Approved as to form: CITY ATTORNEY By: By:_____________________________ Printed Name: Jeff Taraday Attest: CITY OF EDMONDS CITY CLERK By:___________________________________ By:__________________________ Printed Name:__________________________: Scott Passey Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted: Right: 0.5", Hyphenate Formatted Table Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted: Right: 0.5", Hyphenate, Tab stops: Not at -1" + -0.5" + 0" + 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.11" + 3.5" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Not Expanded by / Condensed by Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0.5", Hyphenate Formatted ... Formatted: Right: 0.5", Hyphenate Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Right: 0.5", Hyphenate Formatted: Left, Right: 0.5", Hyphenate Formatted ... Formatted: Right: 0.5", Hyphenate Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Right: 0.5", Hyphenate Formatted: Hyphenate Formatted ... Formatted: Right: 0.5", Hyphenate Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) EXHIBIT A Property Description Parcel Number 27032300104200 Property Address Property Address: 220 RAILROAD AVE , EDMONDSRailroad Ave., Edmonds, WA 98020-4133 Property Description SEC 23 TWP 27 RGE 03BEG MT W LN GN R/W WITH S LN GOVT LOT 2 TH NELY ON SD R/W 450FT TH N49*00 00W 95.67FT M.L TO MEA LN TH S51*23 00W ON SD MEA LN 288.33FT TPB TH N51*23 00E ALG MEA LN 288.33FT THN47*32 00W 319.63FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH S45*00 00W ON INNER HARBOR LN 250.13 FT TH S38*37 00E 287.94FT TPB TGW FDT - COM AAP ON W LN GN R/W AT INT WITH S LNGOVT LOT 2 TH NLY ALG W LN SD R/W 150FT TPB TH CONT NLY ALG SD R/W 300FT TH NWLY AT R/A FR SD R/W TO MEA LN TH SWLY ALG SD MEA LN TAP AT R/A FR TPB TH SELY TPB BOTH PER WD 683-545 2/23/73 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.8 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.89", Right: 2.85", Space Before: 1.5 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Expanded by 2.05 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Lowered by 0.5 pt Formatted: Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.57", Right: 2.53" Formatted: Left Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted Table Deleted Cells Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Character scale: 103% Formatted Table Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Character scale: 104% Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.01", Right: 0.21" Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 7.1.c Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) Exhibit B Formatted: Left: 1.19", Right: 1.19", Top: 1.03", Bottom: 0.19" Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left Formatted: Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.67", Right: 2.74", Space Before: 1.5 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Expanded by 1.15 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Space Before: 0.25 pt Formatted: Border: Bottom: (No border) Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left 7.1.c Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) Exhibit B GROUND LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Font color: Text 1, Character scale: 108%, Condensed by 0.65 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1, Character scale: 108% Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1, Character scale: 116% Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Font color: Text 1, Condensed by 0.4 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Font color: Text 1, Expanded by 0.25 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Font color: Text 1, Expanded by 1.9 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1, Character scale: 104% Formatted: Indent: Left: 2.02", Hanging: 0", Right: 2.06" Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1, Character scale: 104% Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Level 1, Indent: Left: 1.67", Right: 1.71", Space Before: 0.85 pt 7.1.c Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.c Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................ ii GROUND LEASE .................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY ........................................................ 1 SECTION 2. TERM ................................................................................................................ 2 SECTION 3. RENT ................................................................................................................. 2 SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER’S OTHER OBLIGATIONS .............................................. 3 SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS .................................................... 5 SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE ............................................................................ 7 SECTION 7. DEFAULT ........................................................................................................ 10 SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS .................................................................................... 11 SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS .............................................................................. 12 Formatted: Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.39", Right: 2.41", Space Before: 3.85 pt 7.1.c Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) LIST OF EXHIBITS.....................................................................................................................ii GROUND LEASE......................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY .......................................................... 3 SECTION 2. TERM..................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 3. RENT ..................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER'S OTHER OBLIGATIONS. ............................................... 5 SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS...................................................... 7 SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE ............................................................................... 9 SECTION 7. DEFAULT. ........................................................................................................... 12 SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS ....................................................................................... 13 SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS................................................................................. 14 7.1.c Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) LIST OF EXHIBITSEXIBITS EXHIBIT A Property Description Formatted: Left: 0.89", Right: 1.19", Top: 1.03", Bottom: 0.19" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Centered, Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.55", Right: 2.3", Space Before: 1.5 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 7.1.c Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) EXHIBIT B Access and Parking Easement EXHIBIT C Utility Easement 7.1.c Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 GROUND LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS/ AND THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER THIS GROUND LEASE (this “"Lease”),"), effective the ___ ____day of __________,_________, 201__ (“_ ("Effective Date”)") is between THE CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the “"City”)") and THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Washington (the “"Senior Center”)."). WHEREAS, the City and the Senior Center entered into a Lease dated December 1, 2008, (the “2008 Lease”), the Term of which was scheduled to expire in 2020 unless extended by one or both of the two five-year extensions in that Lease (the 2008 Lease).. WHEREAS, the 2008 Lease encompasses a portion of the same real property asthat is subject to this Lease and the parties intend that this Lease supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound by the terms and conditions of this Lease, agree as follows: SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY 1.1 Agreement to Lease and Description of Property. The City hereby leases to the Senior Center and the Senior Center leases from the City that certain real property described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto together with all improvements located thereon or to be located thereon (the “Property”). The Property consists of 2.63 acres. As used in this Lease, the term “Improvements” shall mean all buildings, driveways, sidewalks, infrastructure improvements, utilities, paved or unpaved parking areas (collectively “Parking Lot”), landscaping and any other enhancements located on the Property or to be located on the Property during the term of this Lease and made to the Property by the Senior Center."Property"). The Property is the ____ square foot area upon which the Senior Center is to construct its Edmonds Waterfront Center Building (the “Building”) . 1.2 Use of the Property. 1.2.1 1.1.1 Access and Parking Easement. During the term of this Lease, Senior Center shall have a non-exclusive easement for a term of years over and across the real property legally described in and on the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit B (the “Access and Parking Easement”) for ingress, egress and parking for the Property. Nothing herein Formatted: Normal, Centered, Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.62", Right: 2.64", Space Before: 3.7 pt Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.35 pt Formatted ... Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.35", Right: 1.33" Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.35 pt Formatted: Left Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.03" Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.35 pt Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0.07", Right: 0.04", Space Before: 0.15 pt Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.6 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Bold, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: No Spacing, Left Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.65 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.05" Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.55 pt Formatted ... Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Centered, Indent: Left: 1.34", Right: 1.33" Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.25 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 0.52", Right: 0.05" Formatted ... Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 2 or in the Access and Parking Easement shall prevent the City from signing and regulating the parking lot to make it time-limited, to reserve certain spots for electric vehicles, or to make other similar modifications to the way the parking lot is used. Senior Center shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that its rental activities do not overburden the parking lot, particularly during daylight hours. Such reasonable efforts may include the use of valet parking, the use shuttle buses from an off-site parking location, and/or other means, PROVIDED THAT the determination as to whether such means are necessary, and, if so, which to employ, shall be mutually agreeable and subject to the dispute resolution process in Section 9.18, in the event that the parties cannot agree. 1.1.2 Utility Easement. During the term of this Lease, Senior Center shall have a non-exclusive easement for a term of years over, under and across the real property legally described in and on the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C (the “Utility Easement”) to allow utility connections to and from the Property. 1.2 Use of the Property. 1.2.1 Allowed Uses of the Property by the Senior Center. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Senior Center shall use the Property for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and operating a non--profit community resource center to be known as the “Edmonds Waterfront Center” serving the needs of the local population, in particular, poor, infirm and otherwise vulnerable seniors and other members of the community. 1.2.1.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Senior Center may from time to time utilize portions of the Property for revenue-generating activities including, but not limited to, rentals, events and the operation of a thrift store and cafe, provided that all revenues generated therefrom areshall be utilized by the Senior Center exclusively for the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.1, above. 1.2.2 Allowed Uses of the Property by the City. The City of Edmonds shall be given access to the buildingBuilding so it may offer recreational and other programs to the public. The Except for the thrift shop and café areas, the City will be allowed first-priority use of the Building Monday through Thursday, 4:00 pm00pm – close, and . The Senior Center shall have first- priority use of the Building at all other times as mutually agreed upon with the Lessee. . The City and Senior Center agree to meet on a regular on-going basis (at least quarterly) to review their respective program schedules and determine whether there is any unprogrammed (surplus) time after accounting for each party’sparty's program needs during that party’sparty's first-priority time periods. At these meetings each party shall offer its remaining unprogrammed first-priority time slots to the other party for use by the other party. Senior Center acknowledges that the grounds surrounding the buildingProperty are a public park and shall remain open to the public subject to the City’sCity's reasonable regulations relate to uses, hours, etc. 1.2.3 The City is not responsible for repair and/or maintenance of the Building; provided, however, as part of the City's allowed use of the Building, the City may be charged for mutually agreed upon costs directly associated with its use of the Building (i.e. utilities, site monitor, cleaning, etc.). Formatted ... Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.04" Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.35 pt Formatted: Justified Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 7.1.c Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 3 SECTION 2. TERM 2.1 Initial Term. The term of this Lease (“("Lease Term”)") shall extend for a period of Forty (40) years commencing on ______, 201_, and terminating on _______,________, 20__,_, subject to the right of the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term as provided herein. 2.2 Extension Term. The Lease Term may be extended by the Senior Center for an additional period of Fifteen (15) years 2.2.1 Conditions of Extension. In order for the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term, it shall (i) not be in material default at the time of providing Notice of its Lease Extension and thereafter; (ii) it shall provide written Notice of its Lease Extension at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the Termination of the Lease Term. 2.2.2 Process for Extension. No sooner than three hundred sixty-five (365) days and no later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term, Senior Center shall provide written notice of its intention to exercise the Extension Term. The City and Senior Center shall meet no later than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term to confirm the Extension Term, discuss any matters pertaining thereto and sign a Lease Addendum incorporating the Extension Term and any mutually acceptable matters pertaining to the Extension Term. SECTION 3. RENT 3.1 Rent. In consideration for the use of the Property as specified in this Lease, the Senior Center shall pay to the City a total payment of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per year, and such sum shall be paid within ten (10) days from the date of execution of this Lease and within ten (10) days following January 1st of each calendar year of each year during the Term of this Lease. The parties mutually agree and acknowledge that the Senior Center’sCenter's operation of the Senior Center upon the Property effectuates a fundamental government purpose and public benefit such as to obviate the necessity of additional rental payment compensation. Furthermore, because the Senior Center’sCenter's mission is to enrich the social, physical, and intellectual wellbeing of seniors, the City is able to lease this property to the Senior Center for less than fair market value under the poor and infirm exception to the constitutional (Article 8, Section 7) prohibition on gifting or loaning of public funds. SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER’SCENTER'S OTHER OBLIGATIONS 4.1 Construction of Improvements. Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Centered, Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.55", Right: 2.56" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.15 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.04" Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.1 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.05" Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.65 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 1.01", Right: 0.05" Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.1 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 1", Right: 0.05" Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.15 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Centered, Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.58", Right: 2.57" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Character scale: 99% Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.15 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 0.51", Right: 0.05" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.85 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.45 pt 7.1.c Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 4 4.1 Construction of Improvements. The Senior Center and City are, through this Lease, undertaking respective obligations to design, construct and maintain various improvements, which improvements will be jointly used as described in this Lease and its attached exhibits. Unless expressly stated otherwise, the Senior Center shall be obligated to design, construct, and maintain, at its sole expense, the Building and all other improvements that are to be located on the Property. Unless expressly stated otherwise, as, for example, in Section 4.4, the City shall be obligated to design, construct, and maintain, at its sole expense, the parking lot, frontage improvements, and all other improvements contemplated herein that are not to be located on the Property. These respective obligations are described in more detail below. 4.1.1 City Approval and Ownership. Senior Center shall undertake no demolition, construction, remodeling, alteration, or changes ("Work") on or to the Property without the prior written consent of the City, which shall be within the discretion of the City Council to withhold or deny. In applying its discretion, the City Council shall consider, among other factors deemed relevant by the City Council, the extent to which the Senior Center has secured sufficient capital and/or financing to complete the construction of the Building, the construction of other improvements to the Property, and related financial obligations (including having an adequate contingency fund for the contemplated Work ), the intended uses of the Property as described in Section 1.2, as well as the Property’s functionality as aProperty's impacts upon the adjacent park. The consent contemplated in this subsection 4.1.1 is separate and apart from the City’sCity's regulatory authority and the discretion to withhold or deny approval under this subsection 4.1.1 is not limited in the same way that the City’sCity's regulatory discretion is limited. 4.1.1.1 In addition to the need to obtain the consent required above, no later than 21 days prior to commencing any Work on the Property, Senior Center shall also obtain a temporary construction easement from the City to the extent that any portion of the City’s other property (outside the boundaries of the Property) will need to be used for construction purposes related to the Work. The City shall cooperate with the Senior Center in the negotiation and execution of the temporary construction easement and shall not unreasonably withhold its issuance. The temporary construction easement shall address, among other factors, the means, methods, and timing for coordinating the Senior Center’s Work with the City’s Work, if the City has a contemporaneous construction project, as it will during the construction of the Building. Any deviation from approved plans must also be approved, in writing, by the City. 4.1.1.2 Improvements constructed by the Senior Center during the term of this Lease shall be considered the Senior Center's property until the date this Lease is terminated. Upon termination of the Lease Term, together with Extension, if applicable, all improvements located on the Property shall become the property of the City, excepting trade fixtures, which may be removed by Senior Center at its option. 4.1.1.3 The Senior Center will bring forth the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, to the City Council for approval. The City Council will consider, and may opt to hold one or more public hearings on the schematic design prior to taking action. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the design development phase of the design process until the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, is approved by the City Council. The Senior Center will also bring forth the design development phase drawings of the facility to the City Council for approval. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the construction document phase of the design process until the drawings from the Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 1.01", Right: 0.04", Line spacing: single, Allow hanging punctuation, Adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between Asian text and numbers, Font Alignment: Auto, Tab stops: 1.57", Left + 4.07", Left + 4.89", Left Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 5 design development phase have been approved by the City Council. Any proposed substantive design changes that are inconsistent with a previous design approval (schematic or design development), including proposed changes to the facility’sfacility's footprint on the Property, shall also be subject of City Council approval and shall be returned to the City Council as soon as practicable and not be deferred until the approval of the next phase. In the event there are any disputes that arise concerning decisions made by the City under this Section 4.1.1, those disputes shall be subject to the dispute resolution provisions in Section 9.18. 4.1.1.4 In the event there are any disputes that arise concerning decisions made by the City under this Section 4.1.1, those disputes shall be subject to the dispute resolution provisions in Section 9.18. 4.1.2 Permits. Once approvals have been given by the City under 4.1.1, above, no Work may commence until Senior Center obtains and delivers to the City copies of all necessary governmental permits. Senior Center must also supply the City with a copy of any occupancy permit required and any certification required by the fire marshal, prior to Senior Center's occupancy of the Property. 4.1.3 Construction Schedule. Construction Work must be completed within the earlier of two (2) years of the receipt of consent to perform the Work obtained under Section 4.1.1 or three (3) years of the Commencement Date of this Lease. If construction is begun within one (1) year of the receipt of consent and diligently performed thereafter, the City will grant Senior Center a one (1) year extension to complete construction, if needed, so long as Senior Center notifies the City of its need for additional time at least thirty (30) days in advance of the completion deadline. Failure to complete construction within the specified time shall be an event of Default under Section 7.1 unless any delay in construction occurred as a result of failure by the City to allow Senior Center’sCenter's construction to commence in a timely manner in which case, the Senior Center shall be given a commensurate amount of time for completion of construction. All Work done on the Property at any time during the term of this Lease must be done in a good workman-like manner and in accordance with all applicable laws and all building, land use, and other permit requirements. All Work shall be done with reasonable dispatch. If requested by the City, within thirty (30) days after the completion of any Work, Senior Center shall deliver to the City complete and fully detailed as-built drawings of the completed Work, in both electronic and paper forms, prepared by an architect licensed by the State of Washington. All landscaping shall be designed by a landscape architect licensed in the State of Washington. 4.2 Maintenance. At all times during the Lease Term and any Extension Term, Senior Center shall reasonably keep and maintain the Senior Center ImprovementsBuilding and other improvements located on the Property in good repair and operating condition and shall make all necessary and appropriate preventive maintenance, repairs, and replacements. On each fifth anniversary of this Lease (meaning every five years), the City and Senior Center shall conduct a thorough inspection of the Senior Center ImprovementsBuilding and other improvements on the Property and City shall inform Senior Center of any needed repairs, maintenance or clean-up to be done in order to maintain the quality of any Senior Center ImprovementsBuilding and other improvements to the Property, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Such repairs, maintenance and clean-up shall be done with reasonable dispatch. at Formatted ... Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 1.05", Right: 0.05" Formatted ... Formatted: Normal, Left, Right: 0", Space Before: 0.8 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 1", Right: 0.06", Tab stops: 1.58", Left Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.5 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.09", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.04" Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 6 the sole cost of the Senior Center. Prior to entering into any Extension Term of this Lease such an inspection will also be required and all reasonable repairs and maintenance needed to be done must be done to the ImprovementsBuilding and other improvements before an Extension Term of the Lease commences. 4.3 No Liens. Senior Center agrees to pay, when due, all sums for labor, services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery, or equipment which have been provided to the Property. If any lien is filed against the Work which Senior Center wishes to protest, then Senior Center shall immediately deposit cash with the City, or procure a bond acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of removing the lien from the Work. Failure to remove the lien or furnish the cash or bond acceptable to the City within thirty (30) days shall constitute an Event of Default under this Lease and the City shall automatically have the right, but not the obligation, to pay the lien in full with no notice to Senior Center and Senior Center shall immediately reimburse the City for any sums so paid to remove any such lien. Senior Center shall not encumber the Property or any Improvements thereon without prior written approval of the City. Senior Center shall obtain a performance bond in the full amount of the contract it has signed with its contractor to complete the facility and provide such performance bond to the city prior to demolition of the existing facility. The performance bond shall ensure that the construction of the facility is completed and that all workers, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers will be paid. 4.4 Utilities and Services. 4.3 No Liens. Senior Center agrees to pay, when due, all sums for labor, services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery, or equipment which have been provided to the Property. If any lien is filed against the Work which Senior Center wishes to protest, then Senior Center shall immediately deposit cash with the City, or procure a bond acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of removing the lien from the Work. Failure to remove the lien or furnish the cash or bond acceptable to the City within thirty (30) days shall constitute an Event of Default under this Lease and the City shall automatically have the right, but not the obligation, to pay the lien in full with no notice to Senior Center and Senior Center shall immediately reimburse the City for any sums so paid to remove any such lien. Senior Center shall not encumber the Property or any Improvements thereon without prior written approval of the City. Senior Center shall obtain a performance bond in the full amount of the contract it has signed with its contractor to complete the facility and provide such performance bond to the city prior to demolition of the existing facility. The performance bond shall ensure that the construction of the facility is completed and that all workers, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers will be paid. 4.4 Utilities and Services. Senior Center must make arrangements for all utilities and shall promptly pay all utility charges before they become delinquent. Senior Center is solely responsible for verifying the existence, location, capacity and availability of all utilities it may need for Senior Center's planned use of the Property. Notwithstanding Section 4.1, Senior Center shall be solely responsible for the cost of designing, constructing and extending any existingnecessary utility lines from the right of way or adjacent properties into the Property; even though much of this work will occur outside of the Property, as made available to Senior Center by the City, shall include utility access for water, sewer, electrical power and telephone to the edge (back of curb) of the Property. . Senior Center shall be solely responsible for Formatted ... Formatted: Normal, Left, Right: 0", Space Before: 0.4 pt Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.09", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.04" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.8 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted ... Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.14", First line: 0.46", Right: 0.05", Tab stops: Not at 0.5" Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7 meeting and securing all permits and for meeting all requirements necessary to achieve all of the above, including the payment of any required permit fees and/or connection fees. If the parties cannot agree upon terms for the means, methods, and timing related to the construction of the utilities described above, or if any conflict arises during construction, the City shall have the right to have its contractor construct the Senior Center’s utilities, or any portion thereof. If the City elects to undertake such construction, it will still be done at the Senior Center’s sole cost and invoices for such construction shall be paid within no later than 30 days of receipt. 4.5 Signs. Any signs erected by Senior Center must comply with all local sign ordinances. Senior Center shall remove all signs and sign hardware upon termination of this Lease and restoreTo the sign location(s) to its (their) former state(s), unless the City elects to retain all orextent that any portion(s)signs for the Edmonds Waterfront Center will be located outside of the signage. Signage requirements may reasonably change duringProperty, e.g., on the term and, to maintain uniformity and continuityparking lot property, Senior Center will comply with any new sign code requirements within a reasonable time after the adoptionmust obtain permission from the City as to the location of such signs. Senior Center shall remove all signs and sign hardware upon termination of this Lease and restore the sign location(s) to its (their) former state(s), unless the City elects to retain all or any portion(s) of the signage. Signage requirements may reasonably change during the term and, to maintain uniformity and continuity, Senior Center will comply with any new sign code requirements within a reasonable time after the adoption of such new requirements. SECTION 5. new requirements. SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS 5.1 Delivery of Property. Senior Center shall have the right to possession of the Property as of the Commencement Date. In the event the City shall permit Senior Center to occupy the Property prior to the Commencement Date, such occupancy shall be subject to all provisions of this Lease. Early or delayed possession shall not advance or defer the Expiration Date of this Lease. 5.2 Quiet Enjoyment. Subject to Senior Center performing all of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease and subject to the City's rights under this Lease and its rights of condemnation under Washington law, Senior Center's possession of the Property will otherwise not be disturbed by the City. Any sublease shall be subject to prior approval by the City and if approval is granted this quiet enjoyment provision shall apply to senior center’scenter's sub lessees. 5.3 Condition of Property. The City makes no warranties or representations regarding the condition of the Property, including, without limitation, the suitability of the Property for Senior Center's intended uses or, the availability of accessible utilities or roadways needed for Senior Center's intended purposes. Senior Center has inspected the Property, conducted its own feasibility and due diligence analysis, and, as of the date its environmental audit is completed and the report provided to Senior Center or Senior Center’sCenter's commencement of construction, whichever occurs first, Senior Center accepts the Property in "AS IS" condition, upon taking possession. Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.45 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.03" Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Normal, Left, Right: 0", Space Before: 1 pt Formatted ... Formatted: Normal, Level 1, Indent: Left: 1.27", Right: -0.01" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.8 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 0.52", Right: 0.03", Tab stops: Not at 0.5" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.15 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 0.57", Right: 0.15", Tab stops: Not at 0.5" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.2 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 8 5.4 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Design, Construction and Repair Obligations. 5.4.1 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Design. The City and Senior Center shall work together to design a Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements that meetsmeet the requirements for the Senior Center’s Building as well as shared use by the City’s Edmonds Waterfront Center and the City's Regional Park facilities. The parties anticipate that the Parking Lot will have one hundred (100) parking spaces but the final number shall be determined by a parking study undertaken, if needed, by the City and Senior Center, jointly. The parking study shall specifically consider the needs of the Senior Center and the City’s Regional Park designation for the Property. The total number of parking spaces incorporated into the design for the Parking Lot shall accommodate as closely as possible the anticipated parking demands for the SeniorEdmonds Waterfront Center Property and the City’s Regional Park activities. The Parking Lot design shall incorporate all aspects necessary for construction including, without limitation, storm drainage, and shall be developed and permitted in coordination with the Senior Center/Community Center facility, including but not limited to the schematic design and the City's Regional Park activities. The Parking Lot and design development approval process set forth in Section 4.1, above. Frontage Improvements shall be located outside the boundaries of the Property on the City’s abutting property. The costs of planning and design of the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements shall be paid by the City. 5.4.2 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Construction. The City and Senior Center shall share equally indesign, permit, procure and engage a general contractor and pay the cost of construction of the Parking Lot on the Propertyand Frontage Improvements adjacent to and which serves the Property and the City’s regional park according to the design plans as provided to Senior Center in Section 5.4.1, above. The Senior Center’s contractor shall build theThe Parking Lot as part of Senior Center’s construction of its Building and related improvements, with the City shall pay its share. The Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements must be constructed in coordination with Senior Center’sCenter's construction of the Edmonds Waterfront Center Building so that it is substantially complete before the Building and related improvements are occupied. Except as specified herein, the City shall have no responsibility for the repair or maintenance of the Property or for construction of any roadways, utilities or any other improvements on or off of the Property. Should the City of its own accord undertake any repair or maintenance work on the Property itself, the City shall take reasonable steps to do so in a manner that does not interfere with Senior Center's use of the Property or create a constructive eviction or other eviction of the Senior Center. Any repair on the Property outside of that described in Section 5.4.3, below, shall be the Senior Center's responsibility and shall be made at the Senior Center's sole expense. 5.4.3 Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements Maintenance and Repair. The City and the Senior Center shall share equalhave full responsibility for repair, maintenance and any capital improvements required for the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements after its initial construction. The City and Senior Center shall , except for work associated with the Senior Center’s utilities, which shall be the Senior Center’s responsibility. The City shall undertake regular inspections of the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements consistent for a property of that type Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Right: 0", Tab stops: Not at 0.5" Formatted ... Formatted: Normal, Left, Indent: First line: 0", Right: 0", Space Before: 0.2 pt, Tab stops: Not at 0.5" Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Right: 0", Tab stops: Not at 0.5" Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 9 and implement necessary and appropriate maintenance activities at reasonable intervals to keep the Parking Lot and Frontage Improvements in good condition. When capital renovations are required to restore the Parking Lot and/or Frontage Improvements to good condition during the Lease Term, the City and Senior Center shall undertake such capital improvements. 5.4.4 Beach Restoration and Walkway. The City has other areas of its regional park that are located adjacent to the Property. Two of these other areas are the City beach and the City walkway. The City is undertaking a beach restoration project for its regional Park area and it shall complete that restoration project, and walkway completion and pay the cost thereof. The City shall also complete the design, permitting, construction of and payment for the City walkway project adjacent to the Property, and any other contemplated improvements not located on the Property. 