Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
2019-06-18 City Council - Full Agenda-23761
2
3
4
5
6
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
snl. ,nyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JUNE 18, 2019, 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2019
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2019
3. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 11, 2019
4. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
5. Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages
6. April 2019 Monthly Financial Report
7. PFD Board Candidate City Council Appointment
8. Confirm Appointment of Candidates for the Youth Commission
9. Confirm Appointment of Candidate to a Board or Commission
10. Confirm Appointment of Candidate to a Board or Commission
11. Barnard settlement agreement
12. Authorization for Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Services Agreement with the Snohomish
County, for development of an on -going water quality monitoring program for Lake Ballinger
13. Authorization for Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mountlake Terrace for
aquatic vegetation removal in Lake Ballinger
14. 10-ft Sanitary Sewer Easement along the west property boundary of 625 Alder Street
PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Parametrix for the Edmonds
Street Waterfront Connector (45 min)
AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW, PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. ACTION ITEMS
8
9.
1. Land Use Permit Decision -Making and Quasi -Judicial Process (40 min)
POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS
1. ECC 5.32 and 5.05.060; Park Rules and Dog Rules (15 min)
2. Utility Rate Analysis & future adoption of a Utility Rate Ordinance (30 min)
REPORTS ON COUNCIL COMMITTEES
1. Monthly Council Subcommittee Reports and Minutes (10 min)
Edmonds City Council Agenda
June 18, 2019
Page 1
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(1).
13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
June 18, 2019
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2019
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
06-11-2019 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
4.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
June 4, 2019
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER
STAFF PRESENT
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Tom Brubaker, City Attorney's Office
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds.
2. STUDY ITEM
1. CIVIC PARK FINANCING
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite reported staff has been working on fund development and design
as well as involving citizens and stakeholder groups and are targeting next year for groundbreaking. This
is an opportunity to update the Council on the design, identify some options, describe a community effort
that has begun as well as the budget and financing, grants received, revenues and expenses, the gap and
options to fund gap and to respond to Council questions. She introduced Deputy Director Shannon Burley,
Finance Director Scott James, and Scott Bauer, the City's financial advisor. She presented:
History
o Project has been in Comprehensive Plan since 1976 when the City first leased the field from
Edmonds School District to operate as park.
o Acquisition in 2015, early 2016
o Published RFQ for Civic Park Master Plan and Development
o Council awarded contract to Walker Macy in May 2016
o Robust public process; Council adopted Master Plan in March 2017
o Acquisition
■ Recreation Conservation Office; $1,000,000
■ Snohomish Conservation Futures: $500,000
■ City of Edmonds: $400,000
■ Total purchase price: $1,900,000
o City contracted with Walker Macy to complete site survey and geotech work in 2017
Special Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 1
Packet Pg. 4
o City demolished stadium in 2017
■ Most of the wood could not be saved due to termite infestation
■ Saved wood will be repurposed on site to recognize the stadium's historic significance
o Council adopted CIP and budget for Civic, allocating design funds in 2018/2019
o City staff continued fund development in 2017 and 2018
o Continued design development with Walker Macy and key stakeholder groups in 2018 and
2019 (P6tanque Club, Boys & Girls Club, Skatepark Group)
o Presented design update to Council in April 2019
■ Project is currently at 30% design, still resolving stormwater issues on site
Schematic design - adopted in September 2018
o Stormwater
■ High water table on site
■ Presence of peat
■ Impervious surfaces require onsite infiltration
- Explored several options including direct discharge to Puget Sound (not feasible)
- Most recent option is partial dispersion of stormwater above Civic Park in same
watershed - Yost Park.
- Also considering raising the grade for underground filtration tanks
- Budget includes $700,000 for stormwater, may be possible to reduce via a hybrid
method of treating stormwater
o Play Area
■ Good connections and visibility to playing fields, per community request
■ Will include accessible and nature inspired features
■ Encourages exploration and accommodates a range of ages and places for parents to sit
- A local family and the Rotary Club are teaming up to raise funds for the play area
- Rotary launched campaign last week
- Budget includes $110,000-$120,000 for play area
- Cost of the inclusive playground is $500,0004600,000
■ May rethink the interactive water play area
■ Photographs of sample features
- Slides built into grade
- Accessibility options
- Nature inspired features - logs, native grasses
- Spinner
- Climber
- Sensory play
- Features of an inclusive playground in Portland
Boys & Girls Club
o Current park design assumes existing building and its surrounding conditions remain as is
o Dashed line shows potential future footprint of new building, approximately 12,000 square feet
o B&G Club is also considering another site
o Walker Macy is designing the park aground footprint
o If B&G Club decides in the next 6 months they do not want to build, there is time to redesign
Skatepark
o The design has been advanced and the focus is on above ground features, due to ground water
constraints. The skatepark includes features requested by local skating community, and is well -
integrated into the park.
o Drawing of concept with berm and planning, park connection, range of skate features and
viewing terraces
P6tanque Grove
Special Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 2
Packet Pg. 5
4.1.a
o Petanque grove has been designed to be more flexible in order to accommodate tournaments
and other events
o Goal is to provide a beautiful park entrance and a flexible, multi -use area
o Six formal courts and ability to lay out flexible tournament courts
Public Process
o Schematic Design:
■ Project Advisory Committee
■ Petanque club: 2 meetings
■ Skatepark community: 2 meetings
■ Chamber of Commerce
■ Boys & Girls Club
■ Parks, Engineering, Public Works, Planning meetings
■ Arts Commission
■ City Council
■ Playground stakeholder group
Civic Park Proposed Budget
Projected Expenses
$11,885,400
Projected Revenues
$8,830,000
Gap @ 30% design
$3,055,400
• Civic Park Budget Assumptions
REVENUE
2018
2019
2020
Total
Fund 125
$430,000
$70,000.00
$500,000.00
$570,000.00
Fund 126
$750,000.00
$500,000.00
$1,250,000.00
City GF
$2,000,000.00
$500,000.00
$2,500,000.00
Park Impact Fees
$500,000.00
$500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
RCO/Local Parks/YAF
$850,000.00
$850,000.00
LWCF/State
$500,000.00
$500,000.00
Snohomish County
$450,000.00
$450,000.00
Hazel Miller Foundation
$1,500,000.00
$1,500,000.00
ADA Playground Upgrades
$110,000.00
$110,000.00
Verdant/Fitness Zone
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
TOTAL
$430,000
$3,430,000.00
$5,400,000.00
$8,830,000.00
EXPENSES
2019
2020
Total
A&E
430,000
$750,000.00
$205,000.00
$955,000.00
Permitting
$0.00
Construction
$6,800,000.00
$6,800,000.00
GC's, escalation, contingency
$2,380,000.00
$2,380,000.00
Const. support/testing/misc/Engineering
$30,000.00
$1,020,000.00
$1,050,000.00
WSST
$700,400.00
$700,400.00
TOTAL
430,000
$780,000.00
$11,105,400.00
$11,885,400.00
o Gap in funding at 30% design $3,055,400.00
o Assumptions:
- 2020 CIP budget includes additional REET and PIF
- 2020 General Fund $500,000
- LWCF Funded at $500,000
Funding the Gap - Options
Special Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 3
Packet Pg. 6
4.1.a
1. Capital Development
2. Gift Catalogue, stakeholder efforts
3. Councilmatic Bonds
4. Voted Bonds
Option 1 Capital Development
o Hire a firm to assist with capital development.
■ i.e. Campbell and Company:
o $300,000 to raise $3,500,000
Option 2 Gift Catalogue, Stakeholder efforts
o Gift Catalogue: Donor elements could include skatepark, pickleball courts, p6tanque grove,
picnic tables, pavers in the entry plaza, benches.
o Stakeholder efforts: Playground as an example.
Option 3 & 4 Bonding
o Councilmatic Bonds
o Voted Bonds
Finance Director Scott James reviewed Civic Field Funding
• 12/21/19 Outstanding Governmental Debt
Issue Name
Maturity
Date
Interest
Rates
Original
Amount
Balance
12/31/19
General Obligation Bonds:
2012 LTGO Refunding Bonds
12/1/2031
2.00%
a. Refunded 1993 Issue - Public Works
Building
194,407
97,306
b. Refunded 1993 Issue - City Hall
c. 2001 LTGO Issue - Series A -
Improvements: Library, Francis
Anderson Center, Streets
539,819
1,349,817
270,195
675,622
d. 2001 LTGO Issue - Series B - Marina
Beach
1,270,000
635,672
e. 2002 LTGO Issue - Performing Arts Center
5,650,000
2,8 77,988
Total General Obligation Bonds
9,004,043
4,506,783
2016 Chase Bank Loan
12/1/2026
1.67%
a. HVAC Project 2006
401,593
288,956
b. Anderson Center Seismic 2007
247,134
177,819
c. Energy Conservation 2007
189,799
136,565
Total Chase Bank Loan
838.526
603.341
Public Works Trust Fund Loans
a. 2003 Street Construction Loan
6/30/2022
0.50%
340,000
54,430
b. 2004 Street Construction Loan
6/30/2024
0.50%
400,000
105,882
c. 2006 Street Construction Loan
5/24/2026
0.50%
624.750
230.171
Total Public Works Trust Fund Loans
1.364.750
390.483
11.207.319
5 500 607
0 Graph of Outstanding Debt
o 2019-2030
Special Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 4
Packet Pg. 7
4.1.a
• Graph of Debt Service Requirements Governmental Debt 2019-2031
o SERS loan retired 12/1/19
0 2012 LTGO retired 12/1/21
o PFD Bond retired 12/1/26
• Graph of Debt Service Requirements before Civic Bond Issue and with Civic Bond Issue
• Civic Field Bond Funding Options
• Graph of Outstanding Governmental Debt
• Estimated debt service for a $3.5 M bond
LTGO (Non -Voted Bonds)
$3.5 Million Proceeds
Dec 1
Debt Service
2020
$248,469
2021
$249,469
2022
$245,269
2023
$246,069
2024
$245,569
2025
$244,819
2026
$248,819
2027
$247,319
2028
$245,569
2029
$248,569
2030
$246,069
2031
$248,319
2032
$245,069
2033
$246,569
2034
$244,369
2035
$246,506
2036
$247,975
2037
$248,750
2038
$248,000
2039
$246, 550
$4,938,313
Ms. Hite reviewed the timeline:
• 2018: Design development, public process, fund development.
• 2019: Construction documents, permitting, bidding, fund development.
• 2020: Construction
• Phase 2: ROW improvements on 6' Avenue - TBD
Ms. Hite relayed she has discussed parking with the church across the street from Civic; they are open and
willing to discuss a proposal/plan to coordinate parking for Civic Park at the church.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the cost of bond debt. Mr. Bauer estimated issuance costs of
approximately 1.5% or $90,000 for a $3M bond issue. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the cost of
debt service throughout the life of loan. Mr. Bauer said it is approximately $250,000. Council President
Fraley-Monillas observed that was approximately the same as hiring a firm to raise the money which was
estimated at $300,000. Ms. Hite answered the cost is $248,000 per year for 20 years. If the City hired
someone for $300,000, it is a onetime expenditure to raise the $3M. Council President Fraley-Monillas
asked the cost if more than $3.5M needed to be raised. Ms. Hite estimated the cost to raise $3.8-$4M would
still be $300,000.
Special Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 5
Packet Pg. 8
4.1.a
Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated the playground would be funded no problem. She was concerned
with using a capital development company because they could not guarantee they would raise $3.5M even
if the City paid $300,000. She feared citizens may be tapped out due to other recent fundraising such as the
Senior Center, the B&G Club and others. Ms. Hite agreed there were some competing projects.
With regard to the debt service, Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the $3.5 M was AAA or AA bonds.
Mr. Bauer said it assumes the City's current bond raising of Aa2. Councilmember Buckshnis said there
have been discussions about increasing the City's reserves to increase the City's bond raising; she felt AA
was sufficient. Mr. Bauer commented rates have come down since earlier this year. Councilmember
Buckshnis referred to the City's investment portfolio, remarking it is doing very well and eight investments
are maturing in 2019. She prefer councilmatic bonds because they are the simplest, easiest and least
expensive, noting the term could be more than 20 years.
Councilmember Teitzel commented this was a very exciting project, near and dear to his heart. He agreed
with Councilmember Buckshnis, this is an amenity that future citizens will enjoy for many years; therefore,
future citizens should pay part of the price. He preferred to spread the cost over a period of time which frees
up funds for street repairs, sidewalks, etc. He pointed out there was nothing about art in the budget,
observing that acquiring and installing art can be expensive and asked if that would be an additional
expense. Ms. Hite said art is incorporated into the construction budget. The 1% for Art funds could also be
used for an installation using the stadium wood, a public process that would include a call for artists, etc.
Councilmember Teitzel observed the Boys & Girls Club's plans sound somewhat indefinite, whether they
plan to build a new structure or continue to use or renovate the existing structure. If the Boys & Girls Club
determines the site will not work for them and they will not remain in their current location, he asked if the
building could be repurposed for something like a year-round farmers market. Ms. Hite answered that is
always a possibility. If the process reaches a point where the Boys & Girls Club indicates they do not want
to be remain on the site, a public process would ensue to determine how to use the space. The building is
not in great shape for use as a Boys & Girls Club but it could be gutted and the shell used for a farmers
market.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was open minded regarding the possibilities. With regard to the capital
development option such as using Campbell and Company, he asked if there was some idea of the
fundraising capacity in the community. Ms. Hite said they haven't done a feasibility study but Campbell
and Company has worked on other projects in the area and thinks there is capacity in the community.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the estimated debt service for a $3.5 M bond, observing over the life of
the loan, the City would pay $5M, approximately $1.5M in costs.
With regard to the funding options, Councilmember Nelson said his personal preference was not capital
development based on the cost. He preferred a hybrid between Option 2 (Gift Catalogue, stakeholder
efforts), such as $500,000-$1M from that source and the remainder through bonds versus totally bonds. He
was open to councilmatic or voted bonds. Ms. Hite said the gift catalog is an easy thing to put together to
see if there is low hanging fruit and citizens who would like to contribute. She relayed a citizen recently
contacted her offering to contribute a significant amount of money. She summarized there are citizens who
love the project and want to contribute.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the estimated debt service for a $3.5M bond, which estimates
payments for 20 years of approximately $250k/year, summarizing the total cost to borrow $3.5M was
approximately $5M. Mr. James answered yes, it was about $4.9M. As Mr. Bauer stated, rates have come
down since the table was generated; if the Council was interested in that option, Mr. James suggested the
table could be updated.
Special Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 6
Packet Pg. 9
4.1.a
Councilmember Johnson recalled discussions about a parking study and Walker Macy saying that was not
part of the original scope. As the project progressed, Walker Macy said parking along 6th Avenue would
detract from the beauty of the park. Now there are discussions about providing parking at the church, but
she feared that may not be sufficient. She asked if there were plans to do a parking study. Ms. Hite said the
Civic Park will be part of the citywide parking study. Councilmember Johnson asked the status of the Boys
& Girls Club's lease. Ms. Hite said their lease is up at the end of 2020.
Councilmember Johnson commented on the stadium's termite infestation and asked the status of the Boys
& Girls Club building, whether it was sawdust as well. Ms. Hite answered she did not believe so; the
building just does not meet the Boys & Girls Club's needs. If the Boys & Girls Club does build on the site,
their preference is to demolish the structure and build a new building with up to 20,000 square feet.
Councilmember Johnson commented the City owns the building, so it is the City's preference, not the Boys
& Girls Club's preference. Ms. Hite agreed, advising the Council will have an opportunity to weigh in on
a long term lease with options and preferences but that is not available at this time.
Councilmember Johnson said an issue of concern to her is the high water table, the sphagnum peat moss,
the prehistoric lake and the water contained on the site. She questioned whether earthwork on top of that
would exacerbate the problem and create other issues. She suggested pursuing that separately with Ms. Hite
and the engineering department. Ms. Hite answered Walker Macy has a subcontract with KPFF who is
reading and interpreting the geological study and water table information to figure out the stormwater
system. Walker Macy is confident in KPFF's ability to figure it out; they have been in contact with the
City's engineering department on a constant basis. Councilmember Johnson invited Ms. Hite to bring that
issue to the Planning & Public Works Committee once more technical information is available.
Councilmember Johnson said an option that has not been discussed is pay-as-you-go. She acknowledged
there were benefits to bonding but the City has also been very successful in obtaining grants and
contributions. She recognized the preference to do the project as a whole and not break it into stages, but
asked what a pay-as-you-go plan looked like. Ms. Hite answered it would be very difficult to phase this
project due to grade issues on the site including the drop from 7th Avenue to 6' Avenue. Anyway the
property is divided up would leave a less than ideal as -is condition. In talking with Walker Macy about a
phased approach, there was no good way to divide it up which led to the decision to do the full project. A
pay-as-you-go method would mean in 2020 if there was no other funds identified, the project would start
with $8.8M and likely would not be able to be finished. Determining what could be left undone and what
could be done in the future would require additional analysis by Walker Macy.
Councilmember Johnson said that analysis would be worth of a back -of -the -envelope sketch. She
acknowledged it may depend on what is learn from the geotech analysis. Ms. Hite said because there are so
many issues underground, a large part of the budget is related to site conditions. The pay-as-you-go method
might address the site conditions such as drainage and still have the same park on top. She summarized a
large part of the cost is site conditions to prepare the park for development.
Councilmember Johnson suggested the gift catalog may be a great way to obtain trees, plants, etc.
Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated there will be a bigger gap than $3M based on the site conditions.
She agreed with Councilmember Nelson's suggestion for a combination of funding sources. She asked what
lead time would be required to underwrite a bond issuance. Mr. Bauer estimated three months.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed rates are down now and it may be advantageous to redo the numbers
and project out three months. She was not in favor of a pay-as-you-go method as this is too important of a
project to piecemeal. She suggested picking a number for councilmatic bonds, anticipating the peat will
Special Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 7
Packet Pg. 10
4.1.a
cause problems and increase costs. Ms. Hite agreed, noting that was the reason for putting qualifiers on that
amount. She and Mr. James have discussed including $ 1 M from the General Fund in the budget and the
rest from councilmatic bonds. It will depend on what else the Council wants to fund in the budget.
Councilmember Buckshnis said a 20 year $250,000 bond payment was not out of line for a city Edmonds'
size. The City has plenty of money, the outlook for the next couple years is rosy although the future is not
guaranteed. She suggested looking at the numbers for $2.5M to $3.5M, noting there is money in the General
Fund and $2M has already been earmarked in the General Fund for Civic Park. Ms. Hite agreed it depended
on how the Council wanted to balance funding sources. The reason staff brought this to the Council early
on is to allow Council time to think about it, think about other priories, the potential need to identify
additional funds for the waterfront redevelopment project due to the high bids, etc.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed bonds were used for Marina Beach, City Hall, etc. Ms. Hite agreed it
has been a while since the City bonded for a project. Councilmember Buckshnis commented several
investments are reaching maturity in the next couple years and people like to buy municipal bonds from
cities that are successful.
Ms. Hite summarized staff will return in September to discuss this again. Mr. James will monitor rates and
if they begin to drop, staff will return to Council sooner. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the Finance
Committee could consider it as well.
3. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Special Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 8
Packet Pg. 11
4.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2019
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
06-04-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 12
4.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
June 4, 2019
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember (by phone)
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr.
Tom Brubaker, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. Councilmember Mesaros
participated by phone.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1),
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1),
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2019
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
5. PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATION "ORCA ACTION MONTH"
Mayor Earling read a proclamation proclaiming June as Orca Action Month in Edmonds and encouraging
all people in the community to focus attention on the plight of the fragile Southern Resident community of
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 1
Packet Pg. 13
4.2.a
orcas, honor their presence in our waters, and speed up efforts to recover the population. He presented the
proclamation to Janine Harles, whose photographs are often featured on My Edmonds News. Ms. Harles
said she takes a lot of photos of the Southern Resident and transient orca populations. Anything that can be
done to make people aware of what needs to be done to save them is a wonderful thing.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
7. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION REGARDING NONCONFORMING BUILDING CODE
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Nonconforming Building
o ECDC 17.40.020.A
A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the site
development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such
standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds
or the application of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the city.
• Restoration
o ECDC 17.40.0201
If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75
percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be
reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code.
• Issue
o Banks are refusing to finance the purchase of condominiums in buildings that exceed the
density of the current zone given the language in ECDC 17.40.020.F
o Twenty-four sites have been identified thus far
■ 633 units that may be impacted due to financing issues
■ Not an exhaustive list
• Comprehensive Plan
o Housing Goal D:
Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the
older housing stock in the community.
o Housing Policy D:
Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation of older
buildings.
Interim Ordinance
Interim Ordinance
F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount
equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall
not be reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code, PROVIDED THAT a multifamily residential building may be restored in
the same location, and to the same density, height, setbacks and coverage as existed before
the destruction or damage occurred if an application for a building Dermit is submitted within
one year of the date the damage occurred. Determination of replacement costs and the level of
destruction shall be made by the building official an shall be appealable as a Type II staff decision
under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 2
Packet Pg. 14
4.2.a
may be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as existed before
the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application for a
building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.015 et seq. within one year of the date
such damage occurred. This right of restoration shall not apply if:
ECDC 17.40.010 Nonconforming Uses
o Corrected reference to build code
2. If a nonconforming residential use ceases because its building is damaged in excess of 75
percent of its replacement cost, the use may be reestablished if, but only if, an application for
a building permit which vests as proved in ECDC 19.0r-000.015 19.00.025(G), et seq., is filed
within 18 months of the date such damage occurred. After the application has been filed, only
one 180-day extension may be granted.
ECDC 17.40.020 nonconforming bldgs.
o Restoration section 17.40.0201 combined with G and broken into three subsections
o F.1 applies to all nonresidential nonconforming buildings
F. Restoration.
1. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal
to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building
shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds
Community Development Code. Determination of replacement costs and the level of
destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be appealable as a Type II
staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75
percent of replacement costs may be repaired, and the building returned to its former
size, shape and lot location as existed before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such
repair is initiated by the filing of an application for a building permit which vests as
provided in ECDC 19.^�15 19.00.025(G) et seq. within ene lea 18 months of the
date such damage occurred. The director may grant a one-time extension of up to 180
days if a written extension request has been received from the applicant prior to the
expiration of the initial 18 months. This right of festafmieft shall not apply if
1. The building or- stmetffe was damaged E)r- destr-eyed due to the unlawfffl aet Of the
owner- or- the owner's agefft, -of
2. The building is damaged or- destfoyed due to the ongoing neglect or- gross negligence
f theowner- r the ^ ores ., efAs
ECDC 17.40.020 Nonconforming Building
o F.2 applies to residential nonconforming buildings
2. G. Residential Buildings in Gemmer-eial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in
commercial zones in use solely for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such
residential use, may be .-em or -reconstructed without regard to the limitations of
subsections (B), (E) and (F) of this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are met:
a. 4If a nonconforming multifamily residential building or a mixed use building
containing multiple residential units is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its
replacement cost, the building may be restored to the same density, height,
setbacks or coverage as existing before the destruction or damage occurred if, but
only if, an application for a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC
19.00.025(G) et seq. is filed within 180 days of a written extension request has been
received from the applicant prior to the expiration of the initial 18 months. The
steps,r-emedel or- r-eeeas#=uetien takes plaee within the feetpr-ipA of the original building or-
struetwe. "Feetpr-iPA" shah mean a -a area equal to the smallest r-eeta-ag-dlar- area in a
;
and pr-evided, that the new
feetpr-in4 of the building or- stFuetufe shall not be e)q3anded by more than 10 per-een�
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 3
Packet Pg. 15
4.2.a
and is found by the eity stag to be substafftially simila-F to the E)rigiflaj Style a4iA
b. -2-. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with
entirely on the site. No nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or
reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use under state law or city ordinance of a
conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such remodel or
reconstruction.
c. 3- These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not
apply to nonconforming accessory buildings or structures.
d. 4. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the
defined building envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and design which are
substantially similar to the original style and structure after complying with current
codes. Substantial compliance shall be determined by the city as a Type II staff
decision, except that any appeal of the staff decision shall be to the Architectural
Design Board JADBZ rather than to the hearing examiner. The decision of the ADB
shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.07.006
ECDC 17.40.020 Nonconforming Buildings
o F.3 applies to the right of restoration
3. The right of restoration shall not apply if:
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of
the owner or the owner's agent;
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross
negligence of the owner or owner's agents; or
c. The building was demolished for the purpose of redevelopment
New Section ECDC 19.00.045
19.00.045 Reconstruction of damaged buildings. For anv structure that is destroved
damaged or demolished in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost of
the time of destruction, the reconstruction shall be considered to be under the category of
"New" construction. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be
made by the building official and shall be appealable as a Type II staff decision under the
provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. The "New" construction will be subject to all applicable
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code for a new building, including
but not limited to zoning, utilities and site -related features; provided that Chapter 17.40
ECDC also applies to certain requirements for nonconforming buildings and uses.
Mr. Lien advised the packet contains a draft ordinance for Council consideration.
With regard to multiple uses in a non -conforming building, Councilmember Tibbott asked what other uses
there could be besides commercial. Mr. Lien answered it would need to be a mixed use building with a
residential component. Mixed use does not always mean commercial and residential, but this amendment
only applies to mixed use buildings with a residential component; otherwise the building would be subject
to 17.40.020.F.1. Councilmember Tibbott summarized with a mixed use building there would be the
possibility of replacing the commercial spaces to their original size and bulk. Mr. Lien answered it could
be rebuilt to the same density, height, setbacks and coverage; density covers the residential. As far as what
uses return to the commercial space, it would be whatever the property wanted and was consistent with the
zone.
Councilmember Teitzel agreed with the proposed changes but was concerned with potential unintended
consequences. For example, if a single family home did not conform to the height or footprint relative to
the setbacks, and if the building were destroyed up to 75% of its replacement cost, could a potential buyer
have difficulty obtaining financing. He asked if there was potential that the proposed amendments would
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 4
Packet Pg. 16
4.2.a
need to be extended to single family homes as well. Mr. Lien answered there is one section that applies to
nonconforming single family residences. The code was drafted with the intent to address the arts corridor,
a commercial zone with single family homes, and there are restrictions in 2.b that apply to that. Generally
speaking, there is more flexibility for building a single family homes on single family zoned property. For
example, on a single family zoned property, there can be only one house so rebuilding would not exceed
the density. Single family properties are typically larger and have more flexibility to construct a new house
on the site.
Councilmember Johnson said the original language stated a building lot with size, shape and lot location;
the new language refers to building setbacks, density, height or coverage, which she felt were two different
things and one of the key component was setbacks. Mr. Lien referred to language in ECDC 17.40.020.F.2,
"...may be reconstructed without regard to the limitations of subsections (E) and (F), of this section..."
Subsection F is related to 75% and subsection E is related to relocation, "Should a nonconforming building
structure be moved horizontally for any reason for any distance, it shall thereafter come into conformance
with the setback..." Subsection E also states, "Movement alone of a nonconforming building or structure to
lessen an aspect of its nonconformity shall not require the owner thereof to bring the building or structure
into compliance with other bulk or site development standards of the city applicable to the building or
structure."
Councilmember Johnson said she had no problem with density, height or coverage but setbacks was not
included in the old language but has been added to the amended language. Mr. Lien agreed setbacks was
not in the original language but was included in the interim ordinance. Councilmember Johnson observed
that was a significant change. Mr. Lien agreed it was a change in the nonconforming code.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Cami Morrill, Snohomish County-Camano Association of Realtors, which represents nearly 2,000
realtors in Snohomish County, expressed the association's support for the draft code language which will
allow nonconforming buildings to be restored to the same density, height, setbacks and coverage as existed
before the structure destruction or damage occurred.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
City Attorney Tom Brubaker identified a typo in 19.00.045, "replacement costs of the time of destruction"
should be "at the time of destruction." Mr. Lien agreed.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4151, AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO THE ABILITY TO REBUILD CERTAIN
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AS AMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Councilmember Johnson said she supported about 95% of the amendments. However, setbacks are
important and exist for many reasons such as promoting harmony in the streetscape and providing buffers
between different uses such as single family and multifamily. She said include setbacks was overreaching
what the City wanted to accomplish. She recalled when Hwy 99 was studied, the effect of setbacks on the
neighborhoods was considered.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE "SETBACKS" FROM THE
AMENDMENT.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 5
Packet Pg. 17
4.2.a
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the effect of removing "setbacks." Mr. Lien said if there have
been changes to the setbacks over the years like there were to heights, there may not be room on the property
to move the building to obtain the same type of building. Multifamily buildings may not have the same
flexibility as a single family residence because the sites are typically tighter due to parking, etc. Council
President Fraley-Monillas summarized under the proposed amendment, if the building were rebuilt, it
would be rebuilt in compliance with setbacks in place at the time it was originally constructed. Mr. Lien
answered yes under the draft language. Removing "setbacks" would have a similar impact as removing
"heights" which could result in eliminating a building story.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed there could be a financial burden. Mr. Lien agreed there could
be. Development Services Director Shane Hope agreed setbacks were important which is the reason they
exist, but there are likely not very many multifamily buildings where setbacks are currently a problem; she
was not aware of any. There are few existing multifamily buildings on Hwy 99 that would conflict so there
is still the ability on Hwy 99 to enforce the new regulations.
Councilmember Johnson said if it is a non -issue and there are not a lot of areas where setbacks are a
problem, it is not necessary to include it in this amendment. Conversely if more uniformity was desired, it
should be included. Ms. Hope said the challenge is staff is not aware of any concerns about the existing
setbacks but there no study has been conducted regarding setback violations. Her comment was staff has
not heard any concerns about existing buildings and their location within the setbacks. Councilmember
Johnson commented perhaps she was looking at this too theoretically.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF SECOND.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE -2019 CUES SEWER VIDEO INSPECTION TRUCK
Public Works Director Phil Williams said this has been discussed several times and he was available to
answer any additional questions. This item is the replacement of a 10-year old video inspection truck owned
and operated by the Sewer Division with a new version of the same truck purchased from Cues in Portland,
Oregon. The price is $412,999.59 after a $50,000 trade-in. One of the cameras will be retained. The 2019
budget included $425,000 for this purchase. Approval was delayed to tonight's meeting when the full
Council would be present to vote.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF THE 2019 CUES SEWER VIDEO INSPECTION TRUCK.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
2. APPROVAL OF RESOURCES FOR RECORDING HOUSING COMMISSION EVENTS
Development Services Director Shane Hope relayed this is a follow-up to a previous Council discussion.
She reviewed:
Background
o On May 21', City Council approved certain resources from Council continency to support
Citizens Housing Commission, including:
■ Meeting facilitator
■ Community engagement
Tonight's focus is recording for:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 6
Packet Pg. 18
4.2.a
o Monthly meetings in City Council
o Monthly meetings and special events elsewhere
■ Note: assumption of 19 standard meetings, 3 open house type and 3 other events
(minimum)
Options for types of recording
1. Written (minutes, notes)
2. Audio
3. Video
o Written notes or minutes
1. Informal notes by staff or community engagement consultant
■ With or without audio tapes
■ Cost: marginal
2. Detailed minutes by professional minute -taker (contract)
■ With audio tapes
■ Cost: $300 per session (estimate)
o Videotaping
1. City equipment and resources in Council Chambers only
■ With video indexing and posting on web (1 day later)
■ Existing portable mikes (3)
■ About $200 per session
2. Basic Level (contracted) in any location
■ One camera, one microphone
■ One week —Delivery of videotape (with indexing) for City posting
■ $300-350 per session
3. Mid -level (contract) in any location
■ 2 cameras
■ 2 — 4 microphones for table + 1 mike for public comments
■ 1-3 days to deliver videotape, indexed, for City posting
■ Possible live -streaming
■ $600 — 1,000 per session
4. High level (contract) in any location
■ 2 to 3 cameras
■ 1 mike per person + 1 mike for public comments
■ 2-5 days for delivery of videotape, indexed, to City for posting
■ Live -streaming possible?
■ $1800 — 1900 per session
Recording Options summary
A-1. Use audio -taping & posted minutes or notes for standard meetings + 3 events
Est total cost: $6600 (or $5700 if only standard meetings, no special events)
A-2. City videotaping at Council Chambers (only) for all standard meetings
Est. total cost: $3800
B. Video - "All In at Low End": Use private services for standard meetings + 3 events
Est. total cost: $6600 - $7700
C. Video - "All In at Mid to Higher End": Use private services for all standard meetings + 3
events
Est. total cost: $13,200 - $41,800
D-1. Mixed Basic: Use Option A.1 + Use Option B approach (basic contracted video services)
for 12 meetings/events outside of City Hall
Est. total cost: $10,200
D-2. Mixed & Enhanced: Use Option A.1 + Use combo of A.2 approach for 10 standard
meetings & Option C approach (mid -level private video services) for 12 other events
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 7
Packet Pg. 19
4.2.a
Est. total cost: $19,700 - $32,300
Cost Range for Recording
o Professional minutes & audio (per session)
■ $300 per session for formal minute -taking & audio tapes
o Videotaping
■ $200 per session at City Hall with City equipment & video -taper
■ $350 — 1900 per session at any location with contracted services
NOTE: Difference in videotaping costs is primarily based on number of cameras,
microphones, and editing quality
Recommendation:
1. Approve resources from Council contingency budget for audiotaping & professional written
minutes for all standard meetings (not open houses) — up to $6,600
Total Est. $6,600
2. Optional: Approve resources from Council contingency budget to include videotaping - up to
$6,000, allowing:
a. City videotaping for City Hall meetings and
b. Basic video services for events in other locations
Total Est. $12,600 (w/ audio + written minutes)
Reminder: Videotaping services may be included in responses to community engagement RFQ
Councilmember Johnson commented there are a lot of variables. She suggest an Option 3, a standard
meeting time and in Council Chambers where all the existing resources could be used for the 19 standard
meetings and 6 meetings could be held elsewhere. That would control costs and have the advantage of a
regular location for the meetings. The proposal includes 10 standards meetings in Council Chambers; her
proposal was to have 19 meetings in Council Chambers. Ms. Hope said that is another option; the resolution
the Council adopted referred to holding meetings around the City but did not state the number of meetings.
Councilmember Johnson commented there could even be more than six. The advantage of holding meetings
in Council Chambers is the City has the room, the cameras and an operator. If it does not work out, it could
be changed.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Planning Board meetings were only available live -streamed but not
on the website or on TV. She questioned why the Housing Commission would be videotaped when other
equally important groups like the Tree Board and Diversity Commission were not videotaped. The Housing
Commission is important but the information they gather will go to the Planning Board. She preferred to
treat the Housing Commission like any other commission. She was uncertain why citizens had a lack of
trust when the commission hasn't even started yet. The resolution forming the commission states the
meetings will be held in multiple locations which was not addressed by Councilmember Johnson's proposal.
Ms. Hope recalled a couple years ago the Council determined which boards and commission would have
minutes and which would have notes and only the Planning Board and Council would be videotaped. The
original Planning Board videos were posted on the website; that was lost when the City changed its service
but it is believed that can be restored with some additional work. Currently the Planning Board is only
video -streamed and other boards and commission are only audio recorded and have minutes.
Councilmember Tibbott clarified other boards and commission have summary notes. Ms. Hope said the
Planning Board and the Architectural Design Board have minutes, the rest have summary, informal
minutes/notes. Councilmember Tibbott agreed Council Chambers are available and it is a great place for
public meetings, people can be heard and illustrative materials displayed. He liked the idea of holding
regular commission meetings in Council Chambers where they could be easily video recorded. If those
meetings were video recorded, summary notes would be adequate. He recalled at a recent housing meeting
in the Library Plaza Room, there were two cameras, one for recording and one for streaming. He was
uncertain what was captured, but even with one camera and one mike, it appeared it was capturing the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 8
Packet Pg. 20
4.2.a
essence of what happened during the meeting. He summarized a basic one -camera approach at alternate
locations would be adequate.
Councilmember Teitzel asked what problem staff was trying to solve. If it was transparency, if the meetings
were noticed and the public invited to intend and they were digitally audio -recorded and full minutes taken,
that was a great deal of transparency, as much or more than other boards or commissions. The City has 14
boards/commissions; the Housing Commission will be the 15'. He argued that each one was doing
important work for the City and if the intent to videotape their meetings, consideration should be broader
than just the Housing Commission which would be a significant investment for taxpayers. He summarized
the prudent approach was to proceed with Option 1 which includes digital audio recording and full meeting
minutes. If that is not sufficient and did not meet the transparency goal, it could be changed. He was uneasy
acknowledging the importance of this commission over the others as they are all important.
Councilmember Nelson said he had no problem acknowledging the importance of this commission over
other commissions and could not think of any other commission that would profoundly shape the future of
the City, how it's housed and how and where people live. With regard to videotaping, he supported basic
video services Option 2. He acknowledged there is a great technological setup in Council Chambers but
public involvement is inconsistent at best. He pointed out the issue was not just transparency, it was
engagement. There are benefits to having meetings rotate around the City so that the public not only sees
what is happening but has an opportunity to be involved and include. He did not support having all meetings
in Council Chambers and preferred to have some in the community.
Council President Fraley-Monillas pointed out there had never been a commission with over 100
applications. Ms. Hope said as of last Friday, 123 applications have been submitted by citizens to fill 14
seats and 7 alternate positions. Council President Fraley-Monillas read a statement regarding videotaping
from a citizen who has submitted an application: "One point with videotaping, it could save staff time and
also give the appointed commissioners a great tool to review visuals that will be included and considerable
audio information to educate them on all things housing and government. It is so much easier to review a
video to see who is speaking as well as fast -forward until you see who is speaking or what is being displayed
to save the person's time to get to what they want to see and review. An audio has no way to know what
happening unless there is a transcript at the same time. Even then, unless the transcript has the time included,
you have no idea where to find it and some folks could be so frustrated they lose interest and you lose that
engagement with the public. In my experience, a video is more accessible to all and definitely easier to
review as far as time and effort as most residents are busy which leads them to not get involved. We all
want many Edmonds residents to be engaged in this process. It will also be much easier for a commissioner
who misses a meeting to get updated including visuals and not tap the staff s time as much to do so."
Council President Fraley-Monillas said a hybrid option was reasonable. She agreed with Councilmember
Johnson's suggestion to have standard meetings in Council Chambers, but also supported holding meetings
in other areas/zones to gather input. She was uncertain what equipment those meetings would require or
whether minutes or notes would be sufficient. She summarized there were over 120 people who wanted to
be on the commission and she was hopeful the rest of the City would have an opportunity to view the
commission's meetings.
Ms. Hope suggested staff develop a hybrid and determine a budget. Staff has obtained informal quotes and
the RFQ may provide an opportunity to combine resources. Council does not have to determine a budget
tonight but she was seeking direction.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if the 120+ applications had been sorted by zone to determine how many
had been submitted from each. Ms. Hope offered to provide that information during the next agenda item.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 9
Packet Pg. 21
4.2.a
Councilmember Buckshnis urged caution, noting two Councilmembers have said this commission will
shape the City's future. She emphasized the City Council will shape the City's future. She recalled the
pushback the Tree Board got about the tree ordinance, pointing out the Housing Commission is intended to
assist the Planning Board and the City Council. The buck stops with the City Council. She recalled the
lengthy processes for Hwy 99, Five Corners, Harbor Square, Westgate, etc. She supported having minutes
and audio, but was open to videotaping because everyone thinks this commission is so important. She
anticipated there would be a long process following the Housing Commission's work.
Councilmember Johnson summarized the Council had provided guidance on videotaping and on minutes
versus summary notes; 2-3 Councilmembers have expressed interest in summary notes and she added her
support. If the meetings are videotaped, the time and expense of minutes was unnecessary.
Ms. Hope said she will return with a budget amendment in July.
3. APPROVAL OF TIMEFRAME TARGET FOR HOUSING COMMISSION START-UP
Development Services Director Shane Hope
• Tonight's objective
o Decide on timeframe to start review of Housing Commission applications
o Optional: Decide on any other selected timeframe items
Background
o Resolution # 1427 guides establishment of the citizens' housing commission
■ Does not have specific deadline for applications or meetings to begin
o Postcard mailing & other outreach has sparked great interest
o So far, about 125 applications received
■ Representing all 7 districts
■ 10 — 32 applications per district
Timeline for selecting commissioners
o Postcards announced "first consideration" of applications as May 15; also referenced Housing
Commission website
o Commission website revised soon after to have May 31 for "first consideration" (with caveat
noting no absolute deadline)
o Website revised last week to say May 31 date was delayed and new date for "first
consideration" would be announced soon
Steps before City Council begin reviewing applications
o Assignment of each city council member to district from which council member may select 2
commissioners & 1 alternate
o Optional: Confirmation of whether candidate applications match district for which they applied
■ Not required but could avoid mistaken locations
■ Could also be done later —after number of candidates are narrowed down by council
members
o Hard copy made of all submitted applications & handed off by district to each council member
Steps after applications go to each assigned Councilmember
o Each Councilmember to review all applications from assigned district
o Councilmembers may choose to interview applicants from their assigned district
o Optional: verification that top candidates' addresses match district
o Councilmembers to contact final selected candidates & indicate intent to appoint (2
commissioners + 1 alt.)
o Staff to be notified of who is being selected so they can have record & send out meeting
materials, etc.
o Mayor may review remaining applications & (if desired) interview any remaining candidates
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 10
Packet Pg. 22
o Mayor to select his appointee & alternate & notify them
o Mayor to notify staff of who is selected
o Councilmembers & Mayor to announce appointments, pref. at public meeting
o Council President to assign up to 2 Councilmembers as non -voting liaisons to commission
■ Could be permanent assignments or rotating assignments
o Staff to notify each applicant of status (selected or not) & next steps
o Optional: poll of selected candidates could be taken to get preferred dates for first meeting
o First commission meeting date would be chosen by Council President
o Ideally, meeting facilitator & any minute -taker (+ video -taper?) would be under contract &
available for first meeting
o Announcements (press release, etc.) would go out about appointments & first meeting
o Housing commissioners would each be assigned city email address & staff would prepare to
begin sending them materials
o If possible, additional housing commission support for community engagement would be in
place — either before first meeting or soon after
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the selection of the first meeting date by the Council President
and suggested that be done in consolidation with Ms. Hope. Ms. Hope agreed. She continued her
presentation:
• Options for Timeframe to start review of applications
A. Circa June 7
o Allows only very short time for council president to assign council members their district
for housing commission process
o May not allow each applicant to have address matched with district
■ Though this step is not required; also could be done after field of candidates is
narrowed
B. Circa June 14
o Allows time for one more press release to be issued about application opportunity
o Allows council president a few days to assign council members their districts
o Provides time for confirming that application addresses match intended district
■ Though this step is not required; also could be done after field of candidates is
narrowed
C. Another Date
o Council could select entirely different date
o Would be helpful to identify new date & rationale so information can be communicated to
public
D. No date
o Possible to not decide on specific date to begin considering applications:
■ Gives less certainty to public about commissioner selection period
■ Gives more flexibility in timing for residents to apply
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she intends to assign zones at the retreat on Friday.
Councilmember Teitzel suggested June 21 st as a target date. Some citizens have indicated they did not
receive the postcard mailer and that date would allow time for citizens to complete applications, for
Councilmembers to think about their assignments, etc.
Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with June 21', assuming that would include one more press
release. Ms. Hope said it would. It was the consensus of the Council to start review of applications June
21 st_
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 11
Packet Pg. 23
4.2.a
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling congratulated Councilmember Johnson for completing the AWC's Certificate of Municipal
Leadership. As long as he has been Mayor, Councilmember Johnson was the first Councilmember to receive
that certificate.
Mayor Earling reported Snohomish County Executive Somers held a workshop last Friday in Everett, a
countywide effort to bring together a regional taskforce to agree on basic principles and provide guidance
to Snohomish County. Every city in the county was represented at the meeting except Brier and Woodway.
He is the voting member and Ms. Hope is the alternate.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis said the proclamation regarding "Orca Action Month" was wonderful. She
invited the public to Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council's event, Splish Splash on June 13 from 11
a.m.. to 1 p.m. at the Golden Garden bathhouse, a celebration of laws related to orcas, live music, and
refreshments. She plans to send the City's proclamation to PSSRC so it can be added to the website.
Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked Councilmembers for their quick response regarding attendance
and lunch choices for Friday's retreat. Last Thursday Mayor Earling, Councilmember Tibbott and she
attended the PSRC annual general meeting where they voted on new officers and reviewed the 2020 budget.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed reading this weekend that two babies have been born to the Southern
Resident orca group and they appear to be doing well. He hoped they both continued to do well, eat heartily
and have a have a long, healthy life.
Councilmember Nelson said this morning he drove his sons by the convenience store on 100t' that
experienced an alleged hate crime. He explained to his sons that that was what hate speech looked like and
talked them how the new business owner had originally come from the country of Fiji and sadly, because
this incident, he no longer felt welcome in the community. He explained to his sons that whenever they
hear or see hate, they must stand up against it and speak out, whether it was against their friend or a complete
stranger. Hate has never been defeated by silence. Edmonds is a loving community but must be ever vigilant
against those that seek to divide us.
Councilmember Johnson commented when the Council begin its meeting at 6:00 p.m., the meeting ended
at 8:20 p.m., when it was still light out. It is a beautiful evening and she hoped everyone enjoyed it.
Councilmember Mesaros said he had had a long day; he left Dublin this morning at approximately 11 p.m.
yesterday Edmonds time. He spent time in Norway and other seashore cities on this trip, some of them
much further north where sunset was about 11:30 p.m. He summarized it was always good to go away but
always good to come home to beautiful Edmonds.
11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 12
Packet Pg. 24
4.2.a
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 4, 2019
Page 13
Packet Pg. 25
4.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 11, 2019
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
06-11-2019 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 26
4.3.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
JUNE 11, 2019
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember NONE
Mike Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Tom Mesaros, Councilmember
Mike Nelson, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Dave Earling, Mayor
Elected Officials Absent
none
1. CALL TO ORDER/CONVENE IN JURY MEETING ROOM
At 6:30 p.m., the City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds.
3. CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY BOARD OR
COMMISSION
The Council then convened in the Jury Meeting Room and interviewed Kim Bayer, a candidate
for appointment to the Architectural Design Board, and Roger Pence, candidate for appointment
to the Planning Board.