5.4.4 5 Senior Center’sCenter's Location within Regional Park Grounds and Park Maintenance Responsibility. The Property is owned by the City and has been designatedis adjacent to a City-owned regional park. The City shall define maintenance standards and intervals for the grounds surroundingadjacent to the Senior CenterProperty, including landscaping, irrigation, and general refuse removal (not inclusive of the garbage utility from the Senior Center facility). on the Property). This park area will be within the limited control of the City. The Senior Center acknowledges that, as a public park, the grounds surroundingadjacent to the facility mayProperty likely constitute a public forum for First Amendment purposes and that there may be circumstances in which the City may need to allow constitutionally protected activity to occur on the site adjacent to the Property. Such circumstances shall not constitute a constructive eviction of the Senior Center and may not be grounds for damages to be paid from the City to the Senior Center. The Senior Center may not exclude the public from the park grounds, or any other area outside the Property, unless it has obtained the applicable event permit or reservation from the City. The City is not responsible for repair and/or maintenance of the Building; provided, however, as part of the City’s allowed use of the Building, the City may be charged for mutually agreed upon costs directly associated with its use of the Building ( i.e. utilities, site monitor, cleaning, etc.). SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE 6.1 General Indemnity. Upon the Commencement Date of this Lease, the Senior Center agrees to defend (using legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold the City harmless from and against any and all actual or alleged claims, suits, actions, or liabilities for injury or death of any person, or for loss or damage to property, damages, expenses, costs, fees (including, but not limited to, attorney, accountant, paralegal, expert, and escrow fees), fines, and/or penalties, (collectively "Costs"), which may be imposed upon or claimed against the City, and which, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, arise from or are in any way connected with Senior Center’sCenter's use of the PremisesProperty or the Parking Lot, or from the conduct of Senior Center’sCenter's business, or from any activity, work or thing done, permitted, or suffered by Senior Center in or Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Right: 0", Space Before: 0.65 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Indent: First line: 1", Right: 0", Line spacing: single Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Left, Right: 0", Space Before: 0.5 pt, Tab stops: Not at 0.5" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.5 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 0.51", Right: 0.04", Tab stops: Not at 0.5" Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 10 about the Premises Property or the Parking Lot, except only such injury or damage as shall have been occasioned by the sole negligence of the City including: Any act, omission or negligence of the Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or its event space renters; any use, occupation, management or control of the Property or the Parking Lot by the Senior Center; any condition created in, on or about the Property or the Parking Lot by Senior Center, an agent, sub lessee, or event space renter, including any accident, injury or damage occurring in, on or about the Property or the Parking Lot after the Effective Date; any breach, violation, or nonperformance of any of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease by Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters; any damage caused by Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters on or to the Property. or the Parking Lot. The Senior Center's obligations and liabilities hereunder shall commence on the Effective Date of this Lease, if earlier than the Commencement Date and if caused by the activities of the Senior Center or its agents or invitees on the Property. or the Parking Lot. As used herein, the indemnification provided by the Senior Center is intended to include indemnification for the actions of the Senior Center and its employees and other agents and all of the Senior Center's Sub lessees, event space renters and all of their respective employees and other agents. The Senior Center's obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City hereunder include indemnification of the employees, agents and elected officials of the City. 6.2 Insurance Requirements. The Senior Center shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Lease insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the Senior Center’sCenter's operation and use of the leased Premises. Lessee’sProperty or the Parking Lot. Senior Center's maintenance of insurance as required by the Lease shall not be construed to limit the liability of the LesseeSenior Center to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City’sCity's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. The amounts listed indicate only the minimum amounts of insurance coverage the City is willing to accept to help insure full performance of all terms and conditions of this Lease. All insurance required by Senior Center under this Lease shall meet the following minimum requirements: 6.2.1 Certificates: Notice of Cancellation. On or before the Commencement Date, Senior Center shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the existence of all insurance required under Section 6.3. Thereafter, the City must receive notice of the expiration or renewal of any policy at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration or cancellation of any insurance policy, PROVIDED THAT the Senior Center shall provide the City with written notice of any policy expiration or cancellation, within two business days of its receipt of such notice. No insurance policy may be canceled, revised, terminated or allowed to lapse without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice being given to the City. Insurance must be maintained without any lapse in coverage during the entire Lease Term and any Extension Term. Insurance shall not be canceled without City consent. The City shall also be given copies of Senior Center's policies of insurance, upon request. 6.2.2 Additional Insured. The City shall be named as an additional insured in each required policy using ISO Additional Insured-Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage and, for purposes of damage to the Property or the Parking Lot, as a loss payee to the extent of its interest therein. Such Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.5 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 1.02", Right: 0.04" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 0.01", Right: 0.04", Space Before: 0.4 pt Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 11 insurance shall not be invalidated by any act, neglect or breach of contract by Senior Center and shall not in any way be construed by the carrier to make the City liable for payment of any of Senior Center's insurance premiums. 6.2.3 Primary Coverage. The required policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Senior Center’sCenter's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 6.2.4 Company Ratings. All policies of insurance must be written by companies having an A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. The City may, upon thirty (30) days written notice to Senior Center, require Senior Center to change any carrier whose rating drops below such rating. 6.3 Required Insurance. At all times during this Lease, Senior Center shall provide and maintain the following types of coverage: 6.3.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain an occurrence form commercial general liability policy (including coverage for broad form contractual liability; and personal injury liability) for the protection of Senior Center and the City, insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damages because of personal injury, bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring on or in any way related to the Property or the Parking Lot or occasioned by reason of the operations of Senior Center. Such coverage shall name the City as an additional insured using ISO Additional Insured-Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover premises and contractual liability. 6.3.2 Property Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during the Lease Term, "All Risk" property insurance covering all buildings, fixtures, equipment, and all other Improvements located on the Property. or the Parking Lot. Coverage shall be in an amount equal to One Hundred Percent (100%) of the new replacement value thereof with no coinsurance provisions. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and loss payee as to its full interest in the insured property and shall include the insurer's waiver of subrogation in accordance with Section 6.4. 6.3.3 Automobile Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or the Parking Lot or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property or the Parking Lot an occurrence form automobile liability policy insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damage because of bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring in any way related to the use, loading or unloading of Senior Center's owned, hired, leased and non- owned vehicles on and around the Property. or the Parking Lot. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence. Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.5 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Left, Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 0.51", Right: 0.07", Tab stops: 1.13", Left + Not at 0.5" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.8 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 1.02", Right: 0.06" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 12 6.3.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain in force Workers' Compensation insurance for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or the Parking Lot or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property or the Parking Lot, including coverage for Employer's Liability. In lieu of such insurance, Senior Center may maintain a self-insurance program meeting the requirements of the State of Washington and a policy of Excess Workers' Compensation with a limit of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident above the self-insured retention. Senior Center has indicated that none of its employees will be on the Property or the Parking Lot since Senior Center intends to hire a management company to oversee the Property. or the Parking Lot. In that case, Senior Center shall be responsible to require that its management company provides workers' compensation insurance for its employees on the Property or the Parking Lot and Senior Center shall fully defend and indemnify the City against any workers' compensation claim. 6.3.5 Builder's Risk. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during construction of Senior Center’sCenter's facility described in this Lease, Builders Risk insurance covering interests of the Senior Center, the City, the Contractor, Subcontractors, and Sub-- subcontractors in the work. Builders Risk insurance shall be on a all-risk policy form and shall insure against the perils of fire and extended coverage and physical loss or damage including flood, earthquake, theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, collapse, temporary buildings and debris removal. Coverage shall include: 1) formwork in place; 2) all materials and equipment on the Property or the Parking Lot; 3) all structures including temporary structures; and 4) all supplies related to the Work being performed. The insurance required hereunder shall have a deductible of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), which will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Higher deductibles for flood and earthquake perils may be accepted by the City upon written request by the Contractor and written acceptance by the City. Any increased deductibles accepted by the City will remain the responsibility of the Contractor. The Builders Risk insurance shall be maintained until final acceptance of the work. 6.4 Waiver of Subrogation. Senior Center and City hereby release and discharge each other from all claims, losses and liabilities arising from or caused by any hazard covered by property insurance on or in connection with the premises or said facility. This release shall apply only to the extent that such claim, loss or liability is covered by insurance. 6.5 Periodic Review. The City shall have the right to periodically review the limits and terms of insurance coverage. In the event the City determines that such limits, and/or terms should be changed, the City will give Senior Center a minimum of thirty (30) days’days' notice of such determination and Senior Center shall modify its coverage to comply with the new insurance requirements of the City. The City agrees that it shall be reasonable in any coverage change required, and that such change will be in accordance with standard market requirements for senior center facilities or similar activity centers. Senior Center shall also provide the City with proof of such compliance by giving the City an updated certificate of insurance within thirty (30) days. 6.6 Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Senior Center to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of lease, upon which the City may, after giving five business days’days' notice to the Senior Center to correct the Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Normal, Left, Right: 0", Space Before: 0.45 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.1", First line: 1.01", Right: 0.04" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.45 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.1", First line: 0.52", Right: 0.05", Tab stops: Not at 0.5" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 13 breach, terminate the Lease or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand. SECTION 7SECTION7. DEFAULT 7.1 Senior Center Default. 7.1.1 The occurrence of any one or more of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this Lease by the Senior Center: 7.1.1.1 Vacating the Property. The vacating or abandonment of the Property by the Senior Center for more than thirty (30) days. 7.1.1.2 Failure to Pay Rent. The failure by the Senior Center to make any payment of rent or any other payment required to be made by the Senior Center under this Lease, as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by the City to the Senior Center. 7.1.1.3 Unpermitted Use of the Property. The use of the Property for any purpose not authorized by Section 1.2.1 of this Lease where such unpermitted use of the Property shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof shall be grounds for default. 7.1.1.4 Failure to Perform. Failure by the Senior Center to observe or perform any of the covenants or provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by the Senior Center, specifically including, without limitation, the Senior Center’sCenter's utilization of the Property for purposes materially inconsistent with those set forth in this Lease where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from the City to the Senior Center. Provided, that if the nature of the Senior Center’sCenter's default is such that more than thirty (30) days are reasonably required for its cure, then the Senior Center shall not be deemed to be in default if the Senior Center shall commence such cure within the thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligent prosecute such cure to completion. 7.1.2 Remedies in Default. In the event of any default or breach by the Senior Center under this Lease, in addition to any other remedies at law or in equity, the City may: 7.1.2.1 Terminate the Lease. Terminate the Senior Center’sCenter's right to possession of the Property by providing written notice of at least thirty (30) days; Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.45 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Normal, Centered, Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.4", Right: 2.41" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.8 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0.58", Right: -0.01", Line spacing: single, Tab stops: 1.08", Left Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 14 7.1.2.2 Continue the Lease. Maintain the Senior Center’sCenter's right to possession in which case the Lease shall continue in effect whether or not the Senior Center shall have abandoned the Lease Premises. In such event, the City shall be entitled to enforce all Landlord’sLandlord's right and remedies under this Lease; and/or 7.1.2.3 Other remedies. Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to a Landlord under the laws of the State of Washington. The City expressly reserves the right to recover from the Senior Center any and all actual expenses, costs and damages caused in any manner by reason of the Senior Center’sCenter's default or breach. 7.1.3 Legal Expenses. If either party is required to bring or maintain any action (including insertion of any counterclaim or cross claim or claim in a proceeding in bankruptcy, receivership or other proceeding instituted by a party hereto or by others) or otherwise refers this Lease to any attorney for the enforcement of any of the covenants, terms or conditions of this Lease, the prevailing party in such action shall, in addition to all other payments required herein, receive from the other party all costs incurred by prevailing party, including reasonable attorney’sattorney's fees. 7.2 Default by the City. The City shall not be in default unless the City fails to perform obligations required of the City under this Lease within a reasonable time, but in no event later than thirty (30) days after written notice by the Senior Center to the City provided, that if the nature of the City’sCity's obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for performance then the City shall not be in default if the City commences performance within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to completion. The notice shall specify the portion of the Lease that the City has failed to perform and the action that the Senior Center seeks to be taken by the City to prevent the default. The Senior Center further agrees not to invoke any remedies until such thirty (30) days have elapsed. SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Representations of Senior Center. 8.1.1 Senior Center is a duly organized and legally existing corporation under the laws of the State of Washington. 8.1.2 Senior Center’sCenter's execution, delivery and performance of all of the terms and conditions of this Lease have been duly authorized by all requisite corporate action on the part of Senior Center. This Lease constitutes Senior Center’sCenter's legal, valid and binding obligations, enforceable against Senior Center in accordance with its terms subject to the effects of bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance or similar laws affecting creditor’screditor's rights and to equitable principles. Execution of the Lease does not conflict with any provision of Senior Center’sCenter's Articles of Incorporationlncorporation, Bylaws or other corporate documents. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 1.5", Right: 0.03", Space Before: 1.5 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.45 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 1.51", Right: 0.03", Line spacing: single Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.45 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 1.01", Right: 0.04", Line spacing: single Formatted ... Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.5 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.03", Line spacing: single Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, No underline, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.02", Right: -0.01" Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.05 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Normal, Left, Indent: Left: 1.09", Right: -0.01", Tab stops: 1.58", Left Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.05 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 1.51", Right: 0.03" Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 15 8.1.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of Senior Center, threatened in writing, nor is there any legal determination or injunction that calls into question Senior Center’sCenter's authority or right to enter into this Lease or perform the obligations specified in the Lease. 8.1.4 Senior Center has not employed any broker, finder, consultant or other intermediary in connection with the Lease who might be entitled to a fee or commission in connection with Senior Center and the City entering into the Lease. 8.2 Representations of the City. 8.2.1 The City is a municipal corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Washington, with full power and authority to own and lease the Property. The City has the power to enter into and perform its obligations pursuant to this Lease. 8.2.2 The City’sCity's execution, delivery and performance of this Lease have been duly authorized consistent with its requirements under Washington law. 8.2.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of the City, threatened in writing, nor is there any outstanding judicial determination or injunction that calls into question the City’sCity's authority or right to enter into this Lease. SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.1 No Partnership. It is understood and agreed that this Lease does not create a partnership or joint venture relationship between the City and Senior Center. 9.1 No Partnership. It is understood and agreed that this Lease does not create a partnership or joint venture relationship between the City and Senior Center. The City assumes no liability hereunder or otherwise for the operation of the business of Senior Center. The provisions of this Lease with reference to rents are for the sole purpose of fixing and determining the total rents to be paid by Senior Center to the City. 9.2 Governing Law. This Lease shall be governed and construed according to the laws of the State of Washington, without regard to its choice of law provisions. Venue shall be in Snohomish County. 9.3 No Benefit to Third Parties. The City and Senior Center are the only parties to this Lease and as such are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Lease gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit, direct, indirect, or otherwise to third parties. Nothing in this Lease shall be construed as intending to create a special relationship with any third party; neither the City not the Senior Center intend to create benefits in favor of any third parties as a result of this Lease. 9.4 Notices. All notices required or desired to be given under this Lease shall be in Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.65 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1, Condensed by 0.25 pt Formatted: Normal, Left, Indent: Left: 0.58", Right: -0.01", Tab stops: 1.07", Left Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.05 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 1", Right: 0.04" Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.8 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 16 writing and may be delivered by hand delivery, in certain cases sent by facsimile, or by placement in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, as certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the City at: 9.4 Notices. All notices required or desired to be given under this Lease shall be in writing and may be delivered by hand delivery, in certain cases sent by facsimile, or by placement in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, as certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the City at: The City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WashingtonWA 98020 Attn: City Clerk And to Senior Center at: Edmonds Senior Center P.O. Box 717 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: Executive Director Any notice delivered by hand delivery shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee upon actual delivery; any notice delivered by certified mail as set forth herein shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee on the third Business Day after deposit. The addresses to which notices are to be delivered may be changed by giving notice of such change in accordance with this notice provision. 9.5 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of and adherence to each and every covenant and condition of this Lease. 9.6 Non-waiver. Waiver by the City or Senior Center of strict performance of any provision of this Lease shall not be deemed a waiver of or prejudice the City's or Senior Center's right to require strict performance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision. 9.7 Survival. Any covenant or condition (including, but not limited to, indemnification agreements), set forth in this Lease, the full performance of which is not specifically required prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, and any covenant or condition which by their terms are to survive, shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease and shall remain fully enforceable thereafter. Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0" Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1, Lowered by 0.5 pt Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 17 9.8 Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Lease is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each provision of this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 9.8 Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Lease is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each provision of this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 9.9 Calculation of Time. All periods of time referred to in this Lease shall include Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, if the last day of any period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the period shall be extended to include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. "Legal Holiday" shall mean any holiday observed by the Federal Government. As used in this Lease, "Business Days" shall exclude Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and the week between December 25 and January 1. Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.09" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.7 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.09" Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 18 9.10 Headings. The article and section headings contained herein are for convenience in reference and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provisions of this Lease. 9.11 Exhibits Incorporated by Reference. All Exhibits attached to this Lease are incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 9.12 Modification. This Lease may not be modified except by a writing signed by the parties hereto. 9.13 Engagement of Brokers. Senior Center and the City each represent to one another that if a broker’sbroker's commission is claimed, the party who engaged the broker shall pay any commission owed and shall defend, indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any such claim. 9.14 Right of Parties and Successors in Interest. The rights, liabilities and remedies provided for herein shall extend to the heirs, legal representatives, successors and, so far as the terms of this Lease permit, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The words "City" and "Senior Center" and their accompanying verbs or pronouns, wherever used in this Lease, shall apply equally to all persons, firms, or corporations which may be or become such parties hereto. 9.15 Execution of Multiple Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one instrument. 9.16 Defined Terms. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings given them in the text of this Lease. 9.17 No Limit on City's Powers. Nothing in this Lease shall limit, in any way, the power and right of the City to exercise its governmental rights and powers, including its powers of eminent domain. 9.18 Non-Binding Mediation. Should any dispute arise between the parties to this Lease, other than a dispute regarding the failure to pay Rent or other payments (including taxes) as required by this Lease, it is agreed that such dispute will be submitted to a mediator prior to any arbitration or litigation. The parties shall exercise good faith efforts to agree on a mediator. 9.18 Non-Binding Mediation. Should any dispute arise between the parties to this Lease, other than a dispute regarding the failure to pay Rent or other payments (including taxes) as required by this Lease, it is agreed that such dispute will be submitted to a mediator prior to any arbitration or litigation. The parties shall exercise good faith efforts to agree on a mediator. The mediation fee shall be shared equally by the City and Senior Center. Mediation shall be non-binding and will be conducted in Edmonds, Washington. Both parties agree to exercise good faith efforts to resolve disputes covered by this section through this mediation process. If a party requests mediation and the other party fails to respond within ten (10) days, or if the parties fail to agree on a mediator within ten (10) days, a mediator shall be appointed by the presiding judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court upon the request of either party. The finding of the mediator shall only become binding upon the parties if both parties so agree and thereafter execute a settlement agreement based on the mediator's findings or recommendation. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.1", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.04", Space Before: 4.25 pt Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.1 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.09", First line: 0.51", Right: 0.05" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Right: 0", Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 19 9.19 This Lease Supersedes. This Lease shall replace and supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties hereby terminate the 2008 Lease in its entirety; provided, however, the 2008 Lease shall remain in place, operative and complimentary to the Ground Lease until demolition is commenced on the current Senior Center Building located at 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, WA. 9.20 Recording. A Memorandum of this Lease may be recorded after execution by the partiesParties. 9.21 Entire Agreement. This Lease represents the entire agreement between the City and Senior Center relating to Senior Center's leasing of the Property. It is understood and agreed by both parties that neither party nor an official or employee of a party has made any representations or promises with respect to this Lease or the making or entry into this Lease, except as expressly set forth in this Lease. No claim for liability or cause for termination shall be asserted by either party against the other for, and neither party shall be liable by reason of, any claimed breach of any representations or promises not expressly set forth in this Lease; all oral agreements with the parties are expressly waived by both parties. This Lease has been extensively negotiated between the parties. Therefore, no alleged ambiguity or other drafting issues of the terms of this Lease shall be construed, by nature of the drafting, against either party. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.09", Right: 0.01" Formatted ... Formatted: Normal, Left, Indent: First line: 0", Right: 0" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font color: Text 1 7.1.c Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 20 IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have subscribed their names hereto effective as of the day, month and year first written above. LESSEE: LESSOR: LESSEE: EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER. ______________________________________ __ By: ____________________________________ Its: ____________________________________ LESSOR: THE CITY OF EDMONDS _______________________________________ By: David Earling As its Mayor By: Its: By: David Earling As Its Mayor APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ONAS TO FORM: ________________________________________ By: Jeff Taraday City Attorney APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: ATTEST: _______________________________________ City Clerk Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Left, Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 0.51", Right: 0.03", Space Before: 2.95 pt, Don't keep with next, Don't keep lines together Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted Table Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Right: 0.03", Space Before: 2.95 pt, Line spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Don't keep lines together Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0.03", Space Before: 2.95 pt, Line spacing: single, Don't keep with next, Don't keep lines together Formatted Table Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0.03", Space Before: 2.95 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0.03", Space Before: 2.95 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 21 ATTEST: __________________________________________ __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Counsel for the City of Edmonds STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I have evidence that David Earling is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to executeexecuted the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the City of Edmonds,, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: _________________________:________________ PRINTED NAME: NOTARY PUBLIC In and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ss. Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Right: 0.03", Space Before: 2.95 pt, Tab stops: Not at 2.5" Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Underline, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 22 COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I have evidence that __________________________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to executeexecuted the instrument and acknowledged it as the President of the Edmonds Senior Center,, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: _________________________:________________ PRINTED NAME: NOTARY PUBLIC In and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: Formatted: Right: 0.03", Space Before: 2.95 pt, Tab stops: Not at 2.5" Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Right: 0.03", Space Before: 2.95 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Right: 0.03", Space Before: 2.95 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Justified, Indent: Left: 3.5", Right: 0.03", Space Before: 2.95 pt, Tab stops: Not at 6" Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Underline, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Underline, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... Formatted: Underline, Font color: Text 1 Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 23 7.1.c Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 24 EXHIBIT A Property Description Pro per tyP arc el Nu mb er 270 323 001 042 00 Pr o p er ty A d dr es s 22 0 RA IL R O A D AV E , ED M O N DS , W A 98 02 0- 41 33 Property Description SEC 23 TWP 27 RGE 03BEG MT W LN GN R/W WITH S LN GOVT LOT 2 TH NELY ON SD R/W 450FT TH N49*00 00W 95.67FT M.L TO MEA LN TH S51*23 00W ON SD MEA LN 288.33FT TPB TH N51*23 00E ALG MEA LN 288.33FT THN47*32 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.15 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted: Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.94", Right: 3.01", Space Before: 3.55 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Expanded by 1.8 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Lowered by 0.5 pt Formatted: Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.63", Right: 2.7" Formatted: Left Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Character scale: 108% 7.1.c Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 25 00W 319.63FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH S45*00 00W ON INNER HARBOR LN 250.13 FT TH S38*37 00E 287.94FT TPB TGW FDT - COM AAP ON W LN GN R/W AT INT WITH S LNGOVT LOT 2 TH NLY ALG W LN SD R/W 150FT TPB TH CONT NLY ALG SD R/W 300FT TH NWLY AT R/A FR SD R/W TO MEA LN TH SWLY ALG SD MEA LN TAP AT R/A FR TPB TH SELY TPB BOTH PER WD 683- 545 2/23/73 EXHIBIT A Property Description Parcel Number 27032300104200 Property Address 220 RAILROAD AVE , EDMONDS, WA 98020- 4133 Property Description SEC 23 TWP 27 RGE 03BEG MT W LN GN R/W WITH S LN GOVT LOT 2 TH NELY ON SD R/W 450FT TH N49*00 00W 95.67FT M.L TO MEA LN TH S51*23 7.1.c Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 26 00W ON SD MEA LN 288.33FT TPB TH N51*23 00E ALG MEA LN 288.33FT THN47*32 00W 319.63FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH S45*00 00W ON INNER HARBOR LN 250.13 FT TH S38*37 00E 287.94FT TPB TGW FDT - COM AAP ON W LN GN R/W AT INT WITH S LNGOVT LOT 2 TH NLY ALG W LN SD R/W 150FT TPB TH CONT NLY ALG SD R/W 300FT TH NWLY AT R/A FR SD R/W TO MEA LN TH SWLY ALG SD MEA LN TAP AT R/A FR TPB TH SELY TPB BOTH PER WD 683- 545 2/23/73 7.1.c Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 27 Description 7.1.c Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 28 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 -------------------------------------------- -------AT R/ A FR TPB TH SELY TPB BOTH PER WD 683-545 2/23/73 7.1.c Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 29 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 --------- Exhibit B GROUND LEASE THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER Formatted: Left Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Level 1, Indent: Left: 2.67", Right: 2.74", Space Before: 1.5 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Expanded by 1.15 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Space Before: 0.25 pt Formatted: Border: Bottom: (No border) Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left 7.1.c Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) i i COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................ ii GROUND LEASE .....................................................................................................................1 SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY .........................................................1 SECTION 2. TERM .................................................................................................................2 SECTION 3. RENT ..................................................................................................................2 SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER’S OTHER OBLIGATIONS ..............................................3 SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS ....................................................5 SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE .............................................................................7 SECTION 7. DEFAULT ........................................................................................................ 10 SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS..................................................................................... 11 SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS .............................................................................. 12 7.1.c Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) ii ii COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A Property Description 7.1.c Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps GROUND LEASE CITY OF EDMONDS/EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER THIS GROUND LEASE (this “Lease”), effective the ___ day of __________, 201__ (“Effective Date”) is between THE CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the “City”) and THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER, a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Washington (the “Senior Center”). WHEREAS, the City and the Senior Center entered into a Lease dated December 1, 2008, the Term of which was scheduled to expire in 2020 unless extended by one or both of the two five-year extensions in that Lease (the 2008 Lease). WHEREAS, the 2008 Lease encompasses the same real property as this Lease and the parties intend that this Lease supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound by the terms and conditions of this Lease, agree as follows: SECTION 1. AGREEMENT TO LEASE PROPERTY 1.1 Agreement to Lease and Description of Property. The City hereby leases to the Senior Center and the Senior Center leases from the City that certain real property described and shown on Exhibit A attached hereto together with all improvements located thereon or to be located thereon (the “Property”). The Property consists of 2.63 acres. As used in this Lease, the term “Improvements” shall mean all buildings, driveways, sidewalks, infrastructure improvements, utilities, paved or unpaved parking areas (collectively “Parking Lot”), landscaping and any other enhancements located on the Property or to be located on the Property during the term of this Lease and made to the Property by the Senior Center. 1.2 Use of the Property. 1.2.1 Allo wed Uses of the Property by the Senior Center. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Senior Center shall use the Property for the purpose of operating a non-profit community resource center serving the needs of the local population, in particular, poor, infirm and otherwise vulnerable seniors and other members of the community. Formatted: Left: 0.82", Right: 0.79", Top: 0.97", Bottom: 0.19", Section start: Continuous, Number of columns: 2, Col #1 width: 6.04", Col #2 width: 0.85", Not Force equal column width Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1, Character scale: 108% 7.1.c Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps 1.2.1.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Senior Center may from time to time utilize portions of the Property for revenue-generating activities including, but not limited to, rentals, events and the operation of a thrift store and cafe, provided that all revenues generated therefrom are utilized by the Senior Center exclusively for the purposes set forth in Section 1.2.1, above. 1.2.2 Allowed Uses of the Property by the City. The City of Edmonds shall be given access to the building so it may offer recreational and other programs to the public. The City will be allowed use Monday through Thursday, 4:00 pm – close, and other times as mutually agreed upon with the Lessee. The City and Senior Center agree to meet on a regular on-going basis (at least quarterly) to review their respective program schedules and determine whether there is any unprogrammed (surplus) time after accounting for each party’s program needs during that party’s first-priority time periods. At these meetings each party shall offer its remaining unprogrammed first-priority time slots to the other party for use by the other party. Senior Center acknowledges that the grounds surrounding the building are a public park and shall remain open to the public subject to the City’s reasonable regulations relate to uses, hours, etc. SECTION 2. TERM 2.1 Initial Term. The term of this Lease (“Lease Term”) shall extend for a period of Forty (40) years commencing on ______, 201_, and terminating on _______, 20__, subject to the right of the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term as provided herein. 2.2 Extension Term. The Lease Term may be extended by the Senior Center for an additional period of Fifteen (15) years 2.2.1 Conditions of Extension. In order for the Senior Center to extend the Lease Term, it shall (i) not be in material default at the time of providing Notice of its Lease Extension and thereafter; (ii) it shall provide written Notice of its Lease Extension at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the Termination of the Lease Term. 2.2.2 Proc ess for Extension. No sooner than three hundred sixty-five (365) days and no later than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term, Senior Center shall provide written notice of its intention to exercise the Extension Term. The City and Senior Center shall meet no later than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the Lease Term to confirm the 7.1.c Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps Extension Term, discuss any matters pertaining thereto and sign a Lease Addendum incorporating the Extension Term and any mutually acceptable matters pertaining to the Extension Term. SECTION 3. RENT 3.1 Rent. In consideration for the use of the Property as specified in this Lease, the Senior Center shall pay to the City a total payment of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per year, and such sum shall be paid within ten (10) days from the date of execution of this Lease and within ten (10) days following January 1st of each calendar year of each year during the Term of this Lease. The parties mutually agree and acknowledge that the Senior Center’s operation of the Senior Center upon the Property effectuates a fundamental government purpose and public benefit such as to obviate the necessity of additional rental payment compensation. Furthermore, because the Senior Center’s mission is to enrich the social, physical, and intellectual wellbeing of seniors, the City is able to lease this property to the Senior Center for less than fair market value under the poor and infirm exception to the constitutional (Article 8, Section 7) prohibition on gifting or loaning of public funds. SECTION 4. SENIOR CENTER’S OTHER OBLIGATIONS 4.1 Construction of Improvements. 4.1.1 City Approval and Ownership. Senior Center shall undertake no demolition, construction, alteration, or changes ("Work") on or to the Property without the prior written consent of the City, which shall be within the discretion of the City to withhold or deny. In applying its discretion, the City shall consider, among other factors deemed relevant by the City Council, the intended uses of the Property as described in Section 1.2 as well as the Property’s functionality as a park. The consent contemplated in this subsection 4.1.1 is separate and apart from the City’s regulatory authority and the discretion to withhold or deny approval under this subsection 4.1.1 is not limited in the same way that the City’s regulatory discretion is limited. Any deviation from approved plans must also be approved, in writing, by the City. Improvements constructed by the Senior Center during the term of this Lease shall be considered the Senior Center's property until the date this Lease is terminated. Upon termination of the Lease Term, together with Extension, if applicable, all improvements located on the Property shall become the property of the City, excepting trade fixtures, which may be removed by Senior Center at its option. The Senior Center will bring forth the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, to the City Council for approval. The City Council will consider, and may opt to hold one or more public hearings on the schematic design prior to taking action. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the design development phase of the design process until the schematic design of the facility, including its footprint on the Property, is approved 7.1.c Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted ... by the City Council. The Senior Center will also bring forth the design development phase drawings of the facility to the City Council for approval. The Senior Center agrees not to proceed with the construction document phase of the design process until the drawings from the design development phase have been approved by the City Council. Any proposed substantive design changes that are inconsistent with a previous design approval (schematic or design development), including proposed changes to the facility’s footprint on the Property, shall also be subject of City Council approval and shall be returned to the City Council as soon as practicable and not be deferred until the approval of the next phase. In the event there are any disputes that arise concerning decisions made by the City under this Section 4.1.1, those disputes shall be subject to the dispute resolution provisions in Section 9.18. 4.1.2 Permits. Once approvals have been given by the City under 4.1.1, above, no Work may commence until Senior Center obtains and delivers to the City copies of all necessary governmental permits. Senior Center must also supply the City with a copy of any occupancy permit required and any certification required by the fire marshal, prior to Senior Center's occupancy of the Property. 4.1.3 Construction Schedule. Construction Work must be completed within the earlier of two (2) years of the receipt of consent to perform the Work obtained under Section 4.1.1 or three (3) years of the Commencement Date of this Lease. If construction is begun within one (1) year of the receipt of consent and diligently performed thereafter, the City will grant Senior Center a one (1) year extension to complete construction, if needed, so long as Senior Center notifies the City of its need for additional time at least thirty (30) days in advance of the completion deadline. Failure to complete construction within the specified time shall be an event of Default under Section 7.1 unless any delay in construction occurred as a result of failure by the City to allow Senior Center’s construction to commence in a timely manner in which case, the Senior Center shall be given a commensurate amount of time for completion of construction. All Work done on the Property at any time during the term of this Lease must be done in a good workman-like manner and in accordance with all applicable laws and all building, land use, and other permit requirements. All Work shall be done with reasonable dispatch. If requested by the City, within thirty (30) days after the completion of any Work, Senior Center shall deliver to the City complete and fully detailed as-built drawings of the completed Work, in both electronic and paper forms, prepared by an architect licensed by the State of Washington. All landscaping shall be designed by a landscape architect licensed in the State of Washington. 4.2 Maintenance. At all times during the Lease Term and any Extension Term, Senior Center shall reasonably keep and maintain the Senior Center Improvements located on the Property in good repair and operating condition and shall make all necessary and appropriate preventive maintenance, repairs, and replacements. On each fifth anniversary of this Lease (meaning every five years), the City and Senior Center shall conduct a thorough inspection of the Senior Center Improvements on the Property and City shall inform Senior Center of any needed repairs, maintenance or clean-up to be done in order to maintain the quality of any Senior Center Improvements to the Property, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Such repairs, maintenance and clean-up shall be done with reasonable dispatch. Prior to entering into any Extension Term of this Lease such an inspection will also be required and all reasonable repairs and maintenance needed to be done must be done to the Improvements before an Extension Term of the Lease commences. 4.3 No Liens. Senior Center agrees to pay, when due, all sums for labor, services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishing s, machinery , or Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps equipment which have been provided to the Property. If any lien is filed against the Work which Senior Center wishes to protest, then Senior Center shall immediately deposit cash with the City, or procure a bond acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of removing the lien from the Work. Failure to remove the lien or furnish the cash or bond acceptable to the City within thirty (30) days shall constitute an Event of Default under this Lease and the City shall automatically have the right, but not the obligation, to pay the lien in full with no notice to Senior Center and Senior Center shall immediately reimburse the City for any sums so paid to remove any such lien. Senior Center shall not encumber the Property or any Improvements thereon without prior written approval of the City. Senior Center shall obtain a performance bond in the full amount of the contract it has signed with its contractor to complete the facility and provide such performance bond to the city prior to demolition of the existing facility. The performance bond shall ensure that the construction of the facility is completed and that all workers, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers will be paid. 4.4 Utilities and Services. Senior Center must make arrangements for all utilities and shall promptly pay all utility charges before they become delinquent. Senior Center is solely responsible for verifying the existence, location, capacity and availability of all utilities it may need for Senior Center's planned use of the Property. Senior Center shall be solely responsible for the cost of extending any existing utility lines into the Property; the Property, as made available to Senior Center by the City, shall include utility access for water, sewer, electrical power and telephone to the edge (back of curb) of the Property. Senior Center shall be solely responsible for meeting and securing all permits and for meeting all requirements necessary to achieve all of the above. 4.5 Signs. Any signs erected by Senior Center must comply with all local sign ordinances. Senior Center shall remove all signs and sign hardware upon termination of this Lease and restore the sign location(s) to its (their) former state(s), unless the City elects to retain all or any portion(s) of the signage. Signage requirements may reasonably change during the term and, to maintain uniformity and continuity, Senior Center will comply with any new sign code requirements within a reasonable time after the adoption of such new requirements. SECTION 5. CITY AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATIONS 5.1 Delivery of Property. Senior Center shall have the right to possession of the Property as of the Commencement Date. In the event the City shall permit Senior Center to occupy the Property prior to the Commencement Date, such occupancy shall be subject to all provisions of this Lease. Early or delayed possession shall not advance or defer the Expiration Date of this Lease. 5.2 Quiet Enjoyment. Subject to Senior Center performing all of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease and subject to the City's rights under this Lease and its rights of condemnation under Washington law, Senior Center's possession of the Property will otherwise not be disturbed by the City. Any sublease shall be subject to prior approval by the City and if approval is granted this quiet enjoyment Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0.8 pt, Line spacing: single Formatted ... Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.03" Formatted ... Formatted: Normal, Left, Right: 0", Space Before: 1 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 7.1.c Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps provision shall apply to senior center’s sub lessees. 5.3 Condition of Property. The City makes no warranties or representations regarding the condition of the Property, including, without limitation, the suitability of the Property for Senior Center's intended uses or, the availability of accessible utilities or roadways needed for Senior Center's intended purposes. Senior Center has inspected the Property, conducted its own feasibility and due diligence analysis, and, as of the date its environmental audit is completed and the report provided to Senior Center or Senior Center’s commencement of construction, whichever occurs first, Senior Center accepts the Property in "AS IS" condition, upon taking possession. 5.4 Parking Lot Design, Construction and Repair Obligations. 5.4.1 Parking Lot Design. The City and Senior Center shall work together to design a Parking Lot that meets the requirements for the Senior Center’s Building as well as the City’s Regional Park facilities. The parties anticipate that the Parking Lot will have one hundred (100) parking spaces but the final number shall be determined by a parking study undertaken, if needed, by the City and Senior Center, jointly. The parking study shall specifically consider the needs of the Senior Center and the City’s Regional Park designation for the Property. The total number of parking spaces incorporated into the design for the Parking Lot shall accommodate as closely as possible the anticipated parking demands for the Senior Center Property and the City’s Regional Park activities. The Parking Lot design shall incorporate all aspects necessary for construction including, without limitation, storm drainage, and shall be developed and permitted in coordination with the Senior Center/Community Center facility, including but not limited to the schematic design and design development approval process set forth in Section 4.1, above. 5.4.2 Parking Lot Construction. The City and Senior Center shall share equally in the cost construction of the Parking Lot on the Property according to the design plans as provided to Senior Center in Section 5.4.1, above. The Senior Center’s contractor shall build the Parking Lot as part of Senior Center’s construction of its Building and related improvements, with the City shall pay its share. The Parking Lot must be constructed in coordination with Senior Center’s Building so that it is complete before the Building and related improvements are occupied. Except as specified herein, the City shall have no responsibility for the repair or maintenance of the Property or for construction of any roadways, utilities or any other improvements on or off of the Property. Should the City of its own accord undertake any repair or maintenance work on the Property itself, the City shall take reasonable steps to do so in a manner that does not interfere with Senior Center's use of the Property or create a constructive eviction or other eviction of the Senior Center. Any repair on the Property outside of that described in Section 5.4.3, below, shall be the Senior Center's responsibility and shall be made at the Senior Center's sole expense. 5 .4.3 Park ing Lot Maintenance and Repair. The City and the Senior Center shall share equal responsibility for repair, maintenance and any capital improvements required for the Parking Lot after its initial construction. The City and Senior Center shall undertake regular inspections of the Parking Lot consistent for a property of that type and implement necessary and appropriate maintenance activities at reasonable intervals to keep the 7.1.c Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps Parking Lot in good condition. When capital renovations are required to restore the Parking Lot to good condition during the Lease Term, the City and Senior Center shall undertake such capital improvements. 5.4.4 Senior Center’s Location within Regional Park Grounds and Park Maintenance Responsibility. The Property is owned by the City and has been designated a regional park. The City shall define maintenance standards and intervals for the grounds surrounding the Senior Center, including landscaping, irrigation, and general refuse removal (not inclusive of the garbage utility from the Senior Center facility). This park area will be within the limited control of the City. The Senior Center acknowledges that, as a public park, the grounds surrounding the facility may constitute a public forum for First Amendment purposes and that there may be circumstances in which the City may need to allow constitutionally protected activity to occur on the site. Such circumstances shall not constitute a constructive eviction of the Senior Center and may not be grounds for damages to be paid from the City to the Senior Center. The Senior Center may not exclude the public from the park grounds unless it has obtained the applicable event permit from the City. The City is not responsible for repair and/or maintenance of the Building; provided, however, as part of the City’s allowed use of the Building, the City may be charged for mutually agreed upon costs directly associated with its use of the Building ( i.e. utilities, site monitor, cleaning, etc.). SECTION 6. INDEMNITY, INSURANCE 6.1 General Indemnity. Upon the Commencement Date of this Lease, the Senior Center agrees to defend (using legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold the City harmless from and against any and all actual or alleged claims, suits, actions, or liabilities for injury or death of any person, or for loss or damage to property, damages, expenses, costs, fees (including, but not limited to, attorney, accountant, paralegal, expert, and escrow fees), fines, and/or penalties, (collectively "Costs"), which may be imposed upon or claimed against the City, and which, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, arise from or are in any way connected with Senior Center’s use of the Premises, or from the conduct of Senior Center’s business, or from any activity, work or thing done, permitted, or suffered by Senior Center in or about the Premises, except only such injury or damage as shall have been occasioned by the sole negligence of the City including: Any act, omission or negligence of the Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or its event space renters; any use, occupation, management or control of the Property by the Senior Center; any condition created in, on or about the Property by Senior Center, an agent, sub lessee, or event space renter, including any accident, injury or damage occurring in, on or about the Property after the Effective Date; any breach, violation, or nonperformance of any of Senior Center's obligations under this Lease by Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters; any damage caused by Senior Center, its Sub lessees, or event space renters on or to the Property. The Senior Center's obligations and liabilities hereunder shall commence on the Effective Date of this Lease, if earlier than the Commencement Date and if caused by the activities of the Senior Center or its agents or 7.1.c Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps invitees on the Property. As used herein, the indemnification provided by the Senior Center is intended to include indemnification for the actions of the Senior Center and its employees and other agents and all of the Senior Center's Sub lessees, event space renters and all of their respective employees and other agents. The Senior Center's obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City hereunder include indemnification of the employees, agents and elected officials of the City. 6.2 Insurance Requirements. The Senior Center shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Lease insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the Senior Center’s operation and use of the leased Premises. Lessee’s maintenance of insurance as required by the Lease shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Lessee to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the City’s recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity. The amounts listed indicate only the minimum amounts of insurance coverage the City is willing to accept to help insure full performance of all terms and conditions of this Lease. All insurance required by Senior Center under this Lease shall meet the following minimum requirements: 6.2.1 Certificates: Notice of Cancellation. On or before the Commencement Date, Senior Center shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of any amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the existence of all insurance required under Section 6.3. Thereafter, the City must receive notice of the expiration or renewal of any policy at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration or cancellation of any insurance policy, PROVIDED THAT the Senior Center shall provide the City with written notice of any policy expiration or cancellation, within two business days of its receipt of such notice. No insurance policy may be canceled, revised, terminated or allowed to lapse without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice being given to the City. Insurance must be maintained without any lapse in coverage during the entire Lease Term and any Extension Term. Insurance shall not be canceled without City consent. The City shall also be given copies of Senior Center's policies of insurance, upon request. 6.2.2 Additional Insured. The City shall be named as an additional insured in each required policy using ISO Additional Insured-Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage and, for purposes of damage to the Property, as a loss payee to the extent of its interest therein. Such insurance shall not be invalidated by any act, neglect or breach of contract by Senior Center and shall not in any way be construed by the carrier to make the City liable for payment of any of Senior Center's insurance premiums. 6.2.3 Primary Coverage. The required policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Senior Center’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. 6.2.4 Com pany Ratings. All policies of insurance must be written by companies having an A.M. Best rating of not less than A: VII. The City may, upon thirty (30) days written notice to Senior Center, require Senior Center to change any carrier whose rating drops below such rating. 6.3 Required Insurance. At all times during this Lease, Senior Center shall provide and maintain the following 7.1.c Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps types of coverage: 6.3.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain an occurrence form commercial general liability policy (including coverage for broad form contractual liability; and personal injury liability) for the protection of Senior Center and the City, insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damages because of personal injury, bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring on or in any way related to the Property or occasioned by reason of the operations of Senior Center. Such coverage shall name the City as an additional insured using ISO Additional Insured-Managers or Lessors of Premises Form CG 20 11 or a substitute endorsement providing equivalent coverage. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover premises and contractual liability. 6.3.2 Property Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during the Lease Term, "All Risk" property insurance covering all buildings, fixtures, equipment, and all other Improvements located on the Property. Coverage shall be in an amount equal to One Hundred Percent (100%) of the new replacement value thereof with no coinsurance provisions. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured and loss payee as to its full interest in the insured property and shall include the insurer's waiver of subrogation in accordance with Section 6.4. 6.3.3 Automobile Liability Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property an occurrence form automobile liability policy insuring Senior Center and the City against liability for damage because of bodily injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and occurring in any way related to the use, loading or unloading of Senior Center's owned, hired, leased and non-owned vehicles on and around the Property. Such insurance shall name the City as an additional insured. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence. 6.3.4 Workers' Compensation Insurance. Senior Center shall maintain in force Workers' Compensation insurance for all of Senior Center's employees who are present on the Property or are involved in the operations conducted on the Property, including coverage for Employer's Liability. In lieu of such insurance, Senior Center may maintain a self-insurance program meeting the requirements of the State of Washington and a policy of Excess Workers' Compensation with a limit of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident above the self-insured retention. Senior Center has indicated that none of its employees will be on the Property since Senior Center intends to hire a management company to oversee the Property. In that case, Senior Center shall be responsible to require that its management company provides workers' compensation insurance for its employees on the Property and Senior Center shall fully defend and indemnify the City against any workers' compensation claim. 6.3.5 Builder's Risk. Senior Center shall maintain, in full force and effect during construction of Senior Center’s facility described in this Lease, Builders Risk insurance covering interests of the Senior 7.1.c Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps Center, the City, the Contractor, Subcontractors, and Sub-subcontractors in the work. Builders Risk insurance shall be on a all-risk policy form and shall insure against the perils of fire and extended coverage and physical loss or damage including flood, earthquake, theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, collapse, temporary buildings and debris removal. Coverage shall include: 1) formwork in place; 2) all materials and equipment on the Property; 3) all structures including temporary structures; and 4) all supplies related to the Work being performed. The insurance required hereunder shall have a deductible of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), which will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Higher deductibles for flood and earthquake perils may be accepted by the City upon written request by the Contractor and written acceptance by the City. Any increased deductibles accepted by the City will remain the responsibility of the Contractor. The Builders Risk insurance shall be maintained until final acceptance of the work. 6.4 Waiver of Subrogation. Senior Center and City hereby release and discharge each other from all claims, losses and liabilities arising from or caused by any hazard covered by property insurance on or in connection with the premises or said facility. This release shall apply only to the extent that such claim, loss or liability is covered by insurance. 6.5 Periodic Review. The City shall have the right to periodically review the limits and terms of insurance coverage. In the event the City determines that such limits, and/or terms should be changed, the City will give Senior Center a minimum of thirty (30) days’ notice of such determination and Senior Center shall modify its coverage to comply with the new insurance requirements of the City. The City agrees that it shall be reasonable in any coverage change required, and that such change will be in accordance with standard market requirements for senior center facilities or similar activity centers. Senior Center shall also provide the City with proof of such compliance by giving the City an updated certificate of insurance within thirty (30) days. 6.6 Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Senior Center to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a material breach of lease, upon which the City may, after giving five business days’ notice to the Senior Center to correct the breach, terminate the Lease or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand. SECTION 7. DEFAULT 7.1 Senior Center Default. 7.1.1 The occurrence of any one or more of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this Lease by the Senior Center: 7.1.1 .1 Vaca ting the Property. The vacating or abandonmen t of the Property by the Senior Center for more than thirty (30) days. 7.1.1 .2 Failur e to Pay Rent. The failure by the Senior Center to make any payment of rent or any other payment required to be made by the Senior Center under 7.1.c Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps this Lease, as and when due, where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by the City to the Senior Center. 7.1.1.3 Unpermitted Use of the Property. The use of the Property for any purpose not authorized by Section 1.2.1 of this Lease where such unpermitted use of the Property shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof shall be grounds for default. 7.1.1.4 Failure to Perform. Failure by the Senior Center to observe or perform any of the covenants or provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by the Senior Center, specifically including, without limitation, the Senior Center’s utilization of the Property for purposes materially inconsistent with those set forth in this Lease where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from the City to the Senior Center. Provided, that if the nature of the Senior Center’s default is such that more than thirty (30) days are reasonably required for its cure, then the Senior Center shall not be deemed to be in default if the Senior Center shall commence such cure within the thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligent prosecute such cure to completion. 7.1.2 Remedies in Default. In the event of any default or breach by the Senior Center under this Lease, in addition to any other remedies at law or in equity, the City may: 7.1.2.1 Terminate the Lease. Terminate the Senior Center’s right to possession of the Property by providing written notice of at least thirty (30) days; 7.1.2.2 Continue the Lease. Maintain the Senior Center’s right to possession in which case the Lease shall continue in effect whether or not the Senior Center shall have abandoned the Lease Premises. In such event, the City shall be entitled to enforce all Landlord’s right and remedies under this Lease; and/or 7.1.2.3 Other remedies. Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to a Landlord under the laws of the State of Washington. The City expressly reserves the right to recover from the Senior Center any and all actual expenses, costs and damages caused in any manner by reason of the Senior Center’s default or breach. 7.1.3 Legal Expenses. If either party is required to bring or maintain any action (including insertion of any counterclaim or cross claim or claim in a proceeding in bankruptcy, receivership or other proceeding instituted by a party hereto or by others) or otherwise refers this Lease to any attorney for the enforcement of any of the covenants, terms or conditions of this Lease, the prevailing party in such action shall, in addition to all other payments required herein, receive from the other party all costs incurred by prevailing party, including reasonable attorney’s fees. 7.2 Defa ult by the City. The City shall not be in default unless the City fails to perform obligations required of the City under this Lease within a reasonable time, but in 7.1.c Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps no event later than thirty (30) days after written notice by the Senior Center to the City provided, that if the nature of the City’s obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for performance then the City shall not be in default if the City commences performance within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to completion. The notice shall specify the portion of the Lease that the City has failed to perform and the action that the Senior Center seeks to be taken by the City to prevent the default. The Senior Center further agrees not to invoke any remedies until such thirty (30) days have elapsed. SECTION 8. REPRESENTATIONS 8.1 Representations of Senior Center. 8.1.1 Senior Center is a duly organized and legally existing corporation under the laws of the State of Washington. 8.1.2 Senior Center’s execution, delivery and performance of all of the terms and conditions of this Lease have been duly authorized by all requisite corporate action on the part of Senior Center. This Lease constitutes Senior Center’s legal, valid and binding obligations, enforceable against Senior Center in accordance with its terms subject to the effects of bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance or similar laws affecting creditor’s rights and to equitable principles. Execution of the Lease does not conflict with any provision of Senior Center’s Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws or other corporate documents. 8.1.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of Senior Center, threatened in writing, nor is there any legal determination or injunction that calls into question Senior Center’s authority or right to enter into this Lease or perform the obligations specified in the Lease. 8.1.4 Senior Center has not employed any broker, finder, consultant or other intermediary in connection with the Lease who might be entitled to a fee or commission in connection with Senior Center and the City entering into the Lease. 8.2 Representations of the City. 8.2.1 The City is a municipal corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Washington, with full power and authority to own and lease the Property. The City has the power to enter into and perform its obligations pursuant to this Lease. 8.2.2 The City’s execution, delivery and performanc e of this Lease have been duly authorized consistent with its requirements under Washington law. 8.2.3 There is no claim, action, proceeding or investigatio n pending or, to the actual knowledge of the City, threatened 7.1.c Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps in writing, nor is there any outstanding judicial determination or injunction that calls into question the City’s authority or right to enter into this Lease. SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.1 No Partnership. It is understood and agreed that this Lease does not create a partnership or joint venture relationship between the City and Senior Center. The City assumes no liability hereunder or otherwise for the operation of the business of Senior Center. The provisions of this Lease with reference to rents are for the sole purpose of fixing and determining the total rents to be paid by Senior Center to the City. 9.2 Governing Law. This Lease shall be governed and construed according to the laws of the State of Washington, without regard to its choice of law provisions. Venue shall be in Snohomish County. 9.3 No Benefit to Third Parties. The City and Senior Center are the only parties to this Lease and as such are the only parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Lease gives or shall be construed to give or provide any benefit, direct, indirect, or otherwise to third parties. Nothing in this Lease shall be construed as intending to create a special relationship with any third party; neither the City not the Senior Center intend to create benefits in favor of any third parties as a result of this Lease. 9.4 Notices. All notices required or desired to be given under this Lease shall be in writing and may be delivered by hand delivery, in certain cases sent by facsimile, or by placement in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, as certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the City at: The City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: City Clerk And to Senior Center at: Edmonds Senior Center P.O. Box 717 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: Executive Director Any notice delivered by hand delivery shall be conclusivel y deemed received by the addressee upon actual delivery; any notice delivered by certified mail as set forth herein shall be conclusively deemed received by the addressee on the third Business Day after deposit. The addresses to which notices are to be delivered may be changed by giving notice of such change in accordance with this Formatted ... Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.08", First line: 0.57", Right: 0.06" Formatted ... Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0" 7.1.c Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps notice provision. 9.5 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of and adherence to each and every covenant and condition of this Lease. 9.6 Non-waiver. Waiver by the City or Senior Center of strict performance of any provision of this Lease shall not be deemed a waiver of or prejudice the City's or Senior Center's right to require strict performance of the same provision in the future or of any other provision. 9.7 Survival. Any covenant or condition (including, but not limited to, indemnification agreements), set forth in this Lease, the full performance of which is not specifically required prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, and any covenant or condition which by their terms are to survive, shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease and shall remain fully enforceable thereafter. 9.8 Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Lease is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each provision of this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 9.9 Calculation of Time. All periods of time referred to in this Lease shall include Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, if the last day of any period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the period shall be extended to include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. "Legal Holiday" shall mean any holiday observed by the Federal Government. As used in this Lease, "Business Days" shall exclude Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and the week between December 25 and January 1. 9.10 Headings. The article and section headings contained herein are for convenience in reference and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provisions of this Lease. 9.11 Exhibits Incorporated by Reference. All Exhibits attached to this Lease are incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. 9.12 Modification. This Lease may not be modified except by a writing signed by the parties hereto. 9.13 Eng agement of Brokers. Senior Center and the City each represent to one another that if a broker’s commission is claimed, the party who engaged the broker shall pay any commission owed and shall defend, indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any such claim. 9.14 Righ t of Parties and Successors in Interest. The rights, liabilities and remedies provided for herein shall extend to the heirs, legal representati Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0.07", First line: 0.5", Right: 0.09" Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps ves, successors and, so far as the terms of this Lease permit, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The words "City" and "Senior Center" and their accompanying verbs or pronouns, wherever used in this Lease, shall apply equally to all persons, firms, or corporations which may be or become such parties hereto. 9.15 Execution of Multiple Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one instrument. 9.16 Defined Terms. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings given them in the text of this Lease. 9.17 No Limit on City's Powers. Nothing in this Lease shall limit, in any way, the power and right of the City to exercise its governmental rights and powers, including its powers of eminent domain. 