Ai rnlTRN
At 6:57 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 11, 2019
Page 1
Packet Pg. 27
4.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #237143 through #237242 dated June 6, 2019 for $391,014.75 (re -issued
checks #237206 $377.85 & #237230 $579.50), claim checks #237243 though #237340 (re -issued checks
#237266 $150.00 & #237287 $112.50) dated June 13, 2019 for $433,978.32 and wire payment of
$29,315.76.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #63742 through #63746 for $605,178.01, benefit checks
#63747 through #63751 and wire payments of $582,058.34 for the pay period May 16, 2019 through
May 31, 2019.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non -approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claims 06-06-19
claims 06-13-19
us bank ck 06-13-19
wire 06-13-19
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-13-19
payroll summary 06-05-19
payroll benefits 06-05-19
Packet Pg. 28
4.4.a
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237143 6/6/2019 076987 ANG, HUAY SIN
237144
237145
237146
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
7729 ART CLASS
6/6/2019 077086 ANTHONY HOSKINS &KAYLYNN KELLY 1-33212
6/6/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
6/6/2019 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
fi ISIPA'�I:181
1991263681
1991263682
PO # Description/Account
7729 PRESCHOOL ART CLASS INS-
7729 PRESCHOOL ART OUR WHIM;
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
#40228429-808-HB1 UTILITY REFUP
#40228429-808-HB1 Utility refund du
411.000.233.000
Total
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
WWTP: 5/29/19 UNIFORMS,TOWEL
Mats/Towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
Total
1436152-IN WWTP: DIESEL FUEL
ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (include
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
10.4% Sales Tax
Page: 1
a�
L
3
c
.y
Amoun 0
a
m
U
m
363.0(
363.0( ui
m
U
325.5E
325.51
c
�a
31.4, o
3.2; a
E
ca
47.8E U
4-
0
3.5(
0
L
4.9E a
Q
0.3E
0
0
51.5E co
0
5.3E E
148.3 ,
c
CD
E
1,391.1E
�a
Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 29
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.4.a
Page: 2
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
237146
6/6/2019
071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
144.6£
Total:
1,535X
237147
6/6/2019
076923 BALING, GIEANI
5/2-5/30 GYM MONITOR
5/2-5/30/19 VOLLEYBALL GYM MON
5/2-5/30/19 VOLLEYBALL GYM MON
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
180.0(
Total :
180.0(
237148
6/6/2019
002170 BARTON, RONALD
43
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
1,608.0(
Total:
1,608.0(
237149
6/6/2019
077046 BLUE DOT MARKETING CO
1213
SENIOR LEAGUE SOFTBALL UMPIF
SENIOR LEAGUE SOFTBALL UMPIF
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
1,288.0(
Tota I :
1,288.0(
237150
6/6/2019
074307 BLUE STAR GAS
10571
FLEET AUTO PROPANE 751.2 GAL
FLEET AUTO PROPANE 751.2 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
1,425.7E
Total :
1,425.7(
237151
6/6/2019
075342 BORUCHOW ITZ, ROBERT
010519
PUBLIC DEFENSE ASSESSOR SER
PUBLIC DEFENSE SVS 01/19 - 05/1',
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
5,487.5(
Total :
5,487.5(
237152
6/6/2019
076341 BRK THRU DIGITAL LLC
BID-3408
BID/ED! DIGITAL ADVERTISING/MAI
BID/Ed! Digital advertising & marketir
140.000.61.558.70.41.40
1,350.0(
Tota I :
1,350.0(
237153
6/6/2019
069295 BROWN, CANDY
6/3/19 CLASS VISIT
6/3/19 BIRD NATURALIST CLASSRC
6/3/19 BIRD NATURALIST CLASSRC
001.000.64.571.23.41.00
47.6(
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 30
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237153 6/6/2019 069295 069295 BROWN, CANDY
237154 6/6/2019 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
7874 DRAWING
237155 6/6/2019 067446 CEM CORPORATION 614933
237156 6/6/2019 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 275278
LY275706
237157 6/6/2019 077091 COLEHOUR + COHEN INC 60015
237158 6/6/2019 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 8498310301175175
8498310301175191
PO # Description/Account
Total ;
7874 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING IP
7874 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING IP
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
WWTP: MICROWAVE REPAIR SER\
MICROWAVE REPAIR SERVICE
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
WATER - SUPPLIES
Water - Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
PM: SPRAY PARK CARBON DIOXIDI
SPRAY PARK CARBON DIOXIDE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
PAT JOHNSON.SOCIAL MARKETIN(
Pat Johnson.Social Marketing Trainin
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
Total
CEMETERY INTERNET 820 15TH S�
CEMETERY INTERNET 820 15TH S�
130.000.64.536.20.42.00
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF
001.000.64.571.29.42.00
Total
4.4.a
Page: 3
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
47.6( 0
U
d
L_
260.0-
260.01
m
1,199.0( m
1,199.0(
c
�a
49.1( o
�a
5.1- a
E
U
157.7< o
16.4( >
228.3' a
a
Q
rn
250.0(
250.0( c
w
0
E
138.E -
c
aD
138.6" E
277.2, u
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 31
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
237159
6/6/2019
077001
COMMON, LYNNEA DAWN
MAY MILEAGE
MAY RANGER CLASSROOM VISIT IN
MAY RANGER CLASSROOM VISIT
001.000.64.571.23.43.00
Tota I :
237160
6/6/2019
069529
D & G BACKHOE INC
E6JB.Ret Release
E6JB.RETAINAGE RELEASE
E6JB.Retainage Release
421.000.223.400
Total
237161
6/6/2019
073251
DEARN-TARPLEY, SUSAN
MAY MILEAGE
MAY RANGER CLASSROOM VISIT
MAY RANGER CLASSROOM VISIT IN
001.000.64.571.23.43.00
Tota I :
237162
6/6/2019
064531
DINES, JEANNIE
19-3935
5/28/2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
5/28/19 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Al`
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
Tota I :
237163
6/6/2019
076790
DUNGENESS CONSTRUCTION CORP
ESFD.Pmt 5
ESFD.PMT 5 THRU 5/31/19
ESFD.Pmt 5 thru 5/31/19
422.000.72.594.31.65.20
ESFD.Ret 5
422.000.223.400
Tota I :
237164
6/6/2019
068292
EDGE ANALYTICAL
19-16144
WATER QUALITY WATER TESTING
Water Quality Water Testing
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
19-16454
WATER QUALITY - WATER SAMPLE
Water Quality - Water Samples
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
Tota I :
237165
6/6/2019
007675
EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
1-95327
PM: WIPER FLUID
PM: WIPER FLUID
4.4.a
Page: 4
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 32
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237165 6/6/2019 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
237166
237167
237168
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
1-95457
1-95800
6/6/2019 067703 EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE 033-1819
PO # Description/Account
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
WWTP: 12-VOLT 675 SERIES A
12-VOLT 675 SERIES A
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
PM SUPPLIES: OILAND FUEL FILTE
PM SUPPLIES: OILAND FUEL FILTE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
GYM RENTAL: VOLLEYBALL LEAGI
GYM RENTAL: VOLLEYBALL LEAGI
001.000.64.571.25.45.00
Total
6/6/2019 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 1368 PM SUPPLIES: DRILL BITS
PM SUPPLIES: DRILL BITS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1370 PM SUPPLIES: PROGRADE EARML
PM SUPPLIES: PROGRADE EARML
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
6/6/2019 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R26063 WATER - DOOR HANGERS
Water - Door Hangers
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
4.4.a
Page: 5
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
5.7E 'D
r
U
d
0.6(
13
117.9� 4)
12.21
m
c
a�
20.5 -
�a
2.1< 0
159.2E `>,
M
a
E
3,340.0( U
3,340.0E IS
�a
0
L
a
9.1E Q
0.9E
0
34.5E N
E
3.6( 2
48.31
c
aD
E
t
U
188.5(
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 33
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237168 6/6/2019 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO (Continued)
237169 6/6/2019 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 253888
237170
237171
6/6/2019 072951 ENECON USA
66862
6/6/2019 076483 EUROFINS FRONTIER GLOBAL SCI L0452531
PO # Description/Account
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Total :
INV 253888 CUST 308 EDMONDS P
PREV. CARE EXAM W/DISCOUNT
001.000.41.521.26.41.00
FECAL EXAM
001.000.41.521.26.41.00
BORDETELLA VACCINE 1 YEAR
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
LEPTOSPIROSIS 1 YEAR
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
HEARTWORM TEST
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
CREDELIO BLUE 50.1-11 6 PACK
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
INTERCEPTOR PLUS 50.1-100 BOX
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
Total
WWTP: DURALLOY, CERAMALLOY
DURALLOY, CERAMALLOY
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
WATER QUALITY TESTING
Water Quality Testing
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
4.4.a
Page: 6
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
19.6( u
208.1( .`
N
m
48.0(
47.0(
21.0(
�a
20.0( o
L
40.5( a
E
259.0(
144.9z 0
42.0' o
622.4; a
Q
rn
1,590.0( c
0
90.0(
E
174.7, 2
1,854.7: };
c
a�
E
t
U
400.0(
Q
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 34
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
237171 6/6/2019 076483 076483 EUROFINS FRONTIER GLOBAL SCI (Continued)
237172 6/6/2019 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU53845
237173 6/6/2019 009880 FEDEX
237174 6/6/2019 065023 FLUKE ELECTRONICS
237175 6/6/2019 071998 FOSTER, KELSEY
237176 6/6/2019 011900 FRONTIER
WAMOU54015
WAMOU54074
6-563-21309
39752285
BID-8380
253-003-6887
Description/Account
UNIT 138 - SUPPLIES
Unit 138 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
PM: SUPPLIES
PM: SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
MEBT SHIPPING
SHIPPING - MEBT
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
Total
Total :
Total :
WWTP: CALIBRATE PRESSURE MC
CALIBRATE PRESSURE MODULE
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
BID/ED! COPYWRITING FOR MAY
BID/Ed! copywriting for May articles
140.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCI
LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCI
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
4.4.a
Page: 7
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
400.0( 0
U
d
L_
2.0<
N
0.2-
19.91 c
d
2.0£
c
�a
0
59.8E 1,
�a
a
6.2' E
90.3E
0
Ta
51.7, o
51.7, a
a
Q
rn
261.0( co
261.0( m
0
E
M
600.0( Z
600.0(
W
E
t
U
42.1E Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 35
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237176 6/6/2019 011900 FRONTIER (Continued)
253-012-9189
425-771-5553
425-776-6829
237177 6/6/2019 071467 GATEWAY PET MEMORIAL WA70014-1-0021
237178 6/6/2019 076542 GRANICUS 113342
237179 6/6/2019 012560 HACH COMPANY 11466436
237180 6/6/2019 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 15095978
PO # Description/Account
WWTP: 5/25-6/24/19 AUTO DIALER
5/25-6/24/19 AUTO DIALER - 1 VOK
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
WWTP: 5/25-6/24/19 AUTO DIALER:
5/25-6/24/19 AUTO DIALER - 1 BUS
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH P
CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION A
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Total
INV WA70014 EDMONDS PD MAY 21
PICK UP 3 ANIMAL REMAINS
001.000.41.521.70.41.00
Total
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT
- AGE
LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT
- AGE
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
Total
WATER QUALITY - TESTING KITS
Water Quality - Testing Kits
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Total
WATER - PARTS AND SUPPLIES
Water - Parts and Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
4.4.a
Page: 8
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
m
41.5E
N
123.5(
v
138.8' c
346.0E
c
�a
0
38.61
38.6i a
E
U
1,564.9z c
1,564.9z 0
0
a
a
648.0( Q
rn
43.7E co
0
71.9z o
763.65 E
2
U
c
3,392.4( E
t
349.4,
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 36
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
237180
6/6/2019
010900
HD FOWLER CO INC
(Continued)
15126981
WATER - TAPPING MACHINE REPAI
Water - Tapping Machine Repairs
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.48.00
Tota I :
237181
6/6/2019
064528
HI -LINE ELECTRICAL
10703412
UNITS E161,162,163 EQ - CIRCUIT I
Units E161,162,163 EQ - Circuit Brea
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Freight
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Tota I :
237182
6/6/2019
061013
HONEY BUCKET
0551082921
HUTT PARK HONEY BUCKET
HUTT PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
Tota I :
237183
6/6/2019
075966
HULBERT, CARRIE
BID-0029
BID/ED! PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
BID/Ed! program management
140.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
237184
6/6/2019
076488
HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG
BID-ED2019-05
BID/ED! PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICE;
BID/Ed! Photography services for Ma,
140.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
237185
6/6/2019
072041
IBS INCORPORATED
700215-1
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
Freight
4.4.a
Page: 9
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 37
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.4.a
Page: 10
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
237185
6/6/2019
072041 IBS INCORPORATED
(Continued)
0
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
11.7E -0
10.4% Sales Tax
U
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
m
17 8z .L
702197-1
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
26.1(
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
12.5 1
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
4.0,
Total :
232.05
�a
237186
6/6/2019
073950 KUBWATER RESOURCES
08667
WWTP: POLYMER
Polymer
o
423.000.76.535.80.31.51
11,372.2E a
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.51
1,182.7,
Total:
12,555.01
0
237187
6/6/2019
016850 KUKER RANKEN INC
INV-051616
HAGUE.MEASURING TAPE 25'
Ta
Hague.Measuring Tape 25'
c
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
25.9E a
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
2.7( v
Total :
28.6E a)
237188
6/6/2019
074135 LAFAVE, CAROLYN
060419
SISTER CITY STUDENT EXCHANGE
m
mileage for ESCC business
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
13.5" E
ESCC orientation beverages
R
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
9.9E
ESCC orientation snacks
c
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
5.9( E
ESCC orientation beverages
U
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
0.7E
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 38
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237188 6/6/2019 074135 LAFAVE, CAROLYN
237189
237190
237191
6/6/2019 065791 LEIRA
6/6/2019 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLYCO
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
Tota I :
31
INV 31 - EDMONDS PD - MANDEVIL
2019 MEMBERSHIP - MANDEVILLE
001.000.41.521.80.49.00
32
INV 32 EDMONDS PD - SCHEELE
2019 MEMBERSHIP - SCHEELE
001.000.41.521.11.49.00
33
INV 33 - EDMONDS PD - HENDERSi
2019 MEMBERSHIP - HENDERSON
001.000.41.521.11.49.00
34
INV 34 EDMONDS PD - KERN
2019 MEMBERSHIP - KERN
001.000.41.521.11.49.00
35
INV 35 EDMONDS PD - BURKLANE
2019 MEMBERSHIP - BURKLANE
001.000.41.521.11.49.00
Tota I :
031078 00
PM: IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
PM: IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6/6/2019 072886 MACDONALD-MILLER FAC.SOLUTIONS SVC157813
Total :
YOST POOL SHOWER BOILER LCD
YOST POOL SHOWER BOILER LCD
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
Total
4.4.a
Page: 11
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
31.2 , .L
N
m
50.0(
m
c
50.0( �
c
�a
50.0( o
�a
a
50.0(
U
50.0E IS
250.0(
0
a
a
Q
588.5�
rn
61.8( c
650.3: 9
0
E
1,394.8E
c
145.0
1,539.9:
�a
Q
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 39
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.4.a
Page: 12
a�
L
3
Bank code :
usbank
c
�a
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun N
237192
6/6/2019
077089 MAISANO MEDIATION LLC
05302019
MEDIATION
0
m
BARNARD V. EDMONDS MEDIATIOI
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
4,896.0( u
Total:
4,896.0(
237193
6/6/2019
020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
95387492
WWTP: VALVES, DRILL BITS, SPRIP
N
VALVES, DRILL BITS, SPRING PINS
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
547.2' r
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.6£
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
57.9,
95578789
WWTP: PIPE FITTINGS
PIPE FITTINGS
o
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
27.9z
Freight
a
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
15.1 ,
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
4.4£ u
Total:
662.3° o
237194
6/6/2019
072223 MILLER, DOUG
5/1-5/29 GYM MONITOR
5/1-5/29/19 BASKETBALL GYM MON
0
5/1-5/29/19 BASKETBALL GYM MON
a
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
150.0( Q
Total:
150.0( ..
rn
237195
6/6/2019
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
304782
PM: FUEL FILLER CAPS, WRENCH,
co
PM: FUEL FILLER CAPS, WRENCH,
G
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
37.9(
PM: FUEL FILLER CAPS, WRENCH,
N
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
58.2( .m
10.4% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
3.9z c
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6.Of U
305283
PM SUPPLIES: CHAINS
Q
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 40
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237195 6/6/2019 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
237196 6/6/2019 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
PM SUPPLIES: CHAINS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota I :
9 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PRi
Tasks 1 - 4: Parks Project Mgmt and
125.000.64.576.80.41.00
Task 5: Engineering Dept Tasks
422.000.72.594.31.65.41
Tota I :
237197 6/6/2019 070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 10193622
237198 6/6/2019 075770 NEOFUNDS BY NEOPOST
237199 6/6/2019 077088 NICHOLAS AUGUSTAVO
237200 6/6/2019 075881 NORRIS, KENNETH
FSA - MAY 2019
FSA FEES - MAY
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
Total ;
12251158 7990044080303286 POSTAGE ADDE
7990044080303286 POSTAGE ADDE
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
Total
7-08925 #751161 RT UTILITY REFUND
#751161 RT Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Total
331372 EDMONDS PD - FIRSTAID 5/12-5/3"
5/12/19 FIRSTAID - 9 STUDENTS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
5/14/19 FIRSTAID - 17 STUDENTS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
5/16/19 FIRSTAID - 11 STUDENTS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
4.4.a
Page: 13
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
169.4, u
L
17.6,
293.1:
m
v
2,312.5(
a�
312.5(
2,625.0(
0
�a
a
155.0(
155.0( •�
0
�a
4,000.0( o
4,000.0( a
a
Q
rn
92.0E
92.0E c
m
0
E
2
225.0( U
425.0( (D
E
t
275.0( um
Q
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 41
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237200 6/6/2019 075881 NORRIS, KENNETH
237201
237202
237203
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
6/6/2019 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS N012814
PO # Description/Account
5/18/19 FIRSTAID - 3 STUDENTS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
5/26/19 FIRSTAID - 9 STUDENTS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
5/31/19 FIRSTAID - 10 STUDENTS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
Total
UNIT 46 - SUPPLIES
Unit 46 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Fees
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total :
6/6/2019 076902 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTR OF WA 64363281 TESTING AND VACCINES
HEP B VACCINE - FACILITIES
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
LEAD TESTING - POLICE
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Tota I :
6/6/2019 065720 OFFICE DEPOT 319831301001 INV319831301001 CUST90520437 E
BLUE PEN FLAIR W/1% DISC.
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
PEN FLAIR W/POINT W/1% DISC.
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
PEN,BALL RETRACT W/1% DISC
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
Total
4.4.a
Page: 14
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
75.0( u
L
225.0(
N
250.0(
1,475.0( u
m
c
d
276.E ,
�a
10.0( o
L
28.0� a
314.7E
U
4-
0
94.0(
0
61.0( a
155.0( Q
rn
0
27.0( 0 9w
0
11.2< E
M
70.2( U
c
11.2E E
11911 U
�a
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 42
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237204 6/6/2019 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
237205 6/6/2019 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
237206 6/6/2019 077004 PATRICK & KELLIE RAFTIS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
38759 YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL SUPPLIES: CHEMICAL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
3685-406956
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
3685-408257
UNIT 473 - PARTS
Unit 473 - Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3685-408593
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
3685-410066
UNIT 66 - SUPPLIES
Unit 66 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3745-212094
SEWER - SUPPLIES
Sewer - Supplies
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
Total
2-30325 #749963RT UTILITY REFUND
#749963RT Utility refund due to
4.4.a
Page: 15
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
m
836.8( u
L
87.0i
923X
m
v
23.6E
a�
2.4E
�a
0
8.2�
�a
a
0.8E
U
4.9� o
�a
0.5', o
a
a
Q
69.0z rn
7.1£ o
ca
0
10.9E .
R
U
1.1z };
129.1: y
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
237206
6/6/2019
077004
PATRICK & KELLIE RAFTIS
(Continued)
237207
6/6/2019
008475
PETTY CASH
060319
237208
6/6/2019
073266
PILGRIM MEDIA SERVICES
32657
237209
6/6/2019
046900
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
200021829581
237210
6/6/2019
072370
QUIET ZONE TECHNOLOGY
P101728
PO # Description/Account
411.000.233.000
Total :
PW - SUPPLIES
PW - SUPPLIES
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
CITY HALL- CABINET LOCKS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
FAC MAINT - BOCII CLASS PARKIN(
001.000.66.518.30.43.00
STREET - CDL RENEWAL - T MOLE
111.000.68.542.90.49.00
RECYCLE - SUPPLIES
421.000.74.537.90.49.00
SEWER - CDL RENEWAL - D CRAW
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
FLEET - CONFERENCE MILEAGE -
511.000.77.548.68.43.00
Total
CEMETERY: MEMORIAL DAY CERE
CEMETERY: MEMORIAL DAY CERE
130.000.64.536.20.41.00
Total
WWTP: 4/22-5/21/19 METER 00039(
4/22-5/21/19 200 2ND AVE S / METI
423.000.76.535.80.47.63
Total
ESAA.SERVICES THRU MAY 2019
ESAA.Services thru May 2019
126.000.68.595.70.65.41
Total
4.4.a
Page: 16
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
377.8,1 -0
377.8: m
L_
N
17.6E y
z
U
26.3E
m
c
6.0(
102.0(
0
30.8-
�a
a
102.0(
92.2, U
377.0E o
�a
0
L
a
300.0( Q
300.0E
rn
0
43.1'
43.11
c
10,840.3' E
10,840.3' t
U
�a
Q
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
237211
6/6/2019
030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
14346
INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-RO
INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-RO
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
14347
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-SUPLER
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-SUPLER
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
14348
INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-CU
INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-CU
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
Total
237212
6/6/2019
064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC
5-023058
UNIT 86 - BATTHERY
Unit 86 - Batthery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
5-023059
UNIT M16 - BATTERIES
Unit M16 - Batteries
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Tota I :
237213
6/6/2019
065001 SCHIRMAN, RON
42
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.29.00
Total
237214
6/6/2019
072733 SCHWING BIOSET INC
61421712
WWTP: 4-2019 RENTAL- HYDRAUL
4-2019 RENTAL - HYDRAULIC UNIT
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
61421893
WWTP: 5-2019 RENTAL- HYDRAUL
5-2019 RENTAL - HYDRAULIC POW
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
Total
4.4.a
Page: 17
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
150.0( u
L_
150.0(
m
150.0( I
450.0( c
d
c
�a
96.9< o
10.0E a
E
436.3 1 U
4-
0
45.3E 7a
588.7E o
L
Q
Q
Q
9,300.0( r'
9,300.0( c
0
E
5,000.0( '(a
c
5,000.0(
10,000.0(
�a
Q
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
237215
6/6/2019
076328 SCJ ALLIANCE
56550
E6AA.SERVICES THRU 4/5/19
E6AA.Services thru 4/5/19
112.000.68.595.33.65.41
Total:
237216
6/6/2019
036041 SETINA MFG CO
184030
UNIT 285 - SUPPLIES
Unit 285 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
237217
6/6/2019
070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC
107067
E4FC.SERVICES THRU 3/16/19
E4FC.Services thru 3/16/19
422.000.72.594.31.65.41
Total
237218
6/6/2019
068489 SIRENNET.COM
0239609-IN
UNIT REPL 5.9.19 - CONTROL HEA[
Unit REPL 5.9.19 - Control Head
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
237219
6/6/2019
036955 SKY NURSERY
T-1308162
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.0% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total:
237220
6/6/2019
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
200124873
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
200202919
LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV
LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AV
4.4.a
Page: 18
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237220 6/6/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
200422418
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
200493153
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
200663953
ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M
ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
200913853
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND A)
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND A)
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
200943348
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201054327
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 501
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 501
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
201192226
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201532926
LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S-
LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S-
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
201557303
CEMETERY BUILDING
CEMETERY BUILDING
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
201563434
TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA
TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201582152
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
201610276
OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT
4.4.a
Page: 19
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
63.7< 'D
U
m
1,061.5E
N
m
32.8E U
m
c
86.7E M'
c
�a
16.6( p
0
�a
a
31.7E E
U
45 52.2' 0
0
L
16.71 a
Q
rn
173.9,
0
0
79.6( ,n
E
2
U
24.1(
c
a�
E
30.3E
Q
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 47
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237220 6/6/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
201703758
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10(
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10(
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
201762101
415 5TH AVE S
415 5TH AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
201929916
WWTP:4/24-5-22-19 FLOWMETER
4/24-5-22-19 FLOW METER 23219
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
202077194
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
202087870
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
202139655
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
202161535
CEMETERY WELL PUMP
CEMETERY WELL PUMP
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
202289096
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
202499539
LIFT STATION #1 105 GASPERS ST
LIFT STATION #1 105 GASPERS ST
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
202620415
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
204292213
CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST
CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
4.4.a
Page: 20
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
8.3( u
32.1(
m
19.9-
c
a�
16.6(
�a
0
435.6, `5%
M
a
E
156.1E 'i
0
24.2E
0
L
Q
a
116.6, Q
rn
52.4� o
0
438.11 .E
ca
U
18.3, y
E
t
U
�a
47.8E Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 48
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237220 6/6/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued)
204467435
220547582
237221 6/6/2019 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2019-5119
2019-5141
2019-5141 CREDIT
PO # Description/Account
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
Total
INV 2019-5119 EDMONDS PD APRIL
604.5 HOUSING DAYS @ $101.69
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
59.67 BOOKINGS @ $125.06
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
60.33 MED/ SPEC HOUSING @ $58.
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
44.5 MENT HEALTH PRE DAY @$14
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
14.75 VID COURT HOURS @ $138.7
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
INV 2019-5141 EDMONDS PD - APR
INMATE PHARMACEUTICALS - 04/1
001.000.39.523.60.31.00
INV 2019-5141 CREDIT FOR 3/21 IN
CREDIT FOR 03/19 INMATE MEDS
001.000.39.523.60.31.00
Total
237222 6/6/2019 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 1529 JUN-19 COMMUNICATION DISPATC
JUN-19 COMMUNICATION DISPATC
001.000.39.528.00.41.50
JUN-19 COMMUNICATION DISPATC
421.000.74.534.80.41.50
JUN-19 COMMUNICATION DISPATC
423.000.75.535.80.41.50
4.4.a
Page: 21
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
m
36.5E
N
38.5E
3,144.71 v
m
c
d
61,471.6"
c
�a
7,462.3< o
3,525.6� a
6,278.9E
2,046.4 0
0
L
120.3- a
Q
rn
-7.0(
80,898.3( c
0
E
70,111.5( n
U
1,845.0z r-
E
1,845.0, U
�a
Q
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 49
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237222 6/6/2019 076433 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911
237223 6/6/2019 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 65563
237224 6/6/2019 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583
103585
103586
103587
103587
103588
237225 6/6/2019 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 71986/4
(Continued)
PO # Description/Account
Total
INV 65563 EDMONDS PD
PECK MAILBOX TAGS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
CLERK CPL STAMP W/15% DISC.
001.000.41.521.11.31.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.11.31.00
Total
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC
PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
Total
WATER - WORK JEANS (5) - J KOB`
4.4.a
Page: 22
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
73,801.51 0
U
d
L_
7.0(
N
29.4� y
z
U
3.5(
m
c
1.0�
3.0,
44.1 ° o
0
�a
a
689.5 •E
0
724.4,
0
L
a
605.1 £ Q
rn
1,043.3� c
0
1,022.9z E
.ii
U
459.8� c
4,545.35 E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 50
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.4.a
Page: 23
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
237225
6/6/2019
038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
(Continued)
Water - Work Jeans (5) - J Kobylk
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
198.E
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
20.6E
Total:
219.3:
237226
6/6/2019
071585 STERICYCLE INC
3004699530
INV#3004699530 CUST#6076358 EC
MEDIUM BOX DISPOSAL
001.000.41.521.80.41.00
54.2,
Total :
54.2:
237227
6/6/2019
076710 STREET CRIMES
28007
INV 28007 EDMONDS PD - RICHARI
SRT. CRIMES SEMINAR - RICHARD
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
299.0(
Total :
299.0(
237228
6/6/2019
076474 STROMME, JOANNE
7684 7687 YOGA
7684 7687 YOGA INSTRUCTION
7684 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
515.9(
7687 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
464.2(
7690 YOGA
7690 YOGA INSTRUCTION
7690 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
417.4E
Total :
1,397.5E
237229
6/6/2019
068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP
101742
LEGAL SERVICES
CIVIL SERVICE LOUDERMILL
001.000.22.521.10.41.00
693.0(
102980
ANTI -HARASSMENT TRAININGS - P
ANTI -HARASSMENT TRAININGS - P
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
2,520.0(
Total :
3,213.0(
237230
6/6/2019
068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP
100217
CIVIL SERVICES LEGAL SERVICES
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 51
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.4.a
Page: 24
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
237230
6/6/2019
068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP
(Continued)
0
CIVIL SERVICE LEGAL SERVICES
001.000.22.521.10.41.00
579.5( u
Total :
579.5( .`
237231
6/6/2019
038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
US53022
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUI
N
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUI
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
394.4�
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
41.0'
US54073
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
303.3<
10.4% Sales Tax
o
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
31.5E j,
Total:
770.4( a
237232
6/6/2019
075850 TURLEY, DAVE
May 2019
GFOAANNUAL CONFERENCE PER
2019 GFOA Conference 5/18-22/19 F
U
001.000.31.514.23.43.00
222.2E c
Total:
222.2E ii
237233
6/6/2019
067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
9830673880
C/A 571242650-0001
0
a
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept
Q-
Q
001.000.62.524.20.42.00
501.5,
iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
75.8E co
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ
G
w
001.000.61.557.20.42.00
96.1
iPad Cell Service Council
N
E
001.000.11.511.60.42.00
558.6E .�
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court
001.000.23.512.50.42.00
75.8( c
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Developmer
E
E
001.000.62.524.10.42.00
152.3 U
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering
Q
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 52
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237233 6/6/2019 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.67.518.21.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance
001.000.31.514.23.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR
001.000.22.518.10.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Offi
001.000.21.513.10.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept
001.000.64.571.21.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept
001.000.41.521.22.42.00
Air cards Police Dept
001.000.41.521.22.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning DE
001.000.62.558.60.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street C
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/,r
4.4.a
Page: 25
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
a�
1,261.1E
r
U
d
244.4(
106.1E
m
t
96.1 f U
384.4< c
a�
56.1 £
�a
56.1 £ o
L
�a
1,930.3E
E
1,157.6,
U
120.0< 0
26.5E o
a
a
7.5� Q
rn
26.5E
0
7.5� o
E
7.5E 'M
228.2<
aD
56.1 £ t
U
�a
Q
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 53
4.4.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 26
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
237233
6/6/2019 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
(Continued)
0
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
as
164.2E -0
iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/;
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
m
164.2� .L
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
322.1(
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
t
378.2E u
iPad Cell Service Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
155.8E c
iPad Cell Service Street/Storm
M
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
200.0E
iPad Cell Service Street/Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
200.0E o
iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP
`>+
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
�a
637.2E
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
152.3,
iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks
001.000.64.571.21.42.00
96.1 � 0
iPad Cell Service Parks Discovery
>
001.000.64.571.23.42.00
40.0- o
9830804042
C/A 772540262-00001
a
Lift Station access
Q
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
54.6E cn
Total:
9,798.9E
0
237234
6/6/2019 045515 WABO
37598
JOB POSTING
0
PLANS EXAMINER JOB POSTING
001.000.22.518.10.41.40
50.0( .
Total:
50.0(
237235
6/6/2019 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC
62838
INV 62838 TOW VW JETTA BNL669!
TOW VW JETTA 19-12784
E
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
189.0( U
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
Page:
26
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237235 6/6/2019 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC (Continued)
237236 6/6/2019 067086 WASHINGTON CRANE AND HOIST CO 0039711-IN
237237 6/6/2019 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
237238 6/6/2019 045912 WASPC
237239 6/6/2019 077043 WEDER, GWENDOLYN
237240 6/6/2019 073137 WELCH-LANG, CAROLE
119-382
I N V028981
5/7-5/28 PICKLEBALL
7877 FUN FACTORY
237241 6/6/2019 077087 WILLIAM WOO & MELINDA BAKER 4-06278
PO # Description/Account
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
Total :
WWTP: REPLACE CONDUCTOR BP
REPLACE CONDUCTOR BAR & HAf
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
PM: TREE SERVICE: PINE RIDGE P,
PM: TREE SERVICE: PINE RIDGE P,
001.000.64.576.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.48.00
Total
INV028981 EDMONDS PD - SPRING
SPRING CONF - COMPAAN
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
SPRING CONF - LAWLESS
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
Total
5/7-5/28/19 PICKLEBALL LEAGUE IV
5/7-5/28/19 PICKLEBALL LEAGUE IV
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
Total
7877 FUN FACTORY CLASS INSTRI
7877 FUN FACTORY CLASS INSTRI
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
#750309RT UTILITY REFUND
#750309RT Utility refund due to
4.4.a
Page: 27
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
06/06/2019 1:25:35PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237241 6/6/2019 077087 WILLIAM WOO & MELINDA BAKER (Continued)
237242 6/6/2019 064213 WSSUATREASURER
100 Vouchers for bank code: usbank
100 Vouchers in this report
PO # Description/Account
411.000.233.000
Total :
613 MIENS & COED SOFTBALL LEAGE l
SOFTBALL LEAGE UMPIRES
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
Total
Bank total :
Total vouchers :
4.4.a
Page: 28
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
169.9� -0
169.9<, u
L_
T3
N
1,960.0(
1,960.0(
391,972.1( D
c
391,972.1(
c
�a
0
L
Q
U
4-
0
0
L
Q
Q
Q
r
O
to
0
I_
2
V
C
0
E
U
Y
Q
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 : 21: 27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
237243
6/13/2019
076040 911 SUPPLY INC
75011
INV 75011 EDMONDS PD PECK -ALE
5.11 STRYKER PANT -ALERT- PECK
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
Tota I :
237244
6/13/2019
065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
21821
WWTP: 6/6/19 PEST CONTROL SEF
Pest Control Service
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Tota I :
237245
6/13/2019
065568 ALLWATER INC
060519041
FINANCE DEPT WATER
Finance dept water
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
060519042
WWTP: 6/5/19 DRINK WATER SERb
6/5/19 DRINK WATER SERVICE
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota I :
237246
6/13/2019
074488 ALPHA COURIER INC
19915
WWTP: 5/15/19 COURIER P/U
5/15/19 COURIER P/U
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
Tota I :
237247
6/13/2019
070976 AMERESCO INC
c431.RETAINAGE
WWTP: RETAINAGE : C431 PH 5 EP
Retainage released for payment by D
423.100.223.400
4.4.b
Page: 1
aD
L
3
c
�a
.y
Amoun 0
a
aD
r
U
d
164.9f
U
m
c
73.0( M'
80.55 0
L
�a
a
49.9.'
5.1 o
Ta
0
L
20.9( a
Q
78.21
A
0
29.7( E
29.7( 2
U
123,187.3(
c
a�
E
�a
Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237247 6/13/2019 070976 070976 AMERESCO INC
237248 6/13/2019 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
237249
237250
237251
237252
6/13/2019 077130 ANDERSON, KIM
6/13/2019 060228 ANS OF WASHINGTON INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
Total
204623-190407
MEMBERSHIP FOR M. SZAFRAN
Membership for M. Szafran
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
Total
6/11/2019
CLAIM FOR EXPENSES - YOST PO(
REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUPPLIES
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUPPLIES
001.000.22.518.10.31.10
Total
Spellman, Jana
RENEWAL OF NOTARY LICENSE F(
Renewal of notary license for Spellmz
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
Total
6/13/2019 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 17405 YOST POOL/SPA SUPPLIES
YOST POOL/SPA SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
6/13/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1991269343 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE:
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE:
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE:
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
4.4.b
Page: 2
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
123,187.3( 0
U
d
L_
338.0(
338.0(
m
52.1, m
c
77.6E -a
129.8,
0
L
�a
207.2, a
207.2, E
U
4-
0
270.3( >
0
L
28.1- a
298.41 Q
rn
A
1.6" o
6.1- .E
�a
U
6.1-
aD
6.1- _
U
�a
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237252 6/13/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1991269344
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1991273592
WWTP: 6/5/19 UNIFORMSJOWELS
Mats/Towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
1991273593
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
4.4.b
Page: 3
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
6.1- 'D
U
m
6.0E
m
0.6z u
0.6z c
d
0.6z
�a
0.6z o
L
�a
0.6"
E
9.2� u
0
19.1( >
0
L
0.91 a
Q
1.9f c�
A
47.8E o
3.5(
4.9£
0.3E t
U
co
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237252 6/13/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued)
237253 6/13/2019 065950 ATS ELECTRO-LUBE INTL INC 110472
237254 6/13/2019 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON 7824 TAEKWON-DO
237255 6/13/2019 069295 BROWN, CANDY
237256 6/13/2019 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA
237257 6/13/2019 077123 CARRASQUERO, JOSE
6/5/19 CLASS VISIT
7694 BIRD CLASS
7843 DRAWING
0
PO # Description/Account
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
Total
WWTP: PANASONIC BATTERY PAC
PANASONIC BATTERY PACKS
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
7824 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION
7824 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
Total
6/5/19 BIRD NATURALIST CLASSRC
6/5/19 BIRD NATURALIST CLASSRC
001.000.64.571.23.41.00
7694 HUMMINGBIRDS CLASS INST
7694 HUMMINGBIRDS CLASS INST
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
7843 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING IP
7843 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING IP
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT I
WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT I
001.000.64.571.21.41.00
Total
4.4.b
Page: 4
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
51.5,1 u
L
5.3E
180.4E
m
v
330.7.E
a�
45.3(
376.0° sa
0
�a
a
1,275.0(
1,275.0( •�
0
Ta
47.6( o
a
a
35.2( Q
82.8( r'
A
0
286.7<
28637
U
c
a�
4,400.0( E
4,400.0( um
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237258 6/13/2019 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
237259 6/13/2019 077126 CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP
237260 6/13/2019 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC
237261 6/13/2019 004579 COMPAAN, ALAN D
237262 6/13/2019 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING
237263 6/13/2019 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
RN05191004 PM: SPRAY PARK CARBON DIOXIDI
SPRAY PARK CARBON DIOXIDE
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
Total
2161925 GASB 68 PENSION AND OPEB FOC
GASB 68 Pension and OPEB Footno1
001.000.39.519.90.41.00
Total
JUN-19
C/A CITYOFED00001
Jun-19 Fiber Optics Internet Connecti
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
Total
COMPAAN WASPC
COMPAAN EXP CLAIM FOR WASPC
WASPC LODGING - COMPAAN
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
WASPC LODGING - LAWLESS
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
Total
MAY 28,2019
ACCT 613589 EDMONDS PD
DRY CLEANING MAY 2019
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
Total
3348336
ADVERTISING - EDMONDS HOUSII`
Advertising - Edmonds Housing Cons
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
3348663
BUSINESS RECRUITMENT ADS FOI
Business recruitment ads for May 201
001.000.61.558.70.41.40
Tota I :
4.4.b
Page: 5
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
16.4E u
L
1.7-
18.1E
m
v
5,600.0(
5,600.0(
c
�a
406.1(
406.1( a
E
U
358.& c
7a
414.3( o
773.1 < a
a
Q
rn
739.0( M
739.0(
m
0
E
74.4(
c
aD
500.0( E
574.4( um
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.4.b
Page: 6
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
237264
6/13/2019
047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES
2019050038
CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 SWV#0098
0
m
Scan Services for May 2019
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
285.0( u
Total:
285.0( .`
237265
6/13/2019
064531 DINES, JEANNIE
19-3936
6/4/19 CITY COUNCIL MEETING & S
N
6/4/19 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEE
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
290.5(
Total :
290.5(
m
237266
6/13/2019
064640 DMCMA
05192019
DMCMA ANNUAL CONFERENCE-
DMCMA ANNUAL CONFERENCE-
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
150.0(
Total:
150.0( —
0
237267
6/13/2019
076879 DRAMA KIDS INTERNATIONAL
7176 DRAMA KIDS
7176 DRAMA KIDS CLASS INSTRUC
L
�a
7176 DRAMA KIDS CLASS INSTRUC
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
90.0( .E
7177 DRAMA KIDS
7177 DRAMA KIDS CLASS INSTRUC
fd
7177 DRAMA KIDS CLASS INSTRUC
-
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
135.0( o
7178 DRAMA KIDS
7178 DRAMA KIDS CLASS INSTRUC
>
7178 DRAMA KIDS CLASS INSTRUC
0
a
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
324.0( Q
7179 DRAMA KIDS
7179 DRAMA KIDS CLASS INSTRUC
7179 DRAMA KIDS CLASS INSTRUC
rn
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
777.6( A
Total:
1,326.6(
0
237268
6/13/2019
007253 DUNN LUMBER
6386365
PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E000027
PM: SUPPLIES: SEAVIEW PARK PLi
E
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
343.2z Z
10.5% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
36.0z
6389276
PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E000027
E
PM: SUPPLIES: LUMBER
U
�a
Q
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237268 6/13/2019 007253 DUNN LUMBER
237269
237270
6/13/2019 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
1358
1360
1364
1371
1372
6/13/2019 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 7774 S RAFIPOUR
PO # Description/Account
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total :
PM SUPPLIES: COUPLING PVC, AD
PM SUPPLIES: COUPLING PVC, AD
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: SPRAY PAINT, NUTr
PM SUPPLIES: SPRAY PAINT, NUTr
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: VALVE, HEX BUSHII`
PM SUPPLIES: VALVE, HEX BUSHII`
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: ROPE
PM SUPPLIES: ROPE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: CHISEL SET, WREN
PM SUPPLIES: CHISEL SET, WREN
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
7774 S RAFIPOUR YOUTH SCHOLA
7774 S RAFIPOUR YOUTH SCHOLA
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
4.4.b
Page: 7
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
479.4( 'D
r
U
d
50.31 .L
909.01
N
V
m
17.1-
c
1.7E M
c
�a
15.6E o
1.6< a
E
40.5' U
0
4.2,
0
L
a
a
13.9� Q
rn
1.4£
A
m
0
49.9E
E
5.2(
151.5' };
c
aD
E
t
U
75.0( Zu
Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 63
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
237270 6/13/2019 069523 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARS (Continued)
237271 6/13/2019 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 7737 E JOSIAH
237272
237273
237274
237275
237276
237277
6/13/2019 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 7737 K JOSIAH
6/13/2019 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 7774 N WUBNEH
6/13/2019 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2019-11
6/13/2019 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR136325
6/13/2019 077132 ELLISON, RACHEL
6/13/2019 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
MILEAGE REIMBURSE
EDH858270
Description/Account
Total
7737 E JOSIAH YOUTH SCHOLARS
7737 E JOSIAH YOUTH SCHOLARS
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
Total
7737 K JOSIAH YOUTH SCHOLARS
7737 K JOSIAH YOUTH SCHOLARS
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
Total
7774 N WUBNEH YOUTH SCHOLAF
7774 N WUBNEH YOUTH SCHOLAF
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
Total
06/19 RECREATION SERVICES COI
06/19 Recreation Services Contract F
001.000.39.569.10.41.00
Total
INV AR136325 CUST CN10023-01 E
CANON C1435 B&W RZJ01403
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
Total
APRIL/MAY RANGER CLASSROOM
APRIL/MAY RANGER CLASSROOM
001.000.64.571.23.43.00
Total
ADVERTISING: LEGAL DESCRIP. F
Advertising: Legal Descrip. PLN 201
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
4.4.b
Page: 8
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
75.0( 0
U
d
L_
75.0(
75.0(
m
z
75.0( m
75.0( a0i
c
�a
75.0( o
75.0(
a
E
6,250.0(
6,250.0( 0
7a
0
L
a
a
35.0< Q
rn
3.6z
38.6�
0
E
163.0z
163.0z
c
a�
E
t
72.4( +°
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 64
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.4.b
Page: 9
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
237277
6/13/2019 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
(Continued)
0
EDH858500
ADVERTISING: LEGAL DESCRIP: I
Advertising: Legal Descrip: RFQ
m
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
25.3z .L
Total:
97.7z
N
Y
237278
6/13/2019 077092 FOX, JAMES
6/1/19 GYMNASTICS
6/1/2019 GYMNASTICS GYM BREAH
m
6/1/2019 GYMNASTICS GYM BREAH
001.000.64.571.28.41.00
39.0(
Total:
39.0( c
237279
6/13/2019 011900 FRONTIER
206-188-0247
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A,
a�
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A,
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
270.7� _
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A,
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
270.7f a
425-774-1031
LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACC[
LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRA[
E
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
47.5( a
425-776-1281
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH(
o
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH(
Ta
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
58.4E o
425-776-2742
LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI
a
LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACC
°-
Q
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
425-776-5316
425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII
r'
425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII
M
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
105.1
Total:
779.OS N
E
237280
6/13/2019 077090 GOVSPEND
50271
GOVSPEND - PURCHASING SOFTV
Govspend Software Subscription -
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
500.0(
Govspend Software Subscription -
E
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
500.0( t
Govspend Software Subscription -
Q
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
237280 6/13/2019 077090 GOVSPEND (Continued)
001.000.65.518.20.49.00
Govspend Software Subscription -
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
Govspend Software Subscription -
111.000.68.542.90.49.00
Govspend Software Subscription -
001.000.66.518.30.49.00
Govspend Software Subscription -
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
Total
237281 6/13/2019 077124 GUNARAMA WHOLESALE INC 989793 INV989793 EDMONDS PD
4 GLOCK GEN-4 G17-T TRNING PIS
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
Total
237282
237283
237284
6/13/2019 074086 HEARING, SPEECH & DEAF CENTER 13056
6/13/2019 075119 HOPE, SHANE
6/13/2019 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
Hope, Shane
29330
P&R: ASL INTERPRETER
P&R: ASL INTERPRETERI KIDZ LOB
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
HOPE CLAIM FOR EXPENSES 1/2 T
Hope Claim for Expenses 1/2 to 5/9/2
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
Total
ESKA.SERVICES THRU 5/25/19
ESKA.Services thru 5/25/19
421.000.74.594.34.65.41
Total
4.4.b
Page: 10
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
aD
500.0( 'D
r
U
d
500.0(
500.0(
m
z
500.0( u
500.0( c
3,500.0(
c
�a
0
1,816.0(
�a
a
30.0(
191.9E U
2,037.9E o
0
0
L
a
546.51 Q
546.5z
rn
A
490.8(
490.8( E
c
210.0( E
210.0( t
U
�a
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 66
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237285 6/13/2019 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
237286
237287
237288
237289
6/13/2019 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS
6/13/2019 076169 JOHN & MARY HEUERMAN
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
3228754
3249676
3249809
5406
3-24500
6/13/2019 068816 JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE PROT LP 20962256
6/13/2019 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 300396653
PO # Description/Account
HP 26ATONER CARTRIDGE
HP 26AToner Cartridge - returned for
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
HP 26ATONER CARTRIDGE
HP 26AToner Cartridge - returned for
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
P&R SUPPLIES: COPY PAPER
P&R SUPPLIES: COPY PAPER
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
Total
FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC
Jun-19 Fiber Optics Internet Connecti
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
Total
#1012044AL UTILITY REFUND
#1012044AL Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Total
WWTP: 2019 WET SPRINKLER SYE
2019 WET SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN;
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
INV 300396653 EDMONDS PD
10 CASES WHITE PAPER
4.4.b
Page: 11
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
147.4E u
L
15.1E
N
m
-147.4E v
-15.1c
c
79.9E
0
L
8.3,
88.3( m
E
U
500.0E o
Ta
52.0( o
552.0( a
Q
rn
112.5(
112.5( co
0
E
605.0(
605.0( c
aD
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 67
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237289 6/13/2019 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE (Continued)
237290 6/13/2019 069080 KROHNE INC
237291 6/13/2019 077082 LAL, JAWAHAR
S01/89271
PLN20190008
237292 6/13/2019 072886 MACDONALD-MILLER FAC.SOLUTIONS SVC158074
237293 6/13/2019 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 95675042
96104577
PO # Description/Account
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
HANDLING FEE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
WWTP: CABLE VP2-S-3
CABLE VP2-S-3
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total :
Total
REFUND: APPLICANT WITHDREW
Refund: Applicant withdrew due to
001.000.257.620
Total
PM: YOST POOL SHOWER BOILER
PM: YOST POOL SHOWER BOILER
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
Total
WWTP: SUMP PUMP
SUMP PUMP
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
WWTP: PIPE FITTINGS
PIPE FITTINGS
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Freight
4.4.b
Page: 12
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 68
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237293 6/13/2019 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
237294
237295
237296
6/13/2019 075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA
6/13/2019 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
96273464
WWTP: HEX NUTS, LOCKNUTS, CC
HEX NUTS, LOCKNUTS, COUPLING
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
7818 7821 FELDENKRAI
7818 7821 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUC
7818 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
7821 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
Total
305282
PM: GENIE LIFT
PM: GENIE LIFT
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
305438
PM SUPPLIES: CIRCULAR SAW
PM SUPPLIES: CIRCULAR SAW
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
Total:
6/13/2019 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 5392367
PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS
PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
4.4.b
Page: 13
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
aD
7.5E 'D
r
U
d
3.3,
N
1,017.0<
U
42.0E
m
c
110.1E M
2,149.0:
�a
0
163.5( a
67.0(
230.5(
0
7a
0
389.6E a
a
Q
40.5< v
rn
A
255.6( co
0
26.5E E
712.35 R
U
c
aD
E
492.4f
�a
Q
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 69
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237296 6/13/2019 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS (Continued)
237297 6/13/2019 024910 NORMED 24808-792567
237298 6/13/2019 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS N013064
237299 6/13/2019 074866 NORTHWEST PLAYGROUND EQUIPMEN 44233
237300 6/13/2019 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER May, 2019
PO # Description/Account
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
Total :
INV 24808-792567 EDMONDS PD
4 BOXES ADVIL PACKS 50/2S
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
10 BOXES NITRILE BLK GLVS XL
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
10 BOXES NITRILE BLK GLVS L
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
Total
WWTP: JOMAR GREEN STUFF, TEI
JOMAR GREEN STUFF, TELLON, UI
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
REMAINING BALANCE: PICNIC BEN
REMAINING BALANCE: PICNIC BEN
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSI`
Emergency Medical Services & Traun
001.000.237.120
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.237.130
4.4.b
Page: 14
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
m
51.2, -0
543.7( m
L_
N
47.8E y
66.1(
m
c
66.1(
4.9E
0
13.7E
198.81 a
E
U
97.3� c
0
9.5, o
106.9: a
a
Q
rn
2,066.9' A
214.9(
2,281.85 E
.ii
U
c
1,063.4z E
t
19,340.9(
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 70
4.4.b
vchlist Voucher List Page: 15
06/13/2019 12:21:27PM City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
237300
6/13/2019
070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
(Continued)
0
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.237.150
600.0( u
State Patrol Death Investigation
L
001.000.237.330
73.9:
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.237.180
5,266.7E 4)
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.237.200
139.6z 4-
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
c
001.000.237.250
2,128.6E m
Traumatic Brain Injury
c
001.000.237.260
422.0- f°
Accessible Communities Acct
o
001.000.237.290
L
99.9E
Multi -Model Transportation
a
001.000.237.300
99.9E E
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.237.320
281.1E ,_
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
0
001.000.237.170
1.8" >
WSP Hwy Acct
0
001.000.237.340
419.9E 0-
Total :
29,938.31 Q
rn
237301
6/13/2019
026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT
0054671
HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION
HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION
M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
31.9E c
0060860
HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNT/
HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNT/
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
101.5' 2
Total :
133.51 +:
c
d
237302
6/13/2019
063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
38792
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
E
YOST POOL SUPPLIES:
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
313.5(
Q
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 71
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.4.b
Page: 16
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237302
6/13/2019
063750
ORCA PACIFIC INC
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
32.6(
Tota I :
346.1(
237303
6/13/2019
071783
PIGSKIN UNIFORMS
2019-25
INV 2019-25 EDMONDS PD A. JAME
A. JAMES SUMMER WT JUMPSUIT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
515.0(
Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
43.7E
Total :
558.7F
237304
6/13/2019
029117
PORT OF EDMONDS
03870
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR
422.000.72.531.90.41.50
3,345.3�
Total :
3,345.35
237305
6/13/2019
064088
PROTECTION ONE
31146525
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12'
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
155.8<
ALARM MONITORING, FIRE, CITY F
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
151.3,
Total :
307.2(
237306
6/13/2019
030780
QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
14441
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-MIZELL
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-MIZELL
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
150.0(
Tota I :
150.0(
237307
6/13/2019
077133
RAYMOND HANDLING CONCEPTS
CORF 20204385
UNIT E171 PO - NEW 2019 GEM E2-
Unit E171 PO - New 2019 Gem E2-
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
29,105.5 -
10.4% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
3,026.9E
Tota I :
32,132.41
237308
6/13/2019
077042
REDTAIL LLC
EBFB.Pmt 1
EBFB.PMT 1 THRU 5/31/19
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 72
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.4.b
Page: 17
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
237308 6/13/2019 077042 REDTAIL LLC
(Continued)
0
EBFB.Pmt 1 thru 5/31/19
422.000.72.594.31.65.20
87,753.7E u
Total:
87,753.7E p
237309 6/13/2019 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197
3-0197-0800478
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
N
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
202.6,
3-0197-0800897
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH :
c
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
34.2E ID
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
130.1 �
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
o
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
130.1 �
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
a
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
130.1 �
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
130.1 � u
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH :
o
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
130.2- 7a
3-0197-0801132
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
o
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST :
a
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
216.8( Q
3-0197-0829729
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
71.9E
Total :
1,176.61 c
237310 6/13/2019 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO
637855
INV 637855 CUST 1733 EDMONDS I
E
4 5.56,FOF-FF556BCG FORCE ON F
R
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
926.2( U
Freight
aD
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
12.9� E
10.4% Sales Tax
U
001.000.41.521.23.35.00
97.6E
Q
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 73
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.4.b
Page: 18
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
237310
6/13/2019
067802 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO (Continued)
Total :
1,036.81,
237311
6/13/2019
065001 SCHIRMAN, RON
44
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
209.4(
Total :
209.4(
237312
6/13/2019
072733 SCHWING BIOSET INC
61421983
WWTP: VALVES, RAM,BACK-RING
VALVES, RAM,BACK-RINGS, O-RIN(
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
1,809.8E
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
684.6E
61422011
WWTP: SCREW-SHCS
SCREW-SHCS
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
3.9E
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
48.2-
Total :
2,546.7(
237313
6/13/2019
066918 SEDOR, NORMAN
45
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.29.00
5,133.4,
Total :
5,133.4:
237314
6/13/2019
074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC
48651
ONSITE COMPUTER SUPPORT
Onsite computer suport - 5/21/19
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
637.5(
Total:
637.5(
237315
6/13/2019
063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
1622-2
PM PAINT SUPPLIES
PM PAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
62.8E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6.51
7952-8
PM PAINT SUPPLIES
PM PAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
55.51
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 74
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237315 6/13/2019 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS (Continued)
237316 6/13/2019 072214 SIGMA-ALDRICH INC 547870365
237317 6/13/2019 036955 SKY NURSERY T-1391392
237318 6/13/2019 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 2718
237319 6/13/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
200274959
200326460
201103561
201501277
PO # Description/Account
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total :
WWTP: PH-WP & PH WATER
PH-WP & PH WATER
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
10.2% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
Total
PUBLIC DEFENDER CONTRACT
May Public Defender Contract
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
Total
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1 /2 211 TH F
4.4.b
Page: 19
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
5.71 U
130.6f
N
m
97.6(
15.3,
a�
11.7z
124.6E
0
�a
a
61.9,
6.3d U
68.2z c
Ta
0
a
28,448.9( Q
28,448.95 "
rn
A
17.1, o
V)
E
M
16.6(
c
31.3( t
U
co
Q
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 75
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237319 6/13/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1 /2 211 TH F
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
201711785
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
201790003
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
202250635
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
202356739
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
202529186
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
202529202
STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4
STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
202576153
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
202579488
STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2
STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
202579520
W WTP:5/1-5/31 /19 ENERGY MGMT
5/1-5/31 /19 ENERGY MANAGEMEW
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
204714893
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150'
STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150'
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
204714927
STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2
STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
4.4.b
Page: 20
W
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
19.5' u
8.6,
m
20.0(
m
c
a�
17.1 1
�a
0
31.8"
�a
a
E
3,935.5' 'ji
U
4-
0
110.5E
0
L
Q
a
15,907.8( Q
rn
378.8'
0
9.71 .E
ca
U
5.1 W
E
t
U
120.0' Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 76
4.4.b
vchlist Voucher List Page: 21
06/13/2019 12:21:27PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
237319 6/13/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
0
204714935
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40
STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40
m
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
60.0( .L
204714943
STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10
STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
15.2E
204714950
STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2
STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
95.5' c
205307580
DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING
DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
126.3
220792758
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME
o
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
141.1 � a
221593742
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
70.4' u
Total:
21,138.6! 0
237320 6/13/2019 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
May 2019
Crime Victims Court Remittance
p
Crime Victims Court Remittance
a
001.000.237.140
455.5( Q
Total :
455.5( ..
rn
237321 6/13/2019 075675 SORENSON FORENSICS LLC
46375
INV 46375 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
A
STIR ANALYSIS CASE 2018-0002347
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
275.0(
46376
INV 463776 EDMONDS PD CASE 20
N
E
STIR ANALYSIS CASE 2018-0001544
M
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
275.0(
46377
INV 46377 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
c
STR ANLYS CASE 2018-00028578 2
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
720.0(
46424
INV 46424 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
Q
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 77
4.4.b
vchlist Voucher List Page: 22
06/13/2019 12:21:27PM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
237321 6/13/2019 075675 SORENSON FORENSICS LLC (Continued)
0
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00029954 1
-0
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
360.0( u
46425
IN 46425 EDMONDS PD CASE 2018
L
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00022915 1
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
360.0(
46429
INV 46429 EDMONDS PD CASE20fl
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00029944 1
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
360.0(
46430
INV 46430 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
c
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00028631
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
360.0(
46431 INV 46431 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
STIR ANLYS CASE2018-00026680 1 F
o
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
360.0(
46432 INV 46432 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
a
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00025768 1
E
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
360.0( 'i
46433 INV 46433 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
STIR ANLYS CASE2018-00023996
0
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
360.0( >
46434
INV 46434 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
0
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00021362 1
a
a
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
360.0( Q
46435
INV 46435 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
STIR ANLYS CASE2018-00020958 2F
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
720.0(
46436
INV 46436 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
c
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00016466 1
,n
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
360.0( .
46437
INV 46437 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
fd
U
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00017650 1
};
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
360.0( y
46438
INV 46438 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
E
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00019379 1
U
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
�a
360.0(
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 78
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237321 6/13/2019 075675 SORENSON FORENSICS LLC (Continued)
46439
46440
46441
46500
46501
237322 6/13/2019 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584
237323 6/13/2019 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 285123/1
237324 6/13/2019 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 1515434
237325 6/13/2019 077081 STOLLWERK PLUMBING LLC BLD2019-0555
PO # Description/Account
INV 46439 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00017242 1
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
INV 46440 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00025374 1
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
INV 46441 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00020414 1
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
INV 46500 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
STIR ANALYS CASE 2018-00025332
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
INV 46501 EDMONDS PD CASE 201
STIR ANLYS CASE 2018-00024537 2
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
Total
WWTP: 6/1/19 RECYCLING
6/1/19 Recycling + taxes
423.000.76.535.80.47.66
Total :
WWTP: T(SHANE) LONG-SCOTT HI
T(SHANE) LONG-SCOTT HIP BOOT;
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
Total
EBJA.SERVICES THRU 5/3/19
EBJA.Services thru 5/3/19
421.000.74.594.34.65.41
Total
BLD REFUND: PERMIT NOT NEED[
4.4.b
Page: 23
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
m
360.0(
N
360.0(
v
360.0(
d
360.0(
0
L
720.0( a
8,110.0(
U
4-
0
38.7E
38.7' 0
L
Q
Q
Q
132.4E
A
12.9E
145.4, N
E
260.6(
260.6( E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 79
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4.4.b
Page: 24
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
237325
6/13/2019
077081 STOLLWERK PLUMBING LLC
(Continued)
Bld Refund: Permit not needed. Wor
001.000.257.620
52.0(
Tota I :
52.0(
237326
6/13/2019
077131 SURECRETE INC
35392
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH SEAWALL C)
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH SEAWALL C)
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
170.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
17.6E
Total :
187.6f
237327
6/13/2019
075587 THE UPS STORE #6392
0001
WWTP: 4/29, 5/9 & 5/24/19 SHIP CH
4/29: $17.67 + 5/9: 12.94 + 5/24/19:
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
42.5<
Total :
42.5:
237328
6/13/2019
072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY
116372
MAINTENANCE FOR HP PAGEWIDE
Jun-19 Maintenance on HP PagewidE
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
175.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
18.2(
Total :
193.2(
237329
6/13/2019
041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
58218
PM: SEAVIEW PARK CHAIN LINK FE
PM: SEAVIEW PARK CHAIN LINK FE
125.000.64.594.76.65.41
10,235.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
125.000.64.594.76.65.41
1,064.4E
Total:
11,299.4°
237330
6/13/2019
063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC
045-261032
PROJECT ACCOUNTING CONSULT
Project Accounting consultant - 4/17/'
001.000.31.514.23.41.00
320.0(
Tota I :
320.0(
237331
6/13/2019
071549 UNIVAR USA INC
KT572058
WWTP: 5/29/19 SOD. BISULFITE
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 80
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237331 6/13/2019 071549 UNIVAR USA INC (Continued)
237332 6/13/2019 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9831190349
237333 6/13/2019 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 201132672
201132716
237334 6/13/2019 075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3282.04-13
237335 6/13/2019 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 62904
237336 6/13/2019 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 119008156
PO # Description/Account
5/29/19 SOD. BISULFITE
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
Total :
C/A 442201730-00001
iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office
001.000.21.513.10.42.00
Total
INV 201132672 EDMONDS PD DT M
2170-1 DT MASTER INST. - MACHAI
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
INV 201132716 EDMONDS PD - INTI
0222-5 INTERVIEW TECH - ARVAN
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
0222-5 INTERVIEW TECH - PECK
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
Total
CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
125.000.64.594.76.65.41
Total
INV 62904 CASE 19-13448 EDMONC
TOW TOYOTA COROLLA 19-13448
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
Total
INV 119008156 EDMONDS PD
16 BACKGROUND CHECKS
4.4.b
Page: 25
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
1,904.4, u
13
198.0E
2,102.4E
m
v
35.1 ,
35.1:
c
�a
250.0(
�a
a
75.0( •�
U
75.0( c
400.0(
0
a
a
5,751.4 Q
5,751 A] �
A
m
0
189.0(
19.8E
208.8E
aD
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 81
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237336 6/13/2019 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
237337 6/13/2019 073137 WELCH-LANG, CAROLE
237338 6/13/2019 074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH
237339 6/13/2019 072627 WEST SAFETY SERVICES INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.237.100
Total
7878 FUN FACTORY 7878 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTION
7878 FUN FACTORY INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
1597363 INV 1597363 EDMONDS PD
5/12/29 RNG RENT1200-1400 QTY 2
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
5/3 2947 RANGE FEE
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
5/3 2899 RANGE FEE
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
5/8 3045 RANGE FEE
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
5/9 0946 RANGE FEE
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
5/19 3124 RANGE FEE
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
5/25 2899 RANGE FEE
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
5/25 3124 RANGE FEE
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
5/26 3124 RANGE FEE
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
Total
7010300 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT
Monthly 911 database maint
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
4.4.b
Page: 26
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
212.0( -0
212.0( m
L_
T3
N
689.8E
689.8E
m
c
110.0( -a
c
�a
13.5� _
0
13.5E a
13.5E •�
U
13.5� c
Ta
13.5� c
L
a
13.5� Q
13.5E T_
A
13.5� co
0
11.2E E
230.0( 2
c
aD
E
200.0( U
�a
Q
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 82
vchlist
06/ 13/2019 12 :21:27 P M
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
237339 6/13/2019 072627 072627 WEST SAFETY SERVICES INC
97 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
97 Vouchers in this report
PO # Description/Account
(Continued) Total
Bank total
Total vouchers
4.4.b
Page: 27
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
200.0( 0
428,796.3' U
m
L
428,796.3' 'a
N
V
d
L
V
r
(D
C
d
C
O
L
Q
U
4-
0
0
L
Q
Q
Q
r
M
r
0
G
2
V
a
4)
E
U
Y
Q
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 83
4.4.c
vchlist
06/13/2019 1:56:43PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237340 6/13/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
6581 6581 PARKS CREDIT CARD
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
ISSUU: DIGITAL CRAZE SUBSCRIP-
001.000.64.571.22.49.00
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: SPRINKLE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
ACCO AT A GLANCE 2020 CALEND/
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: IRRIGATIC
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
COSTCO: YOUTH COMMISSION SU
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: BINDER;
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: CALCUL
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
UNITED VOLLEYBALL SUPPLY: SAP
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: COMPO:
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: COMPO:
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: SIDEWAL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: WINDSCF
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
NRPA: ANNUAL CONFERENCE REC
Page
1
a�
L
3
c
�a
.y
0
Q
Amoun -0a
m
L
114.7(
N
39.0(
v
22.0( 45
m
c
894.4( .0
c
81.2, M
0
L
110.3(
a
24.3E E
.ii
36.9E ,-
0
110.8, >
0
L
37.2E a
Q
8.0( rn
A
1,751.4(
0
36.4' U
39.6(
N
274.5E
c
389.6( E
t
�a
a
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 84
vchlist
06/13/2019 1:56:43PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
237340 6/13/2019 062693 US BANK
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.64.571.22.49.00
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: HEDPAK
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
AMAZON: DISCOVERY SUPPLIES: 1
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
WILLAMETTE WRITERS: WOTSAD
117.100.64.573.20.41.40
AMAZON: DISCOVERY SUPPLIES:,'
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
AMAZON: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES
001.000.64.571.28.31.00
AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: ENVELO
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
FASTSIGNS: PM SUPPLIES: FLOWE
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
AMAZON: CEMETERY POW -MIA FL,
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
AMAZON: DISCOVERY SUPPLIES: 1
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: TABLE Uti
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
Total
Bank total
Total vouchers
4.4.c
Page: 2
m
L
3
c
m
Amoun o
a
m
712.0( 5
m
L
52.9�
N
66.2< 4)
t
U
125.0(
m
c
25.2 1 M
c
11.0E
0
27.2- `>%
M
a
253.1E E
100.4E
0
11.0< >
0
L
22.0E a
Q
46.3E crn
A
2.5E
0
12.4E hd
5.8( M
5,444.41 y
5,444.4F
5,444.41 E
U
�a
a
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 85
vchlist
06/13/2019 1:56:43PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
4.4.c
Page: 3
Amoun
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 86
4.4.d
vchlist
06/13/2019 1:47:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
6132019 6/13/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
1558 CANON SCANNERS, MONITORS, S,
ChinookFlight - Airman Knowledge TE
512.000.31.518.88.49.00
Solarwinds - Kiwi CatTools 1 yr
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
ServerSupply.com - Cisco
512.100.31.518.88.35.00
Newegg.com - ASUS PB277Q 27" M(
001.000.64.571.21.35.00
Amazon - Club3D CSV-1546 USB-C 1
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
Home Depot - Ethernet Couplers and
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
Solarwinds - Kiwi Syslog Server 1 yr
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
CDW-G - Canon DR-M16011 Scanner:
001.000.23.512.50.35.00
Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 21.5" 1
001.000.41.521.80.35.00
1885 PD 2 CREDIT CARD -1885 06/06/20"
FUEL K94 - WSPCA CONF
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
FUEL K93 - WSPCA CONF
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
FUEL K94 - WSPCA CONF
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
LODGING WSPCA - 5/5-5/7/19
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
WS FERRIES - MEHL TO TRAINING
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
WS FERRIES - MEHL TO PD
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
WS FERRIES - MEHL TO TRAINING
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
Page: 1
m
L
3
c
ea
Amoun 00
a
m
165.0( m
=a
234.3( Y
m
460.6( u
340.7-
(D
145.7,
c
�a
36.7( o
116.6( a
3,029.6,
220.7E IS
R
0
L
44.9, 0-
Q
95.7; rn
48.5E
co
0
952.6,
3
19.1E;
c
19.1E E
t
�a
19.1E Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 87
vchlist
06/13/2019 1:47:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
6132019 6/13/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
WS FERRIES - MEHL FROM TRAINI
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
MEHL HOTEL WHIA CONF 5/14-5/1 E
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
WS FERRIES - GOVANTES - BACK(
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
WS FERRIES - GOVANTES - TO PD
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
FUEL - GOVANTES - BACKGROUNE
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
2519
-2519 PD 1 CREDIT CARD 06/06/19
PACKAGE TO WSP TOX LAB 19-951�
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
PACKAGE-WSP CRIME LAB 18-3101
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
1 ST NIGHT DEP-STRUM-ADV. MOTs
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
1 ST NIGHT DEP-BOTH-ADV MOTOF
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
PACKAGE-WSP TOX LAB 19-10997,
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
PACKAGE-WSP TOX LAB 19-11903,
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
2519
-2519 PD 1 CREDIT CARD CREDIT I
REFUND 1 ST NIGHT DEP - ROTH
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
2985
WWTP: ELL, ELEC.PERMT,SLONG-
Puget Sond Pipe & Supply: 6" Pained
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
L&I Dept: Electric Permit: $2284.20 +
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
Dept of Ecology for Shane Long -Scot
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
Amazon:Jumbo Markers & 5-Gal Hed
4.4.d
Page: 2
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
m
19.1E
m
L
310.2( `a
N
Y
19.1E �
t
19.1E
m
c
45.4E
c
�a
17.3E o
20.3E a
103.4( •�
U
103.4( o
R
17.7' p
L
a
17.7' Q
rn
-103.4(
m
0
m
267.0< 3
2,473.6,
E
100.0(
�a
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 88
vchlist
06/13/2019 1:47:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
6132019 6/13/2019 062693 US BANK (Continued)
3048
PO # Description/Account
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
-3048 THOMPSON CREDIT CARD
AWARD PLAQUES, ENGRAVE BAD(
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
COMPOSTABLE CUTLERY, CUPS, F
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
SHRED 2 TOTES
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
10 CD/DVD MARKING PENS
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
2-12 PACK SHARPIES FOR EVIDEN
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
STERICYCLE MIN. MONTHLY CHG
001.000.41.521.80.41.00
KEYBOARD HAND REST & MOUSE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
5 DRAWER STORAGE ORGANIZER
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
5 PACK OF CHLOROX WIPES
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
3-3 DRAWER STORAGE ORGANIZE
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
2-580 COUNT ZIPLOCK SAND BAG:
001.000.41.521.70.31.00
12 PACK -TOPS WRITING PADS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
SUPPLIES FOR PRISIM ROOM
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
72 - 3 X 5 PATROL MEMO BOOKS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
12 SHARPS CONTAINERS
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
CASE OF 1000 COMPOSTABLE CUI
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
4.4.d
Page: 3
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
48.3z -0a
m
L
242.9� 'a
N
49.9<
m
t
9.8E
m
15.4z
51.8E
10.3E
�a
a
27.5, E
49.1 <
0
19.3E
0
a
Q
M
10.4E
m
111.0z m
L
57.8E 3
c
126.1� E
t
63.8,
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 89
vchlist
06/13/2019 1:47:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
6132019 6/13/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
10-10 PACKS DISPOSABLE SCALPS
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
3215
COMPAAN CREDIT CARD -3215 06/
DINNER 5/20 - SPOKANE - WASPC
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
LUNCH 5/20 - ELLENSBURG - WASI
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
LUNCH 5/23 - ELLENSBURG - WASI
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
3314
-3314 LAWLESS CREDIT CARD 06/(
FUEL - WASPC CONF - LAWLESS
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
DINNER 5/20 WASPC SPOKANE
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
LUNCH 5/20 WASPC ELLENSBURG
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
BREAKFAST 5/21 WASPC SPOKANI
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
PURCHASE CANVA GRAPHICS
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
BUSHNELL TRAILCAM DATA PLAN
001.000.41.521.22.42.00
3915
HOPE- REGISTRATION AFFORDABI
Hope Sno County and Seattle meetin
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
Hope- Registration Affordable Housin
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
4080
-4080 RICHARDSON CREDIT CARD
TRYKAR - SUPERVISOR LEADERSI
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
4254
-4254 ROTH CREDIT CARD 06/06/1
FUEL - NAMOA - ROTH/STRUM
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
ROTH HOTEL 5/14-5/17 NAMOA
4.4.d
Page: 4
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
m
109.0(
m
L
32.2� ui
Y
m
5.9E
1.0£ m
c
aD
46.5(
32.2
�a
a
5.4, E
21.4E U
0
12.9E
0
9.9E a
a
Q
28.0( T-
A
75.0( co
0
m
L
695.0( 3
c
a�
E
130.61
a
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 90
vchlist
06/13/2019 1:47:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
6132019 6/13/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
STRUM HOTEL 5/14-5/17 NAMOA
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
4697
ESCC DELEGATION
2-pocket folders -- box of 25
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
ESCC exchange orientation snacks
138.100.21.557.21.31.00
ESCC notebook set
138.100.21.557.21.31.00
ESCC student exchange chaperone E
138.200.21.557.21.43.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
138.100.21.557.21.31.00
4929
DSD OFFICE SUPPLIES
DSD Office Supplies
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
Adobe Creative Cloud Shipley
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
DSD Edmonds Beacon Online Subsc
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
Spellman locked Notary bag
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
Grade stakes 12 piece bundle
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
Registration fee:
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
5639
BEACH VOLLEYBALL SAND AT MAF
United Volleyball Supply - Beach
125.000.64.576.80.48.00
5923
COPIES, OFFICESPACE LISTING, B
Copying of brochures for waterfront
4.4.d
Page: 5
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
512.0(
512.0(
=a
N
8.8f
m
t
32.4E
m
31.7f
2,705.4E
0.8� o
�a
a
4.0E E
U
886.9� o
R
58.5( o
L
a
10.0( Q
30.9( T-
A
38.3, co
0
m
70.0( 3
c
4,500.0( E
t
�a
a
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 91
vchlist
06/13/2019 1:47:28PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
6132019 6/13/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.61.557.20.49.00
OfficeSpace business space listing or
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Business recruitment ads 425 Magaz
001.000.61.558.70.41.40
Yearly subscription to Daily Journal of
001.000.61.558.70.49.00
6254
6254 CARRIE HITE CREDIT CARD
AIRPORT PARKING RESERVATION:
001.000.64.571.21.43.00
STARBUCKS: SNOHOMISH COUNT'
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
NRPAANNUAL CONFERENCE REG
001.000.64.571.21.49.00
EXTRA CAR AIRPORT PARKING: Pl
001.000.64.571.21.43.00
CAP VISITOR: PUGET SOUND DAY
001.000.64.571.21.43.00
BRIX AND VINE: PUGET SOUND DP
001.000.64.571.21.43.00
STARBUCKS: PUGET SOUND DAY
001.000.64.571.21.43.00
7081
2019 WFOA CONFERENCE REGIST
Conference Solutions - 2019 WFOA/
001.000.31.514.20.49.00
8017
HAUSS.2019 WA ITE ANNUAL CON[
Hauss.2019 WA ITE Annual Conferer
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
8349
-8349 06/06/19 ANDERSON CREDIT
OPEN TEXT REDACTION LICENSE:
001.000.41.521.11.48.00
RECORDS FOR PISTOL TX
001.000.41.521.11.31.00
PARKING FOR MEDIATION - SEATT
4.4.d
Page: 6
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
52.4,
100.0(
=a
1,100.0( Y
m
265.0(
w
m
13.9£
70.71
762.0(
�a
a
39.2E E
12.1( U
0
22.7-
0
6.8� a
a
Q
350.0(' r
A
r
co
140.0( m
L
3
315.7,
E
36.9�
�a
Q
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 92
vchlist
06/13/2019 1:47:28PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
6132019 6/13/2019 062693 US BANK (Continued)
9573
M
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
PO # Description/Account
001.000.41.521.10.43.00
GFOA CONFERENCE LODGING FO
Marriott - Lodging at GFOA Conferenc
001.000.31.514.23.43.00
-9821 GREENMUN CREDIT CARD 0
ALAMO CAR RENTAL - GREENMUN
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
FUEL FOR RENTAL CAR - GREENM
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
LODGING 5/3-5/7 GREENMUN
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
ULTIMATE TRAINING OFFICER (3)
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
TRAIN LOW LIGHT HANDGUN -GAG
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
4 DAY INTERVIEW/INTERROGATIOI
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
TLO CHARGES 05/19
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
WA SCHOOL SAFETY ORG TRAINII`
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
Total
Bank total :
Total vouchers :
4.4.d
Page: 7
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
24.0(
m
L
1,241.1E =a
N
Y
240.0- t
46.21
c
aD
865.0(
c
�a
747.0( —
0
L
375.0( sa
a
1,150.0( .M
z
94.8 0
R
260.0( o
29,315.7E a
a
29,315.7E Q
M
29,315.7E
co
0
m
L
3
c
as
E
0
a
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 93
4.4.e
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
c
W
STM
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
E
STM
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
c491
E61FE
R
0.
m
SWR
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
c469
ESGA
3
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
i013
E6GA
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6J13
r
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
Q.
am
STR
2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
i032
EBDA
U
STR
2018 Overlay Program
i030
EBCB
4)
SWR
2018 Sewerline Overlays
i035
EBCE
is
ui
lid
SWR
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
c492
E6GC
U
STR
2018 Traffic Calming
i027
EBAA
U
r
WTR
2018 Waterline Overlays
i034
EBCD
c
WTR
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
c493
E6JC
STR
2019 Downtown Parking Study
s021
E9AC
STR
2019 Guardrail Install
i039
E9AB
c
0
STR
2019 Overlay Program
i036
E9CA
STR
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
i041
E9DB
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
f°
v
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
0
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
>
0
STR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
a
a
STR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
Q
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
EBJB
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
r
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
co
c
N
STR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA
L
STR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
E
STM
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
c486
E6FB
z
o
L
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
IL
STR
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
c425
E3DD
d
0
D
STR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
c
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
Li
STR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
CD
E
t
STR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
U
STR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
r
r
Q
STR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
STR
ADA Transition Plan
s016
E6DB
Revised 6/12/2019
Packet Pg. 94
4.4.e
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Fundinq
Project Title
Number
Number
STR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
STR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
E5DA
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
E5J13
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
STR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
E5DB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
E51KA
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
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
STR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STM
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
i011
E6FA
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
c410
EYE
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
E5FD
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
E5NA
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
ElDA
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
E5AA
UTILITIES
Utility Rate Update
s013
E6JA
PRK
Veteran's Plaza
c480
E6MA
PRK
Waterfront Restoration
m103
E7MA
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
E5HA
Revised 6/12/2019 Packet Pg. 95
4.4.e
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding Number
Number Protect Title
STR EOCA
i042 2020 Overlay Program
STIR E1CA
c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STIR
E2AD
c405
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
E2FC
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STIR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
■ STIR
E3DD
c425
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STM
E3FE
c410
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
E4FC
M"
�illow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
FEB
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR
E4GB
c456
Citvwide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
E4MB
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STIR ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
iSTIR ESDA
Bikelink Project
STIR ESDB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
STM
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
SWR ESGA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP ESHA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR ESKA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
andard Details Upda
STIR E6AA
s014
Hwv 99 Gatewav Revitalization
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
s016
ADA Transition Plan
STIR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
1
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM
E61FE
c491
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
SWR
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
SWR
c492
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
UTILITIES
E6JA
s013
Utility Rate Update
WTR
E6JB
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
Revised 6/12/2019 Packet Pg. 96
4.4.e
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
WTR
E6JC
c493
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK
�MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
STR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
STR
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STM
E7FA
m 105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
STM
caft
provements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
2019 Waterline Replacement
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Restoration
2018 Traffic Calming
STR
E8AB
i028
220th Adaptive
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR
E8CB
i030
2018 Overlay Program
CC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
WTR
E8CD
i034
2018 Waterline Overlays
i035
2018 Sewerline Overlays
STR
E8DA
i032
2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
STR
E8DC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
018
oods Study
STM
E8FB
c521
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
SWR
E8GA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
3
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
UTILITIES
E8JB
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
i039
2019 Guardrail Install
STR
E9AC
s021
2019 Downtown Parking Study
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STR
E9CA
i036
2019 Overlay Program
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
STR
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STR
E9DB
i041
2019 Pedestrian Safety Progr
Revised 6/12/2019 Packet Pg. 97
4.4.e
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR
E1DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR
E1 CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STM
E2FC
c380
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STR
E2AD
c405
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM
EYE
c410
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR
E3DD
c425
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR
E4GB
c456
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
STR
E5AA
c470
Trackside Warning System
WTR
E51KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
STR
E5DA
c474
Bikelink Project
STR
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
STM
E5FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
E5J13
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
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 11
STM
E6FE
c491
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
SWR
E6GC
c492
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR
E6JC
c493
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
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
STM
E6FA
i011
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
Revised 6/12/2019 Packet Pg. 98
4.4.e
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Protect
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
WTR
E6JB
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
STR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STR
EBAA
i027
2018 Traffic Calming
STR
EBAB
i028
220th Adaptive
STR
EBCA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR
EBCB
i030
2018 Overlay Program
STR
EBCC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STR
EBDA
i032
2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR
EBDB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
WTR
EBCD
i034
2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR
EBCE
i035
2018 Sewerline Overlays
STR
E9CA
i036
2019 Overlay Program
STR
EBDC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
STR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STR
E9AB
i039
2019 Guardrail Install
STR
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STR
E9DB
i041
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
STR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
STR
E9AD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Restoration
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES
ESNA
solo
Standard Details Updates
SWR
ESGB
s0l l
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
EBFA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
UTILITIES
EBJB
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
STR
E9AC
s021
2019 Downtown Parking Study
Revised 6/12/2019 Packet Pg. 99
4.4.e
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
PRK
Veteran's Plaza
c480
E6MA
PRK
Waterfront Restoration
m103
E7MA
STM
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
183rd PI SW Storm Repairs
c491
E61FE
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
STM
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
c486
E6FB
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E41FE
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
STM
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
i011
E61FA
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
c410
EYE
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E71FA
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
STIR
2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
i032
EBDA
STIR
2018 Overlay Program
i030
EBCB
STIR
2018 Traffic Calming
i027
EBAA
STIR
2019 Downtown Parking Study
s021
E9AC
STIR
2019 Guardrail Install
i039
E9AB
STIR
2019 Overlay Program
i036
E9CA
STIR
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
i041
E9DB
STIR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
STIR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
STIR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA
STIR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STIR
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
c425
E3DD
STIR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STIR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
STIR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
STIR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
Revised 6/12/2019 Packet Pg. 100
4.4.e
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STIR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
E8DB
STIR
ADA Transition Plan
s016
E6DB
STIR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
iO4o
E9DA
STIR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
E5DA
STIR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
STIR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
E5DB
STIR
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
c405
E2AD
STIR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STIR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STIR
Trackside Warning System
c470
E5AA
STIR
220th Adaptive
i028
E8AB
SWR
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
c469
E5GA
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
i013
E6GA
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
sol l
E5GB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s02o
E8JB
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
E5NA
UTILITIES
Utility Rate Update
s013
E6JA
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 Overlay
i043
E9CB
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
E5J13
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
E51KA
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
E5HA
Revised 6/12/2019 Packet Pg. 101
4.4.f
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 922 (05/16/2019 to 05/31/2019) c
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
-ed2
REGULAR HOURS
Educational Pav Correction
0.00
-156.28
111
ABSENT
NO PAY LEAVE
17.50
0.00
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
441.00
14,770.73
122
VACATION
VACATION
1,349.50
48,952.54
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
93.00
3,379.01
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
35.75
1,084.09
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
336.50
12,312.06
130
COMP HOURS
Holidav Compensation Used
11.50
371.43
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
12.00
502.69
132
JURY DUTY
JURY DUTY
10.00
282.72
141
BEREAVEMENT
BEREAVEMENT
24.00
626.50
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kelly Dav Used
48.00
2,010.87
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
392.28
18,624.94
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
17.00
969.98
170
REGULAR HOURS
COUNCIL BASE PAY
700.00
8,750.00
174
REGULAR HOURS
COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY
0.00
200.00
175
REGULAR HOURS
COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICP
0.00
3,521.58
190
REGULAR HOURS
REGULAR HOURS
18,355.50
656,265.87
191
REGULAR HOURS
FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS
4.00
5,202.46
205
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME .5
50.00
846.53
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
137.75
6,327.06
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
54.00
2,965.00
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
16.75
1,547.18
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
363.75
25,575.35
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
35.75
2,629.77
400
MISCELLANEOUS
MISC PAY
0.00
1,900.00
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
0.00
1,326.05
600
RETROACTIVE PAY
RETROACTIVE PAY
0.00
138.33
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 1.0
155.00
0.00
603
COMP HOURS
Holidav Comp 1.0
18.00
0.00
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5
321.00
0.00
606
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 2.0
28.50
0.00
acc
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCREDITATION PAY
0.00
78.66
06/13/2019
Packet Pg. 102
4.4.f
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 922 (05/16/2019 to 05/31/2019) c
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
acp
MISCELLANEOUS
Accreditation 1 % Part Time
0.00
9.67
acs
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT
0.00
172.00
boc
MISCELLANEOUS
BOC II Certification
0.00
91.74
colre
MISCELLANEOUS
Collision Reconstruction ist
0.00
117.51
cpl
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAINING CORPORAL
0.00
160.86
crt
MISCELLANEOUS
CERTIFICATION III PAY
0.00
564.90
det
MISCELLANEOUS
DETECTIVE PAY
0.00
111.20
det4
MISCELLANEOUS
Detective 4%
0.00
1,075.64
ed1
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 2%
0.00
649.78
ed2
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 4%
0.00
829.56
ed3
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 6%
0.00
5,131.95
hol
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
1,255.60
45,334.79
k9
MISCELLANEOUS
K-9 PAY
0.00
217.06
Iq1
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2%
0.00
816.16
Ig10
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY 5.5%
0.00
148.17
Ig11
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%
0.00
958.20
Ig12
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 9%
0.00
5,734.58
Ig13
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 7%
0.00
1,733.25
Ig14
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 5%
0.00
1,322.33
Ig15
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY 7.5%
0.00
381.68
Iq4
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1 %
0.00
371.14
Ig5
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3%
0.00
444.80
Iq6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv .5%
0.00
269.59
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1.5%
0.00
507.39
Iq9
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3.5%
0.00
104.93
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
222.40
pols
SICK
Preqnancv Disablitv Sick
16.00
455.16
pds
MISCELLANEOUS
Public Disclosure Specialist
0.00
101.78
phv
MISCELLANEOUS
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
0.00
2,154.45
prof
MISCELLANEOUS
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ;
0.00
173.48
sdp
MISCELLANEOUS
SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%
0.00
287.66
sgt
MISCELLANEOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT
0.00
173.48
sro
MISCELLANEOUS
School Resource Officer
0.00
111.20
06/13/2019
Packet Pg. 103
4.4.f
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 922 (05/16/2019 to 05/31/2019) c
r
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount o
a
a�
str MISCELLANEOUS STREET CRIMES 0.00 462.88
traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 241.31
L
24,299.63 $892,647.80 Y
a�
Total Net Pay: $605,178.01
a�
c
a�
c
0
a
E
0
O
0
E
E
0
L
Q
I_
U
fC
a
06/13/2019
Packet Pg. 104
4.4.g
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 922 - 05/16/2019 to 05/31/2019
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit
63747
06/05/2019
epoa
EPOA-1 POLICE
69.00
0.00
63748
06/05/2019
jhan
JOHN HANCOCK
619.70
0.00
63749
06/05/2019
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
2,324.57
0.00
63750
06/05/2019
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
4,582.81
0.00
63751
06/05/2019
afscme
WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO
2,389.20
0.00
9,985.28
0.00
Bank: wire -
US BANK
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
Direct Deposit
2884
06/05/2019
pens
DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
311,237.11
0.00
2885
06/05/2019
aflac
AFLAC
5,924.86
0.00
2889
06/05/2019
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
29,208.86
0.00
2890
06/05/2019
us
US BANK
110,535.08
0.00
2891
06/05/2019
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N3177B1
108,066.33
0.00
2893
06/05/2019
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
6,472.32
0.00
2894
06/05/2019
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
628.50
0.00
572,073.06
0.00
Grand Totals:
582,058.34
0.00
6/13/2019
Packet Pg. 105
4.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Acknowledgment of Claim for Damages
Staff Lead: WCIA Claims
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Nicholas Falk
Background/History
n/a
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Narrative
Marilyn Salter submitted a claim for damages in an undetermined amount.
Allstate Insurance ASO Jeffrey & Nicole Abramson submitted a claim for damages in the amount of
$4,330.25.
Terry Dudley submitted a claim for damages in the amount of $500.00.
Magnolia Lane HOA submitted a claim for damages in the amount of $5450.00.
Attachments:
Marilyn Salter CFD
Allstate Insurance ASO Jeffrey & Nicole Abramson CFD
Terry Dudley CFD
Packet Pg. 106
03/22/2019 FRI 14:08 FAX 4257446057 City of Edmonds Puke wrks U004/005
4.5.a
CITY OF EDMOND
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
Date Claim Farm
Received by City
Please take note that�r F � li � � ,who currently resides at D��3 i �n+�009,Vo 1
� Ctlrrx tti.e s . Wl9• _ _ mailing address i9`MO-
C�� 97:�.�Sd,icme phone # , work phone # and who resided at
at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is Is claiming damages
against r . r -dm" . _ in the sum of $ Y-D b arising out of the fallowing circumstances listed below.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE, l ,4 -#'A7 TA-r7. I �6 `1 TIME: ;'ge7X kW - S r ..
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE:
a] 4--i+l:11i iI*] i!1
f r
1, Describe t e c ndu,�t and circumstance that brought bout the injury or damage. Also
Or S co v o- f V_ } 1 a. r ¢ o "Mr-e-W or; +K w 'Yl- iv$" r!'� art i Aq L
l+a
cEa
_ Q
0
w
the Injury or damage. E
rrGl �1=.► H v
c rrM1 rr� O
a�
(attach an extra sheet for additional Information, if needed)
3
Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses. and phone numbers. C
M i ha4d k&L . u.lI.. .1-6 03.3 d' ���Is4,�._�eJ. �r%a+�� a�� Z60dI, S` R * 0+ �- k 1. 9 Q
3, Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, Injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair,
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your Insurance company?
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: _
and the policy #: _
License Plate #
Type Auto:
DRIVER:
Address:
Phone#.
Passengers;
Name:
Address:
Yes k No
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY •'
Driver License #
(year) (make) (model)
Pdnn Revised 051o4114
OWNER:
Address:
Phone#,
Name:
Address:
Q
Page I oft
Packet Pg. 107
03/22/2019 FRI 14:08 FAX 4257446057 City of Edmonds Puke Wrks
U005/005
4.5.a
" * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED " '
i, N &n1qii, 13 &j , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above
described; that I lhave read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any
information I provide as part of thle claim may be considered a public reo rc� anal may be subject to disclosure pur ant to of 42,56,
Q gal
State of WaSODgton,
County of `
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that MA
person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated: — J 2,l e? !?
Signature !
AZ, J�,.
Title f%
My appolntment expires:
Please present the completed claim form to
Form ROvlSad 05/06/14
x ~
r �
pUes
is the person who appeared before me, and sald
to'be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and
City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 5'" Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
6:00 a.m. to 4= p.m.
Signature of Clalmant(s)
Page 2 oF2
Packet Pg. 108
4.5.b
CITY OF EDMONDS
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
Date Claim Form
Received by City
Please take note that Allstate Insurance ASO Jeffrey & Nicole Abramson who currently resides at N/A
mailing address P O Box 21169, Roanoke, VA 24018 a)
N/A 540-725-7118 N/A
home phone # work phone # and who resided at E
M
at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is N/A is claiming damages
against The City of Edmonds in the sum of $ 4330.25 arising out of the following circumstances listed below. 4-
E
2
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 2/7/2019 TIME: 1:00 PM v
C
238th St SW, Edmonds, WA
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: _
c
m
DESCRIPTION: E
m
1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage.
City of Edmonds Police Officer, Alan Hardwick, driving a 2016 Ford Exployer, Tag 62007D pulled out in front of our insured, Nicole Abramson who wa! 0
-driving D12193 to re pand to ❑ d peestrian vinlatinn Y
C1
a
(attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed)
2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
William Winterbottom, 22729 106th Ave W, Edmonds, WA 98020, phone # 206-265-9557
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes No
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: Allstate Insurance Company Claim 0534176433 F5C
and the policy #: 0987455401 ._ Contact: Cheryl Hackett, 540-725-7118, email: cheryl.hackett@allstate.c
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * *
License Plate #
Type Auto:
(year) (make)
DRIVER
Address
Phone#:
Passengers:
Name:
Address:
Driver License #
(model)
OWNER:
Address:
Phone#:
_ Name:
Address:
Form Revised 07/16/09 Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 109
4.5.b
* NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * *
1 Cheryl Hackett being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the abov(
described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true.
r U l PA 2
11
Signature of Claimant(s
State of WaBWWKJ1QA
County of--Roano&
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Cheryl Hackett - is the person who appeared before me, and saic
person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses an(
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Date
Sig tore
Title �'e'Ls,ff'�
My appointment expires: : c0MMONWf.ALTff.,
OF VifdGIN1A —_
REGISTRAVON NO
164970
rrr �O 4 ..........
rJJJ����ARY;pob ,1•••,ti
Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
m
a�
E
0
4-
E
V
0
c
m
E
m
3
0
c
U
Q
Form Revised 07/16/09 Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 110
CITY OF EDMONDS
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
4.5.c
JUN --7 2019 3�0:
Date Claim Form
Received by City
Please take to thatTelff who currently resides at 6 n . 7d,
mailing address
home phone # _ ZS_ '�j f %ork phone # and who reside at 1 �
at the time of th rence and whose date of birth is W1 0 14 E is claiming damages
against Wv ?� in the sum of $ arising out of the followi g ci cumstances listed below.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE:f v TIME:
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: L�d yT `J
t-(
DESCRIPTION: p5 lJ�
1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage
r ./ r-v 0V1 -- ry try IV (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed)
2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4.
Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company?
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
Yes �No
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY
License Plate # Driver License #
Type Auto: _
(year) (make)
DRIVER:
Address:
Phone#:
Passengers:
Name:
Address:
(model)
OWNER:
Address:
Phone#:
Name:
Address
Form Revised 07/16/09 Page 1 of 2
m
E
0
E
U
0
r
c
m
E
m
3
0
c
U
Q
0
u_
U
m
0
`m
H
c
a�
E
t
c�
Q
Packet Pg. 111
4.5.c
* * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * *
,. / RyRy // 0�4being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above
described; that I have read the abov claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true.
X
7
Signature of Claimant(s)
State of Washington
County of SZ102 d r
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 and acknowiedged ii o be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated: w '
% — —�
A
Title
My
appointment. f
Please present the completed claim form to:
Form Revised 07/16/09
City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 5'h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 112
4.6
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
April 2019 Monthly Financial Report
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Sarah Mager
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
No action needed; informational only.
Narrative
April 2019 Monthly Financial Report
Attachments:
April 2019 Monthly Financial Report with P&L
Packet Pg. 113
I 4.6.a I
OF
EDP
� d
1)7 C. 1 $9v
CITY OF EDMONDS
MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
APRIL 2019
Packet Pg. 114 1
I 4.6.a I
Page 1 of 1
C ITY O F IDMO NDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund
2019 Amended
4/30/2018 4/30/2019
Amount
No. Title
Budget
Revenues Revenues
Remaining %Receives
001 GENERAL FUND
$ 40,866,194
$ 9,270,240 $ 10,236,291
$ 30,629,903 25
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
437,980
3,313 -
437,980 0
011
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
28,210
8,590
- 28,210
0
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
182,400
51,784
- 182,400
0
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
5,230
70
- 5,230
0
017
MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND
556,800
6,850
1,445
555,355
0
O0.
018
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND
-
-
-
-
0
N
019
EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND
-
-
-
-
0
•�
v
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
165,430
40,206
6,531
158,899
4
R
C
111
STREET FUND
1,859,270
485,352
457,944
1,401,326
25
'L
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 1
7,139,933
1,821,448
745,355
6,394,578
10
t
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
150,910
14,172
17,968
132,942
12
r�
C
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
580
171
222
358
38
2
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
94,730
22,508
26,128
68,602
28
0)
C
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
26,170
9,965
10,696
15,474
41
N
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
1,680
236
167
1,513
10
'L
0
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
31,250
13,344
8,424
22,826
27
v
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2
1,597,600
638,088
387,843
1,209,757
24
J
a
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 2
1,604,020
642,818
392,467
1,211,553
24
z
127
GIFTSCATALOGFUND
88,100
38,975
85,863
2,237
97
.3
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
182,560
40,766
51,324
131,236
28
O
0
C.
136
PARKSTRUST FUND
4,870
1,484
1,871
2,999
38
)
137
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD
44,500
13,096
17,083
27,417
38
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
10,240
72
93
10,147
1
v
C
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
-
49,678
49,852
(49,852)
0
to
C
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
12,400
-
18,732
(6,332)
151
IL
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
716,420
-
-
716,420
0
C
332
PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND
2,885,649
97,979
47,886
2,837,763
2
0
411
COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION
-
50,907
49,848
(49,848)
0
am
421
WATER UTILITY FUND 3
10,473,626
2,723,856
2,895,472
7,578,154
28
T
N
422
STORM UTILITY FUND 3
5,461,148
1,749,858
2,068,442
3,392,706
38
'Q
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 4
14,386,296
3,813,387
4,618,691
9,767,605
32
Q
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,995,280
2
4
1,995,276
0
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
1,763,760
582,628
604,981
1,158,779
34
t
512
TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND
1,101,798
424,495
368,318
733,480
33
v
O
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
72,040
1,996
2,425
69,615
3
Q
$ 93,947,074
$ 22,618,333
$ 23,172,367
$ 70,774,707
25'
1 Differences primarily due to prior year Grant Billings
2 Differences primarily due to a $418,216 deposit in total for Real Estate Excise Taxin March 2018 from the State.
3 Differences primarily due to a 9%increase in water, a 10%increase in storm, and a 1.45%decrease in water tax.
4 Differences due to contributed capital billings to WWTP partnersin 2019, as well as 9.5%increase in sewer.
1
.Pack__ .,_ 115
rac,ecei Pg. i i �
4.6•a
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund 2019 Amended
4/30/2018
4/30/2019
Amount
No. Title Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining %Spent
001 GENERAL FUND $ 45,296,523
$ 13,366,102
$ 13,957,552
$ 31,338,971 310/
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 466,920
151,743
158,691
308,229 340i
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,400
5,533 (133)
1020i
018
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND -
1,862 (1,862)
00i
019
EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND 200,000
- 200,000
00/
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
45,800
32,939
-
45,800
00/ Q.
111
STREET FUND
2,252,028
656,567
741,056
1,510,972
d
330i
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE
6,892,395
773,281
224,939
6,667,456
30/ •v
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
181,880
11,208
9,895
171,985
501
C
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
100,400
12,349
28,394
72,006
280/ j,i
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
26,880
-
-
26,880
00i
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
3,000
731
1,377
1,623
460i C
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
32,000
2,141
4,315
27,685
13°/ 2
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
3,373,286
170,585
286,867
3,086,419
90/ c
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND
3,872,301
26,373
82,587
3,789,714
N
20i -
•L
127
GIFT S CATALOG FUND
99,754
154
24,643
75,111
250i 0
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
194,707
64,420
56,243
138,464
290i J
136
PARKS TRUST FUND
5,000
-
2,465
2,535
490i a
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
10,500
372
357
10,143
30i
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 5
-
24,284
23,243
(23,243)
00i
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
12,400
-
-
12,400
00/ 0
0.
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
716,410
-
-
716,410
00i w
332
PARKS CAP IT AL CONSTRUCTION FUND
3,997,428
49,470
20,196
3,977,232
10i
t�
421
WATER UTILITY FUND
12,938,995
2,297,283
2,727,242
10,211,753
210i
422
STORM UTILITY FUND
10,018,035
944,759
1,253,871
8,764,164
130/
LL
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
17,721,484
2,389,536
2,515,138
15,206,346
140i
t
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,991,210
-
-
1,991,210
00/
O
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
2,933,431
454,663
687,194
2,246,237
23°i
512
TECHNOLOGYRENTALFUND
1,179,911
351,042
370,014
809,897
310/
0
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
78,627
27,158
26,858
51,769
340/ N
$ 114,646,705
$ 21,807,159
$ 23,210,530
$ 91,436,175
•L
20°r
5 Business Improvement District is not included in the City Budget; activity is here for reporting purposes only.
2
Packet Pg. 116
4.6.a
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2019 Amended 4/30/2018 4/30/2019 Amount
Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining % Received
TAXIES:
1 REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX
2 EMSPROPERTY TAX
3 VOTED PROPERTY TAX
4 LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 6
5 NATURAL GAS USE TAX
6 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST
7 ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX
8 GASUTILITY TAX
9 SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX
10 WATER UTILITY TAX
11 SEWERUTILITYTAX
12 STORMWATER UTILITY TAX
13 T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX
14 TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX
15 PULLTABSTAX
16 AMUSEMENT GAMES
17 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX
LIC INS ES AND PERMITS:
18 FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE
19 POLICE - FINGERPRINTING
20 AMUSEMENTS
21 VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION
22 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST
23 FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT
24 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER
25 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK
26 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE
27 GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE
28 DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE
29 NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE
30 RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE
31 BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS
32 ANIMAL LICENSES
33 STREET AND CURB PERMIT
34 OTRNON-BUSLIC/PERMITS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
35 DOI 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST
36 NCHIP GRANT
36 WA ASSOC OF SHERIFF'S TRAFFIC GRANT
37 TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT
38 HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT
39 STATE GRANTS- BUDGET ONLY
40 PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX
41 DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE
42 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DOE
43 MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION
44 TRIAL COURT IMPROVEMENT
45 CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS
46 MARIJUANA EXCISE TAX DISTRIBUTION
47 DUI - CITIES
48 LIQUOR EXCISE TAX
49 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS
50 VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS
51 FIRST RESPONDERS FLEX FUND
$ 10,548,203
$ 791,140
$ 826,082
$ 9,722,121
80/c
4,044,220
302,862
319,059
3,725,161
80/(
500
2,265
63
437
130/(
7,825,000
2,452,585
2,636,953
5,188,047
340/(
8,100
-
4,297
3,803
530/(
779,500
242,907
251,132
528,368
320/(
1,691,300
714,751
720,176
971,125
430/(
626,600
323,194
300,757
325,843
480/(
350,900
112,891
114,576
236,324
330/(
1,211,800
345,412
341,487
870,313
280/(
840,900
252,850
276,958
563,942
330/(
446,300
145,689
160,612
285,688
360/(
862,100
274,463
266,381
595,719
310/(
967,200
350,982
292,121
675,079
300/(
53,500
26,597
29,282
24,219
5501(
40
-
-
40
00/(
251,900
68,005
76,543
175,357
300/(
30,508,063
6,406,593
6,616,478
23,891,585
220/(
250
125
60
190
240/(
450
200
225
225
5001(
6,330
3,475
4,675
1,655
740/(
50,000
879
1,213
48,787
2°/
713,500
345,926
336,861
376,639
470/(
41,200
13,906
13,895
27,305
340/(
106,900
26,966
25,371
81,529
240/(
14,000
3,734
-
14,000
0°/
325,100
67,668
77,912
247,188
240/(
122,200
68,159
58,660
63,540
480/(
63,400
26,795
20,500
42,900
320/(
75,900
35,800
37,650
38,250
5001(
15,000
50,816
13,460
1,540
900/(
703,600
211,465
138,372
565,228
200/(
27,500
7,775
6,756
20,744
250/(
50,000
18,358
15,073
34,927
300/(
18,500
6,483
7,039
11,461
380/(
2,333,830
888,529
757,721
1,576,109
320/(
6,006
-
-
6,006
0%
14,616
-
-
14,616
0%
2,285
-
2,285
-
100%
4,000
1,169
675
3,325
17%
7,100
2,028
-
7,100
0%
18,000
-
-
18,000
0°/
199,500
-
-
199,500
0%
-
-
1,014
(1,014)
0%
-
-
6,453
(6,453)
0%
13,800
6,100
7,700
44%
16,716
8,594
8,122
51%
45,600
22,004
23,596
48%
45,000
15,049
29,951
33%
6,000
3,041
2,959
51%
215,000
114,594
100,406
53%
342,000
85,246
256,754
25%
-
-
-
0%
-
-
(705)
0%
935 623
28%
5,847
8,768
21,184
30,559
3,050
104,405
85,480
5,810
268,299
705
265,759
669,864
Q
s 2019 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax revenues are $184,368 higher than 2018 revenues. Please also seepages pages 18 & 19.
3
Packet Pg. 117 1
Title
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
1 RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMENTS
2 ATM SURCHARGE FEES
3 CREDIT CARD FEES
4 COURT RECORD SERVICES
5 D/M COURT REC SER
6 WARRANT PREPARATION FEE
7 IT TIME PAY FEE
8 MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN
9 SALE MAPS & BOOKS
10 CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS
11 BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT
12 PHOTOCOPIES
13 POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS
14 ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES
15 ELECTION CANDIDATE FILINGFEES
16 SNO-ISLE
17 PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES
18 POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS
19 CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.
20 WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION
21 MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES
22 FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS
23 LEGAL SERVICES
24 FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FOR DUI
25 ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE
26 BOOKING FEES
27 FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES
28 EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES
29 EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE
30 FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS
31 ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER
32 ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE
33 PLAN CHECKING FEES
34 FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES
35 PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE
36 S.E.P.A. REVIEW
37 CRITICAL AREA STUDY
38 DV COORDINATOR SERVICES
39 GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES
40 PROGRAM FEES
41 TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES
42 WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES
43 BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES
44 INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS
4.6.a
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2019 Amended 4/30/2018 4/30/2019 Amount
Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received
3,000
1,648
400
2,600
130/(
400
88
62
339
150
10,000
4,564
4,281
5,719
430/(
-
30
70
(70)
00/(
300
60
30
270
100/(
5,500
1,774
4,294
1,206
780
1,000
324
496
504
5001(
100
32
79
21
790/(
100
14
32
68
320/(
25,100
-
-
25,100
0°/
600
-
-
600
00/(
1,000
274
225
775
220/(
500
69
-
500
00/c
200,000
53,367
61,022
138,978
310/(
-
1,486
-
-
00/c
78,000
46,254
20,727
57,273
270/(
21,000
7,510
9,935
11,065
470/(
30,000
-
-
30,000
0°/
125,550
-
36,252
89,298
290/(
193,067
24,488
115,333
77,734
600/(
1,500
-
2
1,498
00/(
50,000
30,336
30,727
19,273
610/(
-
145
801
(801)
00/(
-
-
117
(117)
0°/
54,000
18,247
15,122
38,878
280/(
400
556
1,231
(831)
308%
12,560
6,105
5,705
6,855
4501(
3,000
939
2,595
405
860/(
852,100
186,348
246,163
605,937
290/(
2,500
1,245
629
1,871
250/(
50
-
-
50
00/(
102,300
60,092
44,395
57,905
430/(
425,900
121,752
247,101
178,799
580/(
6,500
3,690
2,965
3,535
460/(
1,000
-
-
1,000
00/(
5,000
4,690
2,930
2,070
590/(
14,000
6,500
5,450
8,550
390/(
2,046
3,935
4,707
(2,661)
2300/(
13,000
5,968
4,713
8,287
360/(
910,740
399,865
367,703
543,037
400/(
1,300
235
501
799
390/(
5,000
-
-
5,000
00/(
1,000
-
-
1,000
00/(
2,624,792
322,879
938,419
1,686,373
36°/
5,783,905
1,315,508
2,175,214
3,608,691
380/
Q
4
Packet Pg. 118 1
4.6.a
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2019 Amended 4/30/2018 4/30/2019 Amount
Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received
FINES AND PENALTIES:
1 PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY
2 TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
3 NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION
4 CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)
5 NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
6 OTHERINFRACTIONS'04
7 PARKINGINFRACTION PENALTIES
8 PARK/INDDISZONE
9 DWI PENALTIES
10 DUI - DP ACCT
11 CRIM CNV FEE DUI
12 DUI - DP FEE
13 OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN
14 CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03
15 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT
16 CRIM CONV FEE CT
17 OTHER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN
18 OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03
19 COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT
20 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN
21 CRIM CONV FEE CN
22 PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT
23 BANK CHARGE FOR CONY. DEFENDANT
24 COURT COST RECOUPMENT
25 BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY
26 MISC FINES AND PENALTIES
MISCELLANEOUS:
27 INVESTMENT INTEREST
28 INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES
29 INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS
30 PARKING
31 SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS
32 BRACKET ROOM RENTAL
33 LEASESLONG-TERM
34 DONATION/CONTRIBUTION
35 PARKSDONATIONS
36 BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS
37 POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES
38 SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE
39 SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY
40 CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY
41 OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT
42 POLICE JUDGMENT SiRESI'ITUTION
43 CASHIERS OVERAGES/SHORTAGES
44 OTHER MISC REVENUES
45 SMALL OVERPAYMENT
46 NSF FEES - PARKS & REC
47 NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT
48 US BANK REBATE
TRANSFERS -IN:
49 TRANSFER FROM FUND 127
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE
7,500
2,960
1,302
6,198
170/(
290,000
95,809
82,042
207,958
280/(
31,000
12,560
7,221
23,779
230/(
38,000
12,711
6,330
31,670
170/(
1,000
3,300
-
1,000
00/c
800
337
474
326
590/(
159,000
51,988
52,387
106,613
330/(
800
418
1,108
(308)
1390/(
6,000
2,607
2,912
3,088
490/(
1,000
309
165
835
170/(
200
37
42
158
210/(
1,500
270
771
729
510/(
135
69
-
135
00/(
30,000
9,729
13,046
16,954
430/(
3,600
1,113
1,059
2,541
290/(
1,000
396
268
732
270/(
100
-
(2,792)
2,892
-27920/1
13,000
4,472
4,862
8,138
370/(
600
279
125
475
210/(
1,600
578
357
1,243
220/(
500
197
133
367
270/(
18,500
6,355
4,578
13,922
250/(
12,000
4,004
5,038
6,962
420/(
7,000
3,050
1,689
5,311
240/(
10,000
9,110
5,150
4,850
520/(
300
-
895
(595)
2980/(
635,135
222,658
189,163
445,972
300%
248,160
49,954
122,227
125,933
490/(
9,210
3,352
6,228
2,982
680/(
3,000
3,415
3,026
(26)
1010/(
3,611
-
-
00/(
153,000
31,425
17,160
135,840
110/(
5,000
900
1,210
3,790
240/(
185,000
65,127
70,856
114,144
380/(
7,000
1,281
3,473
3,527
500/(
4,350
2,880
350
4,000
80/(
1,500
210
220
1,280
1501(
9,768
-
-
9,768
00/(
300
58
68
232
230/(
3,000
738
1,351
1,649
450/c
2,000
-
-
2,000
00/(
2,000
-
3
1,997
0°/
200
30
339
(139)
1700/(
-
23
(152)
152
0°/
2,000
2,289
1,987
13
990/(
30
27
36
(6)
1210/(
20
-
-
20
0°/
300
80
83
217
280/(
7,500
3,254
3,491
4,009
470/(
643,338
168,652
231,956
411,382
36°/
26,300 - - 26,300 0°/
26,300 - - 26,300 0°/
$ 40,866,194 $ 9,270,240 $ 10,236,291 $ 30,629,903 250/
Q
5
Packet Pg. 119
4.6.a
Page 1 of 6
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DEIAIL
2019 Amended
4/30/2018
4/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining %Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
1 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 16,416,248
$ 4,716,708
$ 5,059,147
$ 11,357,101
310/
2 OVERTIME
488,380
205,604
245,467
242,913
5001
3 HOLIDAY BUY BACK
250,491
-
4,704
245,787
20/
4 BENEFITS
6,106,801
1,858,548
2,041,128
4,065,673
330/
5 UNIFORMS
90,475
28,750
49,873
40,602
5501
6 SUPPLIES
376,780
118,659
151,704
225,076
400/
7 SMALL EQUIPMENT
219,379
15,773
61,835
157,544
280/
8 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
14,984,721
699,473
4,589,549
10,395,172
310/
9 COMMUNICATIONS
157,435
40,641
43,651
113,784
280/
10 TRAVEL
66,280
9,723
16,905
49,375
260/
11 EXCISE TAXES
6,500
740
739
5,761
110/
12 RENTAL/LEASE
1,842,569
652,861
617,681
1,224,888
340/
13 INSURANCE
431,095
437,253
436,448
(5,353)
1010/
14 UTILITIES
460,625
152,534
162,988
297,637
3501
15 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
584,030
116,774
243,755
340,275
420/
16 MISCELLANEOUS
561,304
153,669
156,978
404,326
280/
17 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 7
-
3,819,451
-
-
00/
18 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS
75,000
305,715
75,000
-
1000/
19 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
1,953,108
-
-
1,953,108
00/
20 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
27,042
33,227
-
27,042
00/
21 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL
183,710
-
-
183,710
00/
22 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
500
-
500
00/
23 INTEREST ON LONG TERM EXTERNAL DEBT
14,050
-
-
14,050
00/
45,296,523
13,366,102
S 13,957,552
31,338,971
31°l
LEO FF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009)
24 BENEFITS
$ 206,650 $
73,262
$ 66,262
$ 140,388
320/
25 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
252,990
76,281
92,004
160,986
360/
26 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
7,000
1,800
-
7,000
00/
27 MISCELLANEOUS
280
400
425
(145)
1520/
466,920
151,743
158,691
308,229
340/
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014)
28 SUPPLIES $
100 $
$ -
$
100
00/
29 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200
-
200
00/
30 MISCELLANEOUS
5,100
5,533
(433)
1080/
5,400
5,533
$
(133)
1020/
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSEFUND (018)
31 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $
- $
$ 1,862
$
(1,862)
00/
-
1,862
(1,862)
00/
EDMONDS OPIOED RESPONSEFUND (019)
32 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES $
200,000 $
$ -
$
200,000
00/
200,000
-
200,000
0°/
DRUG INFO RC EMENT FUND (104)
33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 45,000 $ $ - $ 45,000 00/
34 REPAIR/MAINT 800 - 800 00/
35 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 32,939 - - 00/
45,800 32,939 - 45,800 0°/
O
d
A
C
O
C
li
t
C
O
2
CD
T
0
N
�L
M
Q
7 The difference for "intergovernmental services" and "professional services" is due to a change in BARS coding.
6
Packet Pg. 120
I 4.6.a I
Page 2 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Amended
4/30/2018
4/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
S TREET FUND (111)
1 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 795,977
$ 167,117
$ 174,700
$ 621,277
220/
2 OVERTIME
35,900
8,713
24,825
11,075
690/
3 BENEFITS
264,125
87,067
86,378
177,747
330/
4 UNIFORMS
6,000
3,062
3,278
2,722
5501
5 SUPPLIES
335,000
80,107
107,480
227,520
320/
6 SMALL EQUIPMENT
20,000
-
14
19,986
00/
7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
26,140
4,622
5,948
20,192
230/
8 COMMUNICATIONS
4,500
2,466
1,998
2,502
440/
9 TRAVEL
1,000
-
-
1,000
00/
10 RENTAL/LEASE
268,280
61,877
88,872
179,408
330/
11 INSURANCE
153,881
156,645
156,514
(2,633)
1020/
12 UTILITIES
276,605
73,149
76,254
200,351
280/
13 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE
52,000
11,038
14,444
37,556
280/
14 MISCELLANEOUS
8,000
704
352
7,648
40/
15 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL
4,040
-
-
4,040
00/
16INTEREST
580
-
-
580
00/
$ 2,252,028
$ 656,567
$ 741,056
$ 1,510,972
330/
COMBINED STREETC0NST/IMPROVE(112)
17 SALARIES AND WAGES
18 BENEFITS
19 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
20 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
21 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
22 LAND
23 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
24 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
25 INTEREST
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117)
26 SUPPLIES
27 SMALL EQUIPMENT
28 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
29 TRAVEL
30 RENTAL/LEASE
31 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
32 MISCELLANEOUS
HOTEL/MOTEL, TAX REVENUE FUND (120)
33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
34 MISCELLANEOUS
35 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121)
36 SUPPLIES
37 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122)
38 MISCELLANEOUS
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123)
39 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
40 MISCELLANEOUS
$ - $
2,577 $
-
$ - 00/
961
2,100
-
961 00/
3,893,563
3,044
108,632
3,784,931 30/
1,138,238
-
5,394
1,132,845 00/
47,710
-
47,710 00/
38,500
-
-
38,500 00/
1,698,873
765,561
110,914
1,587,959 70/
72,220
-
-
72,220 00/
2,330
-
-
2,330 00/
$ 6,892,395 $
773,281 $
224,939
$ 6,667,456 30/
$ 4,700 $
18 $
153 $
4,547
30/
1,700
-
-
1,700
00/
166,500
9,553
7,310
159,190
40/
80
9
6
74
80/
2,000
-
-
2,000
00/
300
-
-
300
00/
6,600
1,628
2,426
4,174
370/
$ 181,880 $
11,208 $
9,895 $
171,985
501
$ 95,400 $ 12,349 $ 27,811 $ 67,589 290/
1,000 - 583 417 580/
4,000 - - 4,000 00/
$ 100,400 $ 12,349 $ 28,394 $ 72,006 280/
$ 1,790 $ $ - $ 1,790 00/
25,090 - 25,090 00/
$ 26,880 $ $ - $ 26,880 00/
$ 3,000 $ 731 $ 1,377 $ 1,623 460/
$ 3,000 $ 731 $ 1,377 $ 1,623 460/
$ 28,500 $ 2,141 $ 4,315 $ 24,185 1501
3,500 - - 3,500 00/
$ 32,000 $ 2,141 $ 4,315 $ 27,685 130/
ly
Q
7
Packet Pg. 121
I 4.6.a I
Page 3 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Amended
4/30/2018
4/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 2 (125)
1 SUPPLIES
$ 21,000
$ 28,375
$ 21,368
$ (368)
1020/
2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
586,505
23,722
85,792
500,713
1501
3 RENTAL/LEASE
-
-
381
(381)
00/
4 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE
591,156
12,794
578,362
20/
5 LAND
100,000
-
-
100,000
00/
6 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
2,074,625
118,488
166,533
1,908,092
80/
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX I, PARKS ACQ (126)
7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
9 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
10 LAND
11 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
12 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
13 INTEREST
GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127)
14 SUPPLIES
15 SMALL EQUIPMENT
16 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
17 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
18 MISCELLANEOUS
19 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
C EWEIERY MAINTENANC FAMPRO VEMENT (130)
20 SALARIES AND WAGES
21 OVERTIME
22 BENEFITS
23 UNIFORMS
24 SUPPLIES
25 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
26 SMALL EQUIPMENT
27 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
28 COMMUNICATIONS
29 TRAVEL
30 RENTAL/LEASE
31 UTILITIES
32 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
33 MISCELLANEOUS
PARES TRUSTFUND (136)
34 SMALL EQUIPMENT
35 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138)
36 SUPPLIES
37 TRAVEL
38 MISCELLANEOUS
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENTDISTRICTFUND (140)
39 SUPPLIES
40 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
41 MISCELLANEOUS
LID FUND C O NTRO L (211)
42 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231)
43 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
44 INTEREST
$
3,373,286
$
170,585
$
286,867
$
3,086,419
90/
r-
$
204,650
$
26,124
$
45,971
158,679
220/ O
658,879
-
19,719
639,160
30/ y
133,030
-
133,030
00/
100,000
-
-
100,000
00/
2,748,902
248
16,896
2,732,006
10/ .�
23,480
-
-
23,480
00/
3,360
-
-
3,360
00/ C
$
3,872,301
$
26,373
$
82,587
$
3,789,714
20/ li
$
39,779
$
$
24,069
$
15,710
610/
15,325
574
14,751
40/ O
6,500
-
6,500
00/ 2
11,250
-
11,250
00/ Im
600
154
-
600
00/ N
26,300
-
-
26,300
00/ _
$
99,754
$
154
$
24,643
$
75,111
250/ .0.
Q
$
93,593
$
24,657
$
26,255
$
67,338
28"/ v
3,500
832
1,524
1,976
440/ -j
38,909
11,303
12,533
26,376
320/ d
1,000
-
225
775
230/
7,000
14,370
168
6,832
20/ '3
20,000
5,792
4,621
15,379
230/
-
-
1,246
(1,246)
00/ O
4,200
352
176
4,024
40/ 0
1,410
524
652
758
460/
500
-
-
500
00/
6,260
3,880
2,087
4,173
330/ 75
3,835
1,373
1,300
2,535
340/ r-
500
-
-
500
00/
14,000
1,336
5,456
8,544
390/
$
194,707
$
64,420
$
56,243
$
138,464
299
$ 5,000 $ $ 2,465 $ 2,535 490/
- - - 00/
$ 5,000 $ $ 2,465 $ 2,535 490/
$ 1,500 $ 27 $ - $ 1,500 00/
4,500 - 4,500 00/
4,500 345 357 4,143 80/
$ 10,500 $ 372 $ 357 $ 10,143 30/
$ $ 73 $ 4,251 $ (4,251) 00/
23,371 18,043 (18,043) 00/
840 950 (950) 00/
24,284 23,243 (23,243 00r
$ 12,400 $ $ - $ 12,400 00/
$ 12,400 $ $ - $ 12,400 00/
$ 609,630 $ $ - $ 609,630 00/
106,780 - 106,780 00/
$ 716,410 $ $ - $ 716,410 00/
8
Packet Pg. 122
4.6.a
Page 4 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Amended
4/30/2018
4/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining %Spent
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (332)
1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$ 4,760
$ -
$
8,510
$
(3,750)
1794
2 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
3,992,668
49,470
11,686
3,980,982
04
$ 3,997,428
$ 49,470
$
20,196
$
3,977,232
14
WATER FUND (421)
3 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 845,003
$ 242,954
$
260,259
$
584,744
314
4 OVERTIME
24,000
6,027
9,160
14,840
384
5 BENEFITS
371,025
104,600
124,281
246,744
334
6 UNIFORMS
4,000
2,222
1,302
2,698
334
7 SUPPLIES
150,000
27,124
17,664
132,336
124
8 FUEL CONSUMED
-
70
-
-
04
9 WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE
1,950,000
439,137
447,006
1,502,994
234
10 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
170,000
33,630
24,313
145,687
140
11 SMALL EQUIPMENT
11,000
1,473
1,577
9,423
144
12 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
878,372
109,261
287,585
590,787
334
13 COMMUNICATIONS
30,000
9,203
7,516
22,484
254
14 TRAVEL
200
-
-
200
04
15 EXCISE TAXES 8
1,649,700
135,402
486,670
1,163,030
304
16 RENTAL/LEASE
155,532
47,850
51,177
104,355
334
17 INSURANCE
54,423
56,738
55,096
(673)
1014
18 UTILITIES
35,310
9,388
10,447
24,863
304
19 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
1,603,100
14,141
13,275
1,589,825
14
20 MISCELLANEOUS
121,400
37,859
42,055
79,345
354
21 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
8,768
-
-
04
22 INTERFUND TAXES 8
-
345,412
-
04
23 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
646,370
-
646,370
04
24 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
15,000
-
-
15,000
04
25 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
3,614,690
666,024
887,859
2,726,831
254
26 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
2,710
-
-
2,710
04
27 REVENUE BONDS
355,740
355,740
04
28 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
25,840
25,840
04
29 INTEREST
225,580
-
-
225,580
04
$ 12,938,995
$ 2,297,283
$
2,727,242
$
10,211,753
214
STORM FUND (422)
30 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 702,584
$ 217,064
$
235,645
$
466,939
344
31 OVERTIME
29,000
2,896
26,898
2,102
934
32 BENEFITS
360,829
110,357
123,559
237,270
344
33 UNIFORMS
6,500
4,629
4,452
2,048
680
34 SUPPLIES
46,000
12,432
16,023
29,977
354
35 SMALL EQUIPMENT
4,000
74
375
3,625
94
36 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,711,075
83,525
342,970
1,368,105
204
37 COMMUNICATIONS
3,200
1,634
1,462
1,739
464
38 TRAVEL
4,300
-
-
4,300
04
39 EXCISE TAXES 8
470,100
23,688
186,676
283,424
404
40 RENTAL/LEASE
246,404
82,176
81,590
164,814
334
41 INSURANCE
125,390
178,798
127,548
(2,158)
1020
42 UTILITES
10,710
3,471
3,977
6,733
374
43 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
439,568
9,490
9,829
429,739
24
44 MISCELLANEOUS
113,100
32,240
59,673
53,427
530
45 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
18,375
-
-
04
46 INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 8
-
145,689
-
04
47 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
297,750
-
-
297,750
04
48 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
4,987,891
18,222
33,194
4,954,697
14
49 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
98,900
-
-
98,900
04
50 REVENUE BONDS
173,940
173,940
04
51 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
55,639
55,639
04
52 INTEREST
131,155
-
-
131,155
04
$ 10,018,035
$ 944,759
$
1,253,871
$
8,764,164
134
ly
Q
8 The difference for "interfund taxes" and "excise taxes" is due to a change in BARS coding.
9
I Packet Pg. 123 1
I 4.6.a I
Page 5 of 6
CITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Amended
4/30/2018
4/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
SEWER FUND (423)
1 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 1,850,763
$ 554,317
$ 598,247
$ 1,252,516
320
2 OVERTIME
95,000
29,611
33,554
61,446
350
3 BENEFITS
815,177
246,725
252,750
562,427
310
4 UNIFORMS
9,500
4,882
4,530
4,970
480
5 SUPPLIES
417,200
84,995
88,734
328,466
210
6 FUEL CONSUMED
80,000
19,419
5,842
74,158
70
7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE
4,000
-
-
4,000
00
8 SMALL EQUIPMENT
50,000
16,506
2,585
47,415
54
9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,599,670
233,982
407,354
1,192,316
250
10 COMMUNICATIONS
43,000
14,760
11,614
31,386
270
11 TRAVEL
5,000
2,122
-
5,000
09
12 EXCISE TAXES 9
973,000
71,477
360,306
612,694
370
13 RENTAL/LEASE
313,469
102,174
118,485
194,984
380
14 INSURANCE
184,261
117,717
184,604
(343)
1000
15 UTILITIES
1,231,310
234,539
215,285
1,016,025
170
16 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
695,000
107,759
94,109
600,891
140
17 MISCELLANEOUS
125,650
37,455
33,696
91,954
270
18 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
37,612
-
-
04
19 INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 9
20 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
21 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
22 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
23 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
24 REVENUE BONDS
25 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
26 INTEREST
27 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
BOND RESERVE FUND (424)
28 REVENUE BONDS
29 INTEREST
-
252,850
-
04
2,420,671
-
2,420,671
00
30,000
23,674
-
30,000
09
6,300,393
176,677
83,158
6,217,235
14
150,050
-
-
150,050
00
80,340
-
-
80,340
00
172,540
14,045
14,371
158,169
84
75,490
3,557
3,371
72,119
40
-
2,683
2,543
(2,543)
00
$ 17,721,484 $
2,389,536
$ 2,515,138
$ 15,206,346
140
$ 740,010 $ $ $ 740,010 04
1,251,200 1,251,200 00
$ 1,991,210 $ $ $ 1,991,210 00
9 The difference for "interfund taxes" and "excise taxes" is due to a change in BARS coding.
ly
O
d
C
ea
C
li
Z
C
O
2
CD
T
0
N
�L
M
Q
10
Packet Pg. 124
I 4.6.a I
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Amended
4/30/2018
4/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511)
1 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 259,309
$ 82,036
$ 87,063
$ 172,246
340
2 OVERTIME
2,000
-
8,081
(6,081)
4040
3 BENEFITS
113,207
35,519
38,720
74,487
340
4 UNIFORMS
1,000
723
977
23
980
5 S'UPPLIES
110,000
24,028
49,086
60,914
450
6 FUEL CONSUMED
1,000
-
-
1,000
04
7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
273,000
57,078
46,610
226,390
170
8 SMALL EQUIPMENT
58,000
1,356
385
57,615
14
9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
46,580
2,189
478
46,102
14
10 COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
742
719
2,281
240
11 TRAVEL
1,000
-
-
1,000
00
12 RENTAL/LEASE
14,120
3,147
4,566
9,554
320
13 INSURANCE
32,015
29,464
30,167
1,848
940
14 UTILITIES
14,200
5,319
5,907
8,293
420
15 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
60,000
8,036
7,811
52,189
130
16 MISCELLANEOUS
12,000
1,516
4,684
7,316
390
17 MACHINERYBQUIPMENT
1,933,000
203,510
401,941
1,531,059
210
$ 2,933,431
$ 454,663
$ 687,194
$ 2,246,237
23-
TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND (512)
18 SALARIES AND WAGES
$
292,502
$
93,110
$
94,400
$
198,102
320
19 OVERTIME
2,000
997
-
2,000
00
20 BENEFITS
97,499
31,140
32,442
65,057
330
21 SUPPLIES
5,000
1,573
1,366
3,634
270
22 SMALL EQUIPMENT
38,000
84,163
23,805
14,195
630
23 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
210,000
1,019
5,379
204,621
30
24 COMMUNICATIONS
58,770
14,143
14,491
44,279
250
25 TRAVEL
1,500
-
-
1,500
04
26 RENTAL/LEASE
7,200
1,589
1,719
5,481
240
27 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
387,690
116,330
138,161
249,529
360
28 MISCELLANEOUS
5,000
6,978
682
4,318
140
29 MACHINERYBQUIPMENT
74,750
-
57,571
17,179
770
$
1,179,911
$
351,042
$
370,014
$
809,897
310
FIR]MIEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
30 BENEFITS
$
23,000
$
9,969
$
8,469
$
14,531
370
31 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
54,427
16,919
18,389
36,038
340
32 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,200
270
-
1,200
09
$
78,627
$
27,158
$
26,858
$
51,769
340
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS
S
114,646,705
$
21,807,159
S 23,210,530
$
91,436,175
200
Q
11
Packet Pg. 125
4.6.a
Page 1 of 1
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
2019 Amended 4/30/2018 4/30/2019 Amount
Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining
CITY COUNCIL
OFFICE OF MAYOR
HUMAN RESOURCES
MUNICIPAL COURT
CITY CLERK
FINANCE
CITY ATTORNEY
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
POLICE SERVICES
COMMUNITY S'ERVICESIECONOMIC DEV
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PARKS& RECREATION
PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
% Spent
$ 602,387 $
93,044 $
112,983 $
489,404
19%
296,155
97,145
97,904
198,251
33%
590,331
140,435
156,727
433,604
27%
1,143,210
326,606
305,139
838,071
27%
685,420
222,183
243,367
442,053
36%
0
1,244,805
383,670
418,398
826,407
34%
d
889,560
252,179
294,517
595,043
3370
v
C
13,556,979
4,704,813
4,478,257
9,078,722
33%
11,728,919
3,581,604
3,763,317
7,965,602
32%
L,
618,232
179,612
181,514
436,718
29%
+z+
C
3,426,322
817,737
924,696
2,501,626
27%
0
4,303,374
1,159,777
1,209,937
3,093,437
28%
r
3,296,100
848,683
1,002,774
2,293,326
30%
0
N
2,914,729
558,614
768,024
2,146,705
26%
'L
C
$ 45,296,523 $
13,366,102 $
13,957,552 $
31,338,971
31%
J
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY
Title
2019 Amended
Budget
4/30/2018
Expenditures
4/30/2019
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
%Spent
WATER UTILITY FUND
$ 12,938,995
$ 2,297,283
$ 2,727,242
$ 10,211,753
21%
STORM UTILITY FUND
10,018,035
944,759
1,253,871
8,764,164
13%
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
17,721,484
2,389,536
2,515,138
15,206,346
14%
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,991,210
-
-
1,991,210
0%
$ 42,669,724
$ 5,631,578
$ 6,496,251
$ 36,173,473
15%
12
Packet Pg. 126
Page 1 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DEr'AIL
Title
2019 Amended
Budget
4/30/2018
Expenditures
4/30/2019
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
%Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES
$
171,950
$
52,238
$
58,573
$
113,377
34%
OVERTIME
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
BENEFITS
92,751
30,449
32,159
60,592
35%
SUPPLIES
2,000
94
521
1,479
26%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
-
-
342
(342)
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
194,160
200
10,983
183,178
6%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
1,200
1,627
1,373
54%
TRAVEL
6,700
325
1,093
5,607
16%
RENTAL/LEASE
11,586
5,441
4,067
7,519
35%
REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE
500
-
121
379
24%
MISCELLANEOUS
118,740
3,097
3,497
115,243
3%
$
602,387
$
93,044
$
112,983
$
489,404
19%
OFFICEOFMAYOR
SALARIES
$
215,076
$
70,102
$
71,647
$
143,429
33%
BENEFITS
53,257
16,664
17,997
35,260
34%
SUPPLIES
1,500
167
147
1,353
10%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,000
165
1,600
1,400
53%
COMMUNICATION
1,400
749
300
1,100
21%
TRAVEL
3,000
260
952
2,048
32%
RENTAL/LEASE
13,472
6,959
4,168
9,304
31%
MISCELLANEOUS
5,450
2,077
1,092
4,358
20%
$
296,155
$
97,145
$
97,904
$
198,251
33%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES
$
327,939
$
76,406
$
83,463
$
244,476
25%
BENEFITS
118,229
29,082
32,647
85,582
28%
SUPPLIES
12,300
94
1,608
10,692
13%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
300
-
-
300
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
81,886
16,476
10,665
71,221
13%
COMMUNICATIONS
700
403
308
392
44%
TRAVEL
1,000
724
123
877
12%
RENTAL/LEASE
22,947
8,739
8,277
14,670
36%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
7,850
7,326
7,571
279
96%
MISCELLANEOUS
17,180
1,186
12,064
5,116
70%
$
590,331
$
140,435
$
156,727
$
433,604
27%
MUNIC IPAL C O URT
SALARIES
$
628,961
$
189,599
$
180,977
$
447,984
29%
OVERTIME
800
-
367
433
46%
BENEFITS
244,601
75,225
65,040
179,561
27%
SUPPLIES
10,600
3,326
1,337
9,263
13%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,000
-
702
298
70%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
124,925
23,350
24,313
100,612
19%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,550
810
779
2,771
22%
TRAVEL
6,500
515
384
6,116
6%
RENTAL/LEASE
65,251
24,164
21,440
43,811
33%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
4,880
-
277
4,603
6%
MISCELLANEOUS
25,100
9,618
9,524
15,576
38%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
27,042
-
-
27,042
0%
$
1,143,210
$
326,606
$
305,139
$
838,071
27%
O
d
Q'
C
e0
C
IL
21
t
C
O
2
O
N
�L
C.
Q
13
Packet Pg. 127 1
I 4.6.a I
Page 2 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2019 Amended
4/30/2018
4/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
CITY C LERK
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 358,349
$ 113,994
$ 116,793
$ 241,556
33%
BENEFITS
151,468
50,287
52,242
99,226
34%
SUPPLIES
10,240
1,490
902
9,338
9%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
32,310
6,103
8,550
23,760
26%
COMMUNICATIONS
40,000
8,322
11,666
28,334
29%
TRAVEL
2,000
437
465
1,535
23%
RENTAL/LEASE
50,973
19,636
17,337
33,636
34%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
32,080
19,501
31,619
461
99%
MISCELLANEOUS
8,000
2,414
3,793
4,207
47%
$ 685,420
$ 222,183
$ 243,367
$ 442,053
36%
FINANCE
SALARIES
$
844,384
$
240,450
$
264,512
$
579,872
31%
OVERTIME
4,500
-
-
4,500
0%
BENEFITS
268,345
77,113
89,444
178,901
33%
SUPPLIES
7,350
1,118
2,192
5,158
30%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
5,400
3,831
579
4,821
11%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
14,650
5
29
14,621
0%
COMMUNICATIONS
2,000
443
338
1,662
17%
TRAVEL
3,100
1,224
281
2,819
9%
RENTAL/LEASE
48,226
16,374
16,604
31,622
34%
REPAIRIMAINTENANCE
38,500
41,121
42,499
(3,999)
110%
MISCELLANEOUS
8,350
1,992
1,920
6,430
23%
$
1,244,805
$
383,670
$
418,398
$
826,407
34%
CITY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
889,560
$
252,179
$
294,517
$
595,043
33%
$
889,560
$
252,179
$
294,517
$
595,043
33%
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES
$
101,750
$
-
$
-
$
101,750
0%
BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT
40,000
2,370
22,812
17,188
57%
SUPPLIES
5,000
541
86
4,914
2%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10,666,114
130,737
3,889,598
6,776,516
36%
EXCISE TAXES
6,500
740
739
5,761
11%
RENTAL/LEASE
10,538
3,673
4,401
6,137
42%
INSURANCE
431,095
437,253
436,448
(5,353)
101%
MISCELLANEOUS
69,614
48,205
49,173
20,441
71 %
INTERGOVT SERVICES
-
3,775,579
-
-
0%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT
75,000
305,715
75,000
-
100%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
1,953,108
-
-
1,953,108
0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
183,710
-
183,710
0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT
14,050
-
14,050
0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES
500
500
0%
$
13,556,979
$
4,704,813
$
4,478,257
$
9,078,722
33%
Q
14
Packet Pg. 128
Page 3 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2019 Amended
4/30/2018
4/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
PO LIC E S ERVIC FS
SALARIES
$ 6,916,238
$ 2,053,984
$ 2,136,952
$ 4,779,286
31%
OVERTIME
454,780
190,542
227,850
226,930
50%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK
250,491
-
4,704
245,787
2%
BENEFITS
2,549,180
820,011
868,261
1,680,919
34%
UNIFORMS
80,250
24,092
42,770
37,480
53%
SUPPLIES
86,500
30,081
54,115
32,385
63%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
191,079
8,281
57,806
133,273
30%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
141,770
37,135
27,512
114,258
19%
COMMUNICATIONS
32,000
12,874
11,451
20,549
36%
TRAVEL
29,310
4,197
6,341
22,969
22%
RENTAL/LEASE
920,851
326,938
305,338
615,513
33%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
15,120
3,566
2,872
12,248
19%
MISCELLANEOUS
61,350
36,675
17,345
44,005
28%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
33,227
0%
$ 11,728,919
$ 3,581,604
$ 3,763,317
$ 7,965,602
32%
COMMUNITY S ERVIC ES /EC 0 N DEV.
SALARIES
$
245,505
$
78,587
$
82,398
$
163,107
34%
BENEFITS
76,033
24,725
26,303
49,730
35%
SUPPLIES
7,000
5,694
5,583
1,417
80%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
800
-
-
800
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
262,400
63,183
59,570
202,830
23%
COMMUNICATIONS
1,490
398
415
1,075
28%
TRAVEL
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
13,004
4,037
3,798
9,206
29%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
500
-
-
500
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
9,500
2,988
3,446
6,054
36%
$
618,232
$
179,612
$
181,514
$
436,718
29%
DEVELO PMIIVT SERVIC ES/PLANNING
SALARIES
$
1,665,849
$
476,471
$
528,915
$
1,136,934
32%
OVERTIME
1,300
7,096
4,270
(2,970)
328%
BENEFITS
609,831
180,193
205,256
404,575
34%
UNIFORMS
500
-
-
500
0%
SUPPLIES
17,100
3,575
2,575
14,525
15%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
6,100
842
-
6,100
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
907,046
83,508
121,131
785,915
13%
COMMUNICATIONS
9,000
2,791
2,234
6,766
25%
TRAVEL
5,500
1,883
3,833
1,667
70%
RENTAL/LEASE
143,236
51,765
47,413
95,823
33%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
6,800
-
596
6,204
9%
MISCELLANEOUS
54,060
9,614
8,472
45,588
16%
$
3,426,322
$
817,737
$
924,696
$
2,501,626
27%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES
$
1,720,176
$
436,859
$
552,503
$
1,167,673
32%
OVERTIME
8,300
3,602
2,489
5,811
30%
BENEFITS
678,356
181,908
231,905
446,451
34%
UNIFORMS
450
-
-
450
0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
2,200
-
-
2,200
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
53,840
8,531
500
53,340
1%
COMMUNICATIONS
16,625
4,291
4,193
12,432
25%
TRAVEL
600
89
585
15
98%
RENTAL/LEASE
123,023
39,603
40,529
82,494
33%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
2,600
-
-
2,600
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
79,450
5,143
8,266
71,184
10%
$
2,685,620
$
680,024
$
840,970
$
1,844,650
31%
Q
1$
Packet Pg. 129
Page 4 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARINNffiVT IN DETAIL,
2019 Amended
4/30/2018
4/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
PARKS & REC REATIO N
SALARIES
$ 2,096,118
$ 595,044
$ 633,379
$ 1,462,739
30%
OVERTIME
10,000
2,114
6,801
3,199
68%
BENEFITS
785,394
234,157
249,000
536,394
32%
UNIFORMS
6,275
1,417
3,845
2,430
61%
SUPPLIES
121,590
43,275
33,063
88,527
27%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
8,500
1,569
606
7,894
7%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
671,920
75,263
82,823
589,097
12%
COMMUNICATIONS
30,320
2,477
2,674
27,646
9%
TRAVEL
5,070
69
2,101
2,969
41%
RENTAL/LEASE
268,539
83,980
96,096
172,443
36%
PUBLIC UTILITY
175,338
45,028
50,315
125,023
29%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
29,700
882
13,054
16,646
44%
MISCELLANEOUS
94,610
30,631
36,180
58,430
38%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
43,872
0%
$ 4,303,374
$ 1,159,777
$ 1,209,937
$ 3,093,437
28%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES
$
369,334
$
92,001
$
94,154
$
275,180
25%
OVERTIME
200
-
144
56
72%
BENEFITS
129,196
33,957
34,000
95,196
26%
SUPPLIES
8,600
1,145
1,485
7,115
17%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200
30
27
173
14%
COMMUNICATIONS
1,350
221
229
1,121
17%
TRAVEL
500
-
745
(245)
149%
RENTAL/LEASE
91,193
40,392
29,972
61,221
33%
PUBLIC UTILITY
3,007
913
1,047
1,960
35%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
4,900
4,900
0%
$
610,480
$
168,659
$
161,804
$
448,676
27%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES
754,619
240,975
254,880
499,739
34%
OVERTIME
7,500
2,250
3,546
3,954
47%
BENEFITS
310,160
102,409
114,063
196,097
37%
UNIFORMS
3,000
3,241
3,257
(257)
109%
SUPPLIES
87,000
28,059
48,090
38,910
55%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
3,000
1,249
1,801
1,199
60%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
940,940
2,608
57,731
883,209
6%
COMMUNICATIONS
16,000
5,662
7,435
8,565
46%
TRAVEL
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
59,730
21,162
18,243
41,487
31%
PUBLIC UTILITY
282,280
106,593
111,626
170,654
40%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
444,500
44,377
145,145
299,355
33%
MISCELLANEOUS
5,000
30
2,206
2,794
44%
$
2,914,729
$
558,614
$
768,024
$
2,146,705
26%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
$
45,296,523
$
13,366,102
$
13,957,552
$
31,338,971
31%
Q
16
Packet Pg. 130
I 4.6.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund
2019
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 2,054,678 $
2,054,678
$ 2,397,678
16.69%
February
4,942,857
2,888,179
4,685,465
-5.21%
March
7,411,396
2,468,539
7,046,230
-4.93%
April
10,819,777
3,408,381
10,236,291
-5.39%
May
18,632,994
7,813,217
June
20,936,841
2,303,847
July
23,072,511
2,135,670
August
25,590,721
2,518,210
September
27,737,323
2,146,602
October
30,605,048
2,867,725
November
38,576,248
7,971,200
December
40,866,194
2,289,946
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax
2019
Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January $
239,174 $
239,174 $
206,702
-13.58%
February
426,584
187,410
316,468
-25.81%
March
648,598
222,013
530,155
-18.26%
April
866,924
218,326
723,280
-16.57%
May
1,118,366
251,442
June
1,392,391
274,025
July
1,790,060
397,669
August
2,111,970
321,910
September
2,410,481
298,511
October
2,651,152
240,672
November
2,897,726
246,573
December
3,080,000
182,274
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
17
Packet Pg. 131
SALES TAX SUMMARY
I 4.6.a I
Accommodation,
$11,460
Clothing and
Accessories, $92,399
Communications,
$75,607
Sales Tax Analysis By Category
Current Period: April 2019
Year -to -Date
Total $2,636,953
Automotive Repair,
Health &Personal Care, $61,162
$87,601 Amusement &
Construction Trade, Recreation, $28,813
$472,341 Business Services,
$249,244
Gasoline, $11,093
Retail Food Stores,
$98,766
Wholesale Trade,-
$52,830
Misc Retail, $422,873
L Retail Automotive,
$582,187
IManufacturing, $29,673
Others, $40,393 Eating & Drinking,
$320,511
Annual Sales Tax Revenue
10,000,000
8,000,000
$7,395,114 $8,406,296
$5,840,764 $6,741,838 $6,905,122
6,000,000
4,000,000
$2,636,953
2,000, 000 L4
C
2014 2015 2016 2018 YTD 2019
18
Packet Pg. 132
I 4.6.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax
2019
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 583,740
$ 583,740
$ 665,493
14.01%
February
1,326,812
743,072
1,464,443
10.37%
March
1,890,823
564,012
2,088,425
10.45%
April
2,418,442
527,618
2,636,953
9.04%
May
3,087,512
669,070
June
3,695,140
607,628
July
4,344,323
649,183
August
5,056,215
711,892
September
5,734,922
678,707
October
6,438,793
703,871
November
7,175,252
736,459
December
7,825,000
649,748
City ofEdmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax
2019
Gas Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 92,468
$ 92,468
$ 67,644
-26.85%
February
188,382
95,914
140,257
-25.55%
March
270,480
82,098
229,186
-15.27%
April
338,414
67,935
300,757
-11.13%
May
391,853
53,439
June
429,417
37,564
July
458,287
28,870
August
482,130
23,843
September
504,337
22,207
October
530,073
25,736
November
567,790
37,717
December
626,600
58,810
Gas Utility Tax
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
19
Packet Pg. 133
I 4.6.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax
2019
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 90,093
$ 90,093
$ 83,102
-7.76%
February
180,099
90,007
153,757
-14.63%
March
261,769
81,670
220,849
-15.63%
April
347,309
85,539
292,121
-15.89%
May
425,673
78,364
June
504,828
79,155
July
580,361
7S,533
August
657,995
77,634
September
738,345
80,350
October
815,639
77,294
November
889,278
73,638
December
967,200
77,922
Electric Utility Tax
Telephone Utility Tax
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
� Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax
2019
Cumulative
Monthly
YTD
Variance
Budget Forecast
Budget Forecast
Actuals
January
$ 180,392
$ 180,392
$ 171,454
-4.96%
February
374,176
193,784
364,048
-2.71%
March
542,795
168,619
526,085
-3.08%
April
717,960
175,165
720,176
0.31%
May
863,822
145,862
June
985,603
121,781
July
1,101,208
11S,604
August
1,212,283
111,075
September
1,323,362
111,080
October
1,439,932
116,570
November
1,562,550
122,618
December
1,691,300
128,750
Electric Utility Tax
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-0-- Current Year Budget - Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
ZD
Packet Pg. 134
t 4.6.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales
2019
Meter Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
742,059 $
742,059
$ 725,472
-2.24%
February
1,256,325
514,266
1,233,174
-1.84%
March
1,990,166
733,842
1,973,669
-0.83%
April
2,476,952
486,786
2,430,513
-1.87%
May
3,203,262
726,310
June
3,766,233
562,971
July
4,657,894
891,661
August
5,440,698
782,804
September
6,513,015
1,072,317
October
7,251,320
738,305
November
8,101,309
849,989
December
8,624,564
523,255
Storm Water Sales
Meter Water Sales
7,000,000
6,000,000
14,000,000
1,000,000
0 ,
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
--*—CurrentYear Budget — — Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales
2019
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
322,033 $
322,033
$ 317,727
-4.96%
February
1,017,422
695,389
1,006,134
-2.71%
March
1,338,925
321,503
1,323,366
-3.08%
April
1,623,949
285,024
1,605,082
0.31%
May
1,945,558
321,609
June
2,231,420
285,862
July
2,553,731
322,311
August
3,249,585
695,854
September
3,570,469
320,884
October
3,855,506
285,037
November
4,177,408
321,902
December
4,462,767
285,359
Storm Water Sales
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
—*-- Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
21
Packet Pg. 135
I 4.6.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary- Unmeter Sewer Sales
2019
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 764,057
$ 764,057
$ 766,027
0.26%
February
1,382,019
617,962
1,384,500
0.18%
March
2,141,223
759,204
2,149,907
0.41%
April
2,762,974
621,752
2,770,969
0.29%
May
3,530,212
767,237
June
4,158,923
628,711
July
4,943,476
784,553
August
5,570,113
626,637
September
6,371,750
801,637
October
7,005,968
634,218
November
7,783,039
777,071
December
8,408,534
625,495
Umneter Sewer Sales
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
� Current Year Budget - Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
a.
N
fC
C
R
C
LL
_>4
t
a+
C
O
2
CD
0
N
Q
Q
22
Packet Pg. 136
I 4.6.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund
2019
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
5,293,482 $
5,293,482
$4,237,264-19.95%
February
8,082,732
2,789,249
7,405,291 -8.38%
March
11,556,438
3,473,706
10,663,247 -7.73%
April
15,859,874
4,303,435
13,957,552-11.99%
May
18,488,610
2,628,737
June
22,666,736
4,178,126
July
26,203,273
3,536,537
August
30,356,366
4,153,093
September
33,754,374
3,398,008
October
36,897,998
3,143,625
November
41,212,357
4,314,359
December
45,296,523
4,084,166
Non -Departmental
General Fund
45,000,000
40,000,000 -
v
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
p l
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Yeaz Budget �Prior Year
City ofEdmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental
2019
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 2,586,468
$ 2,586,468
$ 1,939,971
-25.00%
February
3,013,532
427,064
2,801,406
-7.04%
March
4,041,004
1,027,471
3,658,670
-9.46%
April
5,661,728
1,620,724
4,478,257
-20.90%
May
5,936,842
275,114
June
7,529,862
1,593,020
July
8,430,518
900,656
August
9,710,604
1,280,086
September
10,511,285
800,681
October
11,101,008
589,723
November
12,475,676
1,374,668
December
13,556,979
1,081,303
Non -Departmental
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
�*— Current Year Budget —Rh— Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
23
Packet Pg. 137
I 4.6.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council
2019
City Council
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
39,368 $
39,368 $
22,406
-43.09%
February
80,151
40,783
46,519
-41.96%
March
128,249
48,098
82,908
-35.35%
April
174,054
45,804
112,983
-35.09%
May
228,252
54,198
June
295,688
67,436
July
344,770
49,081
August
407,512
62,743
September
462,156
54,644
October
497,566
35,410
November
550,379
52,813
December
602,387
52,008
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor
2019
Office of Mayor
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
24,108 $
24,108 $
24,303
0.81%
February
49,562
25,454
47,727
-3.70%
March
73,857
24,295
72,221
-2.21%
April
98,624
24,767
97,904
-0.73%
May
122,830
24,206
June
146,929
24,099
July
171,908
24,979
August
197,139
25,231
September
221,850
24,711
October
246,137
24,287
November
270,260
24,123
December
296,155
25,895
Office of Mayor
300,000.00
250,000.00
200,000.00
150,000.00
100,000.00
50,000.00
0.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
--0-CurrentYeaz Budget •PriorYeaz
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
24
Packet Pg. 138
I 4.6.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources
2019
Human Resources
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 46,632
$ 46,632
$ 48,901
4.87%
February
97,790
51,158
81,030
-17.14%
March
148,537
50,747
116,157
-21.80%
April
189,740
41,203
156,727
-17.40%
May
236,212
46,472
June
282,909
46,697
July
332,296
49,387
August
380,431
48,135
September
426,855
46,424
October
471,872
45,017
November
519,709
47,838
December
590,331
70,622
Municipal Court
Human Resources
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAX JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
--W-Current Yeaz Budget Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court
2019
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 87,580
$ 87,580
$ 70,858
-19.09%
February
182,357
94,777
140,956
-22.70%
March
280,184
97,826
219,779
-21.56%
April
371,181
90,997
305,139
-17.79%
May
465,663
94,482
June
556,434
90,771
July
647,960
91,526
August
746,132
98,173
September
839,518
93,386
October
939,927
100,409
November
1,035,295
95,368
December
1,143,210
107,915
Municipal Court
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-*--Current Year Budget �PriorYear
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
25
Packet Pg. 139
I 4.6.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development
2019
Community Services/Economic Development
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
38,544 $
38,544 $
39,270
1.88%
February
82,051
43,507
92,749
13.04%
March
130,166
48,114
132,003
1.41%
April
191,996
61,831
181,514
-5.46%
May
233,127
41,130
June
277,966
44,839
July
323,762
45,796
August
379,014
55,252
September
428,169
49,155
October
483,157
54,989
November
542,833
59,676
December
618,232
75,399
City Clerk
Community Services/Economic Development
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget -0-- Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk
2019
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 64,593
$ 64,593
$ 70,355
8.92%
February
120,556
55,963
128,177
6.32%
March
176,231
55,674
178,301
1.17%
April
234,202
57,971
243,367
3.91%
May
289,750
55,548
June
341,414
51,664
July
396,840
55,427
August
457,532
60,692
September
509,418
51,886
October
566,970
57,551
November
625,898
58,928
December
685,420
59,522
City Clerk
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
26
Packet Pg. 140
I 4.6.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Technology Rental Fund
2019
Technology Rental Fund
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 119,026
$ 119,026
$ 157,010
31.91%
February
251,357
132,331
215,707
-14.18%
March
324,740
73,383
320,177
-1.41%
April
392,021
67,281
370,014
-5.61%
May
467,013
74,992
June
544,834
77,821
July
636,126
91,293
August
741,673
105,546
September
844,676
103,003
October
920,609
75,933
November
998,506
77,896
December
1,179,911
181,405
Finance
Technology Rental Fund
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
� Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance
2019
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 137,055
$ 137,055
$ 128,270
-6.41%
February
232,763
95,708
224,119
-3.71%
March
329,813
97,051
319,388
-3.16%
April
427,554
97,741
418,398
-2.14%
May
526,278
98,724
June
622,509
96,231
July
720,263
97,754
August
819,641
99,378
September
931,887
112,246
October
1,040,480
108,592
November
1,141,414
100,935
December
1,244,805
103,391
Finance
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+Current Yeaz Budget -qw- Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
27
Packet Pg. 141
I 4.6.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney
2019
City Attorney
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 74,130
$ 74,130
$ 47,964
-35.30%
February
148,260
74,130
126,678
-14.56%
March
222,390
74,130
222,683
0.13%
April
296,520
74,130
294,517
-0.68%
May
370,650
74,130
June
444,780
74,130
July
518,910
74,130
August
593,040
74,130
September
667,170
74,130
October
741,300
74,130
November
815,430
74,130
December
889,560
74,130
Police
City Attorney
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-*-- Current Year Budget � Prior Year
City of*Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Police
2019
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 920,277
$ 920,277
$ 927,983
0.84%
February
1,860,808
940,531
1,815,042
-2.46%
March
2,787,770
926,962
2,786,780
-0.04%
April
3,724,324
936,554
3,763,317
1.05%
May
4,658,355
934,031
June
5,621,223
962,868
July
6,560,289
939,066
August
7,489,793
929,504
September
8,432,902
943,109
October
9,480,410
1,047,508
November
10,742,210
1,261,800
December
11,728,919
986,709
Police
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget �PriorYear
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
Z$
Packet Pg. 142
I 4.6.a
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services
2019
Development Services
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 233,684
$ 233,684
$ 212,448
-9.09%
February
495,741
262,057
434,026
-12.45%
March
764,561
268,821
663,134
-13.27%
April
1,032,480
267,919
924,696
-10.44%
May
1,323,208
290,728
June
1,594,826
271,617
July
1,875,116
280,290
August
2,181,101
305,985
September
2,471,090
289,989
October
2,769,197
298,107
November
3,083,430
314,232
December
3,426,322
342,892
Parks & Recreation
Development Services
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
--0- Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
City ofEdmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation
2019
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 290,564
$ 290,564
$ 280,923
-3.32%
February
589,424
298,861
588,578
-0.14%
March
908,094
318,670
888,876
-2.12%
April
1,234,622
326,528
1,209,937
-2.00%
May
1,579,091
344,468
June
1,921,011
341,920
July
2,365,248
444,238
August
2,891,636
526,388
September
3,284,546
392,910
October
3,627,539
342,993
November
3,925,800
298,261
December
4,303,374
377,574
Parks & Recreation
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+Current Yeaz Budget -d-- Prior Yeaz
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
29
Packet Pg. 143
I 4.6.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works
2019
Public Works
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 50,384
$ 50,384
$ 39,815
-20.98%
February
102,273
51,889
80,023
-21.76%
March
153,446
51,173
120,273
-21.62%
April
204,598
51,153
161,804
-20.92%
May
255,170
50,572
June
306,227
51,057
July
357,744
51,517
August
407,869
50,125
September
456,744
48,874
October
506,690
49,946
November
556,681
49,991
December
610,480
53,799
Facilities Maintenance
Public Works
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
i
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
� Current Yeaz Budget -0-- Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance
2019
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 228,301
$ 228,301
$ 172,786
-24.32%
February
457,666
229,364
382,230
-16.48%
March
700,969
243,303
576,136
-17.81%
April
931,712
230,743
768,024
-17.57%
May
1,165,903
234,191
June
1,378,275
212,372
July
1,646,299
268,024
August
1,872,892
226,592
September
2,123,872
250,981
October
2,374,954
251,082
November
2,628,848
253,894
December
2,914,729
285,881
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
30
Packet Pg. 144
I 4.6.a I
City ofEdmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering
2019
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 199,012 $
199,012
$ 211,009
6.03%
February
397,302
198,290
416,031
4.71%
March
613,115
215,813
625,938
2.09%
April
835,389
222,274
840,970
0.67%
May
1,053,506
218,118
June
1,284,814
231,308
July
1,508,283
223,469
August
1,747,325
239,041
September
1,974,318
226,993
October
2,206,759
232,441
November
2,431,557
224,798
December
2,685,620
254,063
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
31
Packet Pg. 145
I 4.6.a I
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail
As of April 30, 2019
Years
Agency/ Investment Purchase to Par Market Maturity Coupon
Issuer Type Price Maturity Value Value Date Rate
SCIP
CD
2,500,000
0.10
2,500,000
2,500,000
06/04/19
2.65%
FNMA
Bonds
999,750
0.12
1,000,000
998,654
06/13/19
1.40%
FHLB
Bonds
1,000,400
0.14
1,000,000
998,606
06/20/19
1.40%
FNMA
Bonds
988,720
0.41
1,000,000
996,076
09/27/19
1.50%
FHLMC
Bonds
995,970
0.42
1,000,000
994,942
10/02/19
1.25%
FNMA
Bonds
1,994,310
0.50
2,000,000
1,989,058
10/28/19
1.35%
FNMA
Bonds
997,300
0.92
1,000,000
990,714
03/30/20
1.38%
FHLB
Bonds
2,003,780
0.92
2,000,000
1,981,482
03/30/20
1.45%
FNMA
Bonds
2,000,000
0.92
2,000,000
1,986,444
03/30/20
1.65%
FHLMC
Bonds
2,003,868
1.00
2,000,000
1,978,788
04/28/20
1.35%
FNMA
Bonds
1,000,000
1.17
1,000,000
988,635
06/30/20
1.38%
FNMA
Bonds
1,000,000
1.17
1,000,000
988,635
06/30/20
1.38%
FHLB
Bonds
3,000,000
1.21
3,000,000
2,957,637
07/13/20
1.20%
RFCS
Bonds
1,999,698
1.21
2,120,000
2,059,094
07/15/20
1.60%
FHLB
Bonds
2,000,000
1.25
2,000,000
1,983,868
07/30/20
1.75%
FNMA
Bonds
1,000,000
1.33
1,000,000
986,140
08/28/20
1.40%
FNMA
Bonds
1,000,000
1.33
1,000,000
986,140
08/28/20
1.40%
FHLMC
Bonds
999,500
1.67
1,000,000
989,141
12/30/20
1.75%
FNMA
Bonds
2,005,474
1.73
2,000,000
1,971,442
01/19/21
1.50%
FM
Bonds
2,000,000
1.92
2,000,000
1,981,076
04/01/21
1.87%
First Financial
CD
3,000,000
1.95
3,000,000
3,000,000
04/10/21
2.86%
FHLB
Bonds
2,000,000
2.15
2,000,000
1,991,058
06/22/21
2.18%
FFCB
Bonds
968,940
2.38
1,000,000
985,532
09/13/21
1.73%
FHLMC
Bonds
2,000,000
2.58
2,000,000
1,984,386
11/26/21
2.13%
FHLMC
Bonds
999,400
2.67
1,000,000
989,393
12/30/21
2.00%
FHLMC
Bonds
1,000,000
2.83
1,000,000
994,546
02/25/22
2.15%
First Financial
CD
2,803,516
4.55
2,803,516
2,803,516
11/15/23
2.10%
TOTAL SECURITIES
44,260,627
1.43
44,423,516
44,055,003
Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool
TOTAL PORTFOLIO
SCIP- CD,_ Issuer Diversification
6% Fi rst
Financial -
CD, 13%
FNMA, 29% r4L
RFCS, 5%
FHLMC,
FM, 5%-/ 18%
FHLB, 23% mmmmmmj
16,250,877 16,250,877 Demand 2.54%
$ 60,674,393 $ 60,305,881
Cash and Investment Balances
(in $ Millions)
Checking,
Ik $1.6,3%
State LGIP,
$16.3, 26%
Bonds,
$36.1, 58%
CD'S, $8.3,
13%
32
Packet Pg. 146 1
I 4.6.a I
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Annual Interest Income
$1,000,000 917,754
$800,000
$653,690
$600,000
$400,000 6 $423,816 $418,873
335 92
$200,000 163 214 1:7
2017 2018 YTD 2019
Edmonds Rate of Return Compared to Benchmark (Rolling 12 months)
- - - 6 Month Treasury Rate (Benchmark) City Blended Rate
2.8
2.5% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2.3% - - - - - - - - - - - -
2.0%
1.8
1.5%
1.3%
1.0%
0.8%
0.5%
0.3%
0.0
May July September November January March
Maturity Distribution and Rate of Return
$12, 000,000 2.50%
$10, 000,000
2.00%
$8,000,000
1.50%
$6,000,000
1.00%
$4,000,000
$2,000,000 , 0.50%
$- 0.00%
0-6 Mo 6-12 M o 12-18 M o 18-24 M o 24-30 M o 30-36 M o 36-42 M o 42-48 M o 48-54 M o 54-60 M o
33
Packet Pg. 147
4.6.a
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
GENERAL FUND
& SUBFUNDS
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL
----
12/31 /2018 3/31 /2019
4/30/2019
Q1
YTD
_
0
0
001-General Fund
$ 11,233,277 $ 7,364,212 $
7,512,017
$ (3,617,016)
$ (3,721,261
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
333,447 214,379
174,757
(119,069)
(158,69,
011-Risk Management Fund
929,908 926,477
929,908
-
-
012-ContingencyReserve Fund
5,564,260 5,466,190
5,564,260
-
-
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund
12,607 7,055
7,074
(5,533)
(5,53:
ii
016-Building Maintenance
210,221 210,221
210,221
-
-
c
017 - Marsh Restoration & Preservation
309,178 310,623
310,623
1,445
1,44,1
0
018 -Edmonds Homelessness Response
225,443 223,581
223,581
(1,862)
(1,86.
019 - Edmonds Opioid Response
250,000 250,000
250,000
-
-
N
Total General Fund & Subfunds
$ 19,068,342 $ 14,972,738 $
15,182,441
$ (3,742,035) $ (3,885,90-
Q
J
*$2,000,000 of the General Fund Balance has been assigned by management for the development of Civic Field.
a-
t
r
3
0
a
m
General Fund & Subfunds
18
c
ii
15
2'
t
12
■ General Fund
o
$17.07
& Subfunds
a
o_ 9 $12.97
$13.18
■ Civic Field
c
=
6
N
L
I
Q
3
$2.00 �Q
` $2.00
m
-
E
Dec2018 Mar2019
Apr2019
M
Q
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur
within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the 2018 Financial
Statements.
34
Packet Pg. 448
4.6.a
GOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS OVERVIEW
CHANGE IN FUND
FUND BALANCES
BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
FUNDS
12/31 /2018
3/31 /2019
4/30/2019
Q1 YTD
General Fund & Subfunds
$ 19,068,342
$ 14,972,738 $
15,182,441
$ (3,742,035) $ (3,885,90,
Special Revenue
9,524,484
10,905,058
10,297,936
852,053
773,45, a
Debt Service
12
4,481
18,744
6,169
18,73,
Capital Projects
2,209,541
2,232,147
2,237,232
26,906
27,69'
Total Governmental Funds
$ 30,802,378
$ 28,114,424 $
27,736,352
$ (2,856,907) $ (3,066,02f
coo
c
ii
t
.r
c
O
2
CD
0
N
Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group
Governmental
Fund Balances -
Q.
Combined
Q
20
$19.07
16
$14.97 $15.18
12
c
0
8
General
Fund &
Subfunds
Special
Revenue
$1D.91 $10.30
9.52 Debt
Service
4
iE$2.2t $2.23 $2.24
$0.00 $0.00 $0.02
Dec2018 Mar2019 Apr2019
Capital
Projects
32
28
24
20
C
0
2 16
12
8
4
Dec2018 Mar2019 Apr2019
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the 2018 Financial Statements.
35
Packet Pg. 149 1
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
I 4.6.a I
GOVERNMENTAL
SPECIAL REVENUE
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund
111 - Street Fund
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
118 - Memorial Street Tree
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
121 -Employee Parking Permit Fund
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund
123 -Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
125 - Real Estate Tax 2 *
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
136 - Parks Trust Fund
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
138 - Sister City Commission
140 -Business Improvement Disrict
Total Special Revenue
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE;
$ 0
$ (9,725)
$ 6,531
$
1,343,329
1,132,176
1,060,217
859,216
2,016,382
1,379,632
570,634
576,596
578,707
18,898
18,972
19,121
89,937
90,261
87,671
77,046
86,178
87,743
15,030
13,845
13,821
70,586
76,640
74,695
2,230,820
2,326,915
2,331,795
2,562,524
2,814,360
2,872,404
295,225
352,436
356,445
212,775
208,783
207,856
160,606
158,756
160,012
985,656
993,557
1,002,740
8,102
7,779
7,837
24,099
41,149
50,708
$ 9,524,484
$ 10,905,058
$ 10,297,936
$
ACTUAL
3,262 $
(207,186)
629,977
7,932
143
1,005
9,385
(1,126)
6,389
82,132
238,332
58,183
(3,301)
(1,258)
11,433
(297)
17,050
6,53'
(283,11,
520,41( .,
8,07: p
22, m
(2,26(
10,69E
(1,20f
4,1 M
LL
100,97( >,
309,88(
c
61,22( 0
(4,914 2
(59! o
17,08: N
(26` a
26.6M Q
852,053 $ 773,45,
*$200,000 of the fund balance in Fund 125 has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding
Special Revenue Funds
12
10
8
6 ■ Special
$10.91 $10.30 Revenue
$9.52
4
2
Dec2018 Mar2019 Apr2019
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the 2018 Financial Statements.
36
Packet Pg. 150
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
I 4.6.a I
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
421
-Water Utility Fund
422
- Storm Utility Fund
423
- Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund
424
- Bond Reserve Fund
411
-Combined Utility Operation
Total Enterprise Funds
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$ 21,205,815 $ 17,473,798 $ 21,374,045 $
11,913,623 11,829,589 12,728,193
45,890,098 45,779,494 47,993,651
843,960 843,971 843,964
- 187,019 49,848
$ 79,853,496 $ 76,113,870 $ 82,989,701 $
CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL ----
526,966 $
932,297
1,840,287
3
39,011
3,338,565 $
*$250,000 of the Storm Utility Fund Balance has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding
Enterprise and Agency Fund Balances as of April 30, 2019
50,000,000
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000, 000
$49,848
0
Combined Utility
$47,993,651
168,23(
814,57(
2,103,55.
0
m
49,841
c�
3,136,20!
0
c
ii
t
c
0
as
0
N
Q
Q
$21,374,045
$12,728,193
$843,964 $193,264
Water Storm Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve Firemen's Pension
Fund
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the 2018 Financial Statements.
37
Packet Pg. 151
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
I 4.6.a I
FUND BALANCES
CITY-WIDE
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2018 3/31 /2019 4/30/2019
Governmental Funds
$ 30,802,379 $ 28,114,424 $ 27,736,352
$
Enterprise Funds
79,853,496 76,113,870 82,989,701
Internal Services Fund
10,175,941 9,993,633 10,092,033
Agency Funds
217,698 198,816 193,264
Total City-wide Total
$121,049,514 $114,420,743 $121,011,350
$
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL
Q1
----
YTD
(2,856,907) $
(3,066,02i
3,338,565
3,136,201,
65,963
(83,90f Q.
(18,882)
N
(24,43: W
528,738 $
(38,16: 2
c
c
ii
t
.r
c
0
Governmental Fund Balances (Excluding General Fund) as of April 30, 2019 2
Drug Enforcement Fund
Street Fund
Combined Street Const/Improve Fund
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
Memorial Street Fund
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
Employee Parking Permit Fund
Youth Scholarship Fund
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
Gifts Catalog Fund
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
Parks Trust Fund
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
Sister City Commission
Business Improvement District
L.I.D. Fund Control
Parks Capital Construction Fund
$- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the 2018 Financial Statements.
as
T
Q
N
0.
38
Packet Pg. 152
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
I 4.6.a I
I
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
511 -Equipment Rental Fund
512 -Technology Rental Fund
Total Internal Service Funds
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000, 000
6,000, 000
4,000, 000
2,000, 000
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2018 3/31 /2019 4/30/2019
$ 9,552,483 $ 9,699,333 $ 9,470,270 $
623,458 294,300 621,763
$ 10,175,941 $ 9,993,633 $ 10,092,033 1 $
Internal Service Fund Balances
$9,552,483 $9,699,333 $9,470,270
Dec 2018 Mar2019 Apr2019
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
:r
---- ACTUAL ----
0
a
Q1
aD
YTD
110,162 $
(82,21:
(44,199)
(1,69f
65,963 $
(83,90!
r
C0
G
r
Q
N
Q
a
■ 511-Equipment Rental Fund
■ 512-Technology Rental Fund
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The beginning fund balances for 2018 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the 2018 Financial Statements.
39
Packet Pg. 153
4.6.a
GENERAL FUND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
2015
2016
2017
2018*
2019 (Jan -
April)
Beginning Fund Balance
6,446,380
9,359,435
9,841,718
10,273,343
11,233,278
Revenue
Taxes
28,714,539
29,403,794
29,572,203
30,755,578
6,616,478
Licenses and permits
2,132,897
2,269,313
2,506,800
2,401,855
757,721
Intergovernmental
977,585
1,261,998
890,572
1,014,434
265,759
Charges for services
5,150,816
5,403,786
5,463,913
5,810,961
2,175,214
Fines and forfeitures
535,078
522,051
459,929
616,783
189,163
Investment earnings
70,045
(26,712)
154,739
273,226
131,481
Miscellaneous
435,414
441,432
471,675
931,495
100,476
Transfers in
822,175
82,695
26,300
75,884
-
Debt proceeds
-
549,095
-
-
-
Sale of capital assets
-
58,451
7,143
5,273
-
Insurance recoveries
-
-
-
15,570
-
Total Revenue
38,838,549
39,965,902
39,553,274
41,901,058
10,236,291
Expenditures
General government
8,836,333
9,969,187
9,714,867
10,288,694
4,041,063
Public safety
19,371,912
20,128,896
22,228,871
22,585,212
8,044,750
Transportation
3,600
3,600
3,600
4,779
2,088
Economic environment
1,353,548
1,313,430
1,551,152
1,460,763
501,147
Mental and physical health
69,762
70,814
126,791
178,859
83,541
Culture and recreation
3,591,029
3,773,633
3,959,731
4,331,806
1,284,963
Debt service
272,793
196,663
198,361
197,694
-
Capital outlay
92,202
56,662
90,573
93,105
-
Transfers out
2,334,315
3,414,141
1,247,703
1,800,212
-
Debt refunding
-
556,593
-
-
-
Total Expenditures
35,925,494
39,483,619
39,121,649
40,941,124
13,957,552
Prior Period Adjustments
-
-
-
-
Change in position
2,913,055
482,283
431,625
959,934
(3,721,260)
Ending Fund Balance
9,359,435
9,841,718
10,273,343
11,233,278
7,512,018
*Preliminary
R:\Finance Committee\2019\Jan-April P&L 6/5/2019 Packet Pg. 154
4.7
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
PFD Board Candidate City Council Appointment
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Scott James
Background/History
Per the Interlocal Agreement between Edmonds Public Facilities District (EPFD) and the City of Edmonds,
approval of Edmonds City Council is required for appointment to the EPFD Board, and/or renewal of
EPFD Board terms. City Council will have conducted a Candidate Interview prior to tonight's Council
Meeting.
Staff Recommendation
The current Members of the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board of Directors respectfully request
that the Edmonds City Council appoint Suzanne Herivel Maloney to the EPFD Board, Position #2, and
that the appointment be effective immediately.
Narrative
On Thursday, March 28, 2019, the Board of Directors of Edmonds Public Facilities District voted
unanimously to recommend Suzanne Herivel Maloney for appointment to the EPFD Board to fill an open
position resulting from current Board President Mike Popke completing his second full term as PFD
Board member. If appointed, Ms. Maloney's first term will expire on June 30, 2023, as noted below.
The current term for Position #2 is scheduled to expire June 30, 2023.
The additional members of the EPFD Board include:
Mr. Mike Popke - President
Mr. Kevin McKay - Vice President
Dr. Kimberlee Armstrong
Mr. David Brewster
Ms. Ray Liaw
Mr. Scott James, Finance Director, City of Edmonds - Ex Officio - Treasurer*
We wish to thank the Edmonds City Council for your continued support of Edmonds Public Facilities
District and Edmonds Center for the Arts.
*Per the Interlocal Agreement between Edmonds Public Facilities District and the City of Edmonds, the
City's Finance Director, by virtue of his/her position, serves as an Ex-Officio Member and Treasurer of the
EPFD Board.
Packet Pg. 155
4.7
Attachments:
Maloney
Packet Pg. 156
Edmonds
Citizen Board and Commission Application
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE) NOTE; This form is a public record and maybe subject to disclosure upon request
P Uze
ic
(Board or Commission)
Name:
t 4411
Address:
Date: 1-////
Z (1(-,
Day Phone:
Evening Phone: _fz(" ZLr_
Cell-
E-mail:
A
I
N
1"')a I / ' Organizational affiliations- /4r(/_/_// k.�f(1&1/11
fir
Whv are you seeking this appointment?
1114
Please list any othe/B`oard, Commission, Committee, or official positions you currently hold
Additional comments:
Please return this completed form to:
Edmonds City Hall
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
carolyn,lafayS@ediiiotidswa.p,ov
Phone: 425.771.0247 1 Fax: 425.771.0252
414
4141
ith the City of Edmonds:.
�� �. l�.
Z
Signature
Revised 4130114
I Packet Pg. 157
4.8
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Confirm Appointment of Candidates for the Youth Commission
Staff Lead: Shannon Burley
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Shannon Burley
Background/History
Council adopted an ordinance establishing a Youth Commission for the City of Edmonds in June of 2018,
and amended this ordinance in October of 2018.
Council interviewed and appointed the first round of applicants in December 2018 and January 2019.
There are 11 positions on the youth commission, each serving a one year term (July 1st - June 30th).
However, the initial term of the Youth Commission included 6 positions that were appointed Dec 2018 -
June 2020 and five positions that were appointed Dec 2018 - June 2019.
Five candidates were interviewed for the five positions that ended in June 2019 prior to this meeting.
Three of the applicants were returning and two of them were new to the commission.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the appointment of the candidates for the Youth Commission.
Narrative
Council Members Kristiana Johnson, Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Dave Teitzel and Neil Tibbott as well as
the Mayor all have seats to fill for a total of five seats.
Position 2: Council Member Johnson
Position 4: Council Member Fraley Monillas
Position 6: Council Member Teitzel
Position 8: Council Member Tibbott
Position 10 (Alternate): Mayor Earling
The following five applicants were interviewed in a special meeting prior to this meeting:
1. Sydney Pearson - position 2 returning (EWHS)
2. Caroline Wills - position 8 - returning (Meadowdale HS)
3. Alissa Berman - position 10 returning (EWHS)
4. Brooke Roberts - NEW (Shorewood HS)
5. Jacob Sawyer - NEW (EWHS)
Packet Pg. 158
4.9
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Confirm Appointment of Candidate to a Board or Commission
Staff Lead: Mayor Earling
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
Due to a retirement, the position of Planning Board Alternate became open. After a recruitment
process, three candidates were interviewed.
Staff Recommendation
Confirm appointment of Roger Pence to the Planning Board Alternate position.
Narrative
After interviewing, Mayor Earling has chosen to appoint Roger Pence to the position of Planning Board
Alternate. Mayor Earling believes Mr. Pence has the necessary skills and experience and that he will be
an asset to this board.
Packet Pg. 159
4.10
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Confirm Appointment of Candidate to a Board or Commission
Staff Lead: Mayor Earling
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
ADB position #6 - layman, is currently open due to a resignation. After a recruitment process, three
candidates were interviewed.
Staff Recommendation
Confirm appointment of Kim Bayer to the Architectural Design Board position #6 - layman.
Narrative
After interviewing the three candidates, Mayor Earling chose Ms. Bayer to fill the open position on the
ADB. Mayor Earling believes her background and skill set will make her a valued addition to the ADB.
Packet Pg. 160
4.11
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Barnard settlement agreement
Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead)
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: MaryAnn Hardie
Background/History
The City has been in mediation with Earl Barnard, a LEOFF 1 retiree (and his spouse), about an excess
pension benefit for the period 2010-2019. The City was able to come to an agreement through
mediation at the end of May 2019 in order to resolve this matter. The settlement agreement, in the
amount of $56,596, is subject to Council approval.
Staff Recommendation
Approval by Council of the settlement agreement on the 6/18/19 consent agenda.
Narrative
The City has been in mediation with Earl Barnard, a LEOFF 1 retiree (and his spouse), about an excess
pension benefit for the period 2010-2019. The City was able to come to an agreement through
mediation at the end of May 2019 to resolve this matter. The settlement agreement, in the amount of
$56,596, is subject to Council approval.
A copy of the Conditional CR2A Settlement Agreement is attached.
Attachments:
20190611163555
Packet Pg. 161
4.11.a
CONDITIONAL CR2A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal
corporation (the "City"), and Earl and M. Maureen Barnard, husband and wife (the `Barnards")
as follows:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Earl Barnard retired from the Edmonds Fire Department at the rank of Fire
Captain in 1993; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the LEOFF 1 retirement pension system, codified at
Chapter 41.26 RCW, the City pays to the Barnards a monthly excess pension benefit payment
based on Earl Barnard's rank at retirement; and
WHEREAS, when in 2010 the City contracted out its fire protection services to Fire
District One (now South County Fire), the City by necessity adopted an internal policy for the
calculation of the City's LEOFF 1 retirees' excess pension benefit payments; and
WHEREAS, the Barnards assert that the City's internal policy is legally flawed and
therefore disagrees with how the City has calculated Earl Barnard's excess pension benefit
payments beginning in 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Barnards filed a Complaint in Snohomish County Superior Court (Claim
No. 18-2-06153-31) ("Complaint") to dispute the amount of these payments; and
WHEREAS, the parties are now desirous of settling all of the Barnards' claims relating to
excess pension benefit payments that have been or could have been brought in the Complaint,
recognizing the risk, cost, and uncertainty of litigation if the matter is not settled and
compromised;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties covenant and agree as follows:
1. The Barnards and the City agree to settle all of the Barnards' claims that have been
brought or could have been brought in the Complaint relating to the calculation of excess
pension benefit payments between 1993 and 2019 for an additional Fifty -Eight Thousand Five
Hundred and Ninety -Six Dollars ($58,596.00), inclusive of attorneys' fees and consultants' fees,
if any. This includes a retroactive payment of Fifty -Two Thousand Five Hundred Ninety -Six
Dollars ($52,596.00), which extends prospectively through April 2020, as well as Six Thousand
Dollars ($6,000.00) for the Barnards' attorneys' fees, which constitutes Fifty Percent 50% of
those fees to date.
2. The Barnards and the City agree that Earl Barnard's excess pension benefit payment
beginning with the new calculations in 2020 will be calculated based on a rate that is Five
Percent 5% above the average Fire Captain wage rate of the comparable entities used by the City
for these calculations. The list of comparable entities is adopted by the City for use in all
LEOFF payment calculations.
Packet Pg. 162
4.11.a
3. In exchange for payment of the amount set forth in paragraph 1, above, the Barnards
agree to release and forever discharge the City and its agents, officers, partners, directors,
employees, successors and assigns from any and all debts, demands, damages, liabilities, suits,
actions, causes of action of whatsoever kind, nature or description, known or unknown, foreseen
or unforeseen (including claims for attorneys' fees, taxes, interest, costs and disbursements)
which in any way arise out of or in any manner could relate to the issues addressed in the
Complaint for the time period up to and including June 30, 2019, or whenever this Agreement is
approved by the Edmonds City Council.
4. The City agrees to make a good faith effort to include in its annual letter to the Barnards
regarding the LEOFF 1 excess pension benefit payment calculation a list of the comparable
entities used in making the payment calculation.
5. The Barnards agree that upon the City Council's approval of this CR 2A Agreement, this
will be a fully binding settlement of all of the Barnards' claims.
6. This Agreement is conditional only in that it is subject to and not binding upon the City
unless and until approved by the Edmonds City Council during an open public meeting. Payment
shall be made with thirty days of City Council approval. If the City Council has not approved
this CR 2A agreement by June 30, 2019, the Bamards shall be released from the provisions of
this CR 2A agreement.
7. Neither party admits any liability to the other for the claims described in the recitals by
entering into this Agreement.
CITY OF EDMOND,'
Date: May 30, 2019
Carrie Hite
Director of Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Resources
EARL BARNAA
r�
Date: May 30, 2019
M. MAUREEN BARNARD
`-G�,�i'•-1..� Date: May 30, 2019
Packet Pg. 163
4.12
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Authorization for Mayor to sign an Intergovernmental Services Agreement with the Snohomish County,
for development of an on -going water quality monitoring program for Lake Ballinger
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On June 11, 2019, staff presented this item to the Parks & Public Works committee and it was forwarded
to the June 18th consent agenda for City Council approval.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign the Intergovernmental Services Agreement.
Narrative
Through staff work with the Lake Ballinger Forum, a desire for continuous and on -going monitoring of
the water quality health within Lake Ballinger was identified by both residents and staff. Employees and
residents have worked to identify the most appropriate method of establishing a long-term program and
have reached the conclusion that a volunteer -based monitoring program which is overseen by trained
technical staff from Snohomish County would be the most appropriate mechanism to monitor lake
water quality.
The 'Lakewise Program' administered through Snohomish County, manages several lakes throughout
the County and has staff who are technically trained in lake water quality data gathering and reporting.
The proposed program utilizes the County's technical staff to properly train lake residents in methods of
gathering samples and following required chain of custody for data validation. Snohomish County staff
will review the water quality data and provide a full report annually, along with a quick summary 'water
quality report card' for the lake. The information and data will also be publically available on the County
water quality database webpage.
A volunteer resident has been identified through our work with the Forum and is eager to begin the new
role as the Lake Ballinger Water Quality Monitor. Edmonds resident, Ms. Julie Rose will be our
wonderful first volunteer to get the program started. Since moving to the Lake Ballinger area, Julie has
been a true lake steward in every sense and having previously worked in an environmentally related
field, the fit is perfect and we are happy to have her as a water quality monitor. Through continued
Forum meetings, working with citizens through the application of herbicides this summer, and our work
with non-profits/education groups, staff hope to also add more volunteers as the program establishes
itself.
The City of Edmonds will share all costs of the program equally with our partners at the City of
Mountlake Terrace. Edmonds direct cost for 2019 is limited to $2,968.50, which is easily covered by the
Packet Pg. 164
4.12
annual budget allotted for Lake Ballinger -related projects. Future years require the County to provide
cost estimates for written City approval prior to commencing work, but the agreement also includes a
'max cost' clause so that the program cannot cost the City more than $25,000 total before its initial
expiration in 2024. Again, these costs are within currently projected annual budget amounts and would
not require additional funding to support. At the end of the initial expiration in 2024, the City can
consider the option to continue the program or allow it to expire.
The agreement does include several potential additional services which are currently outside of staff
technical abilities, and which the City can request in writing when needed. The ability to tap into those
services, gives staff and residents better flexibility to respond to concerns, algae blooms, or other issues
which could arise quickly as lake conditions change.
Attachments:
Intergovernmental Services Agreement with Sno. County
Packet Pg. 165
4.12.a
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY SERVICES
This AGREEMENT FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY SERVICES
(this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of this day of , 2019 (the
"Execution Date"), by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal
corporation, the CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, a Washington municipal corporation,
(together the "Cities"), and SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of
Washington (the "County").
RECITALS
A. Lake Ballinger lies within the boundaries of the City of Edmonds and the City of
Mountlake Terrace.
B. Lake Ballinger is an important water resource for both the City of Edmonds and the
City of Mountlake Terrace which provides opportunities for swimming, boating, fishing and aesthetic
enjoyment.
C. The Cities and the County recognize the importance of performing certain water
quality monitoring services at Lake Ballinger.
D. The Cities do not have the staff or resources to monitor water quality at Lake Ballinger
E. The Cities desire to retain the services of the County to perform certain water quality
monitoring at Lake Ballinger and the County has the staff and resources to perform said services, all
under the terms and conditions described in this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective agreements set forth below and for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
the Cities and the County agree as follows:
1. TERM
The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall commence upon execution (the "Commencement
Date"), and shall expire on December 31, 2024 (the "Expiration Date"); provided, however, that both
the Cities' and the County's obligations after December 31, 2019, are contingent upon local legislative
appropriation of the necessary funds for this specific purpose in accordance with applicable law.
2. CATEGORIES OF SERVICES PERFORMED BY COUNTY AND RIGHT OF ENTRY
During the Term of this Agreement, the County shall perform for the Cities the following services
(collectively, the "Services"): (i) lake monitoring services, as more fully described in Section 3 below
(the "Lake Monitoring Services"); and (ii) any additional services related to water quality or quantity
issues that may be mutually agreed upon in writing by the Cities and the County pursuant to Section 4
below (the "Additional Services"). The Services shall be performed in a good and professional
manner, consistent with accepted industry standards and in accordance with both the substantive and
procedural requirements specified in this Agreement.
AGREEMENT FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT pg. I
AND WATER QUALITY SERVICES
Packet Pg. 166
4.12.a
The Cities shall provide the County with reasonable access to any location where Services are to
be provided. If the Cities are unable to provide such access, the County shall have no obligation to
perform any Services under this Agreement unless and until the Cities provide reasonable access.
3. LAKE MONITORING SERVICES
3.1. Lake Water Quality Monitoring
The County, through the assistance of trained citizen volunteers, will perform basic water quality
monitoring of Lake Ballinger two times per month from May through October of each contract year
per volunteer availability. Basic monitoring will be conducted in the deepest portion of the lake and
will consist of measurements of water clarity (Secchi depth) and near -surface water temperature, as
well as observations of water color and algae abundance.
Water column profiles for temperature and dissolved oxygen will also be taken as a part of basic
monitoring per availability of a dissolved oxygen/temperature meter (meter). If the Cities provide a
meter, the profiles will be included every year as part of basic monitoring. The County will provide
basic maintenance of a Cities -provided meter, but will not be responsible for repairs. If the Cities do
not provide a meter, then Lake Ballinger volunteers will be provided with a County meter at least every
third year. The County will be responsible for all maintenance and repairs of County -provided
instruments.
The County will also provide more detailed monitoring of Lake Ballinger from June through
September of each contract year including in months when a volunteer is not available. The detailed
monitoring will be conducted in the deepest portion of the lake and will include water samples for
laboratory analysis. Water samples will be taken from the epilimnion (1 meter depth) and will be
analyzed for total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and total persulfate nitrogen. Samples will also be taken
from a hypolimnetic depth (1 meter from the lake bottom) and will be analyzed for total phosphorus.
All monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the "Quality Assurance Monitoring Plan for
the Snohomish County Lake Management Program" as updated. Citizen volunteers will be trained by
the County in proper monitoring techniques and will be supervised by County staff. Water samples
will be analyzed by a Washington State Department of Ecology -accredited laboratory. The laboratory
results are sent to the County in electronic format. The cost for all such services shall be as set forth in
Section 5 below.
3.2. Reporting of Water Quality Data
All data collected from Lake Ballinger will be summarized annually in two written reports that
will be made available to the Cities and the general public. The first is a water quality report card, a
short summary for the public of lake health. The second report is a more detailed report with a summary
of all data collected through the monitoring program. The reports for a given calendar year shall be
delivered to the Cities on or before March 15 after the close of the calendar year at issue. The reports
will also be made available on Snohomish County's website unless otherwise directed by the Cities.
The raw water quality data shall be available on the County's online water quality database following
completion of quality assurance checks. Copies of the raw data shall also be provided to the Cities upon
request.
If requested by the Cities, County staff will also provide a single annual public presentation on
the condition of water quality in Lake Ballinger. The County will also provide comments on
documents, reports, or grant proposals related to lake water quality that may be developed by the Cities
for the management of Lake Ballinger.
AGREEMENT FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT pg. 2
AND WATER QUALITY SERVICES
Packet Pg. 167
4.12.a
3.3. Technical Assistance
County staff will be available to respond to questions from the public and the Cities about the
water quality conditions in Lake Ballinger via email or phone. The County will also provide plant
identification services as requested. The County will refer all other inquiries, including those regarding
lake management actions, to the Cities.
4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
4.1. Desire for Additional Services
The County and the Cities anticipate that, during the Term of this Agreement, the Cities may
desire for the County to provide additional water quality monitoring or related services (the "Additional
Services") to the Cities, and the County may be willing to provide some or all of such Additional
Services. By way of example, and not by way of limitation, the parties anticipate Additional Services
could involve any one or more of the following: (i) sampling one or more water quality monitoring
sites for additional or different water quality parameters at Lake Ballinger and/or its tributaries; (ii)
monitoring of blooms of potentially toxic algae; (iii) commencement of other activities as requested or
as mutually agreed that enhance the Cities' water quality program.
4.2. Request for Additional Services
Subject to the total cost limitation described in Section 5.4 below, at any time and from time to
time during the Term of this Agreement, the Cities may request that the County perform one or more
Additional Services. The Cities may request that such Additional Services be performed a specific
number of times, or on an ongoing basis, for a single calendar year, or for multiple calendar years. The
County may, but need not, agree to perform some or all of the requested Additional Services under
terms and conditions acceptable to both parties. Any agreement to add Additional Services must be
memorialized in writing and signed by the City Manager of Mountlake Terrace, the Mayor of Edmonds
and the County's Director (as those terms are defined in Section 4.3 below).
4.3. Authority to Request and Approve Additional Services
Subject to the total cost limitation described in Section 5.4 below, the City Manager of
Mountlake Terrace and the Mayor of Edmonds shall have the authority to request, authorize and
memorialize Additional Services on behalf of that City without the need to obtain additional approvals
from the City Council of Edmonds or the Mayor of Mountlake Terrace. Subject to the total cost
limitation described in Section 5.4 below, the Director of the County's Department of Public Works
(the "County's Director") shall have the authority to agree to perform and memorialize Additional
Services on behalf of the County without the need to obtain additional approvals from the County
Executive.
5. COMPENSATION
5.1. Cost of Lake Monitoring Services in 2019
The Cities shall pay the County $5,937 in 2019 for the cost of Lake Monitoring Services. The
City of Edmonds shall pay 50% of the costs ($2968.50 in 2019). The City of Mountlake Terrace shall
pay 50% of the costs ($2968.50 in 2019).
AGREEMENT FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT pg. 3 a
AND WATER QUALITY SERVICES
Packet Pg. 168
4.12.a
5.2. Cost of Additional Services
Unless specifically otherwise provided herein, the County shall be compensated for all
Additional Services on a time and materials basis. The County's time shall be calculated based on the
base hourly rate of each of the individual County Personnel (as that term is defined in Section 6 below)
performing the Services. The actual reasonable cost of benefits shall be added to the base hourly rate
of all County Personnel. The time billed to the Cities shall consist only of personnel time that is actually
spent and is reasonably required to perform the Services. The Cities shall reimburse the County for all
reasonable costs actually incurred by the County in connection with performing the Services, including,
but not limited to, laboratory fees. The Cities shall reimburse the County for the reasonable costs of
materials and/or equipment the County uses in connection with performing any one or more of the
Additional Services. Reimbursement for additional services will be split between the cities at the
percentages shown in Section 5.1 of this Agreement.
5.3. Cost of Services in Following Years
Beginning in 2019, on or before October 1 st of each year, the County shall provide the Cities
with a written estimate for the total cost of performing the Services for the following calendar year.
Both Cities must provide written acceptance of the cost estimate to the County on or before November
1 st of the year that the County's cost estimate is provided. This Agreement shall terminate on
December 31 st of the year that the County's cost estimate is provided to the Cities if either: (1) one or
both of the Cities do not provide written acceptance of the County's cost estimate as required in this
Section; or (2) one or both of the Cities rejects the County's cost estimate.
5.4. Total Services Not to Exceed $50,000 Maximum Cost
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in this Agreement, the total
cumulative cost of all Services performed by the County under this Agreement shall not exceed Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) (the "Maximum Cost"). Accordingly, if any proposal to add one or
more Additional Services to this Agreement would cause the total cost of Services to exceed the
Maximum Cost, the Cities shall not submit a request for such Additional Services to the County. Should
the County receive a request for Additional Services that would cause the total cost of all Services to
exceed the Maximum Cost, the County shall reject said request.
5.5. Invoicing and Payment
The County shall submit one invoice to each of the Cities by October 1 st of each year itemizing
the cost of providing the Lake Monitoring Services for the current calendar year. The County shall also
submit one or more invoices each year to the Cities for any Additional Services agreed to by the County
and the Cities. Invoices for Additional Services shall describe in reasonable detail the cost of time and
materials spent by the County on Additional Services during the period at issue. The Cities shall pay
each invoice within thirty (30) days of receiving same. Invoices shall be sent to the following addresses:
City of Edmonds
Attn: Patrick Johnson
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
AGREEMENT FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT
AND WATER QUALITY SERVICES
City of Mountlake Terrace
Attn: Laura Reed
6100 219"' Street SW, Suite 200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
pg. 4
Packet Pg. 169
4.12.a
6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
All work performed by the County pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by the
County as an independent contractor and not as an agent or employee of the Cities. The County shall
furnish, employ, and have exclusive control of all persons (including, but not limited to volunteers) to
be engaged in performing the County's obligations under this Agreement (collectively, the "County
Personnel") and shall prescribe and control the means and methods of performing such obligations by
providing adequate and proper supervision. The County Personnel shall for all purposes be solely the
employees, agents or volunteers of the County and shall not be deemed to be employees or agents of
the Cities for any purpose whatsoever. With respect to the County Personnel, the County shall be solely
responsible for compliance with all rules, laws, and regulations relating to employment of labor, hours
of labor, working conditions, payment of wages and payment of taxes, such as employment, Social
Security, and other payroll taxes including applicable contributions from the County Personnel when
required by law.
7. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE
This Agreement may be terminated by any party for any reason or for no reason, by giving
thirty (30) days advance written notice of termination to the other parties. Any termination notice
delivered pursuant to this Section 7 shall specify the date on which the Agreement will terminate. If
this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section 7, the County shall continue performing Services
through the date of termination. The Cities shall compensate the County for all Services performed by
the County through the date of termination on a pro -rated basis. The Cities' obligation to make such
final payment to the County shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
8. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The Cities and the County shall at all times exercise their rights and perform their respective
obligations under this Agreement in full compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations of any public authority having jurisdiction.
9. INDEMNIFICATION
Each party to this Agreement shall indemnify, defend and hold every other party and its elected
officials, agents, employees and contractors harmless from and against any and all costs, liabilities,
suits, losses, damages, claims, expenses, penalties or charges, including, without limitation, reasonable
attorneys' fees and disbursements, that the other parties may incur or pay out by reason of. (i) any
accidents, damages or injuries to persons or property occurring during the Term of this Agreement, but
only to the extent the same are caused by any negligent or wrongful act of the indemnifying party; or
(ii) any breach or Default (as such term is defined in Section 10 below) of the indemnifying party under
this Agreement. The provisions of this Section 9 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of
this Agreement.
10. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
If any party to this Agreement fails to perform any act or obligation required to be performed
by it hereunder, the party or parties to whom such performance was due shall deliver written notice of
such failure to the non -performing party. The non -performing party shall have thirty (30) days after its
receipt of such notice in which to correct its failure to perform the act or obligation at issue, after which
time it shall be in default ("Default") under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the non-
performance is of a type that could not reasonably be cured within said thirty (30) day period, then the
non -performing party shall not be in Default if it commences cure within said thirty (30) day period
AGREEMENT FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT pg. 5
AND WATER QUALITY SERVICES
Packet Pg. 170
4.12.a
and thereafter diligently pursues cure to completion. In the event of a party's Default under this
Agreement, then after giving notice and an opportunity to cure, the party or parties to whom the
performance was due shall have the right to exercise any or all rights and remedies available to it at law
or in equity.
11. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE LAWS
The Cities and the County each acknowledge, agree and understand that the other parties are
public agencies subject to certain disclosure laws, including, but not limited to Washington's Public
Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. Each party understands that records related to this Agreement and
the County's performance of Services under this Agreement may be subject to disclosure pursuant to
the Public Records Act or other similar law. Neither the Cities nor the County anticipates that the
performance of any party's obligations under this Agreement will involve any confidential or
proprietary information.
12. NOTICES
Each notice, demand, request, consent, approval, disapproval, designation or other
communication that is permitted or required to be given by one party to another party under this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be given or made or communicated by: (i) United States
registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested; (ii) any nationally recognized
overnight carrier or express mail service (such as FedEx or DHL) that provides receipts to indicate
delivery; (iii) by personal delivery; or (iv) by facsimile (with proof of successful transmission); (v) or
by email (with a request for and receipt of proof of successful transmission). All such communications
shall be addressed to the appropriate Administrator of this Agreement (or their designee) as follows:
To the City of Edmonds:
ATTN: Patrick Johnson
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Telephone: 425-771-0220 x1322
Email: pat.johnson(a?edmondswa.gov
To the County:
ATTN: Surface Water Management
Director or Designee
Snohomish County
Department of Public Works
3000 Rockefeller Avenue M/S 607
Everett, Washington 98201
Telephone: (425) 388-6454
Facsimile: (425) 388-6455
Email: Gregg. arris(a—)snoco.org
To the City of Mountlake Terrace:
ATTN: Laura Reed
6100 2191h Street SW, Suite 200
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
Telephone: 425-744-6226
Email: lreed(a�,ci. mlt.wa.us
All notices shall be deemed given on the day each such notice is personally delivered,
transmitted by facsimile (with evidence of receipt), or delivered by overnight courier service, or on
the third business day following the day such notice is mailed if mailed in accordance with this
Section.
AGREEMENT FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT
AND WATER QUALITY SERVICES
pg. 6
Packet Pg. 171
4.12.a
13. MISCELLANEOUS
13.1. Entire Agreement
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject
matter hereof, and supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements between the parties regarding
the subject matter contained herein. This Agreement may not be modified or amended in any manner
except by a written document signed by the party against whom such modification is sought to be
enforced.
13.2. Interpretation
This Agreement shall be governed by and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of
Washington. This Agreement and each of the terms and provisions of it are deemed to have been
explicitly negotiated by the parties, and the language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases,
be construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against the parties hereto. The captions
and headings in this Agreement are used only for convenience and are not intended to affect the
interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed so that wherever
applicable the use of the singular number shall include the plural number, and vice versa, and the use
of any gender shall be applicable to all genders.
13.3. Severability
If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance
shall, for any reason and to any extent, be found invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this
Agreement and the application of that provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby, but shall instead continue in full force and effect, to the extent permitted by law.
13.4. No Waiver
A party's forbearance or delay in exercising any right or remedy with respect to a Default by
another party under this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the Default at issue. Nor shall a
waiver by a party of any particular Default constitute a waiver of any other Default or any similar future
Default.
13.5. Assignment
This Agreement shall not be assigned, either in whole or in part, by the parties hereto. Any
attempt to assign this Agreement in violation of the preceding sentence shall be null and void and shall
constitute a Default under this Agreement.
13.6. Warranty of Authority
Each of the signatories hereto warrants and represents that he or she is competent and
authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the party for whom he or she purports to sign this
Agreement.
13.7. No Joint Venture
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating any type or manner of
partnership, joint venture or other joint enterprise between the parties.
AGREEMENT FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT pg. 7
AND WATER QUALITY SERVICES
Packet Pg. 172
4.12.a
13.8. No Third Party Beneficiaries
This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole benefit of the Cities and the County. No
third party shall be deemed to have any rights under this Agreement; there are no third party
beneficiaries to this Agreement.
13.9. Execution in Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute
an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cities and the County have executed this Agreement as of the
date first above written.
CITY OF EDMONDS:
City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal
corporation
By
Name:
Title:
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
SNOHOMISH COUNTY:
Snohomish County, a political subdivision of
the State of Washington
By
Name:
Title:
Approved as to Form:
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
AGREEMENT FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT
AND WATER QUALITY SERVICES
CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE:
City of Mountlake Terrace, a Washington
municipal corporation
By
Name:
Title:
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
pg. 8
Packet Pg. 173
4.13
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Authorization for Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mountlake Terrace for aquatic
vegetation removal in Lake Ballinger
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On July 1, 2008, and September 7, 2010, Council approved a similar Interlocal Agreement (ILA) to be
implemented by the appointed City representative to the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed
Forum. Both of these ILAs were one year agreements. The ILA approved in 2010 for calendar year 2011
included funding for a Federal lobbyist approved by City Council.
On January 23, 2012, Council approved a version of this ILA with an end date of December 31, 2013 that
included $1,600 to pay for Edmonds' portion of the Forum administration costs but did not include a
$10,000 contribution toward the Forum's Federal Lobbying efforts.
On April 3, 2012, Council approved this ILA that included funding for the Forum administration costs and
the Forum's Federal Lobbying efforts.
On January 21, 2014, Council approved the First Amendment to the ILA that included funding for the
Forum administration costs and the Forum's Federal Lobbying efforts.
On January 26, 2016, Council approved the Second Amendment to the ILA that included funding for the
Forum administration costs and the Forum's Federal Lobbying efforts.
On January 16, 2018, Council approved the Third Amendment to the ILA that included funding for the
Forum administration costs and the Forum's Federal Lobbying efforts.
On June 11, 2019, staff presented this item to the Parks & Public Works committee and it was forwarded
to the June 18th consent agenda for City Council approval.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement.
Narrative
Through staff work with the Lake Ballinger Forum, invasive vegetation was identified in 2017. Edmonds
and Mountlake Terrace staff have since worked with lakeside residents and the Department of Ecology
to fund, develop, and receive Ecology approval for an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan
for Lake Ballinger. Development of the plan was grant funded and matched with in -kind staff and
Packet Pg. 174
4.13
equipment time rather than cash. The forum contracted with Tetra Tech to have the plan developed;
Dr. Harry Gibbons, who authored the plan, is a nationally recognized expert in the field of aquatic
vegetation management who co-authored Ecology's guidance document for developing these types of
plans.
The plan began with a survey of the current lake vegetation by boat before moving into selecting
appropriate treatment methods. Eurasian milfoil, curly leaf pondweed, and fragrant water lily were
identified as invasive species in Lake Ballinger. Eurasian milfoil is a Class B noxious weed and the fragrant
water lily is a Class C noxious weed. The infestations were generally limited to the shallower depth of
the lake; the area of concern is not the entire lake but generally the ring around the edge of the lake and
the island in the middle where depth remain less than 12-feet or so. It was estimated that roughly 18 of
the 106 acres lake is infested and the density in those areas are 80-90%.
The aquatic vegetation management plan includes a combination of chemical and physical treatment.
The development plan and approval process included several public meetings (in addition to regular
meetings for the Lake Ballinger Forum), newspaper postings and notices, and the information about the
treatment has been written up in abbreviated articles in both the Edmonds Beacon and
myedmondsnews.com. Lakeside owners, to include the Nile golf course, have been heavily involved in
the process and have also been given opportunity to address their concern for the said chemical
treatment. Residents are given option to opt out of treatment for their property. Having run the
required process and public participation, staff are now ready to proceed with application of the
herbicide treatment.
The approved plan calls for the application of two separate herbicides to target the various species of
plants and the application is spread over a 5-year period to ensure effectiveness and manage impacts.
Fluridone will be used to target the water lilies and is only proposed to be applied to 25% of the
infestation area. Florpyrauxifen-benzyl (aka ProcellaCOR) will be used to target the milfoil and
pondweed and will be applied to 50% of the infestation area. Generally, the first year's application will
be along the north and north-east shorelines, in areas which are predominately public or part of the golf
course. This will allow citizens to observe the first year application ahead of needing to decide if they
will opt out of treatment on their own property. The lily treatment has to be throttled back to 25% due
to a phosphorus release which is associated with dying lilies; the treatment must be monitored to avoid
an algae bloom.
A question was raised during the Parks and Public Works Committee regarding the history and safety of
the proposed chemicals. Both products have been run through the full EPA approval process for
pesticides. The EPA process includes assessment of human and environmental risks associated with the
product which is peer reviewed before final determinations are made. Fluridone has been registered
since 1986 with the EPA and has a long track record of use for this type of application.
ProcellaCOR/Florpyrauxifen-benzyl was registered in 2018 and has generally tested better than any
previous product and has appeared successful in real -world test applications; it has been given the EPA
'reduced risk' designation. In addition to EPA approval, our state has a separate approval process which
is anticipated to be completed in July, ahead of the proposed treatment revisions being approved by
Ecology.
The plan includes physical treatment of areas by individual residents as well. The proposal includes a
workshop to teach residents the proper method of hand removal to avoid fragmentation and spread of
Packet Pg. 175
4.13
the milfoil and for installing burlap barriers to hinder re -growth. These elements won't change in the
amended plan.
The application of the herbicide and the resident education workshops will be grant funded through
Ecology. City matching contributions are limited to staff and equipment time spent on the project.
At the request of Mountlake Terrace legal counsel, a separate ILA was developed just for the application
of the herbicide treatment. The need arose from a concern about hiring a contractor to cross
jurisdictional lines. Previous work under the existing Forum ILA only required an agency to hire a
contractor to do physical work within its own jurisdiction.
Attachments:
ILA for Lake Ballinger Aquatic Weed Control
Packet Pg. 176
4.13.a
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS
TO CONTROL AQUATIC NOXIOUS WEEDS IN LAKE BALLINGER
This Agreement is created under the authority of Chapter 39.34 RCW of the Interlocal
Cooperation Act ("Agreement") and is entered by and between the City of Edmonds and the City
of Mountlake Terrace, both municipal corporations under the laws of the State of Washington
(individually "Party" and collectively "Parties"), hereafter referred to as "Edmonds" and
"Mountlake Terrace" respectively.
WHEREAS, Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds have in the past cooperatively shared
responsibility for water resource issues in Lake Ballinger in joint ownership of the lake; and
WHEREAS, Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds currently participate as member
jurisdictions of the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Forum along with Lake Forest Park, to
collectively solve issues within the greater Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek watershed; and
WHEREAS, in 2017, lake residents and lake users requested that the Lake
Ballinger/McAleer Creek Forum take action to address the problem of the excessive growth of
invasive aquatic plants in Lake Ballinger; and
WHEREAS, a June 2018 aquatic plant survey indicated that mats of invasive weeds
including Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), Fragrant waterlily (Nymphaea
odorata), and Curly leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) now cover at least 17 acres of Lake
Ballinger, with 80-90% nearshore area coverage. Snohomish County has designated these
plants as Class B (Eurasian watermilfoil) and Class C noxious weeds (Fragrant waterlily and
Curly leaf pondweed) in Washington State; and
WHEREAS, these mat -forming aquatic weeds are negatively affecting the water quality
of the lake, by decreasing dissolved oxygen and increasing seasonal phosphorous loading. Low
oxygen levels and high phosphorous levels are known water quality issues in Lake Ballinger,
having caused lake algae blooms in the past; and
WHEREAS, Lake Ballinger residents and lake users and have reported experiencing
significant impacts to lake recreational uses (boating, swimming, and fishing) from aquatic
noxious weeds, including the risk of entanglement; and
WHEREAS, the updated and approved Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Forum Capital
Improvement Plan developed in 2018 calls for an invasive aquatic weed control project to be
jointly undertaken by Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds; and
Packet Pg. 177
4.13.a
Interlocal Agreement to Control Aquatic Noxious Weeds in Lake Ballinger Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, in 2018-2019, a citizen steering committee composed of lake residents, lake
users, city staff, the Nile Golf Course, and an experienced limnologist evaluated the extent of the
problem, weighed various solutions, and developed an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan ("Plan") for Lake Ballinger which was reviewed and approved by the
Washington Department of Ecology; and
WHEREAS, Mountlake Terrace has been awarded a two-year grant from the
Washington Department of Ecology to fund the use of herbicides and public education to control
invasive aquatic weeds in Lake Ballinger as per the approved Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree to the following:
1. Purpose. By entering into this Agreement, the Parties intend to set forth roles and
responsibilities for the application of aquatic herbicides in jointly owned Lake Ballinger.
2. Term. This Agreement shall take effect on the day of , 2019 ("Effective
Date"), and unless terminated in accordance with Section 3, below, shall continue in full
force and effect until December 31, 2024. This Agreement may be renewed by mutual
written agreement for two consecutive five (5) year periods. Ninety (90) days prior to the
end of calendar year 2024 and prior to the end of each renewal period thereafter, each
Party shall provide written notice of its intent to renew this Agreement.
3. Termination. Either Party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause by
providing the other Party with thirty (30) days' written notice of its intent to terminate.
Termination or expiration shall not alter the Parties' payment obligations for services
already rendered, or for the normal and reasonable costs incurred in terminating and
closing out the work, and shall not alter the Parties' respective obligations under Section
6 of this Agreement.
4. Scope. Edmonds shall consent and permit a licensed and qualified aquatic herbicide
applicator contracted by Mountlake Terrace to apply herbicides to control invasive weeds
in Lake Ballinger, including portions of the lake within the Edmonds city limits.
4.1 Mountlake Terrace agrees and shall:
A. Apply for a permit through the Washington Department of Ecology
("Ecology") and obtain an approved Aquatic Plant and Algae
Management Permit.
B. Through the approved notification process for this permit by the
Department of Ecology, notify Lake Ballinger lakeshore residents of the
Packet Pg. 178
4.13.a
Interlocal Agreement to Control Aquatic Noxious Weeds in Lake Ballinger Page 3 of 6
herbicide application through public notifications, including a public
meeting, direct mailings to Lake Ballinger shore residents no less than ten
(10) days prior to and no more than forty-two (42) days prior to the
herbicide applications, and posting on all lakeshore property two (2) days
prior to herbicide application. The notifications will be completed by
Mountlake Terrace or through its contractors.
C. Enter into a professional services contract with a qualified firm, individual
or entity to apply Ecology- and EPA -approved herbicide(s) to control
invasive weeds in Lake Ballinger.
D. Pay 100% of the cost for a qualified contractor to perform the application
of the Ecology- and EPA -approved herbicide(s) (2019 through 2020 only).
4.2 Edmonds agrees and shall:
A. Consent and permit Mountlake Terrace to apply Ecology- and EPA -
approved herbicide(s) through a licensed and qualified aquatic herbicide
applicator to the portions of Lake Ballinger located within Edmonds city
limits consistent with the Ecology -approved Lake Ballinger Integrated
Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan dated May 2019.
B. Track and report city staff time spent on this project and report hours
quarterly to the City of Mountlake Terrace for the purpose of claiming
grant in -kind contribution of staff time.
C. Coordinate and cooperate with the application of the Ecology- and EPA -
approved herbicide(s) by Mountlake Terrace or its contractor, including
responding to questions from City of Edmonds residents, and other project
administration, public education, and outreach tasks as may be necessary.
5. Interlocal Cooperation Act Provisions.
5.1 Purpose. See Section 1 above.
5.2 Duration. In accordance with Section 2 above, this Agreement shall continue
until December 31, 2024 unless renewed by mutual agreement as provided, or
unless terminated pursuant to Section 3.
5.3 Organization of Separate Entity and its Powers. No separate legal entity is
intended to be created pursuant to this Agreement. Administration of this
Agreement shall be as set forth in Section 11 below.
5.4 Duty to File Agreement with County Auditor. Each City will, within ten (10) days
Packet Pg. 179
4.13.a
Interlocal Agreement to Control Aquatic Noxious Weeds in Lake Ballinger Page 4 of 6
after this Agreement is executed by both Parties, file this Agreement with the
Snohomish County Auditor, or alternatively, list it by subject on its website or
other electronically retrievable public source allowed in RCW 39.34.040.
6. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Each of the Parties shall defend, indemnify, and
hold the other Party, their officers, officials, employees and agents harmless from any
and all costs, claims, judgment, and/or awards of damages, arising out of, or in any way
resulting from that other party's negligent acts or omissions in performing under this
Agreement or Contract. No Party will be required to defend, indemnify, or hold the other
Party harmless if the claim, suit or action for injuries, death, or damages is caused by the
sole negligence of that party. Where such claims, suits, or actions result from the
concurrent negligence of the Parties, the indemnity provisions provided herein shall be
valid and enforceable only to the extent of each party's own negligence. Each Party
agrees that its obligations under this provision include, but are not limited to, any claim,
demand, and/or cause of action brought by, or on behalf of, any of its employees or
agents. For this reason, each of the Parties, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with
respect to the other Party only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against
such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW.
7. Required Insurance. Each Party shall maintain its own insurance and/or self-insurance
or equivalent insurance pool coverage for its liabilities from damage to property and/or
injuries to persons arising out of its activities associated with this Agreement as it deems
reasonably appropriate and prudent. The maintenance of or lack thereof, of insurance
and/or self- insurance or equivalent insurance pool coverage shall not limit the liability of
the indemnifying Party to the indemnified Party.
8. No Assignment without Authorization. Neither Party shall assign or sublet its rights or
responsibilities under this Agreement without the written authorization of the other Party.
Written authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld.
9. Dispute Resolution. If either Party claims that the other Party has breached any term of
this Agreement, the following procedures shall be followed if and when informal
communications, such as telephone conversations, emails or face to face meetings fail to
satisfy the claiming Party, or one of the Parties elects to trigger the dispute resolution
process at any time, in the event of disputes or disagreements concerning the subject of
this Agreement.
a. The claiming Party's Designated Representative shall provide a written notice to
the other Party's representative of the alleged breach. The notice shall identify the
act or omission at issue and the specific term(s) of the Agreement that the
complaining Party alleges was violated.
Packet Pg. 180
4.13.a
Interlocal Agreement to Control Aquatic Noxious Weeds in Lake Ballinger Page 5 of 6
b. The responding Party's Designated Representative shall respond to the notice in
writing within fifteen (15) working days. The response shall state the responding
Party's position as well as what, if any, corrective action the responding Party
agrees to take.
C. The complaining Party shall reply in writing, indicating either satisfaction or
dissatisfaction with the response. If satisfied, any corrective action shall be taken
within fourteen (14) working days of receipt of the responding Party's reply
unless otherwise mutually agreed upon. If dissatisfied, the complaining Party
shall call an in -person meeting to include the respective department directors.
The meeting shall occur within a reasonable period of time and shall be attended
by the Designated Representatives of each Party, and such others as they
individually invite.
d. If the complaining Party remains dissatisfied with the results of the meeting, it
shall then refer the matter to Mountlake Terrace's City Manager and Edmonds'
Mayor, or to their designees, for resolution. If the issue is not resolved at this level
within thirty (30) days, then either Party may require in writing that the matter
shall be reviewed in a non -binding, structured mediation process developed on a
cooperative basis by the Parties, and the Parties shall consider in good faith any
recommendations or settlements arising from such process. All of the steps
preceding shall be a prerequisite to either Party suing under this Agreement for
breach, specific performance, or any other relief related to this Agreement.
10. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, the
remainder of the Agreement will not be affected but continue in full force.
11. Designated Representatives. Each Party shall designate a person who shall be
responsible for handling the administrative needs regarding the use of any facilities
subject to this Agreement and the implementation of this Agreement. Mountlake
Terrace's Designated Representative shall be the Stormwater Program Manager. City of
Edmond's Designated Representative shall be the Stormwater Technician.
12. Non -Waiver. The failure by either Party to insist on strict performance of or compliance
with any term or condition of this Agreement by the other Party shall not constitute or be
construed as a waiver or relinquishment of the Party's right thereafter to insist on strict
performance of or compliance with that term or condition, or any other term or condition,
of this Agreement, and the same shall continue in full force and effect.
13. Records. Each Party shall maintain records necessary to carry out the purposes of this
Agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Such records
shall be available during normal working hours for review by the other Party, its
accounting representatives, and the State Auditor.
Packet Pg. 181
Interlocal Agreement to Control Aquatic Noxious Weeds in Lake Ballinger Page 6 of 6
4.13.a
14. No Agency Relationship. The Parties to this Agreement are independent entities. This
Agreement does not and shall not be interpreted or construed to create any agency
relationship between the Parties.
15. InterpretationNenue. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action arising out of
or related to this Agreement shall be in the Snohomish County Superior Court.
16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire Agreement between the Parties and
supersedes and merges with any prior agreements of the Parties, written or oral. This
Agreement shall be amended only in writing with the written Agreement signed by both
Parties.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
on the later of the dates set forth below.
City of Mountlake Terrace
City Manager Scott Hugill
Date:
Approved as to Form
City Attorney Gregory G. Schrag
City of Edmonds
Mayor David O. Earling
Date:
Approved as to Form
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Pg. 182
4.14
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
10-ft Sanitary Sewer Easement along the west property boundary of 625 Alder Street
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On June 11, 2019, staff presented this item to the Parks & Public Works committee and it was forwarded
to the June 18th consent agenda for City Council approval.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the Sanitary Sewer Easement.
Narrative
A public sanitary sewer main currently runs along the western boundary of 625 Alder Street. During
review of a building permit for a single-family residential addition at this address, it was discovered that
an easement did not exist for the public sewer main. A condition was placed on the building permit
stating a public sanitary sewer easement shall be recorded against the property prior to issuance of
certificate of occupancy.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Utility Easement Document
Vicinity Map
Packet Pg. 183
4.14.a
co
Cd
cdbo
cd cd cd QQ
�. 3 � WOW Z a� W ' � � o W � b
o° O U o o Z
cd . ° Q ,� i�i W E-�..� H +,,, v�i r� O N
�' bq
o A o Q Q d °' cd
z m _
q°° o" x Z Wcn
OI 0 3 0 I W
E, o wU O� H c7 0 9�0 b� v)� d
W
Z
w
CZ 3 U
W O _O �_ V) cd b0 pp y U x cC Oo 0 C d .
N y bo
M I4 Coll r. ai
In ''" d .. y y a� o Z w cn
0 -' ° U o U
o O O b Z o
N + +oi %�"DO
en
S'.
MIt
r. M C Faj
� N O y O O O W 'd cC •b 0 " O O p 5 N W
e� a 'd w sue, g, a
W o a� cd b bnCc
A O .•� Z
w a o kcd cd 0 U cw cd>cow
Q F n7
p b F+ �d �. w a� O rn C7 W O O 4. W `� Ocqj O d A o
W ° u a U o �. Z Z y u
z Qa
ai E- C7 0 0
OZa 0 �-3-1 a ZO".:� y a`�i0 Mpa ai ° O '" o
Z o bo3 ° �ZN ai °Q� as
acdi P4Ln
y O
p ' c0 cl
;. ;.. = A s°. C7 a"i o aQi o d p H a¢i a¢i '� a¢i �
xuu�w C7c7dwd a A: �w �..� 3 0> ,� �, O �. w � u �c
Packet Pg. 184
4.14.a
Q% Y
y
S-
i-1 cd
^7 • ��y 0
.�
Cd i
CU
�t
n
A � o
a
40 Ch
C w
alb
i-1
U
� U
7�•i N C�
0 a3 N
N
Q. cu •�
U Ln
Y 7-i
O
=1
Packet Pg. 185
414 a
� \
W Q
��
R®
2
n■
W
N2V22'£
cn q
ro .7
$
7
C
k
Cl)
^
\
�
2
\
//
2&
$
2/
E R§
m §
k \
§ £
/
§ %
— — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — —
ro .7
§
w
$EQ
S2gk`■
\ S
a
%
Wuq-k
\%-Is
�
k %
®
n\\
$
Ad
Q®� ■
E
� �■..q
EJk?k7
�k ook
�o—kxo
aQq���
" City of Edmonds Vicinity Map
120
�I
_o
dial
- ::ter
r w
e ■h\'�[I
FE, ilf
w=51EE�-�
E13
1
- - 1
A�I��J■i7
601
r j�q
•■■[17ip
:i7
E
�.JLJL�Jw
II
L
M.
o
�1���
1
415�.
425 L r
riTi1��■Ilima
r� L7 �1• �
:{ •
■i
0 188.08 376.2 Feet
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is
reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurz
WGS 1984 Web Mercator_ Auxiliary —Sphere current, or otherwise reliat
© City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTI(
Moumiaw
Legend
Notes
Attachment 1
Packet Pg. 187
5.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Parametrix for the Edmonds Street
Waterfront Connector
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On July 28, 2015, Council unanimously moves to emphasize and prioritize near term solutions for
waterfront access.
On October 20, 2015, Council unanimously authorized a Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech
for the Edmonds Waterfront Analysis Project, the precursor to the Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
Project.
On November 15, 2016, Council unanimously moved to add the Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
Project to the CIP.
On December 5, 2017, Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with Parametrix for Pre -
Design activities regarding the Project.
On April 4, 2018, staff presented an update on project progress.
On August 28, 2018, staff presented an update on project progress.
On September 18, 2018, a Public Hearing on the Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector was held.
On June 11, 2019, staff presented this item to the Parks & Public Works committee and it was forwarded
to the City Council for discussion and potential action.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement with Parametrix.
Narrative
Since the approval to move forward with the Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector was made in
November 2017, the City and its team of consultants lead by Parametrix has coordinated closely with
Edmonds residents over the scope and scale of the Connector. Through several open houses,
neighborhood meetings, and online outreach, residents evaluated several options and styles to
ultimately select the preferred alternative from which to move forward into formal design and
permitting.
Packet Pg. 188
5.1
In parallel with those efforts, the City team has also met with several resource agencies that have
jurisdiction over many of the environmental permits that will be required for construction, including the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Ecology, the Recreation and
Conservation Office, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The City has also reached out to the natural and
cultural resource staff of nine local Tribes that may have an interest in the project. BNSF has also worked
closely with the City in order to establish some key design parameters in the Connector. Such early
contacts are helpful in assessing permitting, regulatory, and environmental requirements, and avoiding
expensive surprises later on.
The City has also worked very closely with our national leaders regarding the Connector, and have
received strong support from Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, as well as from
Representatives Pramila Jayapal, Rick Larsen, Suzan Delbene, and Derek Kilmer.
The Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector has received strong support from neighboring stakeholder
agencies, including BNSF, Community Transit, Sound Transit, and the Port of Edmonds, whom together
have already contributed $230,000 towards the study and planning phases of the project. The Port of
Edmonds, in fact, has also pledged an additional $1,500,000 towards the construction costs of the
Connector.
The strongest funding support has come from the State of Washington, which in addition to the
$1,200,000 committed to the past study and planning phases, has made available an additional
$7,050,000 to the project.
Funds already committed to the Connector project will fully fund the design and permitting phases
scoped in the Parametrix contract, with no additional funds required from the City.
Parametrix has submitted a comprehensive scope of services for the work involved. The consultant is
prepared to begin Phase 2 of the scope of work to complete the 60% design, develop the environmental
documents and prepare long -lead permit applications. This phase is anticipated to be completed in
eleven months. The professional services fee for phase 2 is $2,353,134 and includes a $150,000
management reserve. The total fee for the entire supplement (phases 2, 3 and 4) is $4,091,473. A
$350,000 management reserve is included for unanticipated activities not covered in the scope, to be
used only by City direction. Attached are the proposed scope of work and summary fee schedule. Also
attached is a support letter from South County Fire.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Parametrix Scope Outline
Attachment 2 - Parametrix Scope
Attachment 4 - Presentation
Attachment 3 - Parametrix Fee Schedule
South County Fire comment letter —June 2019
Packet Pg. 189
5.1.a
Edmonds Waterfront Connector
Parametrix Contract Scope Outline
Phase 2 -- 30% and 60% Design
TASKS
201 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
201.1 Project Management Plan
201.2 Weekly Project Management Team (PMT) Meetings
201.3 Subconsultant Coordination
201.4 Consultant Team Meetings and Coordination
201.5 Monthly Invoice and Progress Reports
201.6 Quality Assurance
202 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
202.1 Public Involvement and Communications Plan (30%-60% only)
202.2 Informational Tables at Fairs, Festivals, and Pop-up Events
202.3 Public Open House Meetings (2) / Online Open Houses (2)
202.4 Property Owner Briefings
202.5 Materials
202.6 Communication Tracking and Comment Management
203 STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
203.1 Agency Stakeholder Engagement Plan
203.2 Environmental Resource Agencies Meetings and Coordination
203.3 BNSF Meetings
203.4 BNSF Design Coordination and Agreement Development
203.5 BNSF 30% Submittal
203.6 Tribes Meetings
203.7 Agency Stakeholder Meetings
203.8 City Council Briefings
203.9 Technical Committee Meetings
203.10 Participate in Meetings with the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO)
204 SURVEY AND BASEMAP
204.1 Existing Conditions Survey
204.2 Right of Way and Boundary Research
204.3 Exhibits and Legal Description for Property Needs
205 ARCHITECTURAL COLLABORATION (VIA) 30% AND 60%
205.1 30% Design
205.2 60% Design
206 URBAN DESIGN/ PARK INTEGRATION (VIA)
207 ART AND CULTURAL COLLABORATION 30% AND 60%
208 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR 30% DESIGN (S&W)
209 30% ENGINEERING FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
209.1 Basis of Design
209.2 30% Engineering for the Preferred Alternative
Packet Pg. 190
5.1.a
Edmonds Waterfront Connector
Parametrix Contract Scope Outline
210 60% GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
211 60% ENGINEERING FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
211.1 Basis of Design
211.2 Development of 60% Design
212 Blank
213 Blank
214 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
214.1 Verification of Requirements
214.2 NEPA Compliance
214.3 Endangered Species Act
214.4 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
214.5 Section 4(f)/Section 6(f)
214.6 SEPA Checklist
214.7 JARPA/HPA Application
214.8 Shoreline Permit
214.9 Critical Areas Report
214.10 Mitigation Design
214.11 Shading Calculations and Figure
214.12 Bridge Permit
215 FUNDING
216 COASTAL GEOMORPHOLOGY ANALYSIS (TETRA TECH)
216.1 Basis of Analysis
216.2 Geomorphic Analysis
217 CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS AND ESTIMATING (30% AND 60%) (OTT-SAKAI)
217.1 30% Constructability and Estimate
217.2 60% Constructability and Estimate
218 RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT
219 MANAGEMENT RESERVE FEE ADDITIONAL THROUGH 60%
Packet Pg. 191
Edmonds Waterfront Connector
Parametrix Contract Scope Outline
Phase 3 -- 90% Desian
ow — PROJECT MANAGEMENT
301.1
— Project Management Plan
301.2
— Weekly Project Management Team (PMT) Meetings
301.3
— Subconsultant Coordination
301.4
— Consultant Team Meetings and Coordination
301.5
— Monthly Invoice and Progress Reports
301.6
— Quality Assurance
302 — PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
(90%)
302.1 Informational Tables at Fairs, Festivals, and Pop-up Events
302.2 Public Open House Meetings (1) / Online Open Houses (1)
302.3 Property Owner Briefings
302.4 Materials
302.5 Communication Tracking and Comment Management
303 — STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
303.1 — Agency Stakeholder Engagement Plan
303.2 Environmental Resource Agencies Meetings and Coordination (90%)
303.3 BNSF Meetings (90%)
303.4 BNSF Final Submittal (90%)
303.5 Tribes Meetings (90%)
303.6 Agency Stakeholder Meetings (90%)
303.7 City Council Briefings (90%)
303.8 — Technical Committee Meetings (90%)
304 — ARCHITECTURAL COLLABORATION (VIA) (90%)
304.1 — 90% Design
305 — ART AND CULTURAL COLLABORATION (90%)
306 — 90% ENGINEERING FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
306.1 — Basis of Design
306.2 — 90% Engineering for the Preferred Alternative
306.3 — City Permits
307 -- 90% DESIGN GEOTECHNICAL SUPPORT
307.1 90% Design Geotechnical Support
308 — ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION (90%)
308.1 — Mitigation Plans
309 — FUNDING SUPPORT EFFORT FOR 90%
309.1 — Grant Support
310 — CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS AND ESTIMATING (90%) (Ott -Sakai)
310.1 — 90% Constructability and Estimate
311 — MANAGEMENT RESERVE FEE FOR 90% DESIGN
Packet Pg. 192
Edmonds Waterfront Connector
Parametrix Contract Scope Outline
Phase 4: From 90% to Final
401 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT
401.1 — Project Management Plan
401.2 — Weekly Project Management Team (PMT) Meetings
401.3 — Subconsultant Coordination
401.4 — Consultant Team Meetings and Coordination
401.6 — Quality Assurance
402 — COMMUNITY EVENTS AND ENGAGEMENT (90% TO FINAL)
402.1 Informational Tables at Fairs, Festivals, and Pop-up Events
402.2 Property Owner Briefings
402.3 Materials
402.4 Communication Tracking and Comment Management
403 — STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
403.1 — Agency Stakeholder Engagement Plan
403.2 Environmental Resource Agencies Meetings and Coordination
403.3 BNSF Meetings
403.4 Tribes Meetings
403.5 Agency Stakeholder Meetings
403.6 City Council Briefings
403.7 — Technical Committee Meetings
404 — ARCHITECTURAL COLLABORATION (VIA) 100% and Final
405 — ART AND CULTURAL COLLABORATION
406 — FINAL ENGINEERING FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
406.1 — Basis of Design
406.2 — Final Engineering for the Preferred Alternative
406.3 — Mitigation Design (to 100% and Final)
407 — CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS AND ESTIMATING (Ott -Sakai)
408 — FUNDING
409 — BID SUPPORT
409.1 — Develop Addendums
409.2 — Answer RFI's
409.3 - Participate in Pre -Bid Meeting
409.4 — Review Bids
410 — MANAGEMENT RESERVE ( 100% and Final)
Packet Pg. 193
5.1.b
Parametrix
ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
DRAFT
SCOPE OF WORK
AMENDMENT 4
City of Edmonds
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
Phases 2-4
The previous scopes of work for Amendments 1-3 (Phase 1) included the development of alternatives,
preliminary engineering design and support for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation for the
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector from Sunset Avenue to touchdown point. It was determined through the
development of the preliminary engineering that more information was needed prior to completing the
environmental documentation. Therefore the environmental documentation budget from phase 1 was used for
the development and running of the live turning test with fire trucks, the conceptual BNSF submittal, permitting
and fish forage surveys for geotechnical work, additional survey of the park and geotechnical borings and
Ordinary High Water Mark, and additional Advisory Committee and City Council meetings.
This Amendment 4 scope of work covers the evaluation and final design for the preferred (hybrid) alternative for
the Waterfront Connector approved by City Council on October 23, 2018 in three phases:
From Preliminary design to 30% and 60% Design (Phase 2)
From 60% to 90% Design (Phase 3)
From 90% to 100% and Final Design (Phases 4)
Phase 2 This Scope of Work provides for professional services to 30% and 60% design, development of the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental documentation, development for the
completion of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and long -lead permit applications for the Edmonds
Street Waterfront Connector.
Phase 3: This Scope of Work provides for professional services to 90% design, as well as development of permit
applications
Phase 4: This Scope of Work provides for professional services to Final design
Phase 2: 30% and 60%
TASK 201 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The Consultant shall manage scope, schedule, budget, and execution of this amendment.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 1 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 194
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Task 201.1 — Project Management Plan
The Consultant shall update the Project Management Plan (PMP) that defines the framework under which the
project will be managed through all phases, including risk, change, communications, schedule, scope, and budget
control through Final Design..
Task 201.2 — Weekly Project Management Team (PMT) Meetings
The original scope of work included Monthly PMT Meetings. For this amendment, the Consultant shall continue to
participate in weekly meetings as needed for project management updates/design decisions, and prepare a brief
meeting summary for each meeting, focused on key decisions and assigned action items. These meetings will be
the forum for the City of Edmonds (City) to provide input and guidance for the direction of the project. The
meetings will also be used to discuss project issues, approve submittals, and develop potential solutions to design
issues.
Task 201.3 — Subconsultant Coordination
The Consultant shall prepare and execute additional Subconsultant agreements and review and submit additional
invoices.
Task 201.4 — Consultant Team Meetings and Coordination
The Consultant shall conduct additional internal consultant project coordination meetings to execute the project
Task 201.5 — Monthly Invoice and Progress Reports
The Consultant shall prepare and submit monthly invoice and progress reports.
Task 201.6 — Quality Assurance
The Consultant shall conduct additional quality control reviews on additional design materials.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Project planning is assumed for the project through final Design.
• Meetings, coordination, progress reports and quality assurance assumed for phase 2 work.
• Phase 2 is assumed from July 1, 2019 through May 30, 2020 (11 months)
Meetings
• 40 weekly PMT meetings (35 on the phone, and 5 in person)
• 24 internal team meetings
• 12 meetings with subconsultants
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 2 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 195
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Updated Project Management Plan
• Invoices and progress reports.
• Updated schedules.
• PMT Meeting Action Items
TASK 202 - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Task 202.1 — Public Involvement and Communications Plan (30%-60% task only)
The Consultant will update the public involvement and communications plan to reflect outreach efforts through
final design. As part of the plan updates, the public involvement and communications plan will be shared with the
City of Edmonds Diversity Commission.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• One draft and one final updated public involvement and communications plan.
Task 202.2 Informational Tables at Fairs, Festivals, and Pop-up Events
The Consultant will research, plan, and staff eight informational booths at local events(i.e., Edmonds Farmer's
Market, Art Walk Edmonds, Taste Edmonds, Marina Beach Cleanup, Oktoberfest) and pop-up tabling events (i.e.,
park, library) as the team works toward 60% design. These events will be aimed at sharing information on the
update design and gathering feedback from the broader community and park users on design details. Following
the events, the Consultant will prepare a high-level summary.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Existing project materials (i.e., fact sheet, frequently asked questions [FAQ]) will be used to support
informational booths.
• Consultant will coordinate logistics, be responsible for table/booth set-up, and provide one staff from
PMX and one from Envirolssues for each event.
• A level of effort for this task has been assumed based on the quantities below. Should the needs rise
above this level of effort, it will be documented in the progress report and changes to the scope may
need to be discussed.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• One draft and one final summer/fall tabling plan.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 3 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 196
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Staffing and set-up of eight information tables and/or pop-up events for up to eight hours per event.
• One draft and one final spring/summer tabling effort summary.
Task 202.3 Public Open House Meetings (2) / Online Open Houses (2)
The Consultant will schedule, coordinate, staff, and provide materials for two public open house meeting at or
before the 30% and 60% design milestone, depending upon the needs of the design team, to share information
with and gather feedback from the community. For each meeting, the Consultant will coordinate logistics,
develop a meeting plan, staff, facilitate, and summarize the meeting.
In conjunction with the in -person open house meetings, the Consultant will develop an online open house to
share the same content that will be displayed at each public meeting and to solicit community feedback online.
The online open house will include use of a custom sub -domain website that will be seamlessly linked from the
City's website, project -specific customized layout, station tabs to match in -person meeting station materials, fully
responsive design (i.e., for smart phones, tablets), and integration with Google Translate and social share.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Consultant will provide up to two staff from Envirolssues, one from Tetra Tech, and one from PMX for
each meeting, including facilitation and presentation support. Architect attendance under Task 205. Artist
attendance under task 207.
• Content developed for public meetings will be used to populate the online open house. Materials and
messaging development under Task 202.5.
• City will pay for room rentals.
• A level of effort for this task has been assumed based on the quantities below. Should the needs rise
above this level of effort, it will be documented in the progress report and changes to the scope may
need to be discussed.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Coordination for and staff support and/or facilitation at two public meetings.
• Two draft and two final meeting plans.
• Two draft and two final meeting agendas.
• Two draft and two final sets of supporting meeting documents (i.e., comment forms, sign -in sheets,
directional signage, name tags).
• Two online open houses.
• Two draft and two final meeting summaries (includes both in -person and online).
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 4 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 197
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Task 202.4 Property Owner Briefings
The Consultant will schedule and conduct four briefings with property owners in the project area at or before the
30% and 60% design milestones, depending upon the needs of the design team. Briefings will be designed to
share updates to the project design and schedule, and to solicit input and feedback on project design elements
and on anticipated construction impacts. The Consultant will schedule the meetings and document input received
during the briefings. Meetings will be conducted with small groups, including property owners on Sunset Avenue
N, and on Edmonds Street between Sunset Avenue N and 3rd Avenue N. Property owners will be notified of the
meetings via direct mail to the street addresses.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Existing project materials or materials developed by the technical team will be used at the briefings.
• Consultant will provide one Envirolssues and one PMX support staff for each briefing.
• A level of effort for this task has been assumed based on the quantities below. Should the needs rise
above this level of effort, it will be documented in the progress report and changes to the scope may
need to be discussed.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include
• Scheduling and attendance at four briefings.
• Two draft and two final briefing plans.
• Two draft and two final materials packets (graphics/materials to be supplied by the City and technical
team).
• Two draft and Two final briefing key takeaway summaries with attendance, date of meeting, and key
points discussed
Task 202.5 Materials
The Consultant will develop content and graphic design for project materials, email updates, and website content.
Project materials may include the development of one folio/fact sheet, updates to the project FAQ, one traveling
display, meeting notifications, Sunset neighborhood letters, media releases, utility bill inserts, and up to 24 display
boards for the public meetings. Meeting notifications will likely include one poster, one flier, email updates, social
media posts, and display ads for each meeting. A letter will be sent to the Sunset Avenue project neighbors to
notify them of the property owner briefings. The Consultant will also prepare twelve monthly email updates.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Consultant will coordinate printing of materials (e.g., display ads, display boards, etc.).
• Consultant will distribute posters, fliers to local businesses, and traveling display to City -approved
locations.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 5 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 198
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Consultant will coordinate and send monthly email updates to project listserv.
• Consultant will coordinate mailing of Sunset neighborhood letter.
• Consultant will coordinate language translations for materials in Spanish, Korean, and simplified Chinese
• City will post notifications to social media and City -managed project website.
• City will be responsible for media relations.
• City will pay for costs associated with display ads.
• City will share project messages and produced materials with key project partners, such as the Port of
Edmonds, for inclusion in their communication materials.
• A level of effort for this task has been assumed based on the quantities below. Should the needs rise
above this level of effort, it will be documented in the progress report and changes to the scope may
need to be discussed.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• One draft and one final fact sheet/folio.
• Two draft and two final FAQ sheet updates.
• Two draft and two final utility bill inserts.
• One draft and one final traveling display board.
• 24 draft and 24 final meeting display boards.
• Two draft and two final meeting posters.
• Two draft and two final meeting fliers.
• Two draft and two final print display ads.
• Two draft and two final online display ads.
• Two draft and two final Sunset neighborhood letter.
• Monthly content updates for project website.
• Twelve draft and twelve final email updates.
Task 202.6 Communication Tracking and Comment Management
Consultant will monitor the project email inbox, forward comments to the project team, provide draft responses
when needed, and track incoming and outgoing project correspondence.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Consultant will send responses back to community members.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 6 October 2018
Scope of Work
a�
a
0
U
x
�L
m
E
ca
a
N
C
as
E
U
0
r
r
Q
c
as
E
U
M
a
Packet Pg. 199
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Communication responses, as needed.
• Email files of saved project correspondence or PDF of all email correspondence.
TASK 203 — STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
Additional communication with Stakeholders is required for design to progress to 30 and 60%. Public Art Design
Commission meetings are accounted for under task 205 for Phase 2.
Task 203.1 — Agency Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Update the Agency Stakeholder Engagement Plan.
Task 203.2 Environmental Resource Agencies Meetings and Coordination
The Consultant shall prepare for and participate in phone -call coordination and two meetings with the resource
agencies for identification of mitigation opportunities, mitigation requirements and design, and permitting.
The Consultant shall develop information for the meetings and provide follow-up information as requested
Meetings
• Environmental Resource Agencies Meetings:
o Number of meetings: Two (2)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meeting: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: Two (2) PMX,
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
Additional meetings with the resource agencies are included in Task 214.10
Task 203.3 BNSF Meetings
This task assumes two plan review meetings with BNSF at the 30% design submittal / review and six additional
meetings to discuss project design needs, construction easements, permanent easements, and agreements for a
total of eight meetings. Exhibits and legal descriptions are developed under Task 204.3.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Eight additional coordination meetings with BNSF.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 7 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 200
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Meetings
BNSF Meetings:
o Number of meetings: Eight (8)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meeting: BNSF Seattle
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 2 PMX, 1 TKDA, 2 Tierra ROW (for two meetings
only. PM and Agent for one meeting, PM only for second meeting)
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Agendas and meeting minutes.
Task 203.4 BNSF Design Coordination and Agreement Development
The original scope of work for this task includes coordinating with BNSF to obtain design as -built information,
access to BNSF property for survey and geotechnical information, and obtain agreement needs information to
support those processes in the future:
• Coordinate survey and geotechnical access to railroad property (if needed).
• TKDA Preliminary design plan and constructability review (rail).
• Develop crossing agreements (what -to -expect discussions).
• Construction cost estimate support (identify costs that BNSF may charge the City).
The above work is continuing through 2019 under the original scope of work, however 10,000 of fee is added to
replenish fee that was used for additional graphics. This task adds the development of the draft Construction/
Maintenance Agreement, which includes development of the Temporary Construction Easement and the Aerial
Permanent Easement. This agreement will include agreement for BNSF to design and construct the second signal
if necessary and project flagging. The Consultant will develop estimates that BNSF may charge to the project. The
Consultant shall review existing permits, easements, and franchise agreements and update said documents to
current conditions. Upon completion of the updates, Consultant will rerecord easements with BNSF.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Draft Construction/ Maintenance Agreement.
• Estimates for work that BNSF may charge the project.
• Updated easements.
• Construction easements.
• Aerial Permanent easement.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 8 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 201
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Task 203.5 BNSF 30% Submittal
The Consultant shall develop a 30% Submittal package for BNSF review and comment.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• The Consultant 30% Design plans submitted to BNSF shall meet the Guidelines for Railroad Grade
Separation projects, May 2016.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Response to Conceptual Design Comments.
• Design Plans showing a Plan View, Elevation View, Typical Section, Construction Notes, and railroad
profile grade diagram. Plans to indicate structure design criteria and construction methods (developed
under Task 209).
• Project Specifications and / or Special Provisions, including railroad coordination requirements
(developed under Task 209).
• Drainage Report and design plans conforming to BNSF grade separation and construction guidelines
(developed under Task 209).
• Construction Phasing Plans showing all required phasing, construction procedures, temporary shoring
layout, controlling dimensions and elevations (developed under Task 209).
• Conduct sight distance analysis to see if our bridge obstructs sight lines to the proposed signal after BNSF
adds a second track. BNSF will complete the design and construction a supplemental signal if needed. The
Consultant will develop a draft estimate for negotiation for the cost to BNSF for that design and
construction.
• Includes review by TKDA.
Task 203.6 Tribes Meetings
This scope includes up to 6 meetings with the tribes to re-establish communication on the preferred alternative
concept and to explore opportunities for mitigating environmental impacts. Tribes to coordinate with include
Muckleshoot, Snoqualmie, Stillaguamish, Suquamish and Tulalip Tribes.
Tribe members will also be invited to environmental resource agency meetings.
Meetings
Tribal Meetings:
o Number of meetings: Six (6)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meeting: Tribes locale
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 9 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 202
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 2 PMX. participation by VIA and Myers Sculpture is
provided for in tasks 205 and 207.
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Meeting agendas and minutes
Task 203.7 Agency Stakeholder Meetings
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• One Additional Advisory Committee meeting through 60% design. Advisory Committee Meeting to
include the Parks Department, BNSF, Community Transit, Port of Edmonds, WSF, and possibly residents
from Mayor's Advisory Committee.
• WSDOT and WSF meetings effort will include the development of a draft operations plan.
• South County Fire and Rescue, two meetings to review bollard design and operation (two staff members
from Parametrix).
Meetings
• Advisory Committee meeting:
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meeting: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 1 PMX, 1 Tt
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
• WSDOT/ WSF meeting:
o Number of meetings: Three (3)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meeting: Two (2) at WSDOT Dayton Ave, and One (1) WSF
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 2 PMX,
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
Meetings
• South County Fire and Rescue meetings:
o Number of meetings: Two (2)
o Length of each meeting: One (1) hour
o Location of the meeting: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 2 PMX,
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 10 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 203
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
Deliverables:
Deliverables for this task include:
• Meeting agendas and minutes.
• Draft Operations Plan
Task 203.8 City Council Briefings
The Consultant shall prepare and conduct presentations, in support of City Staff, briefing the City Council on the
project status and key design topics. This task provides for four meetings with City Council for design and cost
estimate updates.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Four meetings with City Council. It is assumed two of the meetings will take place approaching 30%, and
two approaching 60% design
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Presentation materials.
Task 203.9 — Technical Committee Meetings a
0
U
This task includes preparing for and participating in two technical design committee meetings that include City U)
25
Public Works, Parks & Recreation, utilities, and planning to provide input to the design. Assumes one meeting at
the 30% level and one at the 60% level to take place in Edmonds. Art Commission meetings are provided for
under task 207. f° L
Assumptions N
c
Assumptions for this task include:
E
z
• Two meetings at City Hall. Three (3) staff from Parametrix will attend. VIA'S participate under task 205. U
r
r
Q
Deliverables
c
as
Deliverables for this task will consist of: t
c�
• Agendas and meeting minutes Q
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 11 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 204
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Task 203.10 — Participate in Meetings with the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO)
Participate in one meeting with RCO to demonstrate the project attributes and obtain feedback. It is assumed this
meeting will take place at the RCO office and will be attended by two Parametrix staff.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Agendas and meeting minutes.
TASK 204 — SURVEY AND BASEMAP
Task 204.1 — Existing Conditions Survey
Provide additional survey within park, parking lot, critical areas, and as -built of rail 1500 feet in advance of bridge
to determine sight lines.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Revised base map with expanded limits.
Task 204.2 — Right of Way and Boundary Research
This task includes obtaining additional easements from BNSF, reviewing existing language and proposing revised
language to update (see Tasks 203.3,203.4, 203.5for all BNSF coordination with this work). Copies of nine existing
easements have been requested from BNSF.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include: a
0
• Review of nine easements. Tierra assist in review cn
x
• Proposed revisions of three easements. Tierra assists in drafting of revisions.
E
• Two negotiation rounds with BNSF. ca
L
• Meetings with BNSF assumed in Task 203.3. ,
N
Deliverables
E
Deliverables for this task include:
U
0
• Draft easement language.
r
r
Q
Task 204.3 — Exhibits and Legal Description for Property Needs
c
E
This task includes the development of exhibits and legal descriptions for property needs, including:
• Two properties on Sunset Avenue (construction permits). Q
• Two temporary construction easements with BNSF
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 12 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 205
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• One permanent easement over BNSF.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Five exhibits and five legal descriptions.
TASK 205.0 - ARCHITECTURAL COLLABORATION (VIA) 30% AND 60%
Architectural services incudes developing the architectural themes and elements, stakeholder coordination and
open houses to obtain input. Work to date has not included restroom design.
Task 205.1 — 30% Design
This Amendment 4 provides for:
• Design team meetings and coordination through 30%.
o Up to six in person design team coordination meetings with engineering and other consultants.
o Up to six additional phone coordination meetings.
• Support for presentations and technical meetings with the city and agencies through 30%.
o Attendance at up to two meetings in person.
o Support up to two additional meetings by phone.
o Written response as required to City and outside agency comments for no more than ten (10)
total meetings.
• Support for one public meeting;
■ Visual graphics presenting the Hybrid Design (listed below) with a focus on throw barrier
and guardrail details.
■ Board layout and PowerPoint for public meeting.
■ Two staff present at public meeting to provide verbal presentation and answer questions.
■ Up to two meetings by phone to coordinate presentation.
■ 3D computer animation model for visual fly through.
• Graphics for the Hybrid Design:
o Five views rendered with context which are an aerial view, a view from Sunset looking north, a
view from the waterfront path looking north, a view from the end of Brackett's Landing jetty, and
a view from the water.
• Rendered plan graphic for presentations, etc. Collaboration with the engineering team to develop a
revised architectural approach that meets the City's needs for function, cost, and integration with the site
to 30% design.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 13 October 2018
Scope of Work
a�
a
0
U
x
�L
m
E
ca
L
N
c
m
E
z
U
0
r
Q
c
a�
E
U
a
Packet Pg. 206
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Urban design integration at the restroom plaza and turnaround and at the raised intersection on Sunset
Avenue, detailed further in the Urban Design/Park Integration task .
• 30% Design Drawings:
o Lighting concept.
o Preliminary throw barrier, crash rail, and hand rail sections.
o Seating areas.
o Plan including plaza and raised intersection plans.
o Preliminary bridge elevations.
o Restroom plan.
o Specification outline.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• No physical models will be produced.
• Proposed hybrid design will require architectural and engineering refinement and coordination, but will
not face significant changes due to city or agency comments or other factors.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Graphics for the preferred alternative as described above.
• Fly through animation
• 30% Design Drawings as outlined above.
• An outline of specifications.
Task 205.2 — 60% Design
This Amendment 4 provides for:
• Design team meetings and coordination through 60%:
o Up to three in person design team coordination meetings with engineering and other
consultants.
o Up to three additional phone coordination meetings.
• Support for presentations and meetings to the City and agencies through 60%:
o Attendance at up to two meetings in person.
o Support at up to two additional meetings by phone.
o Response as required to City and outside agency comments for no more than six total meetings.
• Support for one public meeting:
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 14 October 2018
Scope of Work
a�
a
0
U
x
�L
a
E
�a
a
N
C
m
E
z
U
0
r
Q
c
a�
M
U
M
Q
Packet Pg. 207
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
o Updates to visual graphics developed through 60% Design.
o Board layout and PowerPoint for public meeting.
o Two staff present at public meeting to provide verbal presentation and answer questions.
o Up to two meetings by phone to coordinate presentation.
0 3D computer animation model for coordination with engineering and visual fly through
• Collaboration with the engineering team to develop a revised architectural approach that meets the City's
needs for function, cost, and integration with the site to 60% design.
• 60% Design Drawings:
o Lighting design.
o Throw barrier, crash rail, hand rail sections, and details.
o Seating areas.
o Refined plan including plaza and raised intersection plans.
o Refined bridge elevations.
o Restroom plans, elevations, roof plan, and lighting plan.
• Other coordination items:
o Input and coordination for cost estimate
0 60% Draft specifications.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
M
• Cost estimate not completed by the architect, but support is provided. This includes review of all items
a
related to the architecture and urban design elements as well as coordination of quantities, etc. o
U
• Visual graphics provided for the 60% Open House will be updates to the views developed for the end of U)
30% design. No changes will be made to view points and no new views will be added. 25
m
• Animation fly through will be an update of the fly through provided at the end of 30% design. Travel path E
and viewpoints will remain the same. a
• No physical models will be produced. C•
• Structural type, depth, and configuration are set at the beginning of this task. Any changes after E
completion of 30% would require additional design scope. M
r
Deliverables a
c
Deliverables for this task include:
E
• Updates to renderings and graphic plan as outlined in Task 205.1— 30% Design.
• Updates to fly through animation. a
• 60% Design Drawings as outlined above.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 15 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 208
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• 60% Preliminary specifications.
TASK 206.0 — Urban Design/ Park Integration (VIA)
The original scope of work included the development of options at Sunset Avenue North and Brackett's Landing
Park that integrate the bridge landing into the surrounding pedestrian pathways and landscape, restroom
location/ space planning.
This amendment provides for relocating and designing the restroom and outdoor shower facilities and developing
the park / bridge integration to 30% and 60% which includes:
• Restroom design and integration with landing plaza.
• Turnaround surface and transitions.
• Integration of the bridge into the existing waterfront path.
• Integration of native vegetation.
• Integration of the bridge path with the bike/pedestrian path along Sunset Avenue.
• Placemaking at the raised intersection and pedestrian crossing of Sunset Avenue.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Close coordination and collaboration with team on civil, environmental, and stormwater issues.
• Accurate geotechnical reports and survey will be provided for accurate design.
• Although 3D computer model maybe used to study detail elements of the design, no visual graphics will
be provided other than plans, sections, elevations and details needed for 30% and 60% Design Drawings
as outlined above and in Task 206
• No physical models will be produced.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• 30% and 60% drawings (refer to Task 205) including:
o Plans, sections, and details.
TASK 207.0 — ART AND CULTURAL COLLABORATION 30% AND 60%
This work includes the integration of art and related creative processes into the overall design of the bridge
architecture, approaches, site integration, cultural and interpretive way finding, and participation in the relevant
public and stakeholder outreach development and programs..
This work includes: 30% Design
• Up to six in person meetings for art integration.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 16 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 209
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Up to six additional phone coordination meetings
• Up to one meeting with the Public Art Design Commission (One PMX, One Myers Sculpture, one VIA
• Up to six in person meetings with tribes for cultural integration.
• One Open House 30%
• Detailed integration with the bridge elements such as handrail, deck surface, land bridge, etc.
• Detailed integration with the restroom and plaza design.
• Incorporation in seating areas, etc.
• Integration in place making at Sunset Avenue.
• Incorporation in to moments of discovery where the structure meets the beach walk.
• Coordination with functional systems including stormwater, wayfinding, and cultural and historical
placemaking.
This work includes: 60% Design
• Up to three in person meetings for art integration.
• Up to three additional phone coordination meetings
• Up to one meeting with the Public Art Design Commission
• Up to six in person meetings with tribes for cultural integration.
• One Open House 60%
• Detailed integration with the bridge elements such as handrail, deck surface, land bridge, etc.
• Detailed integration with the restroom and plaza design.
• Incorporation in seating areas, etc.
a
• Integration in place making at Sunset Avenue. 0
• Incorporation in to moments of discovery where the structure meets the beach walk. 5
�L
d
• Coordination with functional systems including stormwater, wayfinding, and cultural and historical E
placemaking. f°
a
N
C
N
Assumptions E
U
Assumptions for this task include: Q
• Close collaboration between artist, architectural team and City Parks personnel will be very important for
the enhancement of an integrated concept delivery to 60% design. E
E
• All meetings for art coordination will be included in the count for team meetings outlined in Task 205.
a
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 17 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 210
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Integration of the art plan and any needed details or attachments into 30% and 60% drawings.
• Presentations for Design Commission
TASK 208 - GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR 30% DESIGN (S&W)
Task 208.1 — Geotechnical analysis for Preferred Alternative (S&W)
Under 30% design, the geotechnical consultant shall:
• Attend up to one meeting in person to discuss design elements and/or constructability and participate in
conference calls as needed to address geotechnical aspects of the project.
• Revise axial capacity analyses for alternative foundation dimensions for the approach bridge.
• Provide tieback recommendations and evaluated stability for an east abutment alternative not founded
on deep foundations.
• Monitor groundwater conditions during wet weather winter months in previously installed groundwater
monitoring devices using data loggers to obtain readings over a minimum 2-week period.
• Develop a groundwater model of the project site and adjacent area to improve understanding of how the
identified artesian conditions affect project foundation alternatives.
• Develop geotechnical mitigations for unfavorable underground conditions, such as liquefaction and
lateral spreading.
• Prepare geotechnical recommendations for the proposed restroom including:
o IBC seismic design criteria
o Foundation design parameters
• Update the draft geotechnical report to present new analysis results and related recommendations
Foundation soil springs or P-Y curves, potential liquefaction assessment and mitigation recommendations,
and negative skin friction data.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• The project alternative advanced for 30% design is not significantly changed from that assumed for the
previous work authorization.
• Bathymetry information for conditions offshore and survey information on land are provided by others
• No additional field explorations will be performed.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 18 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 211
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Updated 30% Draft Geotechnical Report, submitted electronically.
TASK 209 — 30% ENGINEERING FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
This task includes developing 30% design of the preferred alternative.
Task 209.1 — Basis of Design
Update the Basis of Design document to reflect the latest designs to 30%
Task 209.2 — 30% Engineering for the Preferred Alternative
This task is to advance the civil, structural, and traffic management designs to a 30% level, which will define
alignment and profiles, major structural dimensions and layouts, traffic phases, etc., with sufficient analysis and
design detail for determining temporary and permanent site and environmental effects and benefits.
Updating Design Criteria
• Updating the design criteria from Phase 1 — draft for City to review and approval.
• Provide response to City's review comments.
Engineering Design and Plan Development a
Civil engineering and traffic management designs includes:
a
0
• Horizontal Alignment and Vertical Profile of the crossing and approach structures U
U)
x
• Title sheet and Vicinity Map
• Summary of Quantities E
L
• Alignment, Right -of -Way and Survey Control Plans. a
• Site Preparation Plans
N
• TESC Plans and Details
m
E
z
U
• Intersection layouts
0
Q
• Sunset Avenue intersection improvements
c
a�
E
• Grading section and contour plans
• Pavement Marking and Signing Plans
a
• Project footprint and earthwork quantities
• Typical roadway sections
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 19 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 212
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Bollard requirements and layouts
• Mixing zone/parking lot layouts and details (Via and PMX).
• Beach mitigations.
• Maintenance of traffic (including railroads).
• Traffic control plans during construction
• Stormwater designs for conveyance and water quality treatment. (Tt)
• Drainage Report conforming to City stormwater standards, including the Edmonds Stormwater
Addendum. Provide submittal for BNSF 30% submittal meeting BNSF grade separation guidelines (Tt)
• Utility relocation, replacement, and protection. (Tt)
• Roadway profile plans
• Paving plans
• Drainage plan
• Fencing plan
• Railroad profile grade diagram -vertical and horizontal clearances
• Landscaping plans
• Provide response to 30% review comments
Structural designs include:
• Structural analysis to determine the span layout and superstructure sizes and shapes.
• Structural analysis to determine the shapes and sizes of piers and abutments.
• Structural analysis for the foundation types and the sizes/depths.
• Seismic design dynamic model analysis.
• Constructability assessment, including consideration for Artesian Water pressure effects.
• Develop Construction Notes.
• Assessment of construction restrictions due to BNSF operation restrictions.
• Art elements including a meeting with the City.
• Update span layouts.
• Design of bridge deck and overlay material, thickness.
• Design of girder type and typical sections
• Design of column size and shape.
• Design of foundation size and type.
• Design of structural details of sidewalk, barrier, railing, etc.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 20 October 2018
Scope of Work
Q
Packet Pg. 213
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Design of bridge illumination (architect support for type, Tt for design) and attachments
• Design of bridge abutment and wingwalls
• Design of retaining walls and structural walls
• Sunset Avenue slope stabilization (Geotech support)
• Construction access and staging
• Construction Phasing studies include anticipated phasing, construction procedures, temporary structure
layout, controlling dimensions, and elevations.
• Ground improvement (if required)(Geotech Support).
• Identify Technology for bollard operation. (including review of bullyboy.co.nz)
• Provide response to 30% review comments
Restroom
• New restroom layout (VIA under task 205) and utility connections.(Tt)
• Structural Design (PMx)
• Mechanical, electrical (Tt)
Technical Specifications (Special Provisions)
• Outlines of Project Specifications and / or Special Provisions, including railroad coordination
requirements. (railroad specific)
• Provide response to review comments
a
• Prepare sketches and figures to be included as part of permitting package. a
0
Architectural and artistic effort provided for under tasks 205 and 207 U
x
L
d
Assumptions
0
a
Assumptions for this task include: N
• The design shall meet the Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation projects, May 2016, unless otherwise
agreed in writing between BNSF and the City. E
z
U
• The design will be based on the preliminary engineering design that was developed in coordination with
the City and submitted to the City and to BNSF (as a conceptual design). BNSF comments on the Q
conceptual submittal were minimal, except for the comment stating BNSF may want to increase track
centers. That may require the abutment design to be crash worthy. It is assumed no other major changes E
are required.
• The City shall provide review comments in a single consolidated file. a
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 21 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 214
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Artesian water pressure may change the foundation design. Outreach to contractors specializing in
constructability with artesian water pressure may require foundation design requirements, resulting in
additional scope and budget.
Meetings
• Basis of Design review meeting:
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meeting: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 2 PMX, 1 Tt
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
• Design review meetings (30%):
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meetings: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 2 PMX, 1 VIA (under task x) and 1 Tt
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
• Utility Coordination meetings (30%):
o Number of meetings: 2
o Length of each meeting: 1.5 hours
o Location of the meetings: at the City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 1 PMX and 2 Tetra Tech
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
Meetings with BNSF are provided for under task 203.3
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Basis of Design — Draft
• Design Criteria - draft.
• 30% Design Plans (in electronic .pdf).
• 30% specifications that also meet the requirement for BNSF submittal in Task 203.
• Meeting notes with BNSF and other stakeholders.
• 30% cost estimate (prepared under Task 217.1).
• Draft construction schedule. (prepared under Task 217.1).
• Written responses to City's consolidated review comments
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 22 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 215
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
TASK 210 - 60% GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The purpose of this task is to support the design team in developing the 60% design levels.
Under 60% design, the geotechnical consultant shall:
• Attend up to one meeting in person to discuss design elements and/or constructability and participate in
conference calls as needed to address geotechnical aspects of the project.
• Update geotechnical calculations for the project based on design revisions.
• Participate in a constructability meeting with the design team and contractors to evaluate construction of
drilled shafts under artesian groundwater conditions.
• Use groundwater model developed under 30% design to evaluate the feasibility of dewatering to
facilitate shaft installation. Associated with this task, the geotechnical consultant will perform up to three
additional grain size analyses on soils collected from previous explorations.
• Update the draft geotechnical report to present new or revised analysis results and related
recommendations as well as provide construction considerations.
• Review and edit draft plans and specifications for geotechnical considerations relating to drilled shafts,
foundations, piles, spread footing foundations, and retaining walls.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• The foundation options advanced for 60% design are not significantly changed from those assumed for
30% design.
• No additional field explorations will be performed.
• Preparation of project plans is not included in the geotechnical scope.
• Geotechnical support for specifications will include reviewing and editing specifications prepared by
others for inclusion of geotechnical considerations.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Updated 60% Draft Geotechnical Report, submitted electronically (.pdf).
• Review comments.
TASK 211 - 60% ENGINEERING FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Task 211.1 — Basis of Design
Update the Basis of Design document to reflect the latest designs for 60%.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 23 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 216
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Task 211.2 — Development of 60% Design
This task is to advance the civil, structural, and traffic management designs to 60% level, which will provide
sufficient analysis and design detail for intermediate level of designs, and cost estimate.
Updating Design Criteria
• Updating the design criteria from 30% to 60% for City to review and approval.
• Incorporate mutually agreed 30% review comments.
• Provide response to City's review comments on 60% submittal.
Engineering Design and Plan Development
Civil engineering and traffic management designs includes updating the following design to 60% level
• Horizontal Alignment and Vertical Profile of the crossing and approach structures
Vicinity map
Summary of quantities
• Alignment, Right -of -Way and Survey Control Plans
• Site Preparation Plans
• TESC Plans and Details
• Intersection layouts
• Sunset Avenue intersection improvements
• Grading section and contour plans
• Pavement marking and signing plan, including channelization for railroad avenue for no blockages
• Project footprint and earthwork quantities
• Typical roadway sections
• Bollard requirements and layouts
• Mixing zone/parking lot layouts and details (Via and PMX)
• Beach mitigations
• Maintenance of traffic (including railroads)
• Traffic control plans during construction
• Stormwater designs for conveyance and water quality treatment (Tt)
• Drainage Report conforming to City stormwater standards, including the Edmonds Stormwater
Addendum (Tt)
• Utility relocation, replacement, and protection, including extensions through Brackett's Landing North
parking lot to Main Street (Tt)
• New restroom layout (Via) and utility connections (Tt).
• Roadway profile plans
• Paving Plans
• Drainage Plan
• Fencing Plan
• Railroad profile grade diagram —vertical and horizontal clearances
• Landscaping plans
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 24 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 217
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Provide response to 60% review comments
Structural designs include updating the following design to 60% level:
• Structural analysis to determine the span layout and superstructure sizes and shapes.
• Structural analysis to determine the shapes and sizes of piers and abutments.
• Structural analysis for the foundation types and the sizes/depths.
• Seismic design dynamic model analysis.
• Constructability assessment, including consideration for Artesian Water pressure effects.
• Develop Construction Notes.
• Assessment of construction restrictions due to BNSF operation restrictions.
• Art elements including a meeting with the City.
• Update span layouts.
• Design of bridge deck and overlay material, thickness.
• Design of girder type and typical sections
• Design of column size and shape.
• Design of foundation size and type.
• Design of structural details of sidewalk, barrier, railing, etc.
• Design of bridge illumination (architect support) (and Tt) and attachments
• Design of bridge abutment and wingwalls
• Design of retaining walls and structural walls
• Sunset Avenue slope stabilization (Geotech support)
• Construction access and staging
• Construction Phasing studies include anticipated phasing, construction procedures, temporary structure
layout, controlling dimensions, and elevations.
• Ground improvement (if required)(Geotech Support).
• Identify Technology for bollard operation. (including review of bullyboy.co.nz)
• Provide response to 60% review comments
Restroom
• New restroom layout (VIA under task 205) and utility connections.(Tt)
• Structural Design (PMx)
• Mechanical, electrical (Tt)
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 25 October 2018
Scope of Work
W
a
0
0
co
K
.`
am
E
c�
IL
N
C
d
E
z
c�
a
c
m
E
z
Q
Packet Pg. 218
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Technical Specifications (Special Provisions) updating the following technical specification input to 60% level
• Enhanced outlines of Project Specifications and / or Special Provisions, including railroad coordination
requirements. (railroad specific)
• Incorporate mutually agreed 30% review comments.
• Provide response to review comments
• Update sketches and figures to be included as part of permitting package.
Architectural and artistic effort provided for under tasks 205 and 207
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• The design shall meet the Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation projects, May 2016, unless otherwise
agreed in writing between BNSF and the City.
• The City shall provide review comments in a single consolidated file
• Revisions to address 60% review comments will be provided before the 90% design submittal
• Artesian water pressure may change the foundation design. Outreach to contractors specializing in
constructability with artesian water pressure may require foundation design requirements, resulting in
additional scope and budget
Meetings
• Basis of Design review meeting:
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meetings: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: Two (2) PMX, One (1) Tt, One (1) Via
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
• Design review meetings (60%):
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: Three (3) hours
o Location of the meetings: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: Three (3) PMX, One (1) Tt (Via's attendance is
provided for under task 205)
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
• BNSF Coordination meetings (60%): to take place under task 203
• Utility Coordination meetings (60%):
o Number of meetings: 1
o Length of each meeting: 2 hours
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 26 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 219
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
o Location of the meetings: City Hall
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: one (1) PMX, One (1) (Tetra Tech)
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
• Technical specification Input meetings (60%):
o Number of meetings: One (1) meeting
o Length of each meeting: 2 hours
o Location of the meetings: Edmonds City Hall
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: Two (2) PMX, One (1) Tetra Tech
o Prepare meeting agenda: Yes/no
o Prepare meeting follow up documents (Meeting summaries, etc.): Yes
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Design Criteria — updated.
• 60% Design Plans (in electronic .pdf).
0 60% cost estimate (prepared under Task 217.2)
• 60% specifications meet the requirement for BNSF submittal in Task 203.
• Updated draft construction schedule.
• Meeting notes with stakeholders.
• Written responses to City's consolidated 60% review comments
TASK 214 - ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The purpose of this task is to prepare environmental documentation in support of all phases of design.
Environmental documentation is intended to address compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, and Section 6(f)
of the U.S. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. This scope of work also includes the development of an
application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, a Critical Areas Study, Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
Application (DARPA). Development of application materials and documentation to support issuance of permits
from the City, such as a clearing and grading and building permit, will be completed under a separate scope of
work.
Task 214.1 — Verification of Requirements
Upon selection of the Preferred Alternative, the Consultant shall coordinate with the City to confirm lead agency
status. For the purpose of the environmental scope of work, it is assumed that the project will trigger NEPA by
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 27 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 220
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
requiring a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) but could also benefit from federal
transportation funding through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). After lead agency determination,
the Consultant shall develop a brief technical memorandum with an overview of the key environmental elements
and recommendations regarding the appropriate level of documentation under NEPA, SEPA, ESA, Section 106,
Section 4(f), and Section 6(f) for consideration by the City of Edmonds and other agencies as appropriate.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• The level of documentation will be as described in the scope that follows for each of the above areas.
0 The federal lead agency will be as described in the scope that follows for each of the above areas
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Draft and final technical memorandum, submitted electronically
Task 214.2 — NEPA Compliance
To comply with NEPA, this scope of work assumes that an Environmental Assessment will be required and FHWA
will be the federal lead agency.
The Consultant shall incorporate the analyses conducted during alternative screening pertaining to ecological
resources, visual quality, and hazardous waste in support of the preferred alternative described in the DCE. The
results of the analyses will be submitted in draft and final reports. Additional detailed analyses regarding
endangered species are covered under Task 214.3; cultural resources in Task 214.4; and Section 4(f)/6(f)
resources in Task 214.5. These analyses will focus on the impacts that may result from the Preferred Alternative.
The work will culminate with the preparation of a NEPA Environmental Assessment.
Ecological Resources Analysis
The Consultant shall incorporate the ecological resources analysis completed during alternative screening that will
include a brief description of existing habitat conditions and will identify species (including species that require
special consideration under federal, state, or local regulations) that are known or expected to use habitats in the
study area. This information will be supplemented by the results of the shading and coastal geomorphology
analyses (Tasks 214.11 and 216, respectively). The effects analyses for all ecosystem resources will describe the
potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative and will assess the potential for significant impacts. A discussion of
potential mitigation requirements for local, state, and federal permitting will be included.
City project staff will conduct one review of the draft report for technical accuracy. Parametrix will make revisions
in response to those reviewers' comments before submitting the deliverable to the appropriate reviewing agency
Visual Quality Analysis
The Consultant shall summarize the results of the visual quality analysis conducted during alternative screening,
focusing on the impacts of the Preferred Alternative. The analysis shall incorporate additional visual simulations
and graphics developed for the Preferred Alternative.
Hazardous Materials Analysis
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 28 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 221
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
The Consultant shall review the hazardous material layer of the WSDOT GIS Workbench and Washington State
Department of Ecology Facility Site Atlas/ISIS database, and/or conduct an environmental regulatory database
search. The database report will include a map depicting identified sites within 1/2 mile of the project area.
Based on a more detailed look at the Preferred Alternative and potential methods of construction, the Consultant
will evaluate the potential for the project to encounter hazardous materials. The findings will be documented in a
technical memorandum.
Environmental Assessment
The EA will evaluate two alternatives: the proposed action a no -action alternative. The EA will include the
following components:
• Cover
• NEPA Signature Sheet, including the title of the project and signature spaces for the lead agencies,
contact information, and a brief description of the project
• Table of Contents
• Introduction —The background and history of the project, along with a vicinity map, explanation of the
process what was studied and why
• Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
• Description of the Proposed Action
• Affected Environment, Environmental Effects, Proposed Mitigation —Summaries of pertinent information
from the discipline -specific analyses and permitting documents addressing the following disciplines:
earth, surface water, wetlands, groundwater, fish, wildlife, and vegetation, hazardous materials, cultural
resources, social and community effects (including recreation), and visual impacts.
• Discussion of irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, which will recognize that the
proposed action would require a commitment of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources.
• Analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts, based on guidance from the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ).
• Comments and Coordination — Identification of cooperating and participating agencies, summaries of
coordination with other agencies, ESA coordination and concurrence, tribal coordination and comments,
Section 106 coordination and concurrence, and newspaper advertisements published
• Appendices (as necessary) — Including a list of principal contributors, studies performed, the EA
distribution list, glossary and abbreviations, the Section 4(f) evaluation, the Biological Assessment (BA),
Alternatives Considered but Rejected, Value Engineering Study (if completed) and a preliminary
commitment list
The Consultant shall be responsible for compiling the various sections, editing, word processing, graphics, and
other production aspects. For budgeting purposes is it assumed that three (3) Consultant staff members shall
participate in no more than three 2-hour meetings with the City and the federal lead agency to agree on the
outline of the document and to discuss graphics.
The Consultant will provide a preliminary review draft EA for review by the City. Four (4) weeks is projected for
the review. The City will provide a single set of non -conflicting review comments, which will form the basis of the
Consultant's revisions. After these revisions are complete and the City has confirmed that all review comments
have been addressed, the EA will be sent to the federal lead agency for a review that is projected to require four
(4) weeks. The City will coordinate with the federal lead agency on the review required for the preliminary
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 29 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 222
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
document by Participating Agencies and Tribes. The Consultant shall submit responses to the federal lead
agency's review comments to the City and to the federal lead agency.
Following the public availability period, the Consultant shall address the comments received on the EA from the
public, agencies, and Tribes. The Consultant shall evaluate any necessary modifications to the proposed action or
mitigation measures; identify additional impacts or other effects resulting from the changes; prepare appropriate
responses to comments received on the EA; and make any required changes to the EA text in the form of an
Errata Sheet (no changes shall be made to the EA document). The CONSULTANT shall prepare a List of Final
Commitments summarizing the mitigation measures proposed in the EA as modified by the federal lead agency.
The Consultant shall prepare a list of final mitigation commitments for review by the City and the federal lead
agency. This list shall be similar to the preliminary mitigation measures included in the EA but may include
changes after the consideration of public, agency, or tribal comments. These commitments will be reviewed by
the City and the federal lead agency to verify acceptance of the commitments.
The Consultant shall prepare a draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). After a single round of review and
revision by the City and the federal lead agency, the federal lead agency will submit the FONSI for processing to
the Federal Register. After the federal lead agency issues the FONSI and the City adopts the EA under SEPA,
notices of these actions shall be made available to the public.
The Consultant shall compile and respond to approximately 50 substantive comments on the EA. It is assumed
that approximately 200 comment submittals (e.g., letters, comment forms, postcards, etc.) will be received, and
that most of these will include identical or substantially similar comments. The Consultant shall create a scanned
copy of each comment submittal and identify and number individual comments in the margins. The comments
and comment responses shall be included as an attachment to the FONSI.
The FONSI shall include:
Signature/Title Sheet
Determination and Findings, including
o Description of the Proposed Project
o Summary of Agency Coordination and Public Opportunity to Comment
o Summary of Comments on the EA (written and oral) and appropriate responses in the form of an
Errata Sheet
o Determinations and Findings discussion for applicable regulations (e.g. NEPA, Section 106, ESA,
Conformity with Air Quality, Environmental Justice, Floodplains, and Wetlands)
• Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Attachments, including Errata to the Environmental Assessment, Notice of Availability, NOA Newspaper
Listing, FONSI Distribution List, Commitment List, and Public and Agency Written Comments and
Responses
Assumptions
1. The EA will not address noise or air because vehicular use is limited to emergency situations. Siren noise will
be addressed through operations agreements with Police and Fire.
Stormwater and geotechnical documents developed as part of the design will be relied upon to address earth,
surface water, and groundwater topics.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 30 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 223
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• The City will obtain signatures of the appropriate officials at the federal lead agency for the Title Sheet.
• Necessary contacts and meetings with agencies, tribes, and public officials shall be coordinated through
the City, and the City will coordinate a representative from the federal lead agency for presence at these
meetings. The Consultant is not authorized to act on behalf of the City or the federal lead agency in any
negotiations with other agencies or parties. The Consultant shall not act on their own to commit the City
or the federal lead agency to any mitigation or actions with other agencies, or parties without prior
approval.
• The City and the federal lead agency will be responsible for distributing the EA and notifying the
appropriate parties, including placement of any newspaper advertisements.
• It is assumed for this scope that the NEPA review will not entail any public meetings.
• No hazardous material sites will be identified that require additional investigations.
• This NEPA scope assumes meetings as follows:
o One 2-hour meeting with resource agencies at the City of Edmonds with two consultant staff
participating.
o Three 2-hour meetings with the federal lead agency at the City of Edmonds with three consultant
staff participating.
o Consultant to prepare agenda and summaries of each meeting.
Deliverables
• Draft, revised draft, and final discipline reports
• Draft, revised draft, and final EA
• Draft, revised draft, and final FONSI
• Draft and final meeting agendas and notes
Task 214.3 — Endangered Species Act
The Consultant shall prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) to support compliance with ESA Section 7. The
Biological Assessment will be prepared in accordance with the scope and quality requirements in the WSDOT
Advanced Training Manual for Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects —Version 2017 and
using WSDOT's Biological Assessment template. The analysis of potential project effects will be based on the
preliminary design. The Consultant shall conduct a site visit and gather and synthesize existing information on
pertinent environmental conditions in the project action area, including the distribution and timing of listed or
proposed species. No surveys to document the presence or absence of individual species or to delineate specific
habitats will be performed for this analysis.
To support formal consultation, the BA will need to address cumulative effects, as well as providing greater detail
about the life history and status of potentially affected populations of ESA -listed species —Puget Sound Chinook
salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, and southern resident killer whales in particular, along with designated critical
habitat for Chinook salmon. The BA will also analyze the results of the coastal geomorphology analysis (Task 216),
addressing the potential for substrate changes to affect the availability of species that are important prey for
ESA -listed species.
Assumptions
• The project will require formal consultation based on a potential for the project to adversely effect listed
species.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 31 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 224
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• This ESA scope assumes three 2-hour meetings at the City of Edmonds with 3 consultant staff (2
Parametrix and 1 TetraTech) attending. Consultant will prepare meeting agenda and minutes.
• All deliverables will be submitted electronically.
• Responses to questions from the Services after the BA has been submitted will be addressed under a
separate scope of work.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Draft BA.
• Revised Draft BA (revised in response to comments from the City) for submittal to the federal lead agency
• Final BA (revised in response to comments from the federal lead agency) for submittal to the Services
Task 214.4 — National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
The Consultant will support compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act by providing
the following services:
Define Area of Project Effects (APE) - The Consultant will assist in defining the APE based on the preliminary design
of the preferred alternative and prepare a work plan. An aerial map and topographic map of the APE will be
included. The Consultant will also assist in drafting formal Section 106 consultation letters on behalf of WSDOT if
requested. In keeping with WSDOT's procedures, the City will be responsible for submitting the map to WSDOT
and Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). This APE is subject to change depending upon
refinement of the project design, and approval of WSDOT and DAHP.
Refine Background Research - The Consultant will refine documentation results from background research
developed during alternative screening to focus on the preferred alternative.
Monitor Geotechnical Explorations — The Consultant will monitor geotechnical explorations in Task 12.4 to identify
any subsurface cultural resources and obtain information about subsurface conditions that will guide placement
of shovel and auger probes.
Locate Utilities - Once the APE has been approved, and prior to archaeological fieldwork, the Consultant will
arrange for utility locates to meet the requirements of Washington's new Underground Utilities regulations (RCW
19.122). This requires obtaining a locate survey for any type of excavation on public and private property that will
exceed 12 inches in depth.
Conduct Archaeological Inventory —The Consultant's archaeologists will conduct a surface and, where feasible,
subsurface inventory of the APE. Field methods will be consistent with DAHP guidelines. Surface survey would be
conducted along pedestrian transects in the upland and, as tides allow, in the aquatic area. Archaeological or
historic resources identified in the surface survey will be photodocumented, described, and left in place.
Subsurface testing, where feasible, would be conducted using manually excavated shovel and/or auger probes
screened through %-inch mesh. Any subsurface archaeological resources identified will be photodocumented,
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 32 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 225
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
described, and left in place. Any artifacts recovered during screening will be returned to their respective probes
following documentation and not collected.
Prepare Cultural Resources Technical Report - The Consultant will prepare a Cultural Resources Technical Report
summarizing the results of the project. The report will reflect professional standards for format and content as
expressed in DAHP guidelines. The Consultant will submit a draft of the report in PDF format to Parametrix for
comment. The Consultant will make revisions to the draft report in response to those comments and will submit a
revised draft for submittal to the City. Once the City has commented on the report, the Consultant will make any
necessary revisions and submit an electronic version of the final report for submittal to WSDOT and DAHP. The
report will include:
• A description of the project and applicable laws and regulations
• A summary of the results of the background literature and records research
• The methods used during the fieldwork and the result,
• A description of any cultural resources found
• An evaluation of architectural resources over 45 years of age
• A summary assessment of potential effects to any identified historically significant resources and extent
to which the proposed project may affect the resource
• Recommendations for completion of any additional cultural resources compliance obligations stemming
from the results of our study,
• A summary of project procedures that should be followed in the event of an unanticipated discovery of
buried cultural materials or human remains during construction
The report will include such tables, maps, photographs, and other graphics as are needed to depict the scope of
the study and results. Forms for any recorded resources will be included in an appendix to the report.
Assumptions
• This scope does not include impact mitigation regarding archaeological or historic sites.
• This scope assumes that no meetings with clients and/or stakeholders will be required.
• This scope assumes that project proponents will arrange Right Of Entry for CRC to conduct field
investigations.
• This scope assumes that CRC's current levels of insurance coverage are sufficient for this project.
• Subsurface testing will not be conducted in BNSF right-of-way.
• If human remains are found within the project area, all CRC field investigations will cease immediately,
proper authorities will be notified and CRC will not resume field investigations until applicable state laws
are addressed.
Deliverables
• Draft Cultural Resources Technical Report provided as PDF.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 33 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 226
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Final Cultural Resources Technical Report provided as PDF.
Task 214.5 -- Section 4(f)/Section 6(f)
The Consultant shall prepare a Programmatic Evaluation form as a Transportation Project That Has a Net Benefit
to a Section 4(f) Property. As part of that evaluation, an alternatives analysis is required. The Consultant shall
summarize the design alternatives considered for connecting Edmonds Street to the waterfront.
The Consultant shall prepare a brief Technical Memorandum that describes how the proposed project is
consistent with the intended purpose for acquiring the lands under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
(LWCFA).
Drafts of both documents will be submitted for concurrent review by the City of Edmonds, WSDOT, and FHWA.
Final documents will address comments received.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• The project will benefit from federal transportation funding, triggering the need to comply with
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, due to potential impacts to North Brackett's
Landing.
• Through context -sensitive design, the project will qualify for a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation as a
Transportation Project That Has a Net Benefit to a Section 4(f) Property. The required alternatives
analysis will summarize (1) the results of the previously prepared Access Study, and (2) the design
alternatives screening completed for this location. No new alternatives analysis will be prepared.
• As noted in the Section 106 task description above, the project will not affect properties containing
significant cultural resources, triggering additional review under Section 4(f).
• The project will be at least partially located on lands acquired with LWCFA grant funds.
• The National Park Service or Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) will determine that
the project does not represent a conversion of the recreational use of the Section 6(f) property. Thus no
replacement property will be required.
• If Brackett's Landing was acquired with any other RCO grants, the project will not represent a conversion
of the intended purpose of the acquisition.
Draft will be reviewed by City. Revised draft will be reviewed by federal lead agency.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Draft, revised draft, and final Section 4(f) Programmatic Evaluation, submitted electronically.
• Draft, revised draft, and final technical memorandum addressing Section 6(f), submitted electronically.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 34 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 227
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Task 214.6 — SEPA Checklist
Using the checklist format available at the City of Edmonds website and the 30% design, the Consultant will
summarize baseline information about environmental elements in the project area, along with anticipated
project -related impacts. The SEPA checklist will incorporate information derived from the coastal geomorphology
analysis (Task 216) and the parking study (Task 15.1), as well as the results of the analysis of shading by temporary
and permanent structures over and near aquatic habitats and neighboring vegetation (Task 214.11). Figures
developed for other tasks will be used to depict the project vicinity and depict project features.
As lead SEPA agency, the City will issue a threshold determination for the project —a Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS), a Mitigated DNS, or a Determination of Significance. A Determination of Significance
would trigger the need to prepare an environmental impact statement, which would be completed under a
separate scope and budget.
Assumptions
• The City will issue the threshold determination, assumed to be a Mitigated DNS.
• The City will be responsible for SEPA notice.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• One Draft SEPA Checklist, submitted electronically.
• One Final SEPA Checklist, revised in response to comments from City staff, submitted electronically
Task 214.7 — JARPA/HPA Application
Using the 30% design as the basis for calculating amounts of fill and other impacts (e.g., shading, vegetation
disturbance) within and near waterbodies, the Consultant will complete a JARPA form for the project. The JARPA
will also describe work within waters of the State (Puget Sound), to support application for a Hydraulic Project
Approval from WDFW. The JARPA will incorporate information derived from the coastal geomorphology analysis
(Task 216) and will be submitted with the BA that has been prepared for ESA consultation (Task 214.3). Other
supplemental documents to be submitted with the JARPA include a Stormwater Plan indicating water quality and
flow control treatments, a table with areas of new, replaced, and existing impervious surface, and a list of
neighboring property owners, parcel numbers, and addresses, as required. This task will also include delineation
of the OHW line in the project area, as well as any wetlands that may be affected by project construction or
operation.
The Consultant will prepare a plan set that meets the Corps' requirements for permit application drawings. The
30% design will be the basis of the drawings. The following figures are anticipated:
• Vicinity map.
• Project plan sheets for temporary and permanent structures (no more than six sheets).
• Planting plans for restoring temporarily disturbed areas.
• Elevations and sections for temporary and permanent structures (no more than three sheets).
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 35 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 228
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
This scope does not include the development of a mitigation plan to a level of detail suitable for inclusion in a
drawing set.
Assumptions
• The project will be eligible for authorization under the provisions of Nationwide Permit 14 (Linear
Transportation Projects).
• The Corps' jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act extends to the mean high water
(MHW) line.
• The Corps' jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act extends to the MHHW line, plus the
delineated limits of any adjacent wetlands or streams.
• Project construction will not entail any excavation waterward of MHHW.
• The temporary work platform for project construction will be supported on piles driven below MHHW
and MHW, permanent structures or fill may be placed below MHHW.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of
• One Draft DARPA, submitted electronically.
• One Final DARPA, revised in response to comments from City staff, submitted electronically.
Task 214.8 — Shoreline Permit
The Consultant will develop an application for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and/or variance in accordance
with the procedures specified in City of Edmonds Development Information Handout #P72 (Shoreline Permit).
Materials to be prepared include a land use application form, statement addressing applicable standards and
criteria (code compliance narrative), list of adjacent property owners, and site development plans and
photographs, including landscaping and mitigation plans (see Task 21410).
Assumptions
• Consultant will participate in a hearing in conjunction with the permit process to help answer any
questions. However, any effort needed to address comments from Ecology or to support review by the
Hearing Examiner (if required) will be conducted under a separate scope of work.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• One draft shoreline permit application package, submitted electronically.
One final shoreline permit application package, revised in response to comments from City staff,
submitted electronically.
• Draft and final code compliance narrative.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 36 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 229
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Task 214.9 — Critical Areas Report
To support the shoreline permit application, the Consultant will complete a critical areas checklist and prepare a
critical areas report (including a site plan) in accordance with the requirements specified in Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) section 23.40.090. The report will focus on wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas. The report will include a conceptual mitigation plan (see Task 214.10). This task includes one
meeting with City staff to discuss permit procedures and requirements and to identify potential concerns that
might arise during the review process.
This task also includes research and field investigations to identify and delineate wetlands and streams within
200 feet of the project site. The Consultant will:
• Research available background information on wetlands and streams in the study area, including the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data, and
City of Edmonds wetland inventory data prior to conducting the field work.
• Identify, delineate, and generally describe wetlands and buffers in the study area. Wetlands will be
delineated according to the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology
1997), the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), and the Regional
Supplement to the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
(Version 2.0) (Corps 2010).
• Identify wetland boundaries and OHW line of streams in the field and mark with numbered flagging. All
delineated wetlands and OHW lines will be documented on a general hand drawn sketch map for use by
the Project Survey Team.
• Rate wetlands in accordance with the Ecology's 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington.
• Generally characterize stream and riparian habitat conditions in the field. Classify streams using the City
of Edmonds and Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) stream typing systems.
• Document soil, vegetation, and hydrology conditions as necessary at representative locations (data plots)
throughout the study area to identify wetlands. The data plots will be identified in the field with labeled
flagging. Both wetland and upland data plots will be sampled and the data will be included in the critical
areas report. Data forms for the regional supplement to the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual will be
prepared.
• Take photographs of streams, wetlands, and buffers in the study area as necessary to document existing
environmental conditions.
• Calculate impacts to critical areas and their buffers based on the 30% design footprint, the coastal
geomorphology analysis (Task 216), and the results of the analysis of shading by temporary and
permanent structures over and near critical areas (Task 21411).
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of
• One draft critical areas report, submitted electronically.
• One final critical areas report, revised in response to comments from City staff, submitted electronically.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 37 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 230
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Task 214.10 — Mitigation Design
The Consultant will work with staff at the City and at permitting agencies to identify options for avoiding,
minimizing, and mitigating adverse effects on ecological functions, as well as potential mitigation actions and
sites. These conversations will also address topics such as accepted methods for calculating impact areas, as well
as appropriate types of mitigation for different kinds of impacts to various ecological functions and processes.
This scope anticipates up to four meetings with agency staff to gather information about possible mitigation
strategies, and three site visits to evaluate potential mitigation locations. This scope also includes one meeting
with staff from Sound Action (a nonprofit organization that works to protect nearshore habitats in Puget Sound)
to discuss potential impacts and options for mitigation. Additional meetings with tribes to explore opportunities
for mitigating environmental impacts are included in Task 203.6.
The Consultant will prepare a technical memorandum that summarizes the results of these conversations. The
memorandum will include assessments of the likely feasibility of up to five mitigation options. The memorandum
will support decision making about the nature and extent of mitigation to be implemented.
The Consultant will identify, screen, and analyze mitigation options to meet the standards of the regulatory
agencies with jurisdiction over critical areas that may be affected by the project. Mitigation options may include
on -site mitigation, off -site mitigation, and (for wetland impacts) participation in an in -lieu fee or mitigation
banking program. The Consultant will prepare a preliminary impact assessment based on the 30% design to
identify the anticipated type and amount of mitigation needed to meet regulatory and permitting requirements.
Impacts are anticipated within regulated critical areas under the jurisdiction of the Corps, Ecology, WDFW, and
the City of Edmonds.
Based on these analyses, as well as the City's and the Consultant's conversations with stakeholders and property
owners of potential mitigation sites, the Consultant will identify conceptual mitigation. The Consultant will
prepare a conceptual plan showing mitigation areas, including mitigation actions, planting areas, and plant lists.
This mitigation plan will form the basis for the later 60% design conceptual mitigation plan and subsequent final
mitigation plans that will be prepared as part of Final Design. The Consultant will also prepare a plan for
restoration of temporarily disturbed areas.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Tech memo documenting decision.
• One Draft Conceptual Mitigation Plan, submitted electronically.
One Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan, revised in response to comments from City staff, submitted
electronically.
Task 214.11 — Shading Calculations and Figure
The Consultant shall conduct an insolation model to identify impacts in the form of shading to vegetation for
environmental permits. This will be completed utilizing readily available GIS tools. The outcome of this work is to
identify the square footage of shadow impacts for various locations.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 38 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 231
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Images with SF vegetation impacts stated.
Task 214.12 — Bridge Permit
The Consultant shall prepare and submit the bridge permit application to the Coast Guard, and coordinate with
the Coast Guard to resolve comments to obtain the bridge permit
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Bridge Permit application
• Minutes for conversation with the Coast Guard
TASK 215 - FUNDING
This amendment provides grant support to the City.
Task 215.1 — Grant Support (Tetra Tech)
The Consultant will assist the City with identifying additional grant opportunities to fund construction of the
project. Support will include preparing grant applications, supporting analyses (such as updated benefit cost
analyses), and graphics.
TASK 216 - COASTAL GEOMORPHOLOGY ANALYSIS (TETRA TECH)
The Consultant shall prepare an analysis of the potential effects of the project on beach sediments. The scope of
the analysis includes both permanent and temporary structures proposed in the beach environment. The analysis
results are intended to inform environmental reviews (SEPA/NEPA), ESA consultation, and permit applications for
the project.
Task 216.1 — Basis of Analysis
The Consultant will prepare a technical memorandum that documents the physical conditions to be analyzed.
Topics to be addressed include the following:
• Definition of the geographic scope of the analysis, as well as the limits of the analysis.
• Data sources to be used (e.g., tidal, wave, wind fetch, prevailing currents, results of geotechnical
investigations conducted for the project, typical timing and directionality of storm events).
• Footprints of permanent and temporary structures to be analyzed.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 39 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 232
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Existing factors that influence coastal processes in the analysis area (e.g., presence of jetty on -site and
ferry terminal nearby, limited sediment supply due to railroad embankment, etc.).
The Consultant will submit the Basis of Analysis Technical Memorandum for review and comment. The updated
memorandum, addressing review comments, will be incorporated into the Final Geomorphic Analysis Technical
Memorandum completed under Task 216.2.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Draft Basis of Analysis Technical Memorandum.
Revised Draft Basis of Analysis Technical Memorandum (revised in response to comments from
Parametrix) for submittal to the City.
All deliverables will be submitted electronically.
Task 216.2 — Geomorphic Analysis
The Consultant will analyze short-term (temporary) and long-term (permanent) effects of the construction and
presence of project structures (e.g., support columns, pilings for temporary work trestle) in the analysis area,
addressing the following:
• Loss of native substrates due to the presence of structures in the intertidal zone.
• Location, extent, and depth of scour near structures.
• Location and extent of accretion.
• Change in particle size distribution and stratification.
• Debris accumulation.
• On -site mitigation opportunities (e.g., replenishment) and limitations on the effectiveness of such
opportunities.
Results of the analysis will be presented in a technical memorandum describing the methods of analysis and key
findings. The memorandum will incorporate the revised Basis of Analysis memorandum (Task 216.1) so as to
comprise a single, complete report of this task.
The Consultant will submit a draft technical memorandum for review and comment, and a final draft
memorandum addressing review comments. The Consultant will issue a final technical memorandum addressing
review comments on the final draft.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• A single project design configuration (the Preferred Alternative) will be used as the basis for the detailed
analysis. Design will show locations and anticipated dimensions of permanent and temporary structures,
beach topography, bathymetry, the location of the ordinary high water (OHW) line, and the elevations of
mean high water (MHW), mean higher high water (MHHW), and highest astronomical tide (HAT).
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 40 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 233
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• The effects analysis will be based on the results of coastal process modeling, combined with professional
judgment.
• Temporary structures will remain in place for less than 2 years.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Draft Geomorphic Analysis Technical Memorandum.
• Revised Geomorphic Analysis Technical Memorandum, including revised Basis of Analysis (both revised in
response to comments from Parametrix) for submittal to the City.
• Final Geomorphic Analysis Technical Memorandum, including final Basis of Analysis (revised in response
to comments from the City).
All deliverables will be submitted electronically.
TASK 217 - CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS AND ESTIMATING (30% AND 60%) (OTT-
SAKAI )
This task provides for Ott -Sakai to provide an estimate and constructability support for 30% and 60%, and provide
a construction schedule and conduct a constructability review. Additionally, TKDA will conduct a constructability
review with regards to BNSF requirements and coordination under Task 203.5.
Task 217.1 — 30% Constructability and Estimate
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task will consist of:
• Create an independent cost estimate at the 30% design submittal,
• Produce construction schedule, and
• Conduct constructability review.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• 30% cost estimate in Excel and electronic format (.pdf).
• Draft Construction schedule in MS Project.
• Constructability review memo.
Task 217.2 — 60% Constructability and Estimate
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task will consist of:
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 41 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 234
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Update the cost estimate for 60%
• Update the Construction schedule
• Update the constructability review memo for 60%.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• 60% cost estimate in Excel and electronic format (.pdf).
• Draft Construction schedule, updated, in MS Project.
• Constructability review memo updated as required.
TASK 218- RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT
Provide right of way services for the project including conducting appraisals and acquisitions.
Tierra will subcontract and manage the valuations with WSDOT approved and state licensed appraiser, John
Nidecker, MAI, Integra Realty Resources (IRR). The project funding estimate, appraisal, appraisal review or
Administrative Offer Summary (AOS) will be prepared in compliance with all applicable State and Federal
Appraisal Standards, including USPAP and the WSDOT R/W and LAG Manuals utilizing the WSDOT approved
format and RES/LPA forms. For an appraisal, a review by another appraiser is required. In the event there
is an appraisal, Tierra will subcontract with a WSDOT approved review appraiser to prepare the review
appraisal.
Tierra agents will perform and oversee three property negotiations for three property owners including
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad ("BNSF"). The offers will be presented in person if possible. An out -
of -area owner(s) will be contacted by telephone and by certified mail.
• Tierra will:
■ Evaluate the appraisal, administrative offer summary, parcel map, title report and
prepare the file electronically and physically.
■ Prepare three offer packages and promptly present offer to purchase all the
required real property interests from the property owner.
• Offer packages include: offer letters, copy of the approved Administrative
Offer Summary (AOS) or the appraisal and review, easement/deed
document, exhibits and other related acquisition documents using
WSDOT approved forms.
• Offer Presentation: Tierra will contact the in state property owners and attempt to meet
the owner in person to present to discuss the project. After the offer is presented to the
property owner, Tierra will attempt up to two additional "in -person" meetings with a
property owner and up to five follow up conversations, which will be via email or phone
conversation, to complete negotiations. Negotiation with BNSF, through their out -of -State
real estate broker Jones Lang LaSalle, will primarily take place via telephone and email.
• Administrative Settlement: If necessary and properly supported and when negotiation
amounts exceed the just compensation amount, Tierra will make recommendations for
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 42 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 235
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
administrative settlements. Subject to City approval, Tierra will attempt to secure
administrative settlements with property owners to avoid the condemnation process.
• Prepare file for closing.
• If necessary, prepare file for condemnation by preparing a condemnation summary.
• Prepare and maintain diaries.
• Prepare and provide status updates monthly or per the request the City.
• Upon receipt of signed conveyance documents, Tierra will forward the documents to the
City.
• Agent CIA files for submittal to Project Manager.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Up to two permits or licenses on BNSF property. One roadway easement or deed across BNSF property
for the bridge.
• Two Temporary Construction Easements (TCE's) on Sunset Avenue.
• If the City receives FHWA funding all WSDOT LAG and ROW manual procedures will be followed. The costs
for survey and preparation of legal descriptions is not included within consultant's scope of work.
• The costs for title reports and title research are not included within consultant's scope of work.
• Tierra anticipates working with local BNSF staff as well as it's usual broker in Fort Menk, Texas. All
negotiations with the broker in Texas will be via email and phone.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• One appraisal, one review appraisal and two Administrative Offer Summaries.
• Obtain or acquire two permits or licenses on BNSF Property, two TCE's from private landowners on
Sunset and one permanent easement/deed from BNSF.
• Project Funding Estimate
TASK 219 - MANAGEMENT RESERVE FEE ADDITIONAL THROUGH 60%
This task establishes a Management Reserve for the effort through 60%.
Phase 3: 90%
TASK 301 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The Consultant shall manage scope, schedule, budget, and execution of this phase 3.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 43 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 236
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Task 301.1 — Project Management Plan
The Consultant shall update the Project Management Plan (PMP) that defines the framework under which the
project will be managed, including risk, change, communications, schedule, scope, and budget control, and
quality control procedures .
Task 301.2 — Weekly Project Management Team (PMT) Meetings
The original scope of work included Monthly PMT Meetings. For this amendment, the Consultant shall continue to
participate in weekly meetings to 90% as needed for project management updates/design decisions, and prepare
a brief meeting summary for each meeting, focused on key decisions and assigned action items. These meetings
will be the forum for the City of Edmonds (City) to provide input and guidance for the direction of the project. The
meetings will also be used to discuss project issues, approve submittals, and develop potential solutions to design
issues.
Task 301.3 — Subconsultant Coordination
The Consultant shall prepare and execute additional subconsultant agreements and review and submit additional
invoices.
Task 301.4 — Consultant Team Meetings and Coordination
The Consultant shall conduct internal consultant project coordination meetings to execute the project
Task 301.5 — Monthly Invoice and Progress Reports
The Consultant shall prepare and submit monthly invoice and progress reports.
Task 301.6 — Quality Assurance
The Consultant shall conduct quality control reviews prior to design submittals.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Duration of this task is from June 1, 2020 through September 2020.
• Assumptions
Meetings
• Assumes 12 weekly PMT meetings by phone, two PMT meetings in person
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Invoices and progress reports.
• Updated schedule.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 44 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 237
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• PMT meeting summaries
TASK 302 - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (90%)
Task 302.1 Informational Tables at Fairs, Festivals, and Pop-up Events
The Consultant will research, plan, and staff eight informational booths at local events (i.e., Edmonds Farmer's
Market, Art Walk Edmonds, Taste Edmonds, Marina Beach Cleanup, Oktoberfest) or pop-up tabling events (i.e.,
park, library) as the team works toward 90% design. These events will be aimed at sharing how community
feedback helped to update the design and gathering feedback from the broader community and park users on the
final design. Following the events, the Consultant will prepare a high-level summary.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Existing project materials (i.e., fact sheet, frequently asked questions [FAQ]) will be used to support
informational booths.
• Consultant will coordinate logistics, be responsible for table/booth set-up, and provide one staff from
PMX and one from Envirolssues for each event.
• A level of effort for this task has been assumed based on the quantities below. Should the needs rise
above this level of effort, it will be documented in the progress report and changes to the scope may
need to be discussed.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• One draft and one final tabling plan.
• Staffing and set-up of eight information tables and/or pop-up events for up to eight hours per event.
• One draft and one final tabling effort summary.
Task 302.2 Public Open House Meetings (1) / Online Open Houses (1)
The Consultant will schedule, coordinate, staff, and provide materials for one public open house meeting at or
before the 90% design milestone, depending upon the needs of the design team, to share information with and
gather feedback from the community. For each meeting, the Consultant will coordinate logistics, develop a
meeting plan, staff, facilitate, and summarize the meeting.
In conjunction with the in -person open house meetings, the Consultant will develop an online open house to
share the same content that will be displayed at each public meeting and to solicit community feedback online.
The online open house will include use of a custom sub -domain website that will be seamlessly linked from the
City's website, project -specific customized layout, station tabs to match in -person meeting station materials, fully
responsive design (i.e., for smart phones, tablets), and integration with Google Translate and social share.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 45 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 238
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Consultant will provide up to two staff from Envirolssues, one from Tetra Tech, and one from PMX for
each meeting, including facilitation and presentation support. Architect attendance under Task 304.
• Content developed for public meetings will be used to populate the online open house. Materials and
messaging development under Task 302.4.
• City will pay for room rentals.
• A level of effort for this task has been assumed based on the quantities below. Should the needs rise
above this level of effort, it will be documented in the progress report and changes to the scope may
need to be discussed.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Coordination for and staff support and/or facilitation at one public meeting.
• One draft and one final meeting plan.
• One draft and one final meeting agenda.
• One draft and one final set of supporting meeting documents (i.e., comment forms, sign -in sheets,
directional signage, name tags).
• One online open house.
• One draft and one final meeting summary (includes both in -person and online).
Task 302.3 Property Owner Briefings
The Consultant will schedule and conduct two briefings with property owners in the project area at or before the
90% design milestone, depending upon the needs of the design team. Briefings will be designed to share updates
to the project design and schedule, and to solicit input and feedback on project design elements and on
anticipated construction impacts. The Consultant will schedule the meetings and document input received during
the briefings. Meetings will be conducted with small groups, including property owners on Sunset Avenue N, and
on Edmonds Street between Sunset Avenue N and 3rd Avenue N. Property owners will be notified of the
meetings via direct mail to the street addresses.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Existing project materials or materials developed by the technical team will be used at the briefings.
• Consultant will provide one Envirolssues and one PMX support staff for each briefing.
• A level of effort for this task has been assumed based on the quantities below. Should the needs rise
above this level of effort, it will be documented in the progress report and changes to the scope may
need to be discussed.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 46 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 239
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Scheduling and attendance at two briefings.
• One draft and one final briefing plan.
• One draft and one final materials packet (graphics/materials to be supplied by the City and technical team)
• One draft and one final briefing key takeaway summary with attendance, date of meeting, and key points
discussed.
Task 302.4 Materials
The Consultant will develop content and graphic design for project materials, email updates, and website content.
Project materials may include the development of one folio/fact sheet, updates to the project FAQ, one traveling
display, meeting notifications, Sunset neighborhood letters, media releases, utility bill inserts, and up to 12 display
boards for the public meeting. Meeting notifications will likely include one poster, one flier, email updates, social
media posts, and display ads. A letter will be sent to the Sunset Avenue project neighbors to notify them of the
property owner briefings. The Consultant will also prepare three monthly email updates.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Consultant will coordinate printing of materials (e.g., display ads, display boards, etc.).
• Consultant will distribute posters, fliers to local businesses, and traveling display to City -approved
locations.
• Consultant will coordinate and send monthly email updates to project listserv.
• Consultant will coordinate mailing of Sunset neighborhood letter.
• Consultant will coordinate language translations for materials in Spanish, Korean, and simplified Chinese
• City will post notifications to social media and City -managed project website.
• City will be responsible for media relations.
• City will pay for costs associated with display ads.
• City will share project messages and produced materials with key project partners, such as the Port of
Edmonds, for inclusion in their communication materials.
• A level of effort for this task has been assumed based on the quantities below. Should the needs rise
above this level of effort, it will be documented in the progress report and changes to the scope may
need to be discussed.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• One draft and one final fact sheet/folio.
• One draft and one final FAQ sheet updates.
• One draft and one final utility bill inserts.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 47 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 240
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• One draft and one final traveling display board.
• 12 draft and 12 final meeting display boards.
• One draft and one final meeting poster.
• One draft and one final meeting flier.
• One draft and one final print display ad.
• One draft and one final online display ad.
• One draft and one final Sunset neighborhood letter.
• Monthly content updates for project website.
• Three draft and three final email updates.
Task 302.5 Communication Tracking and Comment Management
Consultant will monitor the project email inbox, forward comments to the project team, provide draft responses
when needed, and track incoming and outgoing project correspondence.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Consultant will send responses back to community members.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Communication responses, as needed.
• Email files of saved project correspondence or PDF of all email correspondence.
TASK 303 — STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
Task 303.1 — Agency Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Update the Agency Stakeholder Engagement Plan.
Communication with Stakeholders is required for design to progress to 90% and to complete the environmental
evaluation and submit environmental permit applications. Public Art Design Commission meetings are accounted
for under task 305 for Phase 3.
Task 303.2 Environmental Resource Agencies Meetings and Coordination (90%)
The Consultant shall prepare for and participate in phone -call coordination and up to eight additional meetings
with the resource agencies to provide status updates and follow up as needed on mitigation requirements and
design as well as permitting status.
The Consultant shall develop information for the meetings and provide follow-up information as requested.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 48 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 241
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Task 303.3 BNSF Meetings (90%)
This task assumes two plan review meetings and additional phone coordination with BNSF between the 60% and
the 90% design submittal discuss project design needs, and follow up as needed on construction easements,
permanent easements, and agreements.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Two additional coordination meetings with BNSF and additional phone call coordination
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Agendas and meeting minutes.
Task 303.4 BNSF Final Submittal (90%)
The Consultant shall develop a Final Submittal package at this 90% stage for BNSF review and comment.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• The Consultant 90% Design plans (Final Design submittal) submitted to BNSF shall meet the Guidelines for
Railroad Grade Separation projects, May 2016.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Response to railroad review comments on the 30% submittal. The Final Plans submittal shall reflect all
previous review comments.30% Design Comments.
• Design Plans showing a Plan View, Elevation View, Typical Section, Construction Notes, and railroad
profile grade diagram. Plans to indicate structure design criteria and construction methods (developed
under Task 306.2).
• Project Specifications and / or Special Provisions, including railroad coordination requirements
(developed under Task 306.2).
• Drainage Report and design plans conforming to BNSF grade separation and construction guidelines.
• Construction Phasing Plans showing all required phasing, construction procedures, temporary shoring
layout, controlling dimensions and elevations (developed under Task 306.2).
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 49 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 242
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Conduct sight distance analysis to see if our bridge obstructs sight lines to the proposed signal after BNSF
adds a second track. BNSF will complete the design and construction a supplemental signal if needed. The
Consultant will update the approximate for cost for negotiation to BNSF for that design and construction.
• Includes review by TKDA.
Task 303.5 Tribes Meetings (90%)
This scope adds up to 6 meetings with tribal staff to provide updates on the status of the project during the 60%
to 90% Design phase and to solicit input on mitigation plans.
Tribe members will also be invited to environmental resource agency meetings.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Meeting agendas and minutes.
Task 303.6 Agency Stakeholder Meetings (90%)
This task includes the Consultant's preparation and participation in stakeholder agency meetings.
This amendment provides for additional meetings in Edmonds.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• WSDOT and WSF (two meetings at WSF) (two staff members from Parametrix).
• One Advisory Committee meeting to support project design (one staff member from Parametrix)
• Edmonds Parks & Recreation, assume all meetings will be in weekly meetings or as part of design review
under other tasks
• VIA Architecture's (VIA's) attendance is provided for in Task 304.
Deliverables:
Deliverables for this task include:
• Meeting agendas and minutes.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 50 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 243
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Task 303.7 City Council Briefings (90%)
The Consultant shall prepare and conduct presentations, in support of City Staff, briefing the City Council on the
project status and key design topics. This task provides for one additional meeting with City Council for design and
cost estimate updates.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• One with City Council.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Presentation materials.
Task 303.8 — Technical Committee Meetings (90%)
This Scope includes preparing for and participating in one technical design committee meeting that will include
City Public Works, Parks & Recreation, utilities, and planning to provide input to the design.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Agendas and meeting minutes
TASK 304.0 — ARCHITECTURAL COLLABORATION (VIA) (90%)
N
a
Task 304.1 — 90% Design 0
co
K
This task provides for:
m
• Design team meetings and coordination through 90%: E
L
o Up to four in person design team coordination meetings with engineering and other consultants. a
o Up to three additional phone coordination meetings.
a�
• Support for presentations and meetings to the City, agencies, and tribes through 90%: E
z
o Attendance at up to one meeting in person.
o Support at up to two additional meetings by phone. Q
c
m
• Support for one public meeting: E
o Updates to visual graphics developed through 60% Design.
o Board layout and PowerPoint for public meeting. a
o Two staff present at public meeting to provide verbal presentation and answer questions.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 51 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 244
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
o Up to two meetings by phone to coordinate presentation.
0 3D computer animation model for coordination with engineering and visual fly -through
• 90% Design Drawings:
o Close collaboration between Parametrix and VIA on the resolution of the structural form of the
bridge and bridge elements and integration of art with the artist.
o Draft specifications of architectural materials and finishes
o Update to drawings denoting architectural design for:
■ Lighting design.
■ Throw barrier, crash rail, hand rail sections, and details.
■ Seating areas and benches.
■ Refined plan including plaza and raised intersection plans.
■ Refined bridge elevations.
■ Restroom plans, elevations, interior elevations, details, roof plan, and lighting plan.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• No physical models will be produced.
• Cost estimate not completed by the architect, but support is provided. This includes review of all items
related to the architecture and urban design elements as well as coordination of quantities, etc.
• Structural type, depth, configuration, and architectural expression based on design intent are set at the
beginning of this task. Any changes that impact the design intentions established in previous phases will
require additional design scope.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• 90% Design Drawings as outlined above.
• Preliminary specifications.
TASK 305.0 — ART AND CULTURAL COLLABORATION (90%)
For this task, this work expands to include:
• Up to four in person meetings specifically for art integration.
• Up to three additional design team meetings by phone
• Up to two meetings with the Public Art Design Commission
• One Open House 90%
• Detailed integration with the bridge elements such as handrail, deck surface, land bridge, etc.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 52 October 2018
Scope of Work
a�
a
0
U
U)
x
�L
m
E
ca
L
N
C
a�
E
M
U
0
r
r
Q
c
a�
E
M
U
M
Q
Packet Pg. 245
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Detailed integration with the restroom and plaza design.
• Incorporation in seating areas, etc.
• Integration in place making at Sunset Avenue.
• Incorporation in to moments of discovery where the structure meets the beach walk.
• Coordination with functional systems including stormwater, wayfinding, and cultural and historical
placemaking.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Close collaboration between artist, architectural team and City Parks personnel will be very important for
the enhancement of an integrated concept delivery to 90% design.
• All meetings for art coordination are in addition to meetings outlined in Architectural Collaboration
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Integration of the art plan and any needed details or attachments into 90% drawings.
• Additional graphics for Arts Commission or other city groups and agencies up to (3) views, with updates
as needed for 90% Any meeting support assumed to be included in the meetings listed above.
TASK 306 — 90% ENGINEERING FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Engineering design activities defined in this section is to advance the 60% level design to 90% design
Task 306.1 — Basis of Design
Through the design from 60-90% design, the Basis of Design document will be continuously updated to reflect he
latest designs.
Task 306.2 — 90% Engineering for the Preferred Alternative
The Consultant shall develop the 60% plans to a 90% level, 90% designs are identified below:
Updating Design Criteria
• Updating the design criteria from 60% — draft for City to review and approval.
• Provide response to City's review comments.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 53 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 246
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Engineering Design and Plan Development
Civil engineering and traffic management designs includes:
• Horizontal Alignment and Vertical Profile of the crossing and approach structures
• Summary of Quantities
• Alignment, Right -of -Way and Survey Control Plans.
• Site Preparation Plans
• TESC Plans and Details (PMX w Tt support)
• Intersection layouts and paving details
• Signing and pavement marking plans Sunset Avenue intersection improvements.
• Grading section and contours plans
• Pavement markings and signing plan
• Project footprint and earthwork quantities
• Typical roadway sections
• Bollard requirements and layouts
• Mixing zone/parking lot layouts and details (Via and PMX)
• Beach mitigations.
• Maintenance of traffic (including railroads).
• Traffic control plans during construction a
E
• Stormwater designs for conveyance and water quality treatment.
IL
• Drainage Report conforming to City stormwater standards, including the Edmonds Stormwater a
Addendum. Provide submittal for BNSF 90% submittal meeting BNSF grade separation guidelines (Tt) c
V
co
• Drainage plan (Tt) 25
am
• Utility relocation, replacement, and protection. (Tt) E
L
• Illumination plan (Tt) a
• New restroom layout and utility connections.
N
d
• Roadway profile plans
E
• Paving plans
c°
• Drainage plans
Q
• Fencing plans
m
E
• Railroad profile grade diagram — vertical and horizontal clearances
• Landscaping plans
M
Q
• Provide response to 60% review comments
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 54 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 247
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Structural designs include:
• Structural analysis to determine the span layout and superstructure sizes and shapes.
• Structural analysis to determine the shapes and sizes of piers and abutments.
• Structural analysis for the foundation types and the sizes/depths.
• Seismic design dynamic model analysis.
• Constructability assessment, including consideration for Artesian Water pressure effects.
• Develop Construction Notes.
• Assessment of construction restrictions due to BNSF operation restrictions.
• Art elements including a meeting with the City.
• Update span layouts.
• Design of bridge deck and overlay material, thickness.
• Design of girder type and typical sections
• Design of column size and shape.
• Design of foundation size and type.
• Design of structural details of sidewalk, barrier, railing, etc.
• Design of bridge illumination (architect support) and attachments
• Design of bridge abutment and wingwalls
• Design of retaining walls and structural walls
• Sunset Avenue slope stabilization (Geotech support)
• Construction access and staging
• Construction Phasing studies include anticipated phasing, construction procedures, temporary structure
layout, controlling dimensions, and elevations.
• Ground improvement (if required)(Geotech Support).
• Identify Technology for bollard operation. (including review of bullyboy.co.nz)
• Provide response to 60% review comments
Restroom
• New restroom layout (VIA under task 205) and utility connections.(Tt)
• Structural Design (PMX)
• Mechanical, electrical (Tt)
• Provide response to 60% review comments
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector SS October 2018
Scope of Work
a�
a
0
U
x
�L
m
E
ca
a
N
C
N
E
z
U
0
r
Q
c
a�
E
U
M
Q
Packet Pg. 248
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Technical Specifications (Special Provisions)
• Updating the following technical specification input to 90% level
• Technical input to Project Specifications and / or Special Provisions, including railroad coordination
requirements. (railroad specific)
• Incorporate mutually agreed 60% review comments.
• Provide response to review comments
• Update sketches and figures to be included as part of permitting package.
Architectural and artistic effort provided for under tasks 205 and 207
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• The design shall meet the Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation projects, May 2016, unless otherwise
agreed in writing between BNSF and the City.
• The City shall provide review comments in a single consolidated file.
• Artesian water pressure may change the foundation design. Outreach to contractors specializing in
constructability with artesian water pressure may require foundation design requirements, resulting in
additional scope and budget.
Meetings
• Basis of Design review meeting:
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meetings: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: Two (2) from PMX, One (1) from Tetra Tech
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
• Design review meetings (90%):
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: 3 hours
o Location of the meetings: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: Two (2) from PMX, One (1) from Tetra Tech
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
• Utility Coordination meetings (90%):
o Number of meetings: 1 meeting for follow up from 60% design
o Length of each meeting: 2 hours
o Location of the meetings: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: One (1) from PMX, One (1) from Tetra Tech
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 56 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 249
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
5.1.b
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Design Criteria - draft.
• 90% Design Plans (in electronic .pdf).
• 90% technical input to specifications/special provisions.
• Meeting notes with BNSF and other stakeholders.
• 90% cost estimate (prepared under Task 310).
• Construction schedule. (prepared under Task 310).
• Written responses to City's consolidated review comments
Task 306.3 — City Permits
The Consultant shall develop applications for City permits.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• One review cycle with the City is assumed
• Formal Pre -Application Meeting with the City
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Draft and Final Building Permit application
• Draft and Final Grading, Fill & Excavation Permit application
• Draft and Final Demolition Permit application
• Draft and Final Plumbing Permit application
• Draft and Final Parking Lot Permit application
• Draft and Final Retaining Walls Permit application
• Draft and Final Sign Permit application
• Draft and Right of Way Use Permit application
City of Edmonds
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 57
Scope of Work
SS4-2S77-823
October 2018
Q
Packet Pg. 250
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
TASK 307 90% DESIGN GEOTECHNICAL SUPPORT
Task 307.1 90% Design Geotechnical Support
Under 90% design, the geotechnical Consultant shall:
• Participate in conference calls as needed to address geotechnical aspects of the project
• Finalize the geotechnical report to match final design elements
• Quality check of plans and specifications to confirm geotechnical comments were incorporated.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
No significant changes have been made to the design advanced for 60% that affect geotechnical
recommendations.
• No additional field explorations will be performed.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Final Geotechnical Report, submitted electronically.
• Review comments on plans and specifications.
TASK 308 — ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION (90%)
This task provides for:
• Participation in up to six 1-hour teleconference meetings as needed to address environmental permitting
issues
• Minor modifications to permit applications, to accommodate changes in the project design
• Up to 12 hours of support to the project design team, to address questions and issues related to
environmental documentation and permits
• Preparation of a mitigation plan
The scope and duration of environmental project elements are subject to changing resource agency policy, staff
interpretation, and public comment. The scope of an environmental permitting effort therefore cannot be
predicted with certainty. Budget estimates for responding to public and agency comments on permit applications
and mitigation plans are estimates that are considered a reasonable level of effort based on prior experience.
It is assumed that response to resource agency/public comments and permit coordination will be performed on a
time and materials basis up to the budgeted amounts. Actual time required to respond to comments and
coordinate the permit process may exceed or be less than budget, depending on specific tasks and issues
encountered.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 58 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 251
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Effort and costs for agency/public response to comments and permit coordination activities will be reported
monthly relative to budget. It is assumed that agency response or coordination efforts requiring significant effort
will be reviewed and authorized by PMX and the City before implementing the applicable agency response effort.
Assumptions
• Project design changes will not be so substantial as to reinitiate of ESA consultation or resubmit of permit
applications
• Documentation of consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act will be completed by the federal
lead agency for NEPA compliance
• No additional field studies will be performed for this task
Task 308.1 — Mitigation Plans
The Consultant will prepare formal plans for mitigating impacts to environmental resources. The mitigation plans
will be based on the Conceptual Mitigation Plan developed under Task 214.10 and will comply with applicable
requirements in federal, state, and local regulations. The analyses of impacts and mitigation needs will be based
on the 60% design.
This task includes the preparation of individual mitigation plans meeting the regulatory standards or permit
requirements for each agency with jurisdiction over affected critical areas. Mitigation is expected to be needed
for unavoidable impacts to critical areas under the jurisdiction of the Corps, Ecology, WDFW, and the City of
Edmonds. Each plan is expected to comprise approximately 5 to 10 pages of text, plus 2 figures, and will address
the following topics:
• Mitigation goals
• Success criteria
• Existing conditions at mitigation sites
• Proposed restoration activities
• Monitoring plan
• Contingency plan
• Reporting
Mitigation plan implementation, including local critical areas documentation for mitigation site construction and
preparation of construction drawings for mitigation and restoration elements, will be completed under a separate
scope of work.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Mitigation for project -related impacts to natural resources will be accomplished thFeug�,a least in part
by Drovidinia financial and/or logistical support for the Willow Creek restoration Droiect at Edmonds
Marsh.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 59 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 252
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Mitigation for impacts to wetlands or wetland buffers will take place through participation in an in -lieu
fee or mitigation banking program and will not entail wetland creation or other actions necessitating the
preparation of specific sheets in the plan set
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Four Draft Mitigation Plans (one each for the Corps, Ecology, WDFW, and the City of Edmonds),
submitted electronically for review by City staff
• Four Revised Mitigation Plans one each for the Corps, Ecology, WDFW, and the City of Edmonds), revised
in response to comments from City staff, submitted electronically
• Responses to comments from reviewing agencies
TASK 309 — FUNDING SUPPORT EFFORT FOR 90%
Task 309.1 — Grant Support
The Consultant will assist the City with identifying additional grant opportunities to fund construction of the
project. Support will include preparing grant applications, supporting analyses (such as updated benefit cost
analyses), and graphics.
TASK 310 — CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS AND ESTIMATING (90%) (OTT-SAKAI)
This task provides for Ott -Sakai to provide an updated estimate, construction schedule and constructability report
for 90%.
Task 310.1 — 90% Constructability and Estimate
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task will consist of:
• Update the cost estimate for 90%
• Update the Construction schedule
• Update the constructability review memo for 90%.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• 90% cost estimate in Excel and electronic format (.pdf).
• Construction schedule, updated, in MS Project.
• Constructability review memo updated as required.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 60 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 253
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
TASK 311 — MANAGEMENT RESERVE FEE ADDITIONAL 90%
This task establishes a Management Reserve for the effort through 90%.
Phase 4: From 90% to Final
TASK 401 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The Consultant shall manage scope, schedule, budget, and execution of this amendment.
Task 401.1 — Project Management Plan
The Consultant shall update the Project Management Plan (PMP) that defines the framework under which the
project will be managed, including risk, change, communications, schedule, scope, and budget control for Phase 4
work.
Task 401.2 — Weekly Project Management Team (PMT) Meetings
The original scope of work included Monthly PMT Meetings. For this amendment, the Consultant shall continue to
participate in weekly meetings as needed for project management updates/design decisions, and prepare a brief
meeting summary for each meeting, focused on key decisions and assigned action items. These meetings will be
the forum for the City of Edmonds (City) to provide input and guidance for the direction of the project. The
meetings will also be used to discuss project issues, approve submittals, and develop potential solutions to design
issues. Twelve meetings are assumed, two meetings will be in -person, the remainder on conference call.
Task 401.3 — Subconsultant Coordination
The Consultant shall prepare and execute additional subconsultant agreements and review and submit additional
invoices.
Task 401.4 — Consultant Team Meetings and Coordination
The Consultant shall conduct additional internal consultant project coordination meetings to execute the project
Task 401.5 — Monthly Invoice and Progress Reports
The Consultant shall prepare and submit monthly invoice and progress reports.
Task 401.6 — Quality Assurance
The Consultant shall conduct additional quality control reviews on additional design materials.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Duration of this task is five months, through October 2020 through February 2021.
Meetings
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 61 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 254
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Meetings for this task include:
Twelve (12) PMT Meetings, two in person, remainder on conference call
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Invoices and progress reports.
• Updated schedule.
Task 402 — Community Events and Engagement (from 90% to Final)
Task 402.1 Informational Tables at Fairs, Festivals, and Pop-up Events
The Consultant will research, plan, and staff two informational booths at local events (i.e., Edmonds Farmer's
Market, Art Walk Edmonds, Taste Edmonds, Marina Beach Cleanup, Oktoberfest) and pop-up tabling events (i.e.,
park, library) in the spring/summer to share the final design. These events will be aimed at sharing the final
design, thanking the community for their input, and talking about what the community can expect prior to
construction. Following the events, the Consultant will prepare a high-level summary.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include
• Existing project materials (i.e., fact sheet, frequently asked questions [FAQ]) will be used to support
informational booths.
• Consultant will coordinate logistics, be responsible for table/booth set-up, and provide one staff from
PMX and one from Envirolssues for each event.
• A level of effort for this task has been assumed based on the quantities below. Should the needs rise
above this level of effort, it will be documented in the progress report and changes to the scope may
need to be discussed.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• One draft and one final spring/summer tabling plan.
• Staffing and set-up of two information tables and/or pop-up events for up to eight hours per event.
• One draft and one final spring/summer tabling effort summary.
Task 402.2 Property Owner Briefings
The Consultant will schedule and conduct two briefings with property owners in the project area at or before the
final design milestone. Briefings will be designed to share the final design and begin to discuss anticipated
construction impacts. The Consultant will schedule the meetings and document input received during the
briefings. Meetings will be conducted with small groups, including property owners on Sunset Avenue N, and on
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 62 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 255
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Edmonds Street between Sunset Avenue N and 3rd Avenue N. Property owners will be notified of the meetings
via direct mail to the street addresses.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Existing project materials or materials developed by the technical team will be used at the briefings.
• Consultant will provide one Envirolssues and one PMX support staff for each briefing.
• A level of effort for this task has been assumed based on the quantities below. Should the needs rise
above this level of effort, it will be documented in the progress report and changes to the scope may
need to be discussed.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Scheduling and attendance at two briefings.
• One draft and one final briefing plan.
• One draft and one final materials packet (graphics/materials to be supplied by the City and technical team)
• One draft and one final briefing key takeaway summary with attendance, date of meeting, and key points
discussed.
Task 402.3 Materials
The Consultant will develop content and graphic design for project materials, email updates, and website and
website content. Project materials may include the development of one folio/fact sheet, updates to the project
FAQ, one traveling display, meeting notifications, Sunset neighborhood letters, media releases, utility bill inserts
A letter will be sent to the Sunset Avenue project neighbors to notify them of the property owner briefings. The
Consultant will also prepare five monthly email updates.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include
• Consultant will coordinate printing of materials (e.g., display ads, display boards, etc.).
• Consultant will distribute posters, fliers to local businesses, and traveling display to City -approved
locations.
• Consultant will coordinate and send monthly email updates to project listserv.
• Consultant will coordinate mailing of Sunset neighborhood letter.
• Consultant will coordinate language translations for materials in Spanish, Korean, and simplified Chinese.
• Consultant will coordinate with the City on the migration of website content currently on Consultant's
server to the City, and further assist the City in the development of new website materials when
appropriate.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 63 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 256
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• City will post notifications to social media and City -managed project website.
• City will be responsible for media relations.
• City will pay for costs associated with display ads.
• City will share project messages and produced materials with key project partners, such as the Port of
Edmonds, for inclusion in their communication materials.
• A level of effort for this task has been assumed based on the quantities below. Should the needs rise
above this level of effort, it will be documented in the progress report and changes to the scope may
need to be discussed.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• One draft and one final fact sheet/folio.
• One draft and one final FAQ sheet updates.
• One draft and one final utility bill inserts.
• One draft and one final traveling display board.
• One draft and one final print display ad.
• One draft and one final online display ad.
• One draft and one final Sunset neighborhood letter.
• Monthly content updates for project website.
• Three draft and three final email updates.
Task 402.4 Communication Tracking and Comment Management
as
a
Consultant will monitor the project email inbox, forward comments to the project team, provide draft responses U
when needed, and track incoming and outgoing project correspondence. )
L
Assumptions E
�a
L
Assumptions for this task include: a
04
• Consultant will send responses back to community members.
m
Deliverables
U
r
Deliverables for this task include: Q
c
• Communication responses, as needed.
E
• Email files of saved project correspondence or PDF of all email correspondence.
c�
a
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 64 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 257
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
TASK 403 - STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
Task 403.1 — Agency Stakeholder Engagement Plan
Update the Agency Stakeholder Engagement Plan as needed to deliver 100% and Final Plans. Public Art Design
Commission meetings are accounted for under task 405 for Phase 4.
Task 403.2 Environmental Resource Agencies Meetings and Coordination
The Consultant shall prepare for and participate in phone -call coordination and one additional meeting with the
resource agencies to provide status updates and follow up as needed on mitigation requirements and design as
well as permitting status.
The Consultant shall develop information for the meetings and provide follow-up information as requested.
Task 403.3 BNSF Meetinnc
This task assumes two plan review meetings with BNSF to discuss the Final submittal and follow up on
outstanding issues.
Meetings
• BNSF Meetings for 90%:
o Number of meetings: Two (2)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meeting: BNSF Seattle
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 2 PMX, 1 TKDA
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Agendas and meeting minutes.
Task 403.4 Tribes Meetings
This scope includes up to 6 meetings with tribal staff to provide updates on the status of the project during the
90% to Final Design phase and to solicit input on mitigation plans.
Tribe members will also be invited to environmental resource agency meetings.
Meetings
• Tribal Meetings for 90%:
o Number of meetings: Six (6)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meeting: Tribal Locales
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 65 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 258
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 2 PMX (VIA and Myers Sculpture meetings includes
in tasks 405 and 406)
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Meeting agendas and minutes.
Task 403.5 Agency Stakeholder Meetings
The Consultant shall prepare for and participate in stakeholder agency meetings.
Meetings
• Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Washington State Ferries meeting
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meeting: WSF
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 2 PMX
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
• South County Fire and Rescue
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: One (1) hour
o Location of the meeting: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 2 PMX,
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
Deliverables:
Deliverables for this task include:
• Meeting agendas and minutes.
Task 403.6 City Council Briefings
The Consultant shall prepare and conduct presentations, in support of City Staff, briefing the City Council on the
project status and key design topics. This task provides for er�--two additional meetings with City Council for
design and cost estimate updates.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• ero,--Two meetings with City Council for Final Design
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 66 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 259
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Presentation materials.
Task 403.7 — Technical Committee Meetings
This Scope includes preparing for and participating in one technical design committee meeting that include City
Public Works, Parks & Recreation, utilities, and planning to provide input to the design. Assumes one meeting at
the 30% level and one at the 60% level to take place in Edmonds.
Meetings
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Technical Committee Meeting
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meeting: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: 3 PMX. VIA attendance provided for in task 404
o Prepare meeting agenda and minutes
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Agendas and meeting minutes
TASK 404.0 — ARCHITECTURAL COLLABORATION (VIA) 100% AND FINAL
This Amendment provides for:
• Design team meetings and coordination through Final Design:
o Up to two in person design team coordination meetings with engineering and other consultants.
o Up to two additional phone coordination meetings.
• Support for presentations and meetings to the City, agencies, and tribes through Final Design:
o Attendance at up to one meeting in person.
o Support at up to one additional meeting by phone.
• Final Design Drawings:
o Close collaboration between Parametrix and VIA on the resolution of the structural form of the
bridge and bridge elements and integration of art with the artist.
o Final specifications of architectural materials and finishes
o Final coordination of drawings denoting architectural design for:
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 67 October 2018
Scope of Work
W
a
0
0
co
K
m
E
ca
IL
N
C
a)
E
z
U
M
a
c
a)
E
z
n
M
Q
Packet Pg. 260
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
■ Lighting design.
■ Throw barrier, crash rail, hand rail sections, and details.
■ Seating areas and benches.
■ Refined plan including plaza and raised intersection plans.
■ Refined bridge elevations.
■ Restroom plans, elevations, interior elevations, details, roof plan, and lighting plan
• Graphics for the Final Design:
o Five views rendered with context which are an aerial view, a view from Sunset looking north, a
view from the waterfront path looking north, a view from the end of Brackett's Landing jetty, and
a view from the water.
o Rendered plan graphic for presentations, etc.
o Fly through animation
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Two rounds of revisions possible after 100% submission.
• No physical models will be produced.
• Structural type, depth, configuration, and architectural expression based on design intent are set at the
beginning of this task. Any changes that impact the design intentions established in previous phases will
require additional design scope.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• 100% Design Drawings and specifications as outlined above.
• Revisions as required for completed Final Design Drawings.
• Revisions as required for completed specifications.
• Graphic representation of design including five views and flythrough animation as described above. Cost
estimate not completed by the architect, but support is provided. This includes review of all items related
to the architecture and urban design elements as well as coordination of quantities, etc.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 68 October 2018
Scope of Work
a�
a
0
U
U)
x
�L
m
E
ca
L
N
c
m
E
z
U
0
r
r
Q
c
a�
E
M
U
M
Q
Packet Pg. 261
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
TASK 405.0 - ART AND CULTURAL COLLABORATION
Integration of art and related creative processes into the overall design of the bridge architecture, approaches,
site integration, cultural and interpretive way finding, and participation in the relevant public and stakeholder
outreach development and programs..
This work includes:
• Up to two in person design team meetings for art integration.
• Up to two additional phone coordination meetings
• 1 meeting with Public Art Design Commission
• Detailed integration with the bridge elements such as handrail, deck surface, land bridge, etc.
• Detailed integration with the restroom and plaza design.
• Incorporation in seating areas, etc.
• Integration in place making at Sunset Avenue.
• Incorporation in to moments of discovery where the structure meets the beach walk.
• Coordination with functional systems including stormwater, wayfinding, and cultural and historical
placemaking.
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
• Close collaboration between artist, architectural team and City Parks personnel will be very important for
the enhancement of an integrated concept delivery to Final% design.
• All meetings for art coordination will be included in the count for team meetings outlined in Task 6.0.
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task include:
• Integration of the art plan and any needed details or attachments into 100% and Final drawings.
TASK 406 - FINAL ENGINEERING FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Engineering design activities defined in this section is to advance the 90% level design to Final design
Task 406.1 — Basis of Design
The Basis of Design document will be finalized.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 69 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 262
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Task 406.2 — Final Engineering for the Preferred Alternative
The Consultant shall finalize the design:
Finalize the Design Criteria
• Finalize the design criteria — 100 % for City to review (minor comments only) and approval.
• Provide response to City's review comments.
Engineering Design and Plan to 100%
Civil engineering and traffic management designs includes:
• Summary of Quantities
• TESC Plans and Details
• Intersection layouts
• Sunset Avenue intersection improvements:
• Grading section and contour plans
• Project footprint and earthwork quantities
• Mixing zone/parking lot layouts and details (Via and PMX).
• Beach mitigations.
• Maintenance of traffic (including railroads).
• Traffic control plans during construction
• Stormwater designs for conveyance and water quality treatment (Tt)
• Drainage Report conforming to City Stormwater standards, including the Edmonds Stormwater
Addendum. (Tt)
• Utility relocation, replacement, and protection. (Tt)
• New restroom layout and utility connections.
• Paving plans
• Drainage plans
• Landscaping plans
• Provide response to 100% review comments (minor)
Structural designs include:
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 70 October 2018
Scope of Work
a�
a
0
U
U)
x
�L
d
E
ca
a
N
C
m
E
z
U
0
r
Q
c
a�
E
U
2
Q
Packet Pg. 263
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
• Finalize Construction Notes.
• Finalize assessment of construction restrictions due to BNSF operation restrictions.
• Finalize structural design plans for the elevated structures including necessary details.
• Finalize retaining wall and retained structural design and necessary details.
• Finalize other misc. structural design and necessary details.
• Finalize feasible construction access and staging layouts
• Finalize feasible construction phasing plans.
• Finalize ground improvement plans.
• Provide response to 100% review comments (minor)
Technical Specifications (Special Provisions)
• Finalize the following technical specification input
• Technical Input to Project Specifications and / or Special Provisions, including railroad coordination
requirements. (railroad specific)
• Incorporate mutually agreed 90% review comments.
• Provide response to 100% review comments (minor)
Assumptions
Assumptions for this task include:
a
• The City shall provide review comments in a single consolidated file.
0
cn
• City's review comments are minor, editorial only
x
E
ca
L
Meetings
N
• Basis of Design review meeting (100%):
C
m
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meetings: City of Edmonds
r
Q
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: Two (2) from Parametrix, One (1) from Tetra Tech
c
o Prepare agendas and minutes
E
c�
Q
• Design review meetings (100%):
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 71 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 264
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meetings: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: Two (2) from Parametrix, One (1) from Tetra Tech
Via attendance in task xx
Prepare agendas and minutes
• Utility Coordination meetings (100%):
o Number of meetings: One (1)
o Length of each meeting: Two (2) hours
o Location of the meetings: City of Edmonds
o Number of consultant staff for each meeting: One (1) from Parametrix, One (1) from Tetra Tech
Prepare agendas and minutes
Deliverables
Deliverables for 100% include:
• Design Criteria —100%.
• 100% Design Plans (in electronic .pdf).
• 100% technical input to specifications/special provisions.
• Meeting notes with BNSF and other stakeholders.
• 100% cost estimate (prepared under Task 407).
• 100% construction schedule. (prepared under Task 407).
• Written responses to City's consolidated review comments
Deliverables for Final camera ready include:
• Design Criteria.
• Design Plans (signed hard copy and in electronic .pdf).
• Technical input to specifications/special provisions.
• Cost estimate (prepared under Task 407).
• Feasible construction schedule. (prepared under Task 407).
Task 406.3 — Mitigation Design (to 100% and Final)
The Consultant shall update the mitigation plan developed under Phase 3 as needed to reflect minor changes in
project -related impacts resulting from adjustments to the project design.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 72 October 2018
Scope of Work
W
a
0
0
co
K
m
E
0
L
IL
N
c
d
E
z
c�
a
c
as
E
Q
Packet Pg. 265
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Assumptions
• The mitigation plan will be substantially complete and accepted by the applicable agencies during Phase 3
• Project design changes will not be so substantial as to re -initiation of ESA consultation or resubmittal of
permit applications
• No additional field studies will be performed for this task
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• One Revised Mitigation Plan, reflecting minor changes in project -related impacts resulting from
adjustments to the project design, submitted electronically.
TASK 407 — CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS AND ESTIMATING (OTT SAKAI)
This task provides for Ott -Sakai to provide an estimate and constructability review and update as needed for
100% and Final and provide an updated construction schedule and cost estimate.
TASK 408 — FUNDING
This amendment provides for additional grant support to the City between the 90% and final design.
Task 408.1 — Grant Support
The Consultant will assist the City with identifying additional grant opportunities to fund construction of the
project. Support will include preparing grant applications, supporting analyses (such as updated benefit cost
analyses), and graphics.
TASK 409 — BID SUPPORT
This task provides for consultant support during the advertising and bidding phase of work.
Task 409.1 — Develop Addendums
This task provides for the development of addendums required during the bid cycle
Assumptions
• Up to five addendums of up to 10 plan sheet revisions and 20 spec sheets each
• Minor design clarifications are assumed and no redesign
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 73 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 266
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• One pdf of draft and one pdf of final addendums (5)
Task 409.2 — Answer RFI's
This task provides for answering Requests for Information (RFI) from contractors bidding on the project during
advertisement.
Assumptions
• Up to 10 RFIs
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Responses to RFIs
Task 409.3 - Participate in Pre -Bid Meeting
This task provides for the preparation and attendance for pre -bid meeting.
Assumptions
• Attendance of one pre bid meeting
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Meeting agenda (draft, final)
• Meeting presentation (draft, final)
• Meeting Minutes (draft, final)
Task 409.4 — Review Bids
This task provides for the review of bids from contractors for validity.
City of Edmonds SS4-2S77-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 74 October 2018
Scope of Work
a�
a
0
U
U)
x
�L
cd
E
�a
L
N
c
m
E
z
U
0
Q
c
a�
E
U
M
a
Packet Pg. 267
5.1.b
SCOPE OF WORK (continued)
Assumptions
• Review up to 5 bids
Deliverables
Deliverables for this task will consist of:
• Email of findings and recommendation
TASK 410 -MANAGEMENT RESERVE (100% AND FINAL)
This task establishes a Management Reserve for the effort through Final design.
City of Edmonds 554-2577-823
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 75 October 2018
Scope of Work
Packet Pg. 268
I 5.1.c I
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector "f .
Presentation June 18, 2019 `s`'
Parametrix Contract Supplement, Desig
and Permitting of the Edmonds Street
Waterfront Connector
• Review Project
• Next Steps
Timeline to Date
• Summary of Scope and Schedule
• Review of Cost
• Contract Funding Sources
• Purpose and Need
• Questions
�O
i�)\J 5.1.c
Timeline Review &Next
2012 2014
Don't Block Our First Responders Council Prioritizes
Beach Rallies Recognition of &Emphasizes
Access Issues Need for Access
Preliminary o 0 0
Design
30%/ 60% Design 90% Design
2017-2019 2019-2020 2020
You �.
are
here
Steps
-t G
h
2015-2016
�St. 189�
0
E
W
Alternatives
L
Analysis
X
�L
d
E
L
M
IL
c
0
:r
c
L
a
c
Final Design
a
20 mu
M
a
I Packet Pg. 270
5.1.c
Scope Review — Major Tasks
Public Involvement
(Tasks 202, 302, 402)
3 Open Houses
3 Online Open Houses
Up to 18 Informational Booths
6 Property Owner Briefings
6 City Council Briefings
Architectural Collaboration
(Tasks 205, 304, 404)
Art / Cultural Collaboration
(Tasks 207, 305, 405 )
Meetings for Art Integration
Meetings with Arts Commission
Up to 6 Meetings with Tribes
Open houses
Lighting
Throw Barriers and Rails
Seating
Plaza Areas
Restroom Plan
St. L
Stakeholder Coordination
(Tasks 203, 303, 403)
WDFW
Ecology
Corps of Engineers
BNSF
Parks/Planning/Building
RCO
Fire and Rescue
WSDOT / WSF
Packet Pg. 271
Scope Review — Major Tasks
Environmental Documentation
(Tasks 214, 308)
Ecological Resources Analysis
Visual Quality Analysis
Hazardous Materials Analysis
Environmental Assessment
Endangered Species Act
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
Bridge Permit
Shoreline Permit
JARPA/HPA Application
Environmental Documentation
(Tasks 214, 308)
SEPA Checklist
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Conduct Archaeological Inventory
Critical Areas Report
Mitigation Design
Proposed restoration activities
Monitoring plan
Contingency plan
Shading Calculations and Figure
J
1J
St. 1
Packet Pg. 272
Cost Review
Phase 2 - 60% Phase 3 - 90% Phase 4 - 100% Project Totals
Design
$
2,153,594
$
891,609
$
637,758
$
3,682,961
Mgmt Reserve
$
150,000
$
150,000
$
50,000
$
350,000
Total
$
2,303,594
$
1,0411609
$
687,758
$
4,032,961
Expenses
$
49,540
$
61267
$
2,705
$
58,512
Phase Totals
$
2,353,134
$
11047,876
$
690,463
$
4,091,473
Packet Pg. 273
City of Edmonds
BNSF Railway
Community Transit
Port of Edmonds
Sound Transit
Washington State
$ 100,000
$ 150,000-
$ 50,000
$ 50,00J
$ 5,000
$ 5,0001
$ 25,000
$ 75,000
$1,500,000
$ 10,000-
$ 10,000
$ 500,000
$ 700,000
Study
Planning
Study
Planning
Study
Planning
Study
Planning
Construction
Study
Planning
Study
Planning
$ 6,000,000 Design/Const
$ 1,050..000 Design/Const
Project Funding Status
FSL W&L
b
Edmonds Street Waterfront Collector 0
Grant '-• -
BUILD (Federal)
$ 18,856,000
Construction
L
O
Grant•...
-
CL
INFRA (Federal)
TBD
Construction
w
RCO (State)
TBD
Construction
a
Dept. of Ecology (State)
TBD
Construction
o
Bicycle & Ped II (State)
TBD
Construction
w
y
L
PSRC (County)
TBD
Construction
a
PSAR Large Capital
TBD
Construction
E
(State)
a
Received / Awarded: On Hand:
$10,230,000 $8,550,000 a
Packet Pg. 274
t�l
Purpose and Need -- Recent Extended At -grade Crossing Closures
Date
May 1, 2010
July 25, 2012
October 15, 2012
December 29, 2012
September 11,2013
November 15, 2013
November 17, 2015
November 24, 2015
April 19, 2016
April 11, 2018
June 16, 2018
Few hours
Over 1 hour
45 minutes
4.5 hours
3+ hours
30 minutes
Several hours
Train — pedestrian fatality
Disabled train
Train — truck collision
Train —vehicle collision
Disabled train
Train — pedestrian fatality
Saturated railbed closed gates
Weather & high water impacts
i rain — pedestrian fatality
Train -vehicle collision
J
1J
Train — pedestrian fatality
Packet Pg. 275
Purpose & Need
Growing rail traffic, plus 2nd track
construction
• Increased frequency of emergency
response delays
• Greater crossing conflicts and risks
for pedestrians, bicyclists
• Extended closure risks
50 emergency calls/year to the Waterfront
50 emergency calls/year to Marine Rescue
The Fire District has affirmed that there have been
delays to responses caused by passing trains
J
,s
St. 1
Packet Pg. 276
Ferry Cardiac Emergency, M
Purpose and Need -- Routine Calls to the Waterfront
Medical/ALS/BLS 199
Fire/Smoke/Electrical 21
Gas/Hazmat/Flammable 8
Water/Surf/Beach Rescue 8
Accident/Police Assist 6
Service Call/Alarm Only 30
Cancelled en route 23
Other 4
Total 299
• 299 calls to the waterfront over 5 years + 5 months 4
• Additional 1 call per week to Marine Rescue boat
5.1.c
T
L
St. 189�
nt of Callso
E
67%LU
L
O
7%
E
3%
x
3%
E
L
2°%
0
w
10%
y
L
8%
1%
w
100%
E
1.06 calls per week
Q
Packet Pg. 277
Questions
i
>� 5.1.c
O
v in
C
O
m
i
N
L
a
a
r
a
Packet Pg. 278
End
5.1.c
_s O
a
Packet Pg. 279
Edmond St Waterfront Connector
5.1.d
Amendment 04
PMX
BRUCE MEYERS
Envirolssues
Ott Sakai
Shannon Wilson
Tetra Tech
Tierra Row
TKDA
Via
Total
PHASE
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
Hours
Cost
201
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
598
$123,280.52
0
$0.00
141
$14,538.22
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
115
$21,004.43
40
$4,401.51
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
894
$163,224.68
01
Project Management Plan
48
$8,398.64
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
48
$8,398.64
02
Weekly Project Management Team (PMT) Meetings
114
$26,980.67
0
$0.00
93
$9,521.84
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
55
$9,658.15
16
$1,839.97
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
278
$48,000.64
03
Subconsultant Coordination
80
$16,294.06
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
80
$16,294.06
04
Consultant Team Meetings and Coordination
188
$38,762.61
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
60
$11,346.28
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
248
$50,108.89
05
Monthly Invoice and Progress Reports
44
1 $5,949.72
0
$0.00
48
1 $5,016.38
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
12
$1,331.91
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
104
1 $12,298.02
06
1 Quality Assurance
124
$26,894.81
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
12
$1,229.62
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
136
$28,124.44
202
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
282
$64,042.04
0
$0.00
1295
$124,556.12
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
16
$4,212.52
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1,593
$192,810.68
01
Public Involvement and Communications Plan (30%-6
2
$516.77
0
$0.00
125
$12,294.21
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
127
$12,810.98
02
Informational Tables at Fairs, Festivals, and Pop-up Ev
64
$16,536.79
0
$0.00
143
$13,301.55
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
207
$29,838.33
03
Public Open House Meetings (2) / Online Open House
132
$29,478.19
0
$0.00
509
$50,718.31
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
16
$4,212.52
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
657
$84,409.02
04
Property Owner Briefings
16
$4,134.20
0
$0.00
1 62
$5,385.07
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
78
$9,519.26
05
Materials
60
$11,308.99
0
$0.00
416
$39,321.14
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
476
$50,630.13
06
Communication Tracking and Comment Management
8
$2,067.10
0
$0.00
40
$3,535.85
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
48
$5,602.95
203
STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
874
$193,262.93
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
24
$2,563.03
214
$51,346.49
0
$0.00
1112
$247,172.44
01
Agency Stakeholder Engagement Plan
16
$4,134.20
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
16
$4,134.20
02
Environmental Resource Agencies Meetings and Coor
76
$14,127.85
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
76
$14,127.85
03
BNSF Meetings
136
$34,052.52
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
24
$2,563.03
64
$15,355.96
0
$0.00
224
$51,971.51
04
BNSF Design Coordination and Agreement Developme
130
$30,461.72
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
150
$35,990.53
0
$0.00
280
$66,452.25
05
BNSF 30% Submittal
132
$25,987.67
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
132
$25,987.67
06
1 Tribes Meetings
120
$23,182.31
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
120
$23,182.31
07
Agency Stakeholder Meetings
100
$23,883.06
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
100
$23,883.06
08
City Council Briefings
76
$16,034.87
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
76
$16,034.87
09
Technical Committee Meetings
78
$19,314.79
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
78
$19,314.79
10
Participate in Meetings with the Recreation and Conse
10
$2,083.94
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
10
$2,083.94
204
SURVEY AND BASEMAP
222
$28,454.98
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
48
$4,929.13
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
270
$33,384.10
01
Existing Conditions Survey
92
1 $10,557.73
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
92
$10,557.73
02
BNSF Easment Support
54
$7,441.67
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
32
$3,286.08
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
86
$10,727.75
03
Exhibits and Legal Description for Property Needs
76
$10,455.59
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
16
$1,643.04
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
92
$12,098.63
205
ARCHITECTURAL COLLABORATION (VIA) 30% AND 60%
234
$58,583.84
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
208
$26,568.73
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1530
$178,387.58
1972
$263,540.15
01
30% Design
106
$26,045.24
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
89
$11,281.98
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 705
$79,582.49
900
$116,909.71
02
60% Design
128
$32,538.60
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
120
$15,286.75
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
825
$98,805.09
1,073
$146,630.44
206
URBAN DESIGN/ PARK INTEGRATION (VIA)
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
190
$24,139.91
190
$24,139.91
01
Urban Design/ Park Integration
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
190
$24,139.91
190
$24,139.91
207
ART AND CULTURAL COLLABORATION 30% AND 60%
48
$9,959.49
284
$28,400.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
486
$56,676.45
818
$95,035.94
01
ART AND CULTURAL COLLABORATION 30% AND 60%
48
$9,959.49
284
$28,400.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
486
$56,676.45
818
$95,035.94
208
GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR 30% DESIGN (S&W)
12
$2,862.81
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
103
$17,536.28
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
115
$20,399.10
01
Geotechnical analysis for Preferred Alternative (S&W)
12
$2,862.81
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
103
$17,536.28
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
115
$20,399.10
209
30% ENGINEERING FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
1,332
$262,771.58
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
30
$6,690.00
0
$0.00
414
$55,371.37
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
1,776
$324,832.95
01
Basis of Design
44
$8,799.28
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 44
$8,799.28
02
30% Engineering for the Preferred Alternative
1,288
$253,972.30
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
30
$6,690.00
0
$0.00
414
$55,371.37
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1,732
$316,033.67
210
60% GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR THE PREFERRED ALT
8
$1,829.26
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
63
$11,572.98
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
71
$13,402.25
01
60% GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR THE PREFERRED Al8
$1,829.26
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
63
$11,572.98
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
71
$13,402.25
211
60% ENGINEERING FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
1,418
$256,171.23
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
20
$4,460.00
0
$0.00
328
$42,623.17
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1,766
$303,254.40
01
1 Basis of Design
30
$8,099.15
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
30
$8,099.15
02
Development of 60% Design
1,388
$248,072.08
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
20
$4,460.00
0
$0.00
328
$42,623.17
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1,736
$295,155.25
214
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
2,222
$305,924.43
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
4
$951.15
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
2,226
$306,875.58
01
Verification of Requirements
30
$5,683.34
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
30
1 $5,683.34
02
NEPA Compliance
832
1 $121,436.83
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
832
$121,436.83
03
Endangered Species Act
272
$41,294.43
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
4
$951.15
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
276
$42,245.58
04
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
12
$2,989.72
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
12
$2,989.72
05
Section 4(f)/Section 6(f)
96
$13,962.20
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
96
$13,962.20
06
SEPA Checklist
101
$14,101.36
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
101
$14,101.36
07
1 JARPA/HPAApplication
159
$17,952.04
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
159
$17,952.04
08
Shoreline Permit
176
$20,234.19
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
176
1 $20,234.19
09
Critical Areas Report
206
1 $21,862.45
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
206
$21,862.45
10
Mitigation Design
259
$33,818.71
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
259
$33,818.71
11
Shading Calculations and Figure
44
$5,312.11
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
44
$5,312.11
12
Bridge Permit
35
$7,277.06
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
35
$7,277.06
Q
06.07.2019
Packet Pg. 280
Edmond St Waterfront Connector
5.1.d
215
FUNDING
32
$6,872.33
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
56
$11,341.68
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
88
$18,214.02
01
Grant Support (Tetra Tech)
32
$6,872.33
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
56
$11,341.68
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
88
$18,214.02
216
COASTAL GEOMORPHOLOGY ANALYSIS (TETRA TECH)
17
$3,059.17
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
468
$62,723.97
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
485
$65,783.14
01
Basis of