9.18 Non-Binding Mediation. Should any dispute arise between the parties to this Lease, other than a dispute regarding the failure to pay Rent or other payments (including taxes) as required by this Lease, it is agreed that such dispute will be submitted to a mediator prior to any arbitration or litigation. The parties shall exercise good faith efforts to agree on a mediator. The mediation fee shall be shared equally by the City and Senior Center. Mediation shall be non-binding and will be conducted in Edmonds, Washington. Both parties agree to exercise good faith efforts to resolve disputes covered by this section through this mediation process. If a party requests mediation and the other party fails to respond within ten (10) days, or if the parties fail to agree on a mediator within ten (10) days, a mediator shall be appointed by the presiding judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court upon the request of either party. The finding of the mediator shall only become binding upon the parties if both parties so agree and thereafter execute a settlement agreement based on the mediator's findings or recommendation. 9.19 This Lease Supersedes. This Lease shall replace and supersede the 2008 Lease. The parties hereby terminate the 2008 Lease in its entirety. 9.20 Recording. A Memorandum of this Lease may be recorded after execution by the parties. 9.21 Entire Agreement. This Lease represents the entire agreement between the City and Senior Center relating to Senior Center's leasing of the Property. It is understood and agreed by both parties that neither party nor an official or employee of a party has made any representations or promises with respect to this Lease or the making or entry into this Lease, except as expressly set forth in this Lease. No claim for liability or cause for termination shall be asserted by either party against the other for, and neither party shall be liable by reason of, any claimed breach of any representations or promises not expressly set forth in this Lease; all oral agreements with the parties are expressly waived by both parties. This Lease has been extensively negotiated between the parties. Therefore, no alleged ambiguity or other drafting issues of the terms of this Lease shall be construed, by nature of the drafting, against either party. Formatted ... 7.1.c Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties have subscribed their names hereto effective as of the day, month and year first written above. LESSEE: LESSOR: EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER. THE CITY OF EDMONDS By: Its: By: David Earling As Its Mayor APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: ATTEST: _______________________________ _______________________________ ______ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Counsel for the City of Edmonds STATE OF WASHINGTO N ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I have evidence that David Earling is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledge d that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledge d it as the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses 7.1.c Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: _________________________ ___________________________________ PRINTED NAME: __________________ NOTARY PUBLIC In and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: ______________ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I have evidence that __________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President of the Edmonds Senior Center, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: _________________________ ___________________________________ PRINTED NAME: __________________ NOTARY PUBLIC In and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: ______________ EXHIBIT A Property Description 7.1.c Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps Parcel Number 27032300104200 Property Address 220 RAILROAD AVE , EDMONDS, WA 98020- 4133 Property Description SEC 23 TWP 27 RGE 03BEG MT W LN GN R/W WITH S LN GOVT LOT 2 TH NELY ON SD R/W 450FT TH N49*00 00W 95.67FT M.L TO MEA LN TH S51*23 00W ON SD MEA LN 288.33FT TPB TH N51*23 00E ALG MEA LN 288.33FT THN47*32 00W 319.63FT TO INNER HARBOR LN TH S45*00 00W ON INNER HARBOR LN 250.13 FT TH S38*37 00E 287.94 FT TPB TGW FDT - COM AAP ON W LN GN R/W AT INT WITH S LNGOV T LOT 2 TH NLY ALG W LN SD R/W 150FT TPB TH CONT NLY ALG SD R/W 300FT TH NWLY AT R/A FR SD R/W TO MEA LN TH SWLY ALG SD MEA LN TAP AT R/A FR TPB TH SELY TPB BOTH PER WD 683- 545 7.1.c Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 COE/SENIORCENTER/2015 Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Small caps 2/23/7 3 Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, Font color: Text 1 Formatted: Left, Right: -0.01", Line spacing: single 7.1.c Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: 2018-11-14 redline pdf (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) After Recording Return to: ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ Attn: _______________________ ACCESS AND PARKING EASEMENT GRANTOR: City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation GRANTEE: Edmonds Senior Center, a Washington non-profit corporation Legal Description: Abbreviated Form: ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Additional Legal is on Exhibit A attached to document Assessor's Tax Parcel ID No. _______________________________________ Reference Number(s) of Related Documents(s): ___________________________ 7.1.d Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: 2018-11-13 parking final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) This ACCESS AND PARKING EASEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this _______ day of _________________, 20__, by City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation (“Grantor”) and the Edmonds Senior Center, a Washington non-profit corporation (“Grantee”). RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Burdened Property”). B. Grantee is the tenant of the real property described in Exhibit B attached hereto (the “Benefited Property”), which property Grantee leases from Grantor under ground lease dated ___________, 20__ (the “Ground Lease”). C. Grantor desires to grant an easement for the benefit of Grantee’s leasehold interest for the purposes and on the terms and conditions described herein. AGREEMENT 1. Grant of Easement. For and in consideration of the covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor grants and conveys to Grantee, a nonexclusive easement for a term of years for access and parking (the “Easement”) across, over, and upon the access and parking improvements to be constructed by Grantor upon Grantor’s property described on Exhibit A attached hereto (also referred to as the “Easement Area”). The term of this Easement shall be coextensive with the term of the Ground Lease, including any extensions or early terminations. 2. Purpose and Scope of Easement. Grantor is constructing a parking lot on the Easement Area for the joint use by Grantor and Grantee. Grantee shall have the nonexclusive right to use the parking lot in the Easement Area to access the Benefitted Property at any time. Grantee shall not have the right to reserve the parking lot for its own exclusive use. Nor shall Grantee have the right to exclude Grantor from the parking lot. 3. Grantor's Use of Easement Area. Grantor reserves the right to use the Easement Area for its own parking needs and for any other purpose not inconsistent with the rights herein granted; provided that, within the Easement Area, Grantor shall not erect or maintain any permanent structure or obstruction that would materially interfere with Grantee's use of the Easement Area. 4. Reciprocal Indemnity. Grantor, its officials, officers, directors, employees and agents shall not be liable for any loss, claim or damage to persons or property resulting from the use of the Easement Area by Grantee, its members, officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, lessees, sublessees, guests and invitees, except for loss, claim or damage resulting from the sole negligence of Grantor or Grantor’s officials, officers, directors, 7.1.d Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: 2018-11-13 parking final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) -2- employees or agents, or the concurrent negligence of Grantor or Grantor’s officials, officers, directors, employees or agents, to the extent of such concurrent negligence. Grantee, through Grantee’s choice of capable legal counsel, shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold Grantor harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, expenses and liabilities of every kind and description and for any loss to or damage or destruction of property suffered by Grantor arising out of Grantee’s use of the Easement Area, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence or concurrent negligence of Grantor or Grantor’s officials, officers, directors, employees or agents to the extent of such concurrent negligence. Grantee agrees that its obligations under this provision extend to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees, or agents. The foregoing indemnity is specifically and expressly intended to constitute a waiver of Grantee's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance act, RCW Title 51, as respects the Grantor only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the Grantor with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the Grantee’s employees. The parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. Grantor shall give Grantee prompt written notice of any suit or proceeding entitling Grantor to indemnification pursuant to this Section 4 and Grantee shall thereafter defend Grantor in said suit or proceeding at its sole cost and expense to the extent required under this Section 4. GRANTEE, its officials, officers, directors, employees and agents shall not be liable for any loss, claim or damage to persons or property resulting from the use of the Easement Area by GRANTOR, its members, officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, lessees, sublessees, guests and invitees, except for loss, claim or damage resulting from the sole negligence of GRANTEE or GRANTEE’s officials, officers, directors, employees or agents, or the concurrent negligence of GRANTEE or GRANTEE’s officials, officers, directors, employees or agents, to the extent of such concurrent negligence. GRANTOR, through GRANTOR’S choice of capable legal counsel, shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold GRANTEE harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, expenses and liabilities of every kind and description and for any loss to or damage or destruction of property suffered by GRANTEE arising out of GRANTOR’s use of the Easement Area, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence or concurrent negligence of GRANTEE or GRANTEE’s officials, officers, directors, employees or agents to the extent of such concurrent negligence. GRANTOR agrees that its obligations under this provision extend to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees, or agents. The foregoing indemnity is specifically and expressly intended to constitute a waiver of GRANTOR's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance act, RCW Title 51, as respects the GRANTEE only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the GRANTEE with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the GRANTOR’s employees. The parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. GRANTEE shall give GRANTOR prompt written notice of any suit or proceeding entitling GRANTEE to indemnification pursuant to this Section 4 and GRANTOR shall thereafter defend GRANTEE in said suit or proceeding at its sole cost and expense to the extent required under this Section 4. 5. Notice. Any notice permitted or required to be given by either party to this Agreement shall be given in writing and may be effected by certified United States mail, with 7.1.d Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: 2018-11-13 parking final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) -3- return receipt requested, properly addressed, postage prepaid, by reputable overnight delivery service, or by personal delivery, as follows: If to Grantor: City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: City Clerk If to Grantee: Attn: or to such other address or to such other person's attention of which notice was given in accordance with this section. Notice shall be deemed effective upon three (3) days after being properly delivered as described above. 6. Attorney's Fees and Costs. If either party shall bring an action to enforce the terms of this Agreement, in any such action the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorneys' fees and reasonable costs. Said costs and attorneys' fees shall include, without limitation, costs and attorneys' fees incurred in any appeal or in any proceedings under any present or future federal bankruptcy, forfeiture or state receivership or similar law. 7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by Washington law. 8. Severability. All provisions of this Agreement are severable and the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision shall not affect or impair the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions. 9. Automatic Termination of Easement. This Easement shall automatically terminate upon the termination of the Ground Lease. In the event of such termination, the parties hereto agree to execute all documents necessary to document the termination and remove the encumbrance from title. 10. Amendment; Recording. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by written instrument, executed and acknowledged by the parties hereto or their successors or assigns, recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor. 11. Headings. The headings used herein are for convenience only and are not to be used in interpreting this Agreement. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements with respect to the matters described herein. 7.1.d Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: 2018-11-13 parking final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) -4- 13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed the original, but which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 14. Dispute Resolution. Before commencing any suit to resolve a dispute arising out of this Agreement, the Parties shall attempt to resolve the matter through mediation. GRANTOR: __________________________, a ____________ _____________ By: ________________________ Name: ________________________ Title: ________________________ GRANTEE: __________________________, a ____________ _____________ By: ________________________ Name: ________________________ Title: ________________________ 7.1.d Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: 2018-11-13 parking final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) -5- STATE OF ____________________ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF __________________ ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _________________________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the ____________________________ of _________________________ to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ________________________ Notary Public Print Name My commission expires (Use this space for notarial stamp/seal) STATE OF ____________________ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF __________________ ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _________________________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the ____________________________ of _________________________ to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ________________________ Notary Public Print Name My commission expires (Use this space for notarial stamp/seal) 7.1.d Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: 2018-11-13 parking final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) A-1 Exhibit A BURDENED PROPERTY 7.1.d Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: 2018-11-13 parking final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) Exhibit B BENEFITED PROPERTY 7.1.d Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: 2018-11-13 parking final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) After Recording Return to: ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ Attn: _______________________ UTILITY EASEMENT GRANTOR: City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation GRANTEE: Edmonds Senior Center, a Washington non-profit corporation Legal Description: Abbreviated Form: ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Additional Legal is on Exhibit A attached to document Assessor's Tax Parcel ID No. _______________________________________ Reference Number(s) of Related Documents(s): ___________________________ 7.1.e Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: 2018-11-13 utility final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) This UTILITY EASEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this _______ day of _________________, 20__, by City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation (“Grantor”) and the Edmonds Senior Center, a Washington non-profit corporation (“Grantee”). RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Burdened Property”). B. Grantee is the tenant of the real property described in Exhibit B attached hereto (the “Benefited Property”), which property Grantee leases from Grantor under ground lease dated ___________, 20__ (the “Ground Lease”). C. Grantor desires to grant an easement for the benefit of Grantee’s leasehold interest for the purposes and on the terms and conditions described herein. AGREEMENT 1. Grant of Easement. For and in consideration of the covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor grants and conveys to Grantee, a nonexclusive easement for a term of years for the purpose of extending utilities (the “Easement”) across, over, and upon the Burdened Property described on Exhibit A attached hereto (also referred to as the “Easement Area”). The term of this Easement shall be coextensive with the term of the Ground Lease, including any extensions or early terminations. 2. Purpose and Scope of Easement. Grantee is constructing a building on the Benefited Property pursuant to permission given under the Ground Lease. Grantee’s building will need to be served by various utilities. Grantee shall have the nonexclusive right to use the Easement Area to construct, repair, and maintain utilities to serve the building on the Benefitted Property pursuant to plans that have been approved by Grantor. Grantor’s approval of the utility plans shall not be unreasonably withheld, PROVIDED THAT nothing herein shall be construed to limit Grantor’s discretion to withhold approval of plans for the building under the Ground Lease. Grantee agrees to replace and restore to preexisting conditions, as nearly as practicable, the surface of the Easement Area within a reasonable time following any construction, repair, and/or maintenance of any utilities contemplated herein. 3. Grantor's Use of Easement Area. Grantor reserves the right to use the Easement Area for its own parking needs and for any other purpose not inconsistent with the rights herein granted. 4. Reciprocal Indemnity. Grantor, its officials, officers, directors, employees and agents shall not be liable for any loss, claim or damage to persons or property resulting from the use of the Easement Area by Grantee, its members, officers, directors, employees, agents, 7.1.e Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: 2018-11-13 utility final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) -2- contractors, subcontractors, lessees, sublessees, guests and invitees, except for loss, claim or damage resulting from the sole negligence of Grantor or Grantor’s officials, officers, directors, employees or agents, or the concurrent negligence of Grantor or Grantor’s officials, officers, directors, employees or agents, to the extent of such concurrent negligence. Grantee shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold Grantor harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, expenses and liabilities of every kind and description and for any loss to or damage or destruction of property suffered by Grantor arising out of Grantee’s use of the Easement Area, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence or concurrent negligence of Grantor or Grantor’s officials, officers, directors, employees or agents to the extent of such concurrent negligence. Grantee agrees that its obligations under this provision extend to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees, or agents. The foregoing indemnity is specifically and expressly intended to constitute a waiver of Grantee's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance act, RCW Title 51, as respects the Grantor only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the Grantor with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the Grantee’s employees. The parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. Grantor shall give Grantee prompt written notice of any suit or proceeding entitling Grantor to indemnification pursuant to this Section 4 and Grantee shall thereafter defend Grantor in said suit or proceeding at its sole cost and expense to the extent required under this Section 4. GRANTEE, its officials, officers, directors, employees and agents shall not be liable for any loss, claim or damage to persons or property resulting from the use of the Easement Area by GRANTOR, its members, officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, lessees, sublessees, guests and invitees, except for loss, claim or damage resulting from the sole negligence of GRANTEE or GRANTEE’s officials, officers, directors, employees or agents, or the concurrent negligence of GRANTEE or GRANTEE’s officials, officers, directors, employees or agents, to the extent of such concurrent negligence. GRANTOR shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold GRANTEE harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, expenses and liabilities of every kind and description and for any loss to or damage or destruction of property suffered by GRANTEE arising out of GRANTOR’s use of the Easement Area, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence or concurrent negligence of GRANTEE or GRANTEE’s officials, officers, directors, employees or agents to the extent of such concurrent negligence. GRANTOR agrees that its obligations under this provision extend to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees, or agents. The foregoing indemnity is specifically and expressly intended to constitute a waiver of GRANTOR's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance act, RCW Title 51, as respects the GRANTEE only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the GRANTEE with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the GRANTOR’s employees. The parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. GRANTEE shall give GRANTOR prompt written notice of any suit or proceeding entitling GRANTEE to indemnification pursuant to this Section 4 and GRANTOR shall thereafter defend GRANTEE in said suit or proceeding at its sole cost and expense to the extent required under this Section 4. 5. Notice. Any notice permitted or required to be given by either party to this Agreement shall be given in writing and may be effected by certified United States mail, with 7.1.e Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: 2018-11-13 utility final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) -3- return receipt requested, properly addressed, postage prepaid, by reputable overnight delivery service, or by personal delivery, as follows: If to Grantor: City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: City Clerk If to Grantee: Attn: or to such other address or to such other person's attention of which notice was given in accordance with this section. Notice shall be deemed effective upon three (3) days after being properly delivered as described above. 6. Attorney's Fees and Costs. If either party shall bring an action to enforce the terms of this Agreement, in any such action the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorneys' fees and reasonable costs. Said costs and attorneys' fees shall include, without limitation, costs and attorneys' fees incurred in any appeal or in any proceedings under any present or future federal bankruptcy, forfeiture or state receivership or similar law. 7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by Washington law. 8. Severability. All provisions of this Agreement are severable and the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision shall not affect or impair the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions. 9. Automatic Termination of Easement. This Easement shall automatically terminate upon the termination of the Ground Lease. In the event of such termination, the parties hereto agree to execute all documents necessary to document the termination and remove the encumbrance from title. 10. Amendment; Recording. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by written instrument, executed and acknowledged by the parties hereto or their successors or assigns, recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor. 11. Headings. The headings used herein are for convenience only and are not to be used in interpreting this Agreement. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements with respect to the matters described herein. 7.1.e Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: 2018-11-13 utility final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) -4- 13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed the original, but which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 14. Dispute Resolution. Before commencing any suit to resolve a dispute arising out of this Agreement, the Parties shall attempt to resolve the matter through mediation. (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank) GRANTOR: __________________________, a ____________ _____________ By: ________________________ Name: ________________________ Title: ________________________ GRANTEE: __________________________, a ____________ _____________ By: ________________________ Name: ________________________ Title: ________________________ 7.1.e Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: 2018-11-13 utility final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) -5- STATE OF ____________________ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF __________________ ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _________________________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the ____________________________ of _________________________ to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ________________________ Notary Public Print Name My commission expires (Use this space for notarial stamp/seal) STATE OF ____________________ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF __________________ ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _________________________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the ____________________________ of _________________________ to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ________________________ Notary Public Print Name My commission expires (Use this space for notarial stamp/seal) 7.1.e Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: 2018-11-13 utility final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) A-1 Exhibit A BURDENED PROPERTY 7.1.e Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: 2018-11-13 utility final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) Exhibit B BENEFITED PROPERTY 7.1.e Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: 2018-11-13 utility final (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) City of Edmonds ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE - Frontage Development Item Description Qty Unit Qty Unit Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization 1 LS 1 LS 8% 13,000$ 2 Traffic Control 1 LS 1 LS $15,000 15,000$ 3 Construction Survey 1 LS 1 LS $8,000 8,000$ 4 Erosion Control - Silt Fence 320 LF 320 LF $6 1,920$ 6 Erosion Control - CB Filter 5 EA 5 EA $350 1,750$ 10 Site Demo - Remove Concrete Sidewalk (assumed 4" thick) 487 SF 487 SF $2.50 1,218$ 11 Site Demo - Remove Asphalt Pavement (assumed 4" thick) 2789 SF 2789 SF $1.00 2,789$ 12 Site Demo - Dispose of Asphalt & Concrete Debris 50 CY 50 CY $23 1,150$ 13 Earthwork - Rough Grading 246 CY 246 CY $4.50 1,107$ 14 Earthwork - Fine Grading 3845 SF 3845 SF $0.20 769$ 15 Earthwork - Remove Unsuitable Material to Subgrade 100 CY 100 CY $37 3,700$ 16 Earthwork - Gravel Borrow for Pavement Subgrade 346 CY 346 CY $39 13,494$ 17 Earthwork - Bioretention Soil 25 CY 25 CY $63 1,587$ 18 Earthwork - Planting Soil 41 CY 41 CY $63 2,553$ 19 Earthwork - Onsite Dewatering 1 LS 1 LS $5,000 5,000$ 22 Storm Drainage - 12" Storm Drain Pipe, Including Trench 264 LF 264 LF $35 9,240$ 25 Storm Drainage - Catch Basin, Type I 6 EA 6 EA $950 5,700$ 27 Storm Drainage - Bioretention Planter 2 EA 2 EA $8,000 16,000$ 28 Storm Drainage - Rain Garden Grading 2 EA 2 EA $1,000 2,000$ 29 Storm Drainage - Dispose of Unsuitable 120 CY 120 CY $32 3,840$ 30 Storm Drainage - Gravel Borrow for Trench Backfill 120 CY 120 CY $39 4,680$ 31 Site Paving - Concrete Walkway, 4" 2160 SF 2160 SF $8 17,280$ 32 Site Paving - Concrete Pavement, 6" 0 SF 0 SF $10 -$ 33 Site Paving - Cast-in-Place Concrete Vertical Curb 301 LF 301 LF $44 13,244$ 34 Site Paving - Asphalt Pavement, 4" Thick 9 TON 9 TON $250 2,250$ 35 Site Paving - Pavement Marking and Signage 1 LS 1 LS $3,000 3,000$ 36 Landscape Planting- General 547 SF 547 SF $7 3,829$ 37 Landscape Planting- Bioretention 340 SF 340 SF $7 2,380$ 38 Landscape Planting- Trees 3 EA 3 EA $250 750$ 39 Irrigation 887 SF 887 SF $6 5,322$ 40 Relocate Bus Shelter 1 LS 1 LS $5,000 5,000$ 41 Electrical- TBD 1 LS 1 LS 42 6" dia. Sewer Line to Building, incl trench (assume 120 LF) 1 LS -$ 43 2" dia. Water Line to Building, incl trench (assume 120 LF) 1 LS -$ 44 6" dia. Fire Line to Building, incl trench (assume 240 LF, 2 hydrants) 1 LS -$ 45 3/4" dia. Gas Line to Building, incl trench (assume 120 LF) 1 LS -$ Bid Item Total 167,551$ WSST (10.3%)10.3%17,258$ SUBTOTAL =184,809$ CONTINGENCIES 66,531$ Multi-Year Inflation 2 YR 2 YR 3%11,089$ Design Contingency 20%36,962$ Management Reserve 10%18,481$ TOTAL - CONSTRUCTION COST =251,340$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 15%37,701$ PUBLIC ART (1%)1%2,513$ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS =291,554$ VE Items 7.1.f Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront.Frontage Engineers estimate SD (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) City of Edmonds ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE - Parking Lot Development Item Description Qty Unit Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization 1 LS 8% 58,000$ 2 Traffic Control 1 LS 2% 11,000$ 3 Construction Survey 1 LS $10,000 10,000$ 4 Erosion Control - Silt Fence 200 LF $6 1,200$ 5 Erosion Control - Construction Entrance 1 EA $3,500 3,500$ 6 Erosion Control - CB Filter 15 EA $350 5,250$ 7 Erosion Control - Treatment Train Rental, Operation, and Maintenance 3 month $12,000 36,000$ 8 Erosion Control - Treatment Train Mob, Setup, & Demobilization 1 LS $25,000 25,000$ 9 Erosion Control - Water Discharge Monitoring and Testing 1 LS $3,600 3,600$ 10 Site Demo - Remove Concrete Sidewalk (assumed 4" thick) 600 SF $2.50 1,500$ 11 Site Demo - Remove Asphalt Pavement (assumed 4" thick) 30300 SF $1.00 30,300$ 12 Site Demo - Remove Old Concrete Foundation 1 LS $10,000 10,000$ 13 Site Demo - Dispose of Asphalt & Concrete Debris 390 CY $23 8,970$ 14 Earthwork - Rough Grading 2300 CY $4.50 10,350$ 15 Earthwork - Fine Grading 36000 SF $0.20 7,200$ 16 Earthwork - Remove Unsuitable Material to Subgrade 500 CY $37 18,500$ 17 Earthwork - Gravel Borrow for Pavement Subgrade 2800 CY $39 109,200$ 17 Earthwork - Bioretention Soil 45 CY $63 2,809$ 18 Earthwork - Planting Soil 382 CY $50 19,078$ 18 Earthwork - Onsite Dewatering 1 LS $5,000 5,000$ 19 Storm Drainage - Roof Drain Pipe, Including Trench LF $23 -$ 20 Storm Drainage - 8" Storm Drain Pipe, Including Trench 73 LF $26 1,898$ 21 Storm Drainage - 12" Storm Drain Pipe, Including Trench 102 LF $35 3,570$ 22 Storm Drainage - Trench Drain 95 LF $350 33,250$ 23 Storm Drainage - Clean Outs 3 EA $400 1,200$ 24 Storm Drainage - Catch Basin, Type I 4 EA $950 3,800$ 25 Storm Drainage - Manhole 1 EA $3,500 3,500$ 26 Storm Drainage - Bioretention Planter 1 EA $8,000 8,000$ 27 Storm Drainage - Rain Garden Grading 1 EA $1,000 1,000$ 28 Storm Drainage - New Outfall with Trash Rack 1 EA $4,000 4,000$ 29 Storm Drainage - Dispose of Unsuitable 80 CY $32 2,560$ 30 Storm Drainage - Gravel Borrow for Trench Backfill 80 CY $39 3,120$ 32 Site Paving - Standard Finishes - Promenade 1500 SF $10 15,000$ 32 Site Paving - Artistic Finishes - Promenade 750 SF $20 15,000$ 31 Site Paving - Standard Finishes - Building Perimeter 3344 SF $10 33,440$ 33 Site Paving - Artistic Finishes - Building Perimeter 1115 SF $15 16,725$ 34 Site Paving - Artistic Finishes - Wedding Lawn "Ring" 103 SF $70 7,210$ 35 Site Paving - Concrete Pavement, 6" 140 SF $10 1,400$ 36 Site Paving - Cast-in-Place Concrete Vertical Curb 80 LF $35 2,800$ 37 Site Paving - Asphalt Pavement, 4" Thick 510 TON $160 81,600$ 38 Site Paving - Wheel Stops 71 EA $150 10,650$ 39 Site Paving - Pavement Marking 1 LS $10,000 10,000$ 40 Large Boulders 52 Ton 130.00$ 6,760.00$ 42 Landscape Planting- General 4546 SF $5 22,730$ 43 Landscape Planting- Bioretention 602 SF $7 4,214$ 44 Landscape Planting- Lawn- Sod 605 SF $15 9,075$ 45 Landscape Planting- Trees 30 EA $250 7,500$ 46 Irrigation 5753 SF $6 34,518$ 47 Electrical, Parking Pole Lights 11 EA $4,250 46,750$ 48 Removable Bollards 2 EA $1,000 2,000$ 49 Stationary Bollards 2 EA $500 1,000$ 50 Bike Racks 14 EA $250 3,500$ 51 Transformer enclosure 52 LF $75 3,900$ Bid Item Total 778,127$ WSST (10.3%)10.3%80,147$ SUBTOTAL =858,274$ CONTINGENCIES 308,979$ Multi-Year Inflation 2 YR 3%51,496$ Design Contingency 20%171,655$ Management Reserve 10%85,827$ TOTAL - CONSTRUCTION COST =1,167,253$ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 15%175,088$ PUBLIC ART (1%)1%11,673$ TOTAL PROJECT COSTS =1,354,013$ Note: Parking Lot Development does NOT include any street frontage work. VE Items 7.1.g Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront.Parking Engineers Cost Estimate SD (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.h Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: EWC SD Budget Summary 9-13-18 (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.h Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: EWC SD Budget Summary 9-13-18 (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) Edmonds Senior Center Building Committee Building Replacement Feasibility Review June 2016 The need to replace the aging Edmonds Senior Center building has been under consideration for over 20 years. The building and property are owned by the City of Edmonds. Their Public Works Department has been monitoring the condition of the building and providing required maintenance. Over the past 30 years the only structural issues addressed have been an attempt to level the floor in the lobby and library in 1997, replacement of the seawall immediately west of the building in 2003 and replacement of the roof in 2011. A series of studies have been conducted to assess the feasibility of replacing the building and subsequent capital campaign to replace it. The central questions to be addressed included: 1. Can the existing structure be cost effectively upgraded to address seismic issues and expanded program needs? 2. Can ESC secure a long-term lease from the City should we make a major investment in the site? 3. Does ESC have the capacity to launch a major capital campaign? 4. What demographic trends and changing community needs should we consider in designing a new building? 5. How can we best respond to environmental concerns and sea level rise? 6. Can ESC sustain the new building once it is built? 7. Is there an alternative site that would better serve our needs for a new center? Can the existing structure be cost effectively upgraded to address seismic issues and expanded program needs? No Based on the 2007 “Geotechnical Report on the Edmonds Senior Center” by Shannon and Wilson, Inc. that concluded the cost of seismic upgrades and leveling the floor would have exceeded $3M with no other improvements to the building, the Board and the City decided it was not feasible to preserve the existing building. Can ESC secure a long-term lease from the City should we make a major investment in the site? Yes In 2013 the City’s Strategic Action Plan called for a long term solution for updating the Senior Center and designated ESC as lead to work with City’s Parks & Recreation Department to achieve that outcome. The following year the City Council unanimously endorsed ESC’s plan to demolish the existing building and construct a new multi- generational community center. In January 2015 the Council authorized the Mayor to sign an Option to Lease contract thereby approving a 40-year lease (with a 15 year - extension at ESC’s option) on the property. Does ESC have the capacity to launch a major capital campaign? Yes A pre-campaign study was conducted in 2000 by Pinson Philanthropic Advancement. Based primarily on gifts from individuals they determined the organization could raise in the range of $5M for a new building. In 2015 Daniel R. Johnson Consulting, LLC was retained to update the feasibility study. Based on his assessment, the organization is in a position to raise in the range of $10M - $12M. This amount 7.1.i Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Building Replacement Feasibility Review FINAL (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) assumes 55% will come from Government sources, 20% from individuals, 16% from foundations and the remainder from business and community campaign. What demographic trends and changing community needs should we consider in designing a new building? The Program Committee of the Board reviewed the Snohomish County Department of Human Services, Long Term Care and Aging, Area Plan on Aging Survey 2015, the 2013 Verdant Health Commission Health & Wellness Community Needs Assessment and conducted an ESC member survey. Based on this data they made the recommendation to expand program offerings and partnerships. Complementing the services and activities of ESC offered Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., the City Parks & Recreation Department will provide classes and activities in the building from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday – Thursday. Since the City’s current community center, the Francis Anderson Center, is at capacity with a waiting list for many programs, the City plans to focus on youth programs at the Anderson Center and adult programs at the new Center. How can we best respond to environmental concerns and sea level rise? ESC commissioned a report from Herrera Environmental Consultants to evaluate the risks associated of building on the current waterfront site. The report considered sea level rise, storm waves and tsunami risk. In addition, the City approved the Critical Area Ordinance that is compatible with our plans with respect to FEMA guidelines. The Building Committee also met on site with the Corp of Engineers, local tribal representatives and the City of Edmonds Planning Department. Working in concert with our architect, Environmental Works, and the consultants listed above, ESC has determined a building can be safely designed to address risks associated with the waterfront location. Can ESC sustain the new building once it is built? Yes A business plan has been developed that addresses sustainability in detail. ESC has been in operation at the same site since 1967. The organization has been well managed, effectively living within its means while offering a diverse set of programs. ESC has no debt and maintains a three month operating reserve of $200K. Historically, ESC has relied on the principal the key to financial security is having a diverse and stable set of funding sources. The new center’s sustainability plan will build on that principal by capitalizing on the waterfront location in downtown Edmonds to expand rentals, public support, and thrift store sales. Did the ESC evaluate other possible sites? Yes, but moving to another site was deemed infeasible. The Edmonds Senior Center has operated from this location for 49 years and views themselves as stewards of this exceptional waterfront site. The leading reasons for remaining on the current location: • Moving to another site was considered in the City’s 2013 Strategic Action Plan. Several options where considered ranging from remodel to relocate. Moving to a different site received the lowest support among the 2,500 citizens who participated. • The ESC membership is passionate about staying. • The partnership with the City allows a building that will serve people of all ages. The larger more inclusive vision aids in raising the necessary funds to construct the building. 7.1.i Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Building Replacement Feasibility Review FINAL (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) • Stand-alone Senior Centers are being replaced across the country with community center / multi user models. • Our future sustainability is predicated on rental revenue which is directly linked to the waterfront site. Resources – Studies and Reports Site and Structures • Shannon & Wilson, Inc, April 18, 2007, Geotechnical Report, Edmonds Senior Center, Edmonds, Washington • MLA Engineering, pllc, April 13,2007, Seismic Evaluation • Landau Associates Inc., 1997, Report of geotechnical engineering services, Edmonds Senior Center, Edmonds, Washington. • Pacific Engineering Technologies, Inc., 1997, Letter regarding “Progress report, preliminary site observations and recommendations for additional study, report storm damage, Edmonds Senior Center 220-254 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, Washington.” • Herrera Environmental Consultants, November 25, 2015, Report on the risk associated with reconstruction of the Senior Center at the Edmonds waterfront site • Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc., Testing & Inspection – Engineering, 1976, Letter regarding, “Soils investigation, South County Senior Center Addition, 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, Washington.” Capital Campaign • Pinson Philanthropic Advancement, Pre-Campaign Study May, 2000 • Daniel R. Johnson Consulting, LLC, Capital Campaign Feasibility Update, April 2016 Program • Edmonds Community College, June 13, 2014, Final Class Project for Introduction to Project Management, (Mgmt 270),”2014 Edmonds Senior/Community Center Programs Survey.” • Verdant Health Commission, 2013, Health & Wellness Needs Assessment. • AARP, Transforming Senior Centers into 21st Century Wellness Centers, December 2011 Sustainability • Edmonds Community College, Fall Quarter 2013, Final Class Project for Introduction to Project Management, (Mgmt 270),”New Facility Best Use Study.” • Edmonds Community College, August 20, 2013, Final Class Project for Introduction to Project Management, (Mgmt 270),”A Development Proposal for the Edmonds Senior Center Thrift Store.” • Edmonds Senior Center Strategic Plan – January 2016 • Edmonds Senior Center Business Plan – June 2016 7.1.i Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Building Replacement Feasibility Review FINAL (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 1 Capital Campaign Feasibility Study for Edmonds Senior Center Updated April 2016 Introduction As a nonprofit and fundraising consultant I was retained by Edmonds Senior Center (ESC) in January 2015 to assess their readiness and potential to launch a successful capital campaign. My scope of work has comprised: • Reviewing Pre-Campaign Study by Pinson Philanthropic Advancement, May 2000 • Assessing the Board and organizational planning • Analysis of the organizations readiness and potential for a capital campaign • Establishing a range for fundraising goal • Preparing a campaign plan framework • Reviewing sustainability plan I am currently working for the ESC in a part-time capacity as the Campaign Director. Background: Edmonds Senior Center has operated from the same site since its formation as the South County Senior Center in 1967. The building, located along the shoreline in Edmonds, was formerly used for boat storage and sales. The building and property are owned by the City of Edmonds. The City makes the space available to ESC on a long term ($10/ year) lease, maintains the building and supports the center with an annual program grant of $60,000. The topic of building a new building was first introduced in the mid-1970’s but there was insufficient urgency and lack of support on the Board for a new center. As the building continued to show its age the ESC Board began the due diligence to explore a capital campaign to build a new center. A campaign feasibility study was completed in 2000. In 2007 a geotechnical study by Shannon & Wilson found the aging building had significant structural issues that needed to be addressed. The estimated cost at that time for the retrofit and seismic upgrades was $3M. In 2013 the City’s Strategic Action Plan called for a long term solution for updating the Senior Center and designated ESC as lead to work with City’s Parks & Recreation Department. The following year the City Council endorsed ESC’s plan to demolish the existing building and construct a new community center. Goals: (1) Construct a new state of the art, sustainable, model community facility that serves citizens of all ages. (2) Expand programs emphasizing health & wellness. (3) Protect, preserve and enhance the rare waterfront property for community use. Board: ESC’s Board is made up of 21 dedicated Board members. The Board oversees planning, program, finance and fundraising. During the past year the Board completed a strategic planning process, and recruited 10 new high caliber Board members. Staffing: There are a total of 9 paid professional staff. The Executive Director, Farrell Fleming has 38 years of nonprofit managerial experience. The Finance Manager has 34 years of nonprofit leadership experience including extensive experience managing large construction projects. 7.1.j Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Campaign Feasibility Study FINAL (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 2 Building Committee: The principals of the Building Committee have vast experience covering all aspects of planning, permitting and construction. Anthony de Sam Lazaro, PhD CEng - Professor and Dean Emeritus of the School of Engineering at Saint Martin's University in Lacey WA. Phil Lovell, P.E., M.ASCE – retired Vice President & Operations Manager – Turner Construction (37 years). John Osterhaug – retired Engineer - Honeywell Inc. Colleen Clayton – retired development review professional – City of Bellevue, Department of Planning & Community Development. Hydrology Engineer – King County Building Department of Development and Environmental Services Subdivisions Department. Terry Olmsted - retired Engineering Geologist with over 50 years’ experience in the geotechnical and environmental engineering fields. Wayne Hakola – retired Project Manager, University Mechanical Contractors Inc. City of Edmonds: Edmonds is the third most populous city in Snohomish County after Everett and Marysville, the population was 39,709 according to the 2010 census. Based on per capita income, one of the more reliable measures of affluence, Edmonds ranks 20th of 281 areas in the state of Washington. According to a 2009 estimate, the median income for a household in the city was $66,892 and the per capita income for the city was $42,432. About 2.6% of families and 4.6% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.9% of those under age 18 and 3.3% of those age 65 or over. As of the census of 2010, there were 39,709 people, 17,381 households, and 10,722 families residing in the city. The racial makeup of the city was 83.4% White, 2.6% African American, 0.7% Native American, 7.1% Asian, 0.3% Pacific Islander, 1.8% from other races, and 4.1% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 5.3% of the population. Pinson Philanthropic Advancement Campaign Assessment • Sought input from 65 community leaders through personal interviews • Confirmed a broad base of support for ESC’s work and vision • 95% of those interviewed were aware of the need for a new Center • 81% said they would contribute • Determined a capital campaign in the range of $5M was possible Daniel R Johnson Consulting, LLC Feasibility Process: Working with the Board leadership we identified community leaders, former Board members, donors and key Snohomish County funders. We organized them by category to ensure a representative sample including: • Board (20) • Past ESC leadership (8) • Donors & donor prospects (18) • Government (9) • Foundations (10) • Business (5) Seventy interviews were conducted inquiring from the individuals their perception of ESC and their plans to build a new center as well as assess their potential interest in investing in the project. 7.1.j Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Campaign Feasibility Study FINAL (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 3 Assessment: Vision – The vision to build a center for people of all ages rather than just replace the senior center has activated a broad base of supporters. Bringing young and old together opens up countless opportunities for intergenerational programing. In turn, this larger vision will appeal to a greater number of individual donors and funders. The partnership with the City of Edmonds is a central aspect of the sustainability plan as the City will fund the Parks and Recreation programs offered in the center from 4:00 – 10:00 pm Monday – Thursday. Building Site - The rare waterfront site is designated as a regional park. The City has indicated they will take the lead on fundraising for the beach restoration budgeted at $1.415M. The exceptional views of the ferries, Puget Sound and the Olympic mountains will be a draw for participants and potential rentals. The facility is also adjacent to a regional transportation hub; the Washington State Ferry, Sounder Commuter Train, three local bus lines and one commuter route are all within walking distance of the Center. Institutional Readiness Board – the Board of 21 is diverse in age and experience. They are among the most dedicated Boards I have worked with in my career. Seven Board members actively serve on the Capital Campaign Committee. Four have taken key leadership and strategy roles: Gary Haakenson – former Mayor of Edmonds; David Jaffe – retired CEO of Swedish Edmonds and Harborview Hospitals; Kevin Hanchett - attorney & principal of Resource Transition Consultants; Heather Krause – Krause & Thorpe Wealth Management – RBC. Recommendation: continue Board development & Board expansion. Planning – During the past 12 months the Board has completed a strategic plan. Recommendation: complete operations plan and marketing plan. Infrastructure – Recommendation: complete website upgrade. Capital Campaign Plan: Plan Overview Sector Goal Raised Balance Leadership Individuals $ 2,500,000 $ 1,025,000 $ 1,475,000 Board $ 300,000 $ 140,026 $ 159,974 Government $ 5,500,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 3,750,000 Foundations $ 2,000,000 $ 30,000 $ 1,970,000 Businesses $ 400,000 $ -0- $ 400,000 Community Campaign $ 300,000 $ 26,190 $ 273,810 SUBTOTAL – Building & Parking $11,000,000 $ 2,971,216 $ 8,028,784 City of Edmonds $ 1,415,743 $ -0- $ 1,415,743 SUBTOTAL – Shoreline Restoration & Access $ 1,415,743 $ -0- $ 1,415,743 TOTAL $12,415,743* $ 2,971,216 $ 9,444,527 * This number includes $1,415,743 for beach restoration and access; the City of Edmonds has taken the lead on this and has applied to the State for funding. Fundraising – Recommendation: I have assessed ESC’s capacity to raise capital funds from individuals, government, foundations, local businesses and equity partners. 7.1.j Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Campaign Feasibility Study FINAL (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 4 • Individuals – ESC has a broad base of supporters, but a small base of donors. This is due in part because they have done limited fundraising over the years. In many cases supporters can be converted into donors especially when they believe in the vision and have confidence in the organization to both build and sustain the new facility. Rick Steves has made a $1M matching pledge. Based on my interviews I believe ESC can raise between $2M - $2.5M from individuals. • Government – ESC is uniquely positioned to raise at least 50% of its campaign goal from government sources. The City of Edmonds has committed nearly $1M and applied for another $1M from the State for the shoreline. A State appropriation of $1.25M was secured in 2015. A State Building Communities Fund application of $2.25M is being submitted in August. The County has encouraged ESC to request $500K in Real Estate Excise Tax and a $1.75M request from Verdant Health Commission is pending. As a result, I estimate ESC can raise between $5M and $6M. • Foundations –I have spoken with four foundations who have indicated an interest in the project. We have identified an additional 10 foundations where their funding priorities align with ESC’s plans. Based on their current success and identified prospects I believe ESC can raise between $1.5M – $2M from foundations. Foundation Prospects C. Keith Birkenfeld Charitable Trust Multiple conversations – green light to apply in Sept Boeing Employees Community Fund Multiple conversations – apply in the fall Campion Foundation Margaret Cargill Foundation Initial inquiry made Charlotte Martin Foundation Foster Foundation Initial inquiry made McCaw Foundation McEachern Charitable Trust LOI submitted Hazel Miller Foundation Asked for request once more funding is secured Norcliffe Foundation Asked for request once more funding is secured Medina Foundation Meeting with ED – encouraged ESC to apply Murdoc Foundation RBC – Blue Water Board members works for company – will sponsor grant Young Foundation Funded campaign • Business – I have met with 5 business owners and the Chamber of Commerce. Based on this information I believe ESC can raise between $300,000 and $500,000 from local businesses and service Clubs. Fundraising Environment in Edmonds – ESC must be clear in their messaging that distinguishes them from other groups raising capital funds in the region. Other Capital Campaigns in the area Organization Goal Status Edmonds Community College – STEM Building $8M Planning Veterans Plaza $450K Wrapping up campaign Volunteers of America – neighborhood center $12M In process Edmonds School Dist Fd Nourishing Network – Admin & pantry $500K Planning 7.1.j Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Campaign Feasibility Study FINAL (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 5 Hurdles to overcome: • ESC has not previously conducted a capital campaign • Lack of major donor base • Few large scale fund drives have been conducted in area to identify major gift capacity • Growing the Board to include the horsepower to complete the campaign • Messaging – tendency for public to view the new center as just a new senior center Conclusion: Based on the interviews, dollars raised and my analysis, ESC in a position to raise $10M - $12M in a public capital campaign. This would require continuing the momentum they have built and further engaging new Board members. Daniel Johnson Daniel R Johnson Consulting, LLC Daniel Johnson Background Daniel Johnson, MSW, has worked in non-profit leadership for more than 30 years. He has a Masters of Social Work in the area of community organizational services and non-profit management from the University of Washington. Daniel’s professional career has focused on fundraising, marketing, board development, strategic planning, change management and leadership. Joining Boys & Girls Clubs of King County in 1995 as a Branch Executive Director, he rose through the ranks to President & CEO where he served for 12 years. Under his leadership he raised $48M for capital improvements, grew the organization from a $6M to $14M serving 18,000 children with a staff of 400 and won top program in the nation two years in a row. Since leaving Boys & Girls Clubs Daniel has provided non-profit consulting in the areas of executive leadership, board development, strategic planning and fundraising. In the past 5 years he has been providing capital campaign council for 7 campaigns totaling $47M. Three buildings have been completed and one is under construction. He is currently completing the $9M Village Green Community Center campaign in Kingston. The center, housing a Boys & Girls Club, Library and Senior Center opened in May 2016. 7.1.j Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Campaign Feasibility Study FINAL (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) Edmonds Waterfront Center Campaign Update – 9/11/18 Raised to date: $10,901,219 toward our revised goal of $16M Campaign highlights • Met $1M Rick Steves community challenge • $1,021,000 in recent gifts • Submitted conditional use and shoreline development permits • Securing community space to house programs during transition year • Plan to move out in December and break ground in January 2019 (subject to fundraising & permitting) Sector Goal Raised Balance Leadership (individuals) $ 6,100,000 $ 4,707,500 $ 1,392,500 Board Board Reserves $ 400,000 $ 357,922 $ 125,000 $ 42,078 ($ 125,000) Government $ 6,500,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 2,500,000 Foundations $ 2,500,000 $ 1,490,000 $ 1,010,000 Community Campaign $ 500,000 $ 229,797 $ 279,203 Total $ 16,000,000 $ 10,901,219 $ 5,119,781 Potential Sources of Additional Funds Leadership Gifts – Goal $1.5M • Campaign Co-Chair Gary Haakenson – Woodway campaign event Sept. 30th Board – Goal $150,000 • Asking Board members (who are able) to increase their original pledge Government – Goal $2,500,000 • State, County, City Foundations – Goal - $1M • Hazel Miller, McEachern, Satterberg Foundation, local Tribes Community Campaign – Goal - $300K • Campaign Breakfast, October 25th • Business campaign – in partnership with the Chamber • Service Clubs 7.1.k Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Campaign Update 9-11-18 (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) 7.1.k Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Campaign Update 9-11-18 (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) Page 1 / 2 UPDATE 7/2/2018 REVISION Edmonds Waterfront Center Budget Control Log - SD Estimate Running total TCC -> $ 12,001,415 ALT #DESCRIPTION FOLLOW-UP DRAWING CHANGE REQUIRED TOTAL VALUE REMARKS PENDING ACCEPTED DECLINE Global Scope Items G1 Receive/review hazardous material report to confirm budget (no report issued). $50,000 allowance in SD budget ESC $ - unverified X G2 Possible conflict with Ebb Tide footings during demo - delete shoring allowance. $10,000 allowance in SD budget EW $ (12,315) To be carried by ESC $ (12,315) G3 $ - G4 $ - Architectural/Structural A1 Replace bottom 30" of west & curved curtain wall with concrete stem wall and interior furred wall-124 LF EW/WGC $ (4,428) Includes curved wall footage $ (4,428) A2 Add faux chimney screening around rooftop kitchen hood exhaust fan EW/ESC $ - X A3a Replace exterior brick/masonry with Ceraclad (or equal) siding EW/ESC $ (54,508) Cereclad X A3b Replace exterior brick/masonry with Nichiha (or equal) siding EW/ESC $ (44,644) Nichiha option X A4 Change ground faced CMU to split faced or standard block at dumpster location $ (867) $ (867) A5 Change metal wrapped interior base to painted AZEK type materials $ (14,408) $ (14,408) A6 Leave existing CMU wall at Ebb Tide/EWC and cut down to 7' tall and flash top of wall ESC $ - Potential savings in protection of Ebb Tide footings. Need further discussions with EBB Tide X A7 Delete hurricane shutters on west/north side of building $ (58,253) $ (58,253) A8 Change to level four drywall finish vs. level five that was specified (or reduce if possible) $ (30,787) At all walls $ (30,787) A9 Change to surface walk off matts at entry (carpet tiles) vs. Pedigrid recess walk off $ (8,600) At the 2 vestibules (east & west) $ (8,600) A10a Banquet room floor-Loose lay enhanced resilient vinyl (Mohawk Secoya) in lieu of wood ESC $ (37,663) Verify products $ (37,663) A10b Densified and polished (not stained) concrete floors throughout 1st floor in lieu of floor coverings $ (66,658) Storage rooms to remain sealed concrete $ (66,658) A11 Review floating floor at the stage area for value engineering ESC $ - Same as banquet floor X A12 Acoustic wall treatment / confirm scope and extent of panels EW/Acoustic $ - Sound consultant X A13 Change skylight stairs from architectural specialty to standard built in stairs $ (18,472) $ (18,472) A14 Confirm actual count/length of auger cast grout piles vs. estimated count by engineer Geotech/Engineer $ - Geotech & engineer X A15 Ceraclad siding vs. Hardie panel $ (30,368) Field painted X A16 Rigid insulation under entire slab vs. just grade beams/perimeter per spec EW $ 32,018 Need energy model for decision $ 32,018 A17 Review corridor hand rails for scope and extent of rails (one side covered in budget)EW/ESC $ - X A18 Delete fireplace ESC $ (58,494) $ (58,494) A19 PVC roofing over rigid insulation over car decking in lieu of metal roofing over SIPS panels $ (255,011) $ (255,011) A20 Substitute "second look" ACT vs. the 12"x 12" ceiling tile specified $ - included in SD budget X A21 Eliminate exterior "banners" included in SD Budget $ (24,629) $ (24,629) A22 Delete acoustic glazing requirement EW/Acoustic $ (73,001) See #A32 & A33 X A23 Delete acoustic rated wall requirement EW/Acoustic $ - Need Acoustic Engineer X A24 Straight line north curtain wall in lieu of radius.EW -$ Due to more sq footage, no cost savings. X A25 Nanawall to 4 pairs of 6'x8' doors w/2 foot transom above $ (14,246) $ (14,246) A26 Vapro shield vapor barrier in lieu of Prosoco $ (30,541) $ (30,541) A27 Delete oculus roof opening $ (1,638) $ (1,638) A28 Change spandrel panels to siding over wood framing (2004 SF) $ (84,348) See #A32, A33, & A34 for revised exterior finishes X A29 Change to storefront at NE corner conference/multipurpose room in lieu of curtain wall EW $ - See #A32 X A30 Add Public Art $ - Add to budget X A31 Lower first floor height 2' $ (115,824) X A32 Revise storefront/curtain wall per 4.13.18 Progress Set. 2 layers laminated STC 42 glazing at acoustic storefront windows. $ (482,698) Major change is curtain wall on west elevation changed to vinyl windows. $ (482,698) A33 Vinyl windows with custom color exterior/white interior and STC 38 glazing at acoustic glazing per 4.13.18 Progress Set $ 77,330 $ 77,330 A34 Cereclad siding in standard colors per 4.13018 Progress Set $ 142,417 $ 142,417 A35 Drainage mat in lieu of outboard mineral fiber insulation at exterior stone cladding $ (14,396) Needs verification with energy envelope $ (14,396) A36 2" mineral fiberboard insulation with thermal break clips in lieu of R10 rigid outboard insualtion $ 102,456 X A37 Add 2 layers 5/8" gypsum fiber roof board over roof substrate for sound attenuation 110,424$ X A38 Add to upgrade banquet folding partition to STC 56 Encore electric automated, stack kitchen side $ 36,051 $ 36,051 A39 ROM budget add to change from 3x6 to 4x6 car decking and 15% increase in roof glu lam support beams $ 111,507 A40 $ - 7.1.l Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: EWC SD BCL 7-2-18 (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) Page 2 / 2 ALT #DESCRIPTION FOLLOW-UP DRAWING CHANGE REQUIRED TOTAL VALUE REMARKS PENDING ACCEPTED DECLINE A41 $ - A42 $ - A43 $ - Landscape & Site Improvements L1 Remove the two fire hydrants from SD Budget $ (12,315) $ (12,315) L2 $ - L3 $ - Elevator E1 Elevator: proposed subcontract vs. SD Budget $ (23,996) $ (23,996) E2 $ - Mechanical/Plumbing M1 Plumbing: Proposed subcontract amount vs. SD budget $ (105,316) $ (105,316) M2 Use ABS/PVC for underground and vent piping vs. cast iron $ (7,033) $ (7,033) M3 Delete footing drains $ (7,019) To be verified by Engineer $ (7,019) M4 Use CPVC or WIRSBO water lines in lieu of copper $ (8,145) $ (8,145) M5 Use ABS/PVC vent piping in lieu of cast iron except at banquet and thrift store spaces $ (9,282) $ (9,282) M6 Add to change all toilets to handicap height ESC $ - No cost add as long as stay with floor mounted toilets X M7 HVAC: Proposed subcontract amount vs. SD budget $ (329,239) $ (329,239) M8 Pollutant control device (PCD) for kitchen hood exhaust. Verify if required. $ (156,932) Add faux chimney on roof $ (156,932) M9 Add ceiling fans to exercise and gathering places as requested by ESC ESC $ - X M10 $ - M11 $ - Fire Protection FP1 Fire sprinklers: Subcontract vs. SD budget $ (17,179) $ (17,179) $ - Electrical E1 Electrical: Proposed subcontract amount vs. SD budget $ (54,477) $ (54,477) E2 Reduce light fixture allowance - VE lighting package EW $ - Lighting layout/fixture specification needed X E3 Confirm IT/AV scope of work to support Owners Vendor ESC $ - X E4 Add Electrical charging stations in parking lot CITY OF E $ - X E5 $ - E6 $ - Subtotals $ (1,655,526) $ (49,035) $ (1,528,185) $ - SD Estimate R0 $ 13,529,600 TCC SD Estimate TCC including accepted alternates $ 12,001,415 Yellow items are changes to previous BCL Note 1) All pricing includes contractor markups but excludes sales tax. Note 2) Cost alternate items are not represented to be equal to specified products. Owner is understood to acknowledge this for any accepted alternates. Note 3) Architect is responsible for confirming accepted alternates meet requirements for intended use and applicable codes. 7.1.l Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: EWC SD BCL 7-2-18 (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) Waterfront Redevelopment/Sr Ctr parking lot/Frontage improvements Expenditures 2017 2018 2019 Total 2020 Design - Waterfront $248,987.00 $674,668.00 $275,000.00 $293,537.00 $106,131.00 Design Parking Lot $116,040.00 Design/Frontage $106,131.00 Design Ebb Tide $203,510.00 Environmental Permitting $75,000.00 $75,000.00 Construction - Ebb tide $1,371,033.00 $1,371,033.00 TCE Ebb Tide TBD TBD Construction -Parking Lot $1,354,013.00 $1,354,013.00 Construction - Waterfront $2,129,118.00 $2,129,118.00 Construction -frontage $291,554.00 $291,554.00 Engineering Staff $180,000.00 $50,000.00 $80,000.00 $50,000.00 Building Permit costs $70,000.00 $50,000.00 $20,000.00 Total $6,145,386.00 $350,000.00 $343,537.00 $4,010,816.00 $4,704,353.00 $1,441,033.00 Revenue Fund 125 $525,000.00 $125,000.00 $455,887.00 $291,033.00 Fund 126 $125,000.00 $150,000.00 $164,598.00 $250,000.00 Park Impact Fees $500,000.00 $250,000.00 $350,000.00 $150,000.00 WWRP $500,000.00 $750,000.00 ALEA $500,000.00 Snohomish County $125,000.00 Sr Ctr: 50% design for Parking lot and frontage $111,085.00 Sr. Ctr: 50% construction for parking lot, frontage $822,783.00 Total $1,150,000.00 $636,085.00 $2,918,268.00 $4,704,353.00 $1,441,033.00 Ttl cost for Parking lot and Frontage: $1,867,736 Ttl for Sr. Ctr.$933,868.00 7.1.m Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Waterfront Redevelopment and Sr Ctr parking lot draft budget (Senior Center Lease 7.1.n Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: EWC Operational Draft Pro forma 8-23-18 (Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/20/2018 Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History The City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will move quasi-judicial decision-making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards and direct it to the hearing examiner to the extent allowed by state law. The adopted resolution requests that city staff and the Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with this resolution. The Planning Board heard an introduction on this matter at their May 23, 2018 and held a public hearing on July 25, 2018 at which a recommendation was forwarded to City Council. The City Council heard an introduction on this subject at the September 4, 2018 Council meeting moved hold a public hearing to receive public feed on the proposed amendments which was held on October 2, 2018. Staff Recommendation Discuss proposed amendments and return to the subject at the next available Council meeting for a decision on: (a) the appeal process issue and (b) the other proposed code amendments. Introduction During discussions on modifying the Council’s role in quasi-judicial decisions, it has been suggested that the City Council may initiate a judicial appeal of a hearing examiner or Architectural Design Board decision upon request of a citizen who believe a decision has been issued in error. Following the public hearing on October 2, 2018, the Council directed staff to bring back code amendments that detail the process for the Council initiating a judicial appeal. Staff’s presentation tonight is focused on this new process for the City Council initiating judicial appeals. Various other code amendments have been proposed during this review that relate to the City’s decision making process (see the October 2, 2018 Council agenda on this matter). Should the City Council ultimately decide to retain its role in closed record appeals, the remaining code amendments should still be considered because these amendments clarify public hearing and appeal proceedings (New Chapter 20.06 ECDC), eliminate provisions that are not consistent with state law (Elimination of ECDC 20.100.040), and provide other clean up and clarifications related to decision processes. Staff is not seeking a decision from Council at this meeting. This is only an introduction to the specific language for the proposed process. A decision on this process, Council's role in quasi-judicial decisions 7.2 Packet Pg. 421 and other related amendments should be considered at the next available Council meeting. Potential Code Amendments Detailing Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision The proposed code amendments contained in Exhibit 1 fall into three categories; 1) providing notice to the City Council on Type III applications, 2) adding Language regarding the City’s intent of Council judicial appeal, and 3) detailing the process for a citizen to request a Council appeal. Notice The first set of proposed code amendments would require that the City Council be emailed the Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Final Decision on all Type III permit applications. These amendments would ensure the City Council is aware of a Type III permit application that is moving through the City’s process. Staff reports for Type III decisions are posted on the City’s agenda page and the City Council will be able to access the staff report one week prior to the public hearing. Another amendment in the notice section includes adding information as to how to inform the City Council of alleged errors in a decision in the Notice of Final Decision. Currently the Notice of Final Decisions contains information on available appeals. The proposed amendment would ensure that Notice of Final Decisions also inform parties of record that they may request the Council to file an appeal on a decision that has been issued in error. City Council as Party of Record in Type III Proceedings The two paragraphs in this new subsection signal it is the City of Edmonds’ intent that the City Council may appeal Type III decisions. These paragraphs are primarily intended to signal to the Courts that as trustees of the public interest, the City Council is a party of record regardless of whether the City Council actively participated the Type III decision proceedings and retains the right to commence a judicial review under LUPA (Chapter 36.70C RCW). Informing the City Council of Alleged Errors in Type III Decisions This new subsection provides the details on how a citizen may request the City Council file a judicial appeal on behalf of the citizens. The request must come from a party of record. The request should come after the party of record has already sought reconsideration of the decision, be made within seven days of the decision on reconsideration, and the request may be submitted in writing or verbally at a regular City Council meeting. This section also notes that the City Council may submit a judicial appeal on its own initiative regardless of whether a request for appeal was made to the City Council under this section. Next Steps Schedule for further discussion and decisions on the various proposed amendments at the next available meeting. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Potential Amendments to ECDC detailing the Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision Exhibit 2: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt 7.2 Packet Pg. 422 Exhibit 3: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 4: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 5: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt 7.2 Packet Pg. 423 Potential Amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code detailing the Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision ECDC 20.03.002 Notice of Application (NEW SUBSECTION) H. For all Type III permit applications, notice of application shall also be provided to the City Council by email. ECDC 20.03.003 Notice of Public Hearing (NEW SUBSECTION) F. For all Type III applications, notice of public hearing shall also be provided to the City Council by email. 20.02.007 Notice of final decision. (MOVED FROM ECDC 20.06.009) A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal, and a description of any available administrative appeals, and for all Type III decisions, information as to how to inform the city council as to alleged errors in the decision. For Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor. 2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means deemed reasonable by the director. 3. For all Type III decisions, notice of final decision shall be provided to the City Council by email. 20.06.XXX City council as party of record in Type III proceedings. (NEW SUBSECTION) A. Intent. The city council has eliminated its role as the quasi-judicial decision-maker on administrative appeals of Type III decisions in favor of having the ability to participate in such matters as a party of record at both the administrative level and in the courts, through a LUPA action, if necessary. The notice provisions in ECDC 20.03.002, ECDC 20.03.003, and ECDC 20.02.007 reflect the interest of the city council in overseeing the decision-making process on Type III applications. City council oversight is intended to ensure that the City’s code is being properly administered and interpreted by the Type III administrative decision-maker. Type III applications are of particular concern to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, and therefore are of particular concern to the city council, because they involve higher levels of discretion and can allow for variances from the Edmonds Community Development Code 7.2.a Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Potential Amendments to ECDC detailing the Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision (Land Use Permit adopted by the city council. Because of the nature of Type III decisions and its interest in seeing its legislation properly applied, the city council would be prejudiced by an erroneous Type III decision. To ensure that erroneous Type III decisions can be corrected swiftly, the city council shall be an official party of record in all Type III proceedings, whether its members participate in the Type III process or not. B. Exercise of Party of Record Status. As a trustee of the public interest, the city council is not required to participate in the Type III process to satisfy the exhaustion (of administrative remedies) requirement that applies to other would-be parties of record. The city council retains its party of record status throughout the administrative process, even where it does not participate. The city council may ask the Type III decision-maker to reconsider its decision, but not doing so in no way diminishes its party of record status for the purpose of seeking judicial review under LUPA, chapter 36.70C RCW. Any decision by the city council to seek reconsideration or to commence a LUPA proceeding shall be made during an open public meeting. 20.06.XXX. Informing the city council of alleged errors in Type III decisions. (NEW SUBSECTION) A. A party of record, as defined by ECDC 20.06.030, may bring alleged errors to the city council’s attention and request that the city council appeal a Type III decision on behalf of the citizens and the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. To make this request, a party of record should: 1. Have already sought reconsideration of the decision pursuant to ECDC 20.06.010; 2. Make the request to the city council within seven (7) days of the decision on reconsideration; and 3. Make the request by: i. Submitting it in writing to the Council’s legislative/executive assistant and the Development Services Director; or ii. Verbally requesting it at a regular City Council meeting. B. The city council’s decision to appeal or not appeal a Type III decision in response to such a request is a legislative decision that is not subject to review under LUPA. Making such a request has no impact on the time within which one would be required to commence a LUPA action. C. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventing the city council from appealing a decision on a Type III application in the absence of an appeal request made pursuant to this section. 7.2.a Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Potential Amendments to ECDC detailing the Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision (Land Use Permit 20.06.160 Judicial appeals. (MOVED FROM 20.07.006) The city’s final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record with standing to file a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such petition must be filed within 21 days after issuance of the decision, as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 7.2.a Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Potential Amendments to ECDC detailing the Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision (Land Use Permit APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 13 Board Member Lovell pointed out that a public hearing on the draft Housing Strategy is scheduled for June 13th, followed by further Planning Board discussion on June 27th. He asked why the hearing is scheduled prior to continued Board discussion. Director Hope responded that staff felt it would be useful for the Board to hear from the public prior to their continued discussion and recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime, the Task Force will also provide input and recommendations. Board Member Lovell pointed out that there are very few opportunities for the development of multifamily housing on either public or private land in Edmonds, particularly given the current zoning and land use regulations. He asked if more work should be done in the strategic planning portion of the strategy to zero in more on areas within City that can be appropriate for these types of development. The narrative in the plan does not speak to the fact that Edmonds is a high-income, single-family, commuting community. The Board is being asked to do something about all of this; and based on his experience, he sees an awful lot of public concern as the action items are implemented moving forward. He expressed his belief that the plan is terrific and covers everything the City could possibly do, but implementation could become mind boggling. Director Hope recalled that the idea was to identify the things the City could reasonably take on, and it does not mean that every action item will lead to implementation. The action items are intended to provide a toolbox of actions the City could consider to address housing issues. Some of the action items will be implemented at a later time via code amendments, and others will be worked out during budget discussions. For example, the City Council set aside money to work on homeless services, and the City is a member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability. By sharing the resources of the jurisdictions that participate in the alliance, they may be able to provide gap financing for a non-profit developer to develop lower-income housing. These developments may not be located in Edmonds but would be nearby. Again, she said these details would be worked out after the draft Housing Strategy has been adopted. Board Member Crank recalled that the City Council set aside $250,000 in 2017 to study homelessness and the potential to partner with non-profit organizations to address the problem. With the budgeting coming up in 2018, there is a possibility that if the City, via the Planning Board, does not come up with some decision on the Housing Strategy, perhaps that money will be taken away and/or reallocated somewhere else. The importance of expediting the homelessness conversation, with involvement by Cohn Consulting, is to get something going so when it is time to talk about homelessness again during the next budget cycle it does not get pulled away because there has been no movement. Director Hope said the City Council had originally intended that the Housing Strategy be done by 2019, but they have since asked staff to speed it up. The goal is to complete the project in 2018. Board Member Robles recalled that one of the Board’s suggestions was to stress “aging in place.” The solution to aging in place is also the solution to affordable housing for rebound families, separated families, low-income families, etc. He is interested to see what the community input will be towards the draft Housing Strategy given that one solution will help solve both problems. As an example of this concept, Director Hope said the City has heard from some people who are concerned about how ADUs will impact their neighborhoods, but others would really like to promote that option. These concerns could be worked out at the code level. The issue before the Board is whether or not the draft Housing Strategy provides an appropriate toolbox for the City to work from. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that when the draft Housing Strategy is presented at the public hearing, it would be helpful for staff to provide a statement of recommendation for the Board to consider. Director Hope responded that this would probably not be available at the public hearing, where the idea is to listen to the public’s concerns and ideas. However, staff could certainly provide a statement of recommendation when the Board continues its discussion on June 27th. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that having a statement of recommendation from staff helps the Board to focus its discussion. She appreciates when this information is part of the Board’s packet. The Board took a short break at 9:25 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Board Member Crank left the meeting and did not return. PERMIT DECISION MAKING – QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien provided a broad overview of the City’s current decision-making processes and referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003, which lays out the framework for the different types of permit decisions within the City. He explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial and administrative 7.2.b Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Exhibit 2: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 14 decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial means “court like,” which implies that the proceedings must be similar to those followed by a court. If the requirements are not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of due process such as the proper notice of the hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of the facts being considered by the decision-making body (no ex-parte contacts), an impartial decision maker free from bias and conflicts of interest (appearance of fairness), and the decisions must be based on the facts of the case and not on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the ECDC that will remove quasi-judicial decision-making responsibilities from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. The resolution requests that the City staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with the resolution. He explained that, as a legislative body, the City Council Members like to be responsive to their constituents. However, when quasi-judicial matters are brought before them, they cannot discuss the issues with their constituents without creating ex-parte communications and violating the Appearance of Fairness rules. In addition, the City Attorney has advised that having the City Council sit in a quasi-judicial capacity on land use matters presents a dilemma if decisions are not made based on code. A City Council Member could be held liable if for making arbitrary and capricious decisions. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following: • Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the Architectural Design Board is required, conditional use permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, home occupation permits, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential development (PRD). • Applications (Type IV-A and IV-B): Final formal plats, final PRD, site specific rezones, and variance applications from public agencies. Mr. Lien proposed the following amendments: • Remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decisions primarily involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process. Type III-B decisions would be moved to the Type III-A column and the “A” and “B” qualifiers would be removed. Staff has also conducted an electronic search of the code for Type III and removed all of the “A” and “B” qualifiers from the text. • Leave site-specific rezones (Type IV-B) as quasi-judicial decisions that require final approval by the City Council. Site-specific rezones are a mixture of legislative and quasi-judicial. Decisions are based on criteria, but because they require a change to the zoning map, they must be passed by ordinance before the City Council. • Modify the subdivision (ECDC 20.75) and PRD (ECDC 20.35) chapters to remove the City Council from the final approval process. Currently, preliminary formal plat and PRD decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner, and the City Council approves final formal subdivisions and PRDs (Type IV-A). Typically, all of the subdivision improvements have been installed prior to application for final approval, and the City Council’s final approval is simply based on whether or not all of the requirements of preliminary approval have been met. When the City Council originally adopted Resolution No. 1367, State law required the legislative body to make the final decision on formal plats. However, recently approved Senate Bill 5674 allows this legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel. • Eliminate the sentence from ECDC 17.00.030.C requiring the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Variances are normally heard by the Hearing Examiner and decisions are based on criteria spelled out in the code for when a variance may be granted. Currently, public agency variances require a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed record hearing. As proposed, the Hearing Examiner would make the decision on all variance applications. • Remove ECDC 20.100.040, which is in conflict with the Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) but retain a section elsewhere in the code that allows the City to revoke a permit if the conditions of the permit are not 7.2.b Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Exhibit 2: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 15 being met. It appears that ECDC 20.100.040 was established in 1980, which is when the framework of the current ECDC was established. The Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) were passed in about 1995. The Regulatory Reform Act limits the City to one open record hearing on a decision process. Because ECDC 20.100.040 could result in an endless number of public hearings, it is in direct violation of the Regulatory Reform Act. There are also inconsistencies with LUPA and the concept of finality. As per LUPA, once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed. However, ECDC 20.100.040 opens it up to where a permit does not have finality associated with it. ECDC 20.100.040 is also inconsistent with LUPA in that it allows for collateral attack. As per LUPA, projects that were not appealed cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process. • Combine ECDC 20.06 (Open Records Public Hearings) and 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) into a single chapter. The titles of these two code sections do not match up with their content. For example, ECDC 20.07 has references regarding appeals, which can be open record appeals, and this tends to confuse people. The City Attorney has also recommended additional details regarding appeal briefings before the Hearing Examiner. Appeals before the Hearing Examiner are similar to a court proceeding in that people present their cases and the Hearing Examiner issues a decision. Currently, when people file appeals to the Hearing Examiner, they are not required to spell out what their arguments will be until they are made before the Hearing Examiner. The City Attorney has recommended that a briefing schedule for appeals should be added to this section to outline the process so that arguments are written out before an appeal goes before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said his intent is to have the specific code amendment language ready for the Board’s review on June 27th with a potential public hearing on July 25th followed by a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell clarified that the revisions are being driven by a specific request from the City Council via Resolution No. 1367. The Board Members have all been briefed in the past about the importance of quasi-judicial proceedings, so he questioned the need to have an additional study session prior to the public hearing. Chair Monroe asked about the original intent for the “review of approved permits” clause. Mr. Lien said he searched legislative history, and it appears it was tied in with larger code updates. There is nothing specific about its history and it is not possible to identify its intent. The City Attorney drafted a memorandum relative to the issue that will be included in the next packet. The clause was adopted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act, which lays out the decision-making process, and the provision has only been used once in the 10 years he has been with the City. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the chart provided by Mr. Lien to illustrate the various decision-making processes. It is clear that many decisions will still take place and the Architectural Design Board will still be involved in quasi-judicial decisions. The only change they are looking at per the City Council’s request is to remove them from the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien agreed that is the main intent of the proposed amendments, with a few minor cleanup items as described earlier. He confirmed that he is working closely with the City Attorney to create the appropriate code language for the proposed amendments. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the proposed amendments do not represent significant changes. However, she suggested that both charts should identify who is responsible for making the final decisions. Mr. Lien said when the amendments come back to the Board, all of the proposed language, including the updated charts, will be available. However, he explained that the tables are intended to be different. One table describes the types of decisions and the other identifies who makes the final decisions, how decisions are made, and how decisions are appealed. The Board agreed to move forward with a public hearing on June 27th without an additional study session. Following the public hearing, the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA There was no discussion about the extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 7.2.b Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Exhibit 2: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 2 review resulting in one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide. However, he received an email from the DOE on July 12th, announcing new wetland guidance. He has since verified the City Council’s intent to update the wetland regulations with the most recent guidance, which requires the Board to consider additional updates. The additional updates will be presented to the Board on August 22nd, and the Board will need to hold another public hearing before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the four sections of the CAO that were part of the update to be consistent with the 2016 guidance. He explained that the new 2018 guidance pertains primarily to the buffer sections and the wetland ratings would remain nearly the same. The 2016 guidance has four sets of wetland buffers based on habitat scores, and the 2018 guidance only has three sets of buffers and the habitat scores are calculated differently. In the 2016 guidance, the lower Category 5 habitat score was not much different than the Category 3 and 4 habitat scores, so it was combined with Category 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING-QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien reviewed that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision-making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by law. The resolution requests that the staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council code revisions that are consistent with the resolution. Mr. Lien explained that the City currently has 5 decision processes as spelled out in the table in ECDC 20.01.003: • Type I are staff decisions with no notice and include lot line adjustments, critical area determinations, shoreline exemptions minor amendments to planned residential development (PRD), minor preliminary plat amendments and staff administrative design review. • Type II are staff decisions with notice and include accessory dwelling units (ADUs), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determinations, preliminary short plats, land clearing and grading, revisions to shoreline management permits, administrative variances, and shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is not required. • Type III are quasi-judicial decisions. Type III-A decisions include critical area variances, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is required, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required, shoreline variances, and shoreline conditional uses. Type III-A decisions are not appealable to the City Council. Type III-B decisions include outdoor dining, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is requested, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required and shoreline conditional uses and variances. Type III-B decisions are appealable to the City Council and include essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the ADB is required, conditional use permits and home occupation permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential developments (PRDs). • Type IV are quasi-judicial decisions that are appealable to the City Council. They include final formal plats, final PRDs and site-specific rezones. • Type V are legislative decisions that include development agreements, zoning text amendments, area-wide zoning map amendments, Comprehensive Plan amendments, annexations and development regulations. Mr. Lien explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial decisions have stricter procedural requirements that include proper notice of hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of all facts being considered by the decision-making body, impartial decision makers free from bias and conflicts of interest, and decisions that are based on the facts of the case rather than on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien reviewed that during the City Council’s discussions relative to Resolution No. 1367, Councilmembers voiced frustration with the ex-parte contact prohibitions and concern about potential liability issues. They asked the staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward revisions to the code that would remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decision-making 7.2.c Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Exhibit 3: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 3 making responsibility. Some code changes have already been implemented since adoption of the resolution. For example, the City Council was removed from the appeal process for decisions related to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He reviewed the current proposal as follows: • The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would be modified by changing all Type III-B decisions that were appealable to the City Council to Type III-A decisions that are appealable to Superior Court and not the City Council. The Type III-B decision process would then be eliminated. • The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would also be modified to make development agreements, which are currently listed as Type V legislative decisions, Type IV quasi-judicial decisions. As proposed the process for development agreements would be similar to the process for site-specific rezones. • A number of amendments are proposed to update existing code language to be consistent with the changes proposed in Table 20.01.003. These changes were identified via an electronic search of the entire code. • The proposal would move final plat approval for subdivisions and PRDs from being Type IV-A quasi-judicial decisions before the City Council to being Type I administrative decisions. Subdivisions and PRDs require a multi-step process that starts with preliminary plat approval by the Hearing Examiner who may identify a number of conditions. The next step is civil design and infrastructure work. By the time final plats and PRDs get to the City Council for final approval, all of the preliminary requirements have been met and often all of the improvements have been installed and there is very little the City Council can do to affect change. Consistent with recent Senate Bill 5674, which allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel, proposed amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would remove the City Council from the final approval process. • An additional change would be made to ECDC 20.75 to update the approval time periods. During the recent economic downturn, changes were made to extend the approval period for final and preliminary plats. However, this provision has expired and will be removed. • All references in the code to Community Development Director will be changed to Community Services Director. • ECDC 17.00.030.C would be amended by eliminating the sentence that requires the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Currently, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed-record hearing and makes the final decision. This amendment would take the City Council out of this quasi-judicial process. • ECDC 20.100.040 is currently a problematic code section that is likely noncompliant with State law. It allows a property owner within a certain distance of a subject property to request that the permit be opened up again once it has been approved. Essentially, the provision could result in endless public hearings and was drafted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, which limits the number of open record hearings to just one. The provision also runs counter to the Land Use Petition Act (RCW 36.70A), which states that once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved. It also prohibits projects from being collaterally attacked through other administrative permit review processes. Given these legal ramifications, staff is recommending that the provisions be deleted. However, to ensure that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with conditions of approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045) would be added. • There is confusion between Open Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.06) versus Closed Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.07). Currently, appeals of Type II staff decisions reference ECDC 20.07 for the appeal process, but appeals of Type II decisions are heard before the Hearing Examiner in an open record public hearing. The proposal is to combine the two sections into a single chapter and provide additional details about the appeal format and procedures before the Hearing Examiner. 7.2.c Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Exhibit 3: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 4 • ECDC 20.01.003 currently identifies the approval process for development agreements as a Type V legislative action. The City Attorney has recommended that the approval process for development agreements be modified to a Type IV process with an open record public hearing before the Planning Board who would make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would hear the proposal in a closed record hearing format. Development agreements are similar to contract rezones and provide a way for the City to place more restrictive requirements on a project than the underlying zoning would allow. The development agreement review process should be generally consistent with the review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction with the development agreement. For example, a site-specific rezone is one type of project permit application that would likely be sought in conjunction with a development agreement. Therefore, it makes sense to use a similar quasi-judicial process. Board Member Lovell clarified that, as currently proposed, Type III decisions would require an open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said that would be true in most cases, but the ADB would participate in the design review process for applications that require SEPA. He referred back to the Table in ECDC 20.01.003, which outlines the types of actions and their respective review processes. As proposed, all of the permits that are appealable to the City Council now would be changed to be appealable to Superior Court. The only exception would be site-specific rezones and development agreements, which would be appealable to the City Council via a closed record public hearing. Board Member Lovell asked if the City Council would have an opportunity to negotiate with the developer about what the appropriate conditions of a development agreement might be. City Attorney Taraday described how he envisions the development agreement process moving forward, starting with him working with the staff and applicant to craft a draft development agreement to present to the Planning Board in an open record public hearing. The Planning Board would accept testimony from the applicant and public and then forward a recommendation to the City Council as to what the terms of the development agreement should be. Following a closed-record public hearing, the City Council can adopt the development agreement exactly as recommended by the Board or they can modify it based on their discussion. Because the City Council’s hearing would be closed record, they would not be able to solicit any new information or ask questions about things that are not already on the record. If the Board doesn’t ask the questions and get all of the pertinent information into the record during its hearing, it cannot be added to the record at a later time as part of the Council’s review. The Planning Board would be the finders of fact for the City Council. The development agreement process is similar to the process the City currently uses to review site-specific rezones. However, instead of voting on an ordinance to adopt a development agreement, the City Council would vote to accept or modify the terms of the development agreement that is put forward by the Planning Board. Board Member Rosen asked if there is a financial impact associated with sending appeals to Superior Court as opposed to the City Council. City Attorney Taraday answered that judicial appeals typically cost more than administrative appeals. However, it is important to keep in mind that not everything would remain the same. For example, taking the City Council out of the appeal process would liberate them to participate in the hearing process and to appeal decisions made by the Hearing Examiner and ADB to Superior Court. Currently, the City Council does not have the ability to appeal Type III-B decisions because they are the body who hears the appeals. If a judicial appeal is initiated for a Type III-B decision, the appellant would have to move the appeal forward with no help from the City. Under the proposed amendment, if the appellant and the City are aligned and have the same consensus, the City Council can appeal a Hearing Examiner decision on its own, saving the taxpayers and citizens a lot of money and time. Essentially, the City Attorney would be responsible to appeal the decision to Superior Court. He summarized that significant changes take place when you free up the City Council to appeal its own Hearing Examiner decisions. Mr. Lien advised that the fee for appealing decisions to the City Council is currently $500, and City Attorney Taraday added that the fee to appeal a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) decision to Superior Court is $250. The big cost difference is related to attorney fees, as many people do not have the ability to file appeals to Superior Court on their own. He also agreed that appellants are probably less likely to appeal actions to Superior Court than to the City Council. Mr. Lien pointed out that appellants often hire attorneys to present their cases to the City Council, as well. Chair Monroe recognized that Resolution No. 1367 mandates that the City Council be removed from the quasi-judicial decision-making process. He asked if staff believes the proposed amendments are the only way to implement the resolution. Mr. Lien said he does not know of any other way to accomplish the task other than altering the processes. City Attorney Taraday agreed 7.2.c Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Exhibit 3: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 5 that, from a high-level overview, there is no other way to accomplish the task, but the details of the process could certainly be modified, as well. He expressed his belief that the proposed changes represent what the City Council asked the staff and Planning Board to do. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed changes would take the City Council completely out of quasi-judicial decisions that are made by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien responded that would be true unless the City Council opposes a decision made by the Hearing Examiner and decides to appeal to Superior Court. City Attorney Taraday explained that potential liability to the City and individual Councilmembers was a significant factor in the City Council’s decision to adopt Resolution No. 1367. City Councilmembers are elected to be legislators and represent their constituents, not to be judges. It is difficult for Councilmembers, who are accustomed to being responsive to their constituents, to play the role of judge and judicially apply the code based on the record in front of them. Some are unable to fill this role, and they end up making arbitrary and capricious decisions that are not consistent with law or the record. When this occurs, the City could be subjected to millions of dollars in damages. These same risks would not be present if the City Council were to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision to Superior Court. While the City may not win the appeal, the risks would be minimized. City Attorney Taraday explained that, under the current process, City Council Members are unable to participate in public hearings for quasi-judicial actions because it would disqualify them from hearing an appeal under the Appearance of Fairness rules. If they no longer have to serve in this capacity, they could feel free to be a party of record and participate in hearings to represent their constituents’ viewpoints. Vice Chair Cheung asked about the process the City Council would use to appeal Hearing Examiner decisions to Superior Court. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Council would probably meet in an executive session with their attorney to discuss the Hearing Examiner decision, as well as the pros and cons of moving forward with an appeal and the likelihood the City would prevail. Ultimately, the City Council would make a legislative decision about whether to appeal or not. No public hearing would be required, but the vote would need to take place in a public meeting. Vice Chair Cheung asked if the City would be responsible to pay additional attorney fees associated with the appeal. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Attorney’s Office is retained on a flat-fee basis. They get paid the same amount every month regardless of whether there is litigation or not. Mr. Lien pointed out that the City has incurred additional attorney fees for closed record appeals to the City Council when an independent attorney must be hired to represent the City’s case while the City Attorney represents the City Council. Board Member Lovell asked how other cities have addressed this issue. City Attorney Taraday advised that the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) pleads with cities to do this because it significantly reduces risk. Before the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, the Executive Director of the WCIA asked them to please consider getting out of the quasi-judicial decision-making process because of the risk it creates to the City and the public. Chair Monroe reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing is not to debate the merits of Resolution No. 1367, which has already been adopted by the City Council. The purpose of the hearing is to decide if the proposed amendments are the right way to implement the resolution. Gary Nelson, Edmonds, observed that this issue has been debated by many jurisdictions for a number of years. Three months following the City Council’s adoption of Resolution No. 1367, Proposition 4 appeared on the ballot to change the charter for Snohomish County. The issue had come before the County Council twice before and was defeated both times. The results of the ballot measure in Edmonds was interesting, as 57.7% of the precincts voted no. It appears that the majority of City residents have strong feelings about what their City Council and appointed officials are responsible to do. He said he is concerned that the proposed amendments would significantly increase the cost of appealing quasi-judicial decisions. In addition to a filing fee, appellants may have to hire an attorney to assist in the appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Nelson commented that staff put a lot of thought into many of the proposed changes, and most appear to be very reasonable. However, it is not likely that the proposed changes to the quasi-judicial appeal process will be acceptable to the residents of Edmonds. While City Attorney Taraday suggests the changes will liberate the City Council and eliminate potential conflicts, most citizens of Edmonds expect their elected officials to carry on their current role and make responsible decisions regardless 7.2.c Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Exhibit 3: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 6 of their personal opinions. They have been elected to study the facts and make decisions based on law. He is disappointed with Councilmembers who say this responsibility is too difficult, and perhaps they should consider resigning their positions. The appointed officials are very responsible and capable of providing recommendations to the City Council, but the City Council should retain the right to make the final decision. Mr. Nelson expressed his belief that the current approach for appeals is accurate and responsible and the City should simply maintain this process and table the proposed amendments. However, he would like the other proposed amendments to go forward as presented. He referred to written comments (Attachment 8) he submitted prior to the meeting, including a list of LUPA issues. He summarized that although neighbors sometimes quarrel over issues, none of the issues are so difficult that appeals to Superior Court are warranted. He said he supports the current process of a Hearing Examiner decision that is appealable to the City Council. He pointed out that appealing decisions to the Superior Court can be costly and take significantly more time. In most cases, appellants have to hire an attorney to represent their case. He encouraged the Board to consider what is in the best interest of the citizens of Edmonds. They should strive to avoid increasing the financial impacts to citizens and prolonging the process of appeals. Sending appeals to the City Council is a timely approach that works. Board Member Lovell referred to Mr. Nelson’s written comments (Attachment 8), which state that RCW 36.70C defines land use decisions as “a final determination by a local jurisdiction’s body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals.” He expressed his belief that the Hearing Examiner meets this criterion. The Hearing Examiner has the background, experience and know how to make decisions based on all the facts and City regulations, and their decisions should stand. If someone wants to appeal, they should have to go to the higher authority, which he believes is the Superior Court. He said he supports the changes as proposed. Vice Chair Cheung asked how often quasi-judicial decisions are appealed. Mr. Chave reviewed that the permit review process was originally set up in 2009 to take the City Council out of closed record appeals, but it was put back into the process in 2010. Since that time, the City Council has only heard a few appeals. Vice Chair Cheung asked if there are any other appeal options the Board could consider other than City Council or Superior Court. Mr. Lien pointed out that appeals to shoreline permits go to the Shoreline Hearings Board rather than to Superior Court, but if the Council is removed from quasi-judicial decision making, Superior Court would be the next step for all other appeals. Chair Monroe expressed his belief that the City Council is in the best position to make decisions for Edmonds. He questioned why the City Council does not want to retain this decision-making ability. He said he is a little leery of giving up the values of Edmonds into the hands of the Snohomish County court. Vice Chair Cheung said he understands that the City Council would prefer not to have to make these decisions, but the same could be said for citizens who are asked to serve on juries. He recognized that there are a lot more opportunities for ex-parte communications to occur with the current process, but these same concerns could be attributed to someone who is asked to serve on a jury. Mr. Lien explained that the amendments would not remove the City Council from the process. The City Council would still be responsible for establishing the policies and regulations that are applied to specific permits. Chair Monroe agreed but pointed out that the proposed amendments would remove the City Council from the role of interpreting the rules and policies. He understands why the City Council supports the change, but he is not sure it will benefit the citizens and the City. Board Member Robles cautioned that a certain balance must be made between risk and inherent risk and decisions should not be made based on monetary aspects alone. He recalled a recent rezone that came before the Planning Board. A lot of work was done by the applicant and staff, but the public was not properly notified of the proposal and were ill prepared to participate in the hearing. The developers seemed to have an advantage over the citizens and the Board was constrained by the facts and couldn’t help represent the citizen’s concerns based on the constraints of the quasi-judicial process. He asked if that is analogous to what the City Council would be faced with because they would be constrained to talk only about the facts of the proposal. City Attorney Taraday commented that the Board has more latitude in an open record public hearing than the City Council has in a closed record public hearing. The Board should never feel constrained in collecting the facts and information needed to make a recommendation. 7.2.c Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Exhibit 3: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 7 City Attorney Taraday referred to Vice Chair Cheung’s earlier comment comparing the City Council’s role to that of a jury. He explained that for site-specific rezone applications and development agreements, the Planning Board would serve as the jury in the sense that the Board would conduct the hearing and collect testimony and evidence from witnesses. The Board gets to make factual findings based on everything they hear and see and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. The Hearing Examiner would play this same role in Hearing Examiner permits. Even with the current process, the City Council does not get to play that role because they are limited to the evidence collected by the Board or Hearing Examiner. He summarized that, in court, juries are not asked to make legal decisions or answer questions of law. The judge hears the legal stuff and the jury hears the factual stuff and they come together to make a decision. Currently, the City Council is frequently asked to make legal decisions when they are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATED TO PUBLIC HEARING PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 25, 2018. Chair Monroe recognized that the City Council has already made the decision to remove themselves from quasi-judicial decisions via Resolution No. 1367, and the proposed amendments are intended to implement this earlier action. However, he suggested that the motion should include a recommendation that the City Council carefully consider the concerns that have been discussed by the Board before taking final action. Mr. Lien commented that the Board can recommend approval or denial of the proposed amendments or recommend changes, regardless of the Council’s direction in Resolution No. 1367. Mr. Chave referred to Mr. Lien’s earlier comment about how the monetary impact of the proposed amendments would be less if you consider the overall process and risks. The real question is if you want the City Council to be more involved in the legislative role where they are able to represent the interest of their constituents. As pointed out by Mr. Lien and City Attorney Taraday, there are struggles that any City Council will encounter when they try to work both roles because it requires them to step out of one to be in the other. Councilmembers are elected to represent their constituents, and that is difficult to do when they are required to act as judge on quasi-judicial decisions. This conflict of roles is at the heart of the proposed changes. Mr. Chave commented that very few appeals end up before the City Council. If there are few appeals, maybe the risk isn’t so high. On the other hand, if there are few appeals, the proposed amendments would not create a significant impact to citizens. As a staff person, he supports wanting the City Council to represent its citizens. They are most effective when they are able to develop and oversee regulations. Citizens are much better off having their voices heard during the legislative processes that establish codes and regulations. It is better for the City Council to make decisions at the rule level rather than at the end of the process trying to figure out how to not follow the rules in order to represent their constituents. Board Member Robles observed that one law of risk management is you want the entity that is best qualified to handle the risk to carry the risk. He asked what type of citizens would end up having to litigate their way back to wholeness if the amendments are adopted as proposed. In other words, he asked who would be impacted the most? Mr. Lien said it could be anyone, from major land owners to single property land owners. Everyone would be treated the same. He advised that in most of the appeals he has heard before the City Council, attorneys have been involved. Sometimes property owners pool their resources to get representation, but it is not a requirement. City Attorney Taraday said he can think of several LUPA actions (not more than 10) that have been appealed to the City Council during his tenure as City Attorney. In at least three cases the appellants were pro say. He explained that a LUPA action is on the record and appeals to Superior Court do not require witnesses or cross examination. The court simply reads the facts from a sheet of paper. The appeal decision is based on the same record that would be sent to the City Council for consideration. Board Member Robles asked how undue influence could play into a Councilmember’s decision. City Attorney Taraday explained that anyone sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity is required to disclose relationships that could cause bias. A Councilmember who is strongly anti-development would not necessary be required to disclose this information but basing a decision solely on this strong bias could create liability for the City, and that is where the biggest risk lies. 7.2.c Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Exhibit 3: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) APPROVED Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 8 Board Member Rosen said the severity of the situation appears to come from City Councilmembers who cross the line. It would help him to better understand the problems they are trying to solve. Is the problem based on exposure to risk they have encountered over the many years they have been doing quasi-judicial appeals, or were the amendments initiated based on feedback from the WCIA? Mr. Chave answered that in his tenure with the City he has seen things that concerned him in terms of how things play out at the Council level. This is not simply an academic discussion but based on real-life experiences. Board Member Rosen asked, in the scheme of risk, how does the Council’s involvement in quasi-judicial appeals compare. City Attorney Taraday said the amendments are intended to manage but not eliminate risk. In his opinion, the amendments represent a very sensible way to manage risk. Divorcing politics from the land use issues, you get a better land use application process and better policies. It is important to understand that, while the City Councilmembers may have a better sense of the values of the City than a Hearing Examiner or judge, those values are not supposed to be expressed when processing land use applications. They are supposed to be expressed when adopting code regulations. Mr. Lien referred to City Attorney Taraday’s 2016 memorandum stating that not only is it a risk to the City but individual Councilmembers could also be liable for decisions made in the quasi-judicial process. CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chair Monroe voiced reservations about the proposed amendment to take the Council out of the quasi-judicial decision-making process, recognizing that it is nearly impossible to write codes that developers cannot eventually find loopholes around. He said he is shocked that the City Council wants to give away this power. He believes the proposed changes will eventually be adopted by the City Council but the Board should emphasize the need for the Council to take a hard and careful look at the pros and cons before making a final decision. CHAIR MONROE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THAT THE BOARD ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE A HARD LOOK BEFORE GIVING AWAY THIS PUBLIC TRUST. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND. Vice Chair Cheung voiced concern about turning over quasi-judicial decisions to a judge who may not be as familiar with the City’s codes as the City Council. The City Councilmembers are accountable to their constituents. He understands the potential conflicts of interest but agrees the Council should carefully weigh the pros and cons before making a decision. It is different for petitioners to stand in front of a judge who would expect them to present their appeal in a more legal manner versus speaking before the City Council. On the other hand, it sounds like appeals are not common and most people who appeal are probably more experienced and have their own counsel. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Chair Monroe closed the public hearing. The Board took a 5-minute break at 8:32 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE AT 9107 AND 9111 – 236TH STREET SW FROM RS-8 TO RM-1.5 Chair Monroe reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. He reminded the Board of the appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in the rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered no. He also invited Board Members to disclose any ex-parte communications, and none indicated any. He asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. None indicated a concern. Lastly, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Board Member’s participation as a decision maker in the hearing. No one in the audience indicated a concern. All those who planned to participate in the hearing were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they give would be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Shipley presented the Staff Report and Martin Reimers was present to represent the applicant. 7.2.c Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Exhibit 3: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 3 implement the goals with the assumption that the goals were already accepted. The presentation, in addition to presenting the goals as settle, predetermined the audience’s objections. The Housing Director and the consultant told the audience that the strategy would not increase crime in Edmonds from low income persons, would not attract homeless people and would not raise taxes. The message the audience heard was that anyone opposing the housing strategy was a selfish bigot which the citizens found quite offensive. In his 30-year career as a business executive, a board director and a non-profit director, he never saw a strategy presented that was devoid of the resources to successfully implement the strategy; for the City, that is the budget. He questioned how attendees could possibly choose among six goals and provide suggested improvements without knowing the cost of the goals and the impact they would have on other City priorities. To do so without understanding the tradeoffs was to live in la-la land. He questioned not having any idea of the cost, impacts and tradeoffs when the City has been working on the housing strategy since 2015. It was not selfishness or bigotry to ask the core question, what can realistically be accomplished with the resources available and what is given up to accomplish those goals. That is the responsibility of the Council, citizens or any steward of the strategy. If the City expected the citizens’ support, he asked that they be respected. 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:  Resolution No. 1367 o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity  Frustrations with ex-parte contact prohibitions  Liability issues for council members o Resolution No. 1367  Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC modifying the City Council’s role in quasi-decision making processes o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367  Decision processes o Administrative Decisions  Type I – Staff decision no notice  Type II – Staff decision with notice o Quasi-judicial Decisions  Type III – Hearing Examiner/ADB  Type IV – Plats/PRDs/Site Specific Rezone  Appeals of Type II and Type III-B - Type II appeals to Hearing Examiner at open record public hearing - Type III-B appeals to City Council at closed record hearing o Legislative  Type V  ECDC 20.01.003 o Table of land use decisions  Quasi-judicial Decisions o Legislative vs. Quasi-judicial  Legislative decisions establish policies for future application  Quasi-judicial are the application of those policies o Strict procedural requirements  Property notice of hearing  Providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say 7.2.d Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Exhibit 4: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 4  Full disclosure to everyone of the facts being considered by the decision-making body (i.e., no ex-parte contacts)  An impartial decision-maker free from bias and conflicts of interest  Decisions based on facts of the case, not on political pressure or vocal opposition  ECDC 20.01.003 o Table of land use decisions with revisions  Move III-B decisions moved to III-A column, Type becomes III  Type IV-A moved to Type I column  Development Agreements moved from legislative process to Type IV quasi-judicial  Attachment in packet includes related ECDC text amendments  Type IV-A: Subdivisions and PRDs o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments o All requirements of preliminary approval have been met o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 delegates final approval to staff  ECDC 17.00.030 – Public Agency Variance o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council  ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits o Conflicts with state law  Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW - One open record public hearing - ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings if three neighbors within 300 feet of a project keep requesting review of approved permits  Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW - “Finality” – Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim) - Habitat Watch v. Skagit County – Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process  New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to suspend or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which operates in a manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application  ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings o Confusing cross references regarding appeals o Combine into a single chapter o Added some language for prehearing conferences o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings  Development Agreements o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council o Council considers development agreement in closed record review o Consistent with state law (Chapter 36.70B RCW); development agreements are not legislative, but must be consistent with local development code  Next steps o On extended agenda for September 18 but that date does not allow adequate time for noticing 7.2.d Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Exhibit 4: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 5 o Suggesting public hearing on September 25 although there are already four public hearings on that agenda Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis requested the PowerPoint be provided to Council. She recalled this change was made immediately after Councilmembers Petso and Bloom left the Council and two new Councilmembers were elected. She urged the new Councilmembers to read and understand the change, explaining it takes citizens’ voices away from City Council and all appeals will be to the hearing examiner and on to Superior Court which costs a great deal. She referred to an email from Gary Nelson that said the cost was $240 and attorney fees were $200-500/hour. She recalled the Council hearing approximately ten cases in the past. She suggested this change be reconsidered as the City Council makes serious decisions about housing, land use, the Shoreline Master Program, critical areas, etc. and she did not support having that done by the hearing examiner and Superior Court. Councilmember Johnson said she has experienced both sides of the process. When decisions were appealable to Superior Court in the past, her father protested a neighbor’s short subdivision when the hearing examiner made what she and her father felt was a bad decision. Her father hired an attorney and with her help, went through the process. Given the choice to go to Superior Court, they chose not to continue as they did not want to spend the money. As a Councilmember she has experienced this process when the Council has had to hire separate attorneys for the Council and go through elaborate quasi-judicial procedures. That experience convinced her this role was not the best for the City Council. Councilmember Johnson read from a presentation to the City Council from City Attorney Jeff Taraday that explains why this an appropriate role, “In considering whether the Council wants to continue in a quasi- judicial capacity, Mr. Taraday suggested we ask ourselves why. If it’s because the City Council can make better decisions than the hearing examiner, that they have more expertise than the hearing examiner, then that’s a valid reason to continue this practice so that we can correct the hearing examiner’s errors. There was another way to accomplish that, by appealing the hearing examiner’s decision under LUPA. For example, when the hearing examiner makes an unpopular decision or the City Council has concerns with the decision, the Council can vote to appeal the decision and direct the City Attorney to file a land use petition action appeal to superior court. As a result, the City Attorney would argue on the Council’s behalf to convince the court that the hearing examiner’s decision was wrong. He explained that there are benefits to that process from a risk management perspective. If he goes to court and argues the hearing examiner’s decision is wrong and the judge upholds the hearing examiner’s decision, no damage claim will be filed against the City. Conversely, if an appeal goes before the City Council acting as a decision maker and constituents are clamoring to overturn the hearing examiner decision and the Council does so when it shouldn’t, then the City could face a significant damage claim as a result of that action. He summarized that from a risk management standpoint, much of the same thing can be accomplished by directing him to appeal hearing examiner decisions versus having the Council in the position of the decision maker.” Councilmember Johnson found this very useful information for the City Council to consider; it is a way for the City Council to respond to constituents, to be able to have open conversations with them without jeopardizing Council decisions. Councilmember Johnson said when ponding how to ensure good decision making, one of the essential issues is the hearing examiner himself. If the City has a good hearing examiner, and she believed Phil Olbrechts was one of the best she has seen, who does not make mistakes and there haven’t been decisions overturned, the City rely on him and the Council can act as a check and balance. Upon very careful consideration, that is the direction she was leaning but she was willing to listen to testimony and think about the matter very thoroughly. Councilmember Johnson invited Mr. Taraday to add to what she read. Mr. Taraday said he still agreed with those comments, that was still his opinion in terms of weighing the pros and cons. If Councilmembers 7.2.d Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Exhibit 4: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 6 believe they have more expertise than the hearing examiner and can make better decisions, that is the one valid reason for keeping the Council in quasi-judicial decision making. The significant role the City Council can play on behalf of its citizens should not be discounted, to essentially be the citizens’ advocate by taking appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizens when the Council feels an error has been made. In that situation, the citizens do not pay any of the costs; and it is essentially a cost-free appeal to the City on behalf of the citizens assuming the City Attorney’s flat fee arrangement continues. He noted for the record, there is an assumption being made that Superior Courts are only accessible to those who hire attorneys. However, many LUPA cases brought against City were by pro se litigants on their own behalf; Superior Court does not necessarily require hiring counsel. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the June 10 comments submitted by Gary Nelson to the Planning Board, specifically Snohomish County Superior Court filing fees would be $240. Mr. Taraday said that was about right. Councilmember Teitzel inquired about the fee to appeal a hearing examiner decision to the City Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the City’s appeal fees:  Appeal of staff decision to the hearing examiner: $400  Appeal of Type III-B decision to City Council: $500  Appeal of a notice of civil violation: $880 Councilmember Teitzel summarized potentially an appeal to Superior Court would be less expensive than an appeal to the City Council. Councilmember Teitzel again referred to Mr. Nelson’s comments that state the filed appeal will cause delays in resolving each case. As of August 28, 2017, the waiting time for a LUPA civil appeal is approximately 9 to 10 months. Mr. Taraday answered LUPA cases are heard on a separate schedule, the waiting time quoted was probably true for civil actions generally, but LUPA cases, because they are on the record, they are generally given an expedited schedule that is usually faster. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the $200-$500/hour cost to be represented by an attorney was accurate. Mr. Taraday agreed that was in the ballpark, noting people who have come to the City Council have also hired lawyers; lawyers can be hired for either venue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it was more likely to see people represented in Superior Court, noting there have been a number of hearings where the appellant was not represented by an attorney. She recalled Councilmember Johnson saying her parent could not afford to take an issue to Superior Court, anticipating appealing to City Council would have been more affordable. She recalled in the past, the City Council upheld most of the hearing examiner’s decisions but also overturned some, based on fact, not on personal feelings or emotions. When Councilmembers are sworn in on a quasi-judicial matter, they can recuse themselves if they have any bias, ex-parte communication or conflict of interest. The only time the Council was required to hire a separate attorney was when a Councilmember filed a quasi-judicial appeal on an issue in their neighborhood. With regard to endless public hearings, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in the six years the Council heard quasi-judicial appeals, there were approximately ten. Mr. Lien clarified the point regarding endless public hearing was not related to quasi-judicial decisions; it was related to amendments to a different code section, reviews of approved permits (a permit that has been approved and construction has started and review of the permit can be opened and sent back to the hearing examiner). Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has faith in the City’s Hearing Examiner, Phil Olbrechts but people make mistakes and bringing an appeal to City Council provides the ability to double check his decisions. She recalled there were a couple times the Council reversed the hearing examiner’s decisions, not based on emotion or politics, but based on the Council’s interpretation versus the interpretation of one person. She urged the Council to think carefully about this, noting there were pitfalls in both processes. She agreed with Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis for the new Councilmembers in particular to read the information carefully because it takes away the rights that citizens used to have. She asked if a public hearing was held when this change was made. Mr. Lien answered the minutes of the three meetings where 7.2.d Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Exhibit 4: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 7 it was discussed are in the packet; the resolution was passed at the third meeting. He was uncertain whether a public hearing was held. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not see a public hearing in the minutes. On behalf of the newer Councilmembers, Mayor Pro Tem Nelson said they are no longer new. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the two key issues discussed in 2016, frustration with ex-parte contact prohibitions and liability issues for Councilmembers, recalling in the 3-4 quasi-judicial issues he has been involved in, avoiding ex-parte contact was difficult. When Councilmembers are approached and have to tell citizens they cannot talk about an issue, there is a sense of frustration on both the citizens’ part as well as the Councilmember’s. That was a key factor for him in considering this. Mr. Taraday said Councilmembers generally run for office to be responsive to constituents; it is frustration for elected officials in a quasi-judicial context because they cannot be responsive to their constituents when they are unable to talk to them. He suggested that was an issue that Councilmembers should think carefully about; whether they were comfortable with and wanted to be put in a situation whether they could not engage with constituents regarding a project or would they rather be able to engage, and be able to say, I’m concerned too and testify before the hearing examiner. Councilmembers could testify to the hearing examiner if they were liberated from the burden of remaining impartial because of the quasi-judicial aspect. Mr. Taraday said the Council may assume by hearing appeals, they will right a wrong and be on the side of their constituents and be the heroes of the day. However, sometimes the opposite happens, the Council is forced to vote against the will of their constituents such if the application meets the requirements, it must be approved. In that instance, not only can the Council not talk to their constituents, in addition they may end up doing the exact opposite of their constituents want the Council to do which could be uncomfortable and not necessarily the position the Council wants to be placed in. Councilmember Mesaros asked how many Type III-B appeals there have been in the five years. Mr. Lien answered there have been 4 since 2009, the Burnstead plat (upheld), Hillman critical area reasonable use variance (overturned), design review Building 10 (remanded to ADB and then overturned) and a fence height variance (upheld). Mr. Taraday referred to the Building 10 appeal, explaining a LUPA appeal was filed following the City Council’s action that was essentially stayed pending a new application and approval of the new application allowed the earlier LUPA to be dismissed. He clarified he did not want the Council to presume the City would have prevailed on the first LUPA; it is entirely possible that had that situation not been worked out, that case may not have gone the City’s way. Just because the City has not an adverse judgment recently, he did not want the City Council to be overly bullish on City’s chances of always prevailing. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said the Hillman critical area was a code problem and the appellant wrote the code change. The Council found an issue with the code and it was good to have someone fact- check the code. She said she has never seen a summary list of appeals or been asked to go with citizens to an appeal since 2016. Mr. Taraday said the code has not been changed to take the Council out of process yet. Mr. Lien said there have been no appeals to the Council since 2016. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis commented this same quasi-judicial approach went before the Snohomish County voters in November 2016 as Proposition 4 and the majority of voters voted no, 57.7% in Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the Hillman example and asked what the process would look like if that had been reviewed by Superior Court instead of the City Council. Mr. Lien explained that was a critical area reasonable use variance. The appellant did not write the code change; the code change was related to the definition of minimal reasonable economic use. The code said a single-family residence was a minimal 7.2.d Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Exhibit 4: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 8 reasonable economic use. The City Council overturned the hearing examiner’s decision because the Council determined what was proposed was not the minimal reasonable economic use. After the hearing, that section was removed from the definition of minimal reasonable economic use so that a single-family residence was no longer assumed to be minimal reasonable economic use. Mr. Taraday explained if the appellant had not had the option of coming to the City Council to challenge the hearing examiner’s decision, it would have gone to Superior Court and the City Attorney would have argued on the City’s behalf to convince the judge that that was the wrong decision and that the residence could have been smaller, etc. With regard to the code change, the need to make changes arises a variety of ways, via an application that does not reach a hearing where an ambiguity is pointed out and flagged for amendment, a hearing examiner decision that flags an issue for later amendment, etc. Ambiguity in the code will continue to arise whether it is the Council or Superior Court reviewing appeals. Councilmember Tibbott summarized the appeal could have happened either of two ways. Mr. Taraday agreed, it just would have been a different body making the decision. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the code amendment was made after the legal process was completed. Mr. Lien answered the code amendment does not necessarily have to wait until the decision is made but it would not apply to a project that is already vested. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the comment about overturning a decision/mistake made by the hearing examiner and asked what the appeal body was overturning. Mr. Taraday explained the hearing examiner makes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a decision. The decision has to rest on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It is difficult for a finding of fact to be overturned on a closed record appeal because, by definition, the appeal body is not receiving new evidence and is reviewing the same information the hearing examiner received. It is unlikely in looking at the same exact evidence, the appeal body will reach a different factual finding. There are situations where a finding of fact can be overturned but it is less common. Most of time, if the Council retained this function, the issue was trying to determine whether the hearing examiner made an error in its legal opinion. Those are legal arguments; frequently attorneys on both sides will make argument to the City Council explaining why the code should be interpreted one way or another. That was more likely to be in the realm of the City Council if the Council retained this quasi- judicial function. Councilmember Tibbott observed the Council would be serving as judges as if they had a specialty as lawyers and understanding the proceedings. Mr. Taraday answered essentially, by definition if the Council was ruling on a legal argument, they were playing a legal role. Councilmember Tibbott said he may be new to the Council, but he served four years on the Planning Board where there were also quasi-judicial reviews. He recalled some were handled well and some were handled poorly. Those that were handled poorly was due to the way they came to the Planning Board from staff. The Board was not adequately prepared, did not receive information in enough time to prevent ex-parte interaction and as a result some decisions were skewed by outside information that was beyond the closed record. He found that very distressing now that he understands what the process is supposed to look like. He did not want the Council to be in the position of ferreting that out and potentially at risk of liability due to mishaps. He assumed that could be fixed, but there were significant logistical steps that needed to be taken to protect the quasi-judicial process. His experience in a quasi-judicial role was not positive; it requires specialized training to interpret findings, especially real estate zoning laws which are within the realm of the hearing examiner to review. At this point he still supported Resolution 1367 and the role it outlined for the City Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers who had not been through the process to read the cases so they understand the Council’s role, anticipating staff could provide links to the information. She recalled one of the cases was regarding a fence and the point at which the height of the 7.2.d Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Exhibit 4: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 9 fence was measured. Mr. Lien clarified it was a fence on top of a retaining wall. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas recalled that decision was reversed. Mr. Lien advised it was upheld. With regard to ex-parte contact, in all the years she was on Council and heard appeals, she had only been contacted twice about cases and in both she very professionally said she could not discuss it and that stopped the conversation. She recalled during the process Councilmembers are asked to reveal ex-parte contact and on occasion a Councilmember recused themselves. Councilmember Mesaros recalled visiting City Hall and upon seeing Mr. Lien, asking him about a project and if there were any problems. Mr. Lien responded they should not talk about it because if there were problems and they were appealed, Councilmember Mesaros could be required to make a decision in a quasi- judicial hearing. That was insightful on Mr. Lien’s part. As Councilmember Tibbott said, a Councilmember may be talking to citizens about a project in its infancy and unknowingly be tainted by that discussion later in the process. As Mr. Taraday said, Councilmembers pride themselves on their accessibility to citizens; however, citizens may offer input early in the process before an appeal, resulting in a Councilmember being involved in ex-parte contact before the appeal process even begins. Mr. Lien said in reviewing the three meetings in 2016 agendas, none of them were public hearings. This item is on the extended agenda for September 18; the Council could have further discussion prior to a public hearing or schedule a public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson offered to work with Mr. Lien to select a date for the public hearing. Councilmembers were agreeable to that approach. 2. INTRODUCTION TO UPDATING CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS FOR WETLANDS Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien said this is the third time this topic has been presented to the Council. He reviewed:  Background o Completed comprehensive CAO update in May 2016 o June 2016 Department of Ecology Issues updated Wetland Guidance in Publication No. 16-06- 001 o Updated Wetland Guidance Incorporated into Shoreline Management Program o Shoreline Management Act vs. Growth Management Act  Shoreline Master Program applies in shoreline jurisdiction  CAO applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction o SMP Periodic Review  This updated focuses on SMP Excepted Sections o ECDC 23.50.010.B, Wetland Ratings. o ECDC 23.50.040.F.1, Standard Buffer Widths. o ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands. o ECDC 23.50.040.K, Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands  History repeats itself (almost) o Public Hearing before Planning Board on July 11, 2018 o Ecology issues new wetland guidance on July 12, 2018  “If you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you use these modified wetland buffer tables in your update.”  Ecology 2018 Wetland Guidance o “We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores.” o Wetland Buffer Requirement Tables 2016 Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington 7.2.d Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Exhibit 4: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 15 Councilmember Buckshnis referred to staff’s recommendation, pointing out having the utilities become private was not one of the options. She asked if privatization of water and sewer was common in a city like Edmonds. Ms. McConnell answered it is not common. With a new subdivision with a private road where there is not a need for the City to own and maintain the utility system, a private sewer main may be installed via the development process. The water main would be in the City street and water service lines to individual properties. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for confirmation that staff was not recommending privatization. Ms. McConnell agreed staff was not. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City needed to protect environment. Councilmember Johnson referred to the applicant’s BLA map, relaying her understanding there were two issues, first the lot line adjustment. It would be possible to create the amber and green lots in such a way that they could be built upon by allocating the northern portion of the amber lot to a different lot. If the intent was two building sites, one south of Excelsior Place and another north of Excelsior Place, both would be outside the critical areas and it would be possible build there. The second issue is the vacation of Excelsior Place. Although Excelsior Place serves as a private driveway, it is serving more than what a normal private driveway would serve, especially due to the northern, western and eastern sections. An improvement would be appropriate notwithstanding the current meandering onto private property. Since the Fire Department may require a 20-foot wide right-of-way, she concluded it did not make sense to abandon the public right-of-way so she will vote no. Duane Landsverk, applicant, asked Councilmember Johnson if she felt it was appropriate for the additional lots to the east, for them to suggest that they open the public right-of-way of Excelsior. First it would need to be constructed and then people would be sent to the end of Excelsior where they would trespass across neighboring lots to the east where there is no public access. Excelsior dead-ends and is only 20 feet wide. Councilmember Johnson said testimony has stated one can travel Excelsior Place and exit to the east. Mr. Landsverk said his private driveway meanders in and out of Excelsior; it is marked private and anyone using it is on private property. The public portion of Excelsior is 100% cut off. Councilmember Johnson asked if it was physically possible to drive to the east. Mr. Landsverk answered not without trespassing. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO VACATE WITH THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT IN EXHIBIT 1. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mayor Earling announced the Council would not discuss Agenda Items 8.1 and 8.2 tonight. Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:  Resolution No. 1367 o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity  Frustrations with ex-parte contact prohibitions  Liability issues for councilmembers o Resolution No. 1367  Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC modifying the City Council’s role in quasi-decision making processes o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367 7.2.e Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Exhibit 5: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 16  Council Quasi-judicial Decisions o Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities; Design review (where a public hearing by the architectural design board is required); Conditional use permits (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Zoning Variances; Home occupation permit (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Preliminary formal plat; and Preliminary planned residential development. o Applications (Type IV-A and IV-B): Final formal plats; Final planned residential development; and site specific rezone. o ECDC 17.00.030.C: The City Council also sits in a quasi-judicial role for variance applications from public agencies.  Potential Code Amendments o Type III-B o Type IV-A o ECDC 17.00.030 – Public agency variances o ECDC 20.100.040 – Review of Approved Permits o ECDC 20.06 (Open Record Public Hearings) and ECDC 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) o Development Agreements  ECDC 20.01.003 – Type III-B o Revisions to the table of land use decisions o Removing the City Council from appeal of quasi-judicial decisions could allow the Council to appeal on the behalf of citizens  Council would be provided notice of Type III decisions  Type IV-A: Subdivisions and PRDS o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments o All requirements of preliminary approval of been met o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would delegate City Council’s role in review of final formal plats and PRDs to staff  ECDC 17.00.030 – Public Agency Variance o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council  ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits o Conflicts with state law  Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW - One open record public hearing - ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings  Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW - “Finality” – Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim) - Habitat Watch v. Skagit County – Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process o New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to suspend or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which operates in a manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application  ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings 7.2.e Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Exhibit 5: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 17 o Confusing cross references regarding appeals o Combine into a single chapter o Added some language for prehearing conferences o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings  Development Agreements o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council o Council considers development agreement in closed record review o Likely process in conjunction with site specific rezone Mr. Lien said staff is seeking direction from Council regarding the proposed code amendments. Councilmember Teitzel commented there has been some incomplete information shared with the City Council from outside sources. There was an assertion that other City Councils have not gotten out of the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien displayed a survey of appeals to City Council from Municipal Research Center (MSRC) and City Attorney Jeff Taraday’s list serve poll: No appeals to City Council Appeals to City Council  Bainbridge Is  Lynnwood  Bellevue  Bremerton  Marysville  Bellingham  Buckley  MLT o Only premilitary plats and variances related to plats  Clyde Hill  Mukilteo o All other decisions are Court appeals  Duvall  Snohomish  Ellensburg  Everett  Shoreline  Kirkland  Federal Way  Spokane Vly  SeaTac (considering getting out)  Lakewood   Snoqualmie  Sumner Under review: Renton Councilmember Teitzel recalled there was a point made that Snohomish County Council had ballot measure Prop 4 several years ago that was similar to what the Council is considering. In reading the voters pamphlet and arguments for and against, he saw nothing about the Snohomish County Council having the ability to consider an objection by a citizen and potentially taking appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizen which is something the City Council is considering. He asked if Snohomish County Council had the option to appeal on behalf of citizens. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding of 2016 Snohomish County Prop 4 was what he forward to Councilmembers from the voters pamphlet. He did not have any information that the Snohomish County was considering the process staff has suggested where the City Council could appeal the Hearing Examiner decision. There were similarities between this proposal and Prop 4 but they are not identical. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether any of the cities had gone from quasi-judicial to non-quasi- judicial. Mr. Lien said that would have taken a lot of research. Councilmember Buckshnis said this information only identifies cities that have appeals to City Council and cities that do not. It does not address other cities such as Edmonds that have changed. She hoped Edmonds would continue to have appeals to City Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the cities that still have appeals to City Council and believed there were more. With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis’ question, Mr. Taraday explained cities have only had Hearing Examiner authority since approximately 1977; most of those cities preexisted that date. One could assume most Council’s had quasi-judicial capacity before 1977. Some cities may have abandoned quasi-judicial a 7.2.e Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Exhibit 5: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 18 long time ago or more recently, but it would be a time-consuming exercise to determine who abandoned it and when. Councilmember Buckshnis commented politics were way different in 1977. What is going on now is relevant including that some large cities still use a quasi-judicial system. Mr. Lien said Edmonds switched to the Hearing Examiner process in1980 and appeals went to City Council. Prior to that, the City had a Board of Adjustment that heard variances and that was a quasi-judicial decision process. Board of Adjustment decisions were appealable to Superior Court. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, said the quasi-judicial issue is important because, 1) it impacts more residents, 2) the action the Council takes will maintain the path of working together or begin to drive a wedge between certain groups, and 3) people outside Edmonds will make decisions about the community and how it develops instead of local officials. After researching this issue, she was opposed to the effort remove this from the Council. The main reason this issue was being brought up was lability concerns raised by some Councilmembers; by eliminating the quasi-judicial process from the Council, the risk to the City will be greatly reduced. This seems to be a weak reason because the Council has extensive legal representation as well as liability insurance that could be used to defend any decision reached by the Council that ends up in litigation. She pointed out the recent action taken by the Council to pass the safe storage gun ordinance and assumed legal counsel cautioned that passing such an ordinance might result in litigation. The Council did it anyway and now the City is being sued. She asked whether removing this process from the Council would benefit residents today or in the future, make it easier for residents to resolve disagreements or issues or make it more complicated, and whether it will keep the Council directly involved in Edmonds issues. She concluded abdicating this vital function would place a barrier between the elected officials and the citizens and will result in entities outside Edmonds making important decisions for Edmonds instead of local elected officials. She urged the Council to retain the Council in this process. John Reed, Edmonds, explained when making improvements to their home on 6th Avenue South in 1990, an issue arose regarding access to a deck they planned to add on the west side of their home. Their side setback was 5 feet but there was a 3½ wide deck stairway that extended part of the length of the house. They applied for a variance to extend the deck to the end of the home and then cut over to the required 5- foot setback. The Hearing Examiner denied their request so they appealed to the City Council under the quasi-judicial process in place at that time. They and their neighbors represented themselves at the City Council. One of the neighbors 25 feet away told the Council they had wild, late night parties and the deck would infringe on their privacy and ability to sleep and the Council denied their request for a variance by a 3-4 vote. They subsequently designed access to their deck from inside the home. They undoubtedly would not have paid a large fee, traveled to Everett and presented their request to Snohomish County Superior Court. Since 1990 the process was changed to require appeals to Superior Court and then in 2009 changed back to appeals to Council. He urged the Council to retain the current process because he believed it was what the citizens who elected them expect. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE), Mr. Reed referred to a letter, Exhibit 21 in the packet, highlighting ACE’s support for retaining the quasi-judicial process at the City Council level because Edmonds citizens elect Councilmembers to represent them and the existing process retains that representation. It provides a less costly way for citizens to have their voices heard by the local residents they elect. While the basis for this change is the risk involved in quasi-judicial hearings, in fact all City Council decisions carry a degree of risk which is the reason for the City Attorney and why the City carries liability insurance. Very few land use matters are currently appealed beyond the Hearing Examiner and the Council spends little time on appeals. Councilmembers are familiar with Edmonds issues, but Snohomish County Superior Court and land use staff are not. ACE urged the Council to vote to retain the current process for quasi-judicial appeals. 7.2.e Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Exhibit 5: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 19 Gary Nelson, Edmonds, referred to his correspondence to the City Council and that Planning Board describing his opposition to moving from a citizen-friend approach to quasi-judicial matters to an unfriendly approach that requires an appeal to Snohomish County Superior Court. When the Council passed Resolution 1367 in 2016, the Charter Review Commission put Prop 4 on the ballot which essentially addressed the same idea of moving to a court appeal. There was little public discussion prior to the election; however, 57.7% of Edmonds voters voted no. His philosophy is the best government is the one closest to the people which is the City Council. The City Council acts as a jury on many of the appeals that would come to the Council under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). It does not require any specialized training; jurists do not have any training when they make a decision. Citizens rely on the City Council’s judgment; the Council is presented material on the record and citizens expect the Council to use that judgment in the best interest of the City. He asked the Council to oppose this change and continue the process that has been successful for many years. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he participated in appeals while on the City Council; those decisions are important to people making the appeal. He felt privileged to serve the citizens as a judge and current Councilmembers should feel the same, that they are looking out for the citizens. This system has worked for a long time because the Council follows strict rules of behavior and have not gotten themselves into a lawsuit. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, strongly opposed these changes and feared this was another piecemeal amendment to the code. In March 2015 the City launched a major update of the development code including hiring Makers to assist with that process. He met with Makes and the City to describe his issues with the code; the code has been highly flawed for a long time. He recalled Duane Bowman saying in 2005 that the code needed to be updated. Consideration of this change should be done as part of a comprehensive, major update of the code. The City’s webpage regarding the code update has not been updated since March 2016 so he had no idea where that update stands. He did not have faith in the City’s Hearing Examiner system and if anything, the City Council should hear more appeals, not less. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of public hearing. Councilmember Tibbott referred to four cases brought to City Council prior to his being on the Council, two related to larger developers, one of which was Building 10. He asked how long it took for the Council to hear that appeal. Mr. Lien answered the Building 10 appeals took place over four Council meetings. There was one closed record review before the Council for the first set of appeals; that was cut short and remanded back to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to issue findings. The ADB issued findings, it was appealed again and the City considered the appeals over three meetings. Councilmember Tibbott said he was present for one of those and recalled the presentation to Council took over an hour. One of his concerns is the actual process the Council could look forward to. To him, there was a big difference between hearing a review for a neighbor adding on to their deck versus a large project like Building 10 or the Burnstead subdivision. He asked how long the Burnstead appeal took. Mr. Lien recalled it took at least 2-3 Council meetings. Mr. Taraday said Burnstead originated at City Council before he was City Attorney, went to the courts, the Court of Appeals remanded to the Hearing Examiner and then it came to the City Council on another administrative appeal. Councilmember Tibbott said he was sympathetic to the idea of listening to appeals from neighbors on personal issues but those cannot be separated from the larger appeals that take many days, have a great deal of detailed information and require a courtroom-like setting for presenting information. He recalled presentations to the Council from citizen groups and others presenting information with no opportunity to cross-examine and verify facts. The larger and more complex the issue, the greater the need for the Council to have the ability to cross-examine and verify information which requires more than a closed record review. 7.2.e Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Exhibit 5: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 20 Councilmember Tibbott explained when the Council is asked to review an appeal, the Council is asked to judge the Hearing Examiner’s decision-making process, not the validity of the project. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining the Council does not have any decisions where the Council holds the open record hearing. If the Council were holding the open record hearing, Councilmembers could cross-examine witnesses. The Council is not a jury, juries hear original testimony. The Hearing Examiner hears witnesses speak and has the opportunity to ask questions and play a fact-finding role. When appeals come to the Council, it is on record and the Council only hears what was already provided to the Hearing Examiner and no new information can be provided. Councilmember Tibbott asked what it would be like for a citizen to take a request for an appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday recalled a couple citizens have filed their own LUPA appeals and represented themselves pro se. LUPA appeals are on the record, there are no witnesses, no new evidence, basically the petitioner writes a brief explaining to the court why the decision was erroneous. The City responds to that brief with an explanation of why the decision was correct and the petitioner is provided an opportunity for rebuttal to explain why the City’s argument is wrong and there is some time for oral argument in front of the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked how long reviews in front of a judge usually last. Mr. Taraday answered the oral argument in front of the court includes an initial hearing which is usually 10 minutes and the hearing on the merits lasts 20-60 minutes depending on the generosity of the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it would possible to retain a review process that is not a quasi- judicial review. For example, a citizen does not agree with a Hearing Examiner decision and wants to appeal it to Superior Court but has an opportunity to bring it to the City Council first. The City Council could hear the arguments and chose to appeal on the citizen behalf. Mr. Taraday said that is one of the ideas he and Mr. Lien are considering; that is the suggestion about providing notice of hearings to the City Council. The City Council would receive a notice of application whenever there was a Type III proposal and would have the opportunity to attend the hearing. Once the decision is issued and there is an aggrieved constituent who feels justice was not done, the system being contemplated would allow the City Council to appeal the Hearing Examiner’s decision in the name of the City on behalf of a constituent who feel it was unjustly decided. That decision could be discussed with legal counsel in executive session as potential litigation and Council could get a candid sense from the City Attorney on the merits of the Hearing Examiner’s decision and the Council would decide in open session whether to appeal. That is a way of representing constituents in a manner that allow Councilmembers to talk to them and in a manner that was truly responsive to their concerns without being bound by the decision criteria when the Council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity. Councilmember Tibbott commented under that scenario, Councilmembers could walk a property, ask questions, etc. Mr. Taraday agreed, there would be no restriction on ex parte communication in that scenario; Councilmembers could talk with constituents, conduct site visits, etc. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the Council could request an open meeting with citizens to address the issue with Council. Mr. Taraday said there are only 21 days to file a LUPA appeal. For example, if the Hearing Examiner’s decision is issued on a Friday, constituents could come to the next Council meeting to ask the Council to appeal or one or more Councilmembers could inquire about it offline and/or discuss it in executive session. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the process whereby a citizen who felt aggrieved by a Hearing Decision could ask the Council to consider it and asked how a citizen would know that avenue is available to them. Mr. Taraday said the code language has not yet not finalized. If the City Council directed, staff could to develop that process. Councilmember Teitzel was not interested in forcing citizens to go to Superior Court without having that course available. If there was a less formal process whereby citizens could approach the Council to say the Hearing Examiner erred, the Council could consider it and determine if it had merit and appeal to Superior Court on the citizen’s behalf. If that avenue did not exist, he supported retaining 7.2.e Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Exhibit 5: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 21 quasi-judicial authority. If that avenue exists, he was leaning away from the Council retaining quasi-judicial authority as long he was convinced that avenue was available and reasonable for citizens. Mayor Earling advised Agenda Item 9.1 would be moved to a future meeting. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Johnson pointed out staff’s research included two appeals that required counsel for the City Council, Carol Morris. She asked how much was spent on the Burnstead and Pt. Edwards projects. Mr. Lien said he could research cost. The City utilized Carol Morris on three appeals; the only one where she was not hired was the fence appeal. Councilmember Johnson recalled there was advice two years ago from WCIA, MSRC and the City Attorney to move away from the quasi-judicial review. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in seeing in writing what has been discussed behind the scenes. She was not seeing much difference between the quasi-judicial process and that process which would still take time, Council involvement, attorneys and staff. She asked staff to return with that process in writing. Councilmember Tibbott raised a point of order that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was insinuating there have been private discussions on these matters. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified her request was for staff to return with a proposal for the Council to appeal decisions to Superior Court on a citizen’s behalf. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email stating the City has had four closed record reviews since 2009. Mr. Lien said there have been four closed record reviews on appeals since 2009, there have been other closed record reviews such as the public agency variance. Councilmember Buckshnis said those closed record review appeals were Pt. Edwards, Willowdale, Hillman and Burnstead. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis said those were part of the normal part of a Councilmember’s job. Councilmembers are not scientists, yet they make important decisions about the Shoreline Master Program. She did not see any reason to change the current process. Councilmember Tibbott said one of the things he was trying to understand was changes in state law related to the review process such as only one closed record review and one appeal is allowed. He asked if there was a further process if those two are exhausted. Mr. Taraday answered administratively there is not, administratively the State allows one open record hearing and one closed record review. Councilmember Tibbott asked if a citizen could appeal the Council’s decision on a Hearing Examiner’s to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday explained the open record hearing takes place at the Hearing Examiner, the closed record review takes place at the City Council which is the end of the administrative work and there is either a final decision that no one appeals or there is a subsequent appeal that goes to Court. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON, TO FORWARD THIS TO A FUTURE AGENDA WITH A LONGER TIME FOR DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has been discussing this for a while tonight and there still seems to be a lot of questions. She would like to have time to discuss it so she recommended moving it to another meeting. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO INCLUDE WHEN THIS COMES BACK, DETAILS ABOUT THE PROCESS WHEREBY A CITIZEN COULD COME TO COUNCIL, PRESENT THE FACTS 7.2.e Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Exhibit 5: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 22 ABOUT THEIR CONCERN ABOUT A HEARING EXAMINER’S DECISION AND THE COUNCIL COULD APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZEN. Mr. Lien said staff would return with code language regarding how the Council could appeal the Hearing Examiner or ADB decision on the citizen’s behalf. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE REPORT Due to the late hour, this item was omitted from the agenda. 2. DISCUSSION ON PROHIBITING EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE (EPS OR “STYROFOAM”) IN FOOD PACKAGING Due to the late hour, this item was moved to a future agenda. 3. VIDEO STREAMING OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Council President Nelson commented this issue has been raised in a variety of ways. Previously all Council meetings were televised. Then the Council changed to a committee structure, committees meet in separate meetings and there is only an audio recording. Anyone wanting a copy of the audio recording must make a submit a request. What is accessible to citizens online with regard to committee meetings is minutes. He wanted the Council to do better job in terms of transparency; as Gary Council President Nelson said, the best government is one that is closest to the people. If the public is unable to attend a meeting, the next best thing is to watch it live. An op ed by Teresa Whipple on September 9th, Let’s Talk about Transparency, relayed her frustration in trying to cover Council committee meetings when she cannot be in three places at the same time. To that end, he invited a subject matter expert, Michelle Earl-Hubbard, Vice President of the Board of Washington Coalition for Open Government, a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring transparency and open government to speak to the Council. She is also a media law attorney. Ms. Earl-Hubbard introduced her daughter, a youth outreach ambassador, also interested in open government. Council President Nelson originally asked Toby Nixon, President of Washington Coalition for Open Government but he is a member of the Kirkland City Council which also meets on Tuesdays. She is an open government and media law attorney representing news organizations through Washington and in five other states and for the past 22+ years she has handled litigation involving open government laws. She urged the City to consider doing in committees what they already do in Council meetings. It is wonderful there are cameras in Council Chambers livestreaming the meeting and that there is downloadable, click on demand video available online. However, because committee meetings are held simultaneously in separate rooms, the public cannot watch them. She recognized the challenge for the press, they cannot be in all the places they need to be. In places like Edmonds that do not have large newspapers, television stations or media outlets, what happens does not get covered unless there are citizens like My Edmonds News. Ms. Earl-Hubbard urged the Council to add what they already do in Council meetings to their committee meetings because seeing is believing. A citizen could record a meeting themselves and put it on You Tube or their Facebook page, but it would be their version and may not be authentic or gavel-to-gavel and may be taken out of context. Therefore, it is always wiser for the government to control the mic and put it all out 7.2.e Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Exhibit 5: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt (Land Use Permit Decision-Making and Quasi-Judicial Process) City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/20/2018 Council Budget Amendments Discussion Staff Lead: Mike Nelson Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History On October 9, 2018, the Mayor presented the Proposed 2019 City Budget to City Council. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative City Councilmembers will have a preliminary discussion on any amendments they would like to submit for the 2019 City Budget. 7.3 Packet Pg. 452 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/20/2018 Presentation of 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 19, 2018 Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No.4 with Murraysmith. Staff Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the November 27th City Council meeting. Narrative In April 2018, Redside Construction began work on site improvements and recoating of the 1.5MG Five Corners Reservoir. Murraysmith is the design engineer of record for this project and they have been providing engineering support services during the construction phase. The proposed supplemental agreement will provide additional budget for support services for the upcoming work on the 3.0MG Reservoir. Additional services have been required to address submittal reviews, change order support, on-site inspections, structural engineering support and corrosion repairs. The proposed fee for the Supplemental Agreement is $59,810. The fee includes $6,000 in management reserve to address unforeseen work, if needed, on the 3.0MG Reservoir. The additional services will be paid from the Water Utility Fund. The supplemental agreement raises the total contract amount with Murraysmith to $508,414. Background On August 3, 2015, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement for $71,019 with Murray Smith & Associates (MSA) to complete a preliminary study and recommendations for the Five Corners Reservoir. 7.4 Packet Pg. 453 On April 18, 2016 the City entered into a $60,465 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 Supplemental Agreement 2 with MSA. The contract included final design, plans specs and construction cost estimates, surveying and mapping and bidding engineering services. On March 28, 2018 the City entered into a $107,846 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 project. On June 25, 2018 the City entered into a $30,445 Supplemental Agreement 4 with Murraysmith. The contract included 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 7.4 Packet Pg. 454 Original Contract No. 6575 Supplemental Agreement 5 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 5 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, March 28, 2018 and June 25, 2018; and WHEREAS, additional tasks to the Scope of Work have been identified; 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, also amended by Supplemental Agreement No. 2, dated April 7, 2017, amended again by Supplemental Agreement No. 3, dated March 28, 2018 and amended once more by Supplemental Agreement No. 4, dated June 25, 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, 3 and 4, 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 Supplemental Agreement No. 1, which was also increased by $178,829 by Supplemental Agreement No. 2, increased again by $107,846 by Supplemental Agreement No. 3 and increased once more by $30,445 by Supplemental Agreement No. 4 is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $59,810 for the additional scope of work identified 7.4.a Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement [Revision 1] (MSA Supplement for Five Corners Reservoir) \\edmsvr-deptfs\Engineering\Staff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5KA.Five Corners Reservoir Recoating\MSA.Supp 5.doc 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 $508,414 ($71,019, plus $60,465, plus $178,829, plus $107,846, plus $30,445, plus $59,810). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement, as amended by Supplemental Agreement No. 1, 2, 3 and 4, 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. 5, 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, 4 and 5 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 7.4.a Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement [Revision 1] (MSA Supplement for Five Corners Reservoir) \\edmsvr-deptfs\Engineering\Staff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5KA.Five Corners Reservoir Recoating\MSA.Supp 5.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: 7.4.a Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement [Revision 1] (MSA Supplement for Five Corners Reservoir) EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK City of Edmonds Five Corners Reservoirs Recoating Project Phase 3 - Construction Support Services Supplemental Services No. 5 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 unanticipated additional project management and coordination, shop drawings and submittal reviews, requests for information, on-call construction observation, structural engineering services, unanticipated tasks and development of routine monitoring and maintenance recommendations. The scope and fee have been developed based on discussions with City staff and understanding of the project. Scope of Work The supplemental construction support services are for the following scope of work tasks:  Task 301 – Project Management and Coordination  Task 302 – Shop Drawings and Submittals Review  Task 303 – Request for Information and Change Orders  Task 304 – On-call Construction Observation  Task 305 – Subconsultant Services  Task 309 – Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed)  Task 311 – Routine Monitoring & Maintenance Recommendations  Task 312 – 3.0 MG Roof Seal Weld Cost Evaluation Task 301 – Project Management and Coordination 301.1 Additional Coordination with City Murraysmith will continue coordination with the City’s Project Manager via phone conversations and e-mail to communicate project decisions, project status, work activities, and issues requiring City input. City of Edmonds MURRAYSMITH Five Corners Reservoir Construction Support October 2018 Supplemental Services No. 5 – Page 1 7.4.a Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement [Revision 1] (MSA Supplement for Five Corners Reservoir) City of Edmonds October 2018 MURRAYSMITH Five Corners Reservoir Construction Support Supplemental Services No. 5 – Page 2 301.2 Additional Staff and Subconsultant Management Murraysmith’s Project Manager will continue to manage project staff and subconsultants to ensure all services are in conformance with the scope of services, fee estimate, and schedule. 301.3 Additional Invoices and Budget Oversight Murraysmith’s Project Manager will continue to monitor project costs and manage budget and tasks, including preparation and submission of monthly invoices and progress reports. Assumptions  The original scope of work assumed the total length of construction support services would be eleven (11) months. Based on the current status of progress by the Contractor, it is estimated that this phase will take approximately 14 months. Task Deliverables  Correspondence, e-mails and other documentation  Up to three (3) additional monthly billing statements and activity reports, for a total of fourteen (14). 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 maintain a log of submittals received from the contractor, noting the date received, item submitted on, applicable specification section, resolution and current status. 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 and Supplement No. 4 assumed a total of 47 Murraysmith submittal reviews. As of September 19th, Murraysmith has received 51 submittals, including resubmittals, for review. We anticipate approximately 7 additional submittals, 7.4.a Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement [Revision 1] (MSA Supplement for Five Corners Reservoir) City of Edmonds October 2018 MURRAYSMITH Five Corners Reservoir Construction Support Supplemental Services No. 5 – Page 3 including resubmittals, based on the current submittal review status; for a total of 58 Murraysmith submittal reviews. Task Deliverables  Submittal review forms as requested by the City in response to contractor submittals. Task 303 – Requests for Information and Change Orders 303.1 Additional Requests for Information At the direction of the City, Murraysmith will continue to receive and respond to contractor Request for Information (RFI) or their request for clarification of the Contract Documents and/or design intent. Murraysmith will interpret the meaning of the Contract Documents and will continue to provide the City with clarifications or explanation of the design intent and/or contract requirements. Murraysmith will also maintain a log of RFIs received from the contractor, noting the date received, subject, resolution, and the date Murraysmith’s response was delivered to the City. Assumptions  City will continue to take the lead in receiving, reviewing, and responding to contractor RFI’s and change order requests.  City will continue to provide direction to Murraysmith with respect to involvement in RFI’s.  The preparation and participation in the conference call, on September 20th, regarding corrosion pit repair is also included under this task. Task Deliverables  Responses to RFIs and clarifications of the Contract Documents as requested by the City. Task 304 – On-Call Construction Observation Support At the request of the City, Murraysmith will continue to assist the City in providing field observation services during construction of the project. 304.1 Additional On-Site Observations, Coating Inspection and Testing At the direction of the City, Murraysmith will continue to conduct on-site observations of the coating preparation and application work in progress to assist in determining if the work is proceeding in accordance with the contract documents. Work under this task also includes periodic inspection and dry film thickness testing of coating systems and confirmation of completion of corrosion pit repair work. 7.4.a Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement [Revision 1] (MSA Supplement for Five Corners Reservoir) City of Edmonds October 2018 MURRAYSMITH Five Corners Reservoir Construction Support Supplemental Services No. 5 – Page 4 304.2 Prepare Additional Daily Reports Continue to prepare daily reports recording the construction contractor’s hours on the job-site, weather conditions, data relative to potential changed conditions, list of job site visitors, daily activities, decisions, observations in general, and specific observations in more detail when required, such as observing test procedures. Record names, addresses and telephone numbers of all contractors, subcontractors and major suppliers of materials and equipment. Provide copies to the City for filing purposes. Assumptions  The City will continue to provide a full-time on-site inspector and continue to lead administration and management of the construction contract and communicating with the construction contractor.  The original scope of work assumed Murraysmith would conduct up to 26 days of on-site observations in support of the City’s inspector, for up to 5 hours per day including travel time. An additional 9 days of on-site observation is assumed for budgeting purposes, for a total of 35 days.  Per a conference call with the City on September 20th, Murraysmith will observe the corrosion pit repairs performed by the Contractor to determine if they were performed in accordance with the Engineer’s recommendations. Two (2) full days are anticipated to perform this work. Task Deliverables  Daily reports for each day of construction observation. Task 305 – Subconsultant Services This task provides for support services during construction provided by subconsultants for the project, as requested by the City or as warranted by the work, as described below. 305.1 Additional Structural Engineering Peterson Structural Engineers will continue to provide structural engineering services during construction as follows.  Review and respond to structural construction inquiries and RFIs.  Attend up to two (2) structural observation site visits for the reservoir improvements.  Prepare and submit structural observation reports.  Perform a site visit to observe the corrosion pits in the 1.5 MG reservoir and develop repair criteria for the Contractor’s use.  Perform a follow-up site visit to determine allowance for targeted reduction in pit repair criteria to include in observation memorandum. 7.4.a Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement [Revision 1] (MSA Supplement for Five Corners Reservoir) City of Edmonds October 2018 MURRAYSMITH Five Corners Reservoir Construction Support Supplemental Services No. 5 – Page 5  Perform structural design for a new davit crane mount fall prevention system for interior access to the 1.5 MG and 3.0 MG reservoirs.  Review and evaluate potential roof seal welding of the 3.0 MG reservoir. 305.2 Additional Corrosion Engineering Northwest Corrosion, LLC will continue to provide corrosion engineering services during construction to assess the condition of the 3.0 MG reservoir roof as part of the roof seal weld cost evaluation, as detailed below.  Perform ultrasonic thickness testing of 3.0 MG reservoir exterior roof. Measurements to be taken at areas of interior beam/roof plate overlap to determine extent of potential corrosion damage at these prone sites. Representative measurements will be taken at multiple locations all around the roof and will include a minimum of one-hundred readings. This testing will be similar to that performed on the 1.5 MG reservoir.  Conduct an inspection of the upper interior roof surfaces. The purpose of this work is to determine locations of corrosion related issues, particularly at locations prone to crevice corrosion at above-water locations, such as overlapping roof plates, beam intersections, and fastening hardware. This work will either be completed from a raft while the reservoir is full or from a provided high-lift equipment with the reservoir empty.  Develop a report detailing the results of the inspection. Task 309 – Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed) An additional reserve budget amount has been included in the fee estimate for work under this task, which may include additional unanticipated work not specifically identified in the scope of work tasks defined above. Such work items will be undertaken only after written authorization from the City. Task 311 – Routine Monitoring & Maintenance Recommendations Per the City’s request on September 20th, Murraysmith will develop a brief memorandum describing recommended monitoring of the roof coatings and corrosion on the 1.5 MG reservoir, routine maintenance to extend the serviceability of the 1.5 MG reservoir roof structure until it is replaced, and general recommendations for reservoir routine monitoring and maintenance. Assumptions  The memorandum is assumed to be approximately two (2) pages in length. Most of the information in the memorandum will be presented in list and/or table format.  Pictures of the existing reservoir will not be included with the memorandum. 7.4.a Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement [Revision 1] (MSA Supplement for Five Corners Reservoir) City of Edmonds October 2018 MURRAYSMITH Five Corners Reservoir Construction Support Supplemental Services No. 5 – Page 6 Task Deliverables  Memorandum will be submitted to the City via email in electronic PDF format. Task 312 – 3.0 MG Roof Seal Weld Cost Evaluation Per the City’s request on September 27th, Murraysmith will perform a cost evaluation for the potential seal weld of the 3.0 MG reservoir roof as detailed below.  Coordinate subconsultant’s field work and review Northwest Corrosion and Peterson Structural Engineers developed inspection findings and reports.  Review 3.0 MG reservoir interior photos from the float inspection performed in November 2015.  Develop cost estimate(s) for seal welding and other potential recommendations.  Develop technical memorandum detailing improvement recommendations and planning level cost estimates. Assumptions  Murraysmith will use information from subconsultants and previously collected during the project to perform the cost evaluation; a site visit will not be necessary. Task Deliverables  Memorandum will be submitted to the City via email in electronic PDF format. 7.4.a Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement [Revision 1] (MSA Supplement for Five Corners Reservoir) LABOR HOURSESTIMATED FEESPrincipal Engineer VProfessional Engineer VIIIProfessional Engineer VIEngineering Designer IITechnician IVAdmin IIHoursLaborTotal$244$194$175$137$146$99PSE NWCTask 301 - Project Management and Coordination-$ -$ -$ Task 301.1 - Additional Coordination with City 88 1,400$ -$ 1,400$ Task 301.2 - Staff and Subconsultant Management 3 1013 2,482$ -$ 2,482$ Task 301.3 - Invoices and Budget Oversight 3 63 12 2,079$ -$ 2,079$ Task 301 Subtotal6024003335,961$ -$ -$ -$ 5,961$ Task 302 - Shop Drawings and Submittal Review -$ -$ -$ Task 302.1 - Additional Shop Drawings and Submittal Review 3 1013 2,332$ -$ 2,332$ Task 302 Subtotal0310000132,332$ -$ -$ -$ 2,332$ Task 303 - Request for Information and Change Orders -$ -$ -$ Task 303.1 - Additional Requests for Information 8 2230 5,402$ -$ 5,402$ Task 303 Subtotal0822000305,402$ -$ -$ -$ 5,402$ Task 304 - On-Call Construction Observation -$ -$ -$ Task 304.1 - Additional On-Site Observations, Coating Inspection & Testing6161 10,675$ 250$ 10,925$ Task 304.2 - Prepare Additional Daily Reports1111 1,925$ -$ 1,925$ Task 304 Subtotal00720007212,600$ -$ -$ 250$ 12,850$ Task 305 - Subconsultant Services -$ -$ -$ Task 305.1 - Additional Structural Engineering0 -$ 13,450$ -$ 13,450$ Task 305.2 - Additional Corrosion Engineering0 -$ 5,954$ -$ 5,954$ Task 305 Subtotal0000000-$ 13,450$ 5,954$ -$ 19,403$ Task 309 - Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed)-$ -$ -$ Task 309.1 - Additional Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed)0 6,000$ -$ 6,000$ Task 309 Subtotal00000006,000$ -$ -$ -$ 6,000$ Task 311 - Routine Monitoring & Maintenance Recommendations-$ -$ -$ Task 311.1 - Routine Monitoring & Maintenance Recommendations1 3 122 18 3,124$ -$ 3,124$ Task 311 Subtotal1312002183,124$ -$ -$ -$ 3,124$ Task 312 - 3.0 MG Roof Seal Weld Cost Evaluation-$ -$ -$ Task 312.1 - 3.0 MG Roof Seal Weld Cost Evaluation1 4 202 27 4,718$ 20$ 4,738$ Task 312 Subtotal1420002274,718$ -$ -$ 20$ 4,738$ TOTAL - ALL TASKS81816000719340,137$ 13,450$ 5,954$ 270$ 59,810$ EXHIBIT BSUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES NO. 5SubconsultantExpensesFIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR RECOATING PROJECTCITY OF EDMONDS FEE ESTIMATEPHASE 3 - CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICESCity of EdmondsOctober 2018Murraysmith, Inc.Five Corners Reservoirs Recoating ProjectPage 17.4.aPacket Pg. 464Attachment: Murraysmith Supplemental Agreement [Revision 1] (MSA Supplement for Five Corners City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/20/2018 Drainage Easement at 1015 Bell Street Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History None. Staff Recommendation Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the November 27th City Council meeting. Narrative The drainage system at the end of Bell Street in front of 1015 Bell St is currently a ‘sump’ or infiltration system. The system is undersized and causes flooding during heavy or extended periods of rain. Additionally, the infiltration system is located upstream of a steep slope. After discussions with the homeowner at 1015 Bell Street, staff have proposed a new piped drainage system to connect the Bell Street drainage system to the system in the lower alley to the north. The new pipe would ensure a reliable route for drainage to flow, eliminating the flooding of private property at this location and eliminating the infiltration of surface water upland of a steep slope area. The requested easement would encumber the west most 10’ of the property at 1015 Bell St, in an area which currently serve as their driveway and parking area, and would allow for the installation and permanent maintenance of the new drain line. The homeowner has been amenable to the proposal. Attachments: Easement Vicinity Map 7.5 Packet Pg. 465 Return Address: City Clerk City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Grantor(s): Dorothy Thomas Grantee: City of Edmonds Abbreviated Legal: Lot 35 and 36, Block 41, City of Edmonds Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 00434204103500 UTILITY EASEMENT Property Address: 1015 Bell St, Edmonds, WA 98020 IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantor(s) herein, the undersigned, Dorothy Thomas, hereby grant(s) to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation, a permanent easement for the installation, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or replacement of a storm drain pipe and necessary appurtenances over, across, through, and below the following described property, and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth and other obstructions thereon interfering with the location, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or replacement of said storm drain pipe and necessary appurtenances, together with the right of access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. The easement hereby granted is located in the COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and is more particularly described as the following property: Lot 35 and 36, Block 41, City of Edmonds, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of plats, Page 39, Records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington The easement area shall be the west 10’ of said lot. THE CITY agrees to restore to substantially the original condition such improvements as are disturbed during the construction, maintenance, and repair of said utility or utilities, provided the grantor(s), their heirs, or assigns shall not construct any permanent structure over, upon, or within the permanent easement. DATED THIS DAY OF 20 Dorothy Thomas STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me Dorothy Thomas , to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF , 20_____ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at 7.5.a Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Easement (Drainage Easement at 1015 Bell Street) © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet Notes Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 188.080 1:4,514 Vicinity Map 376.2 7.5.b Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Vicinity Map (Drainage Easement at 1015 Bell Street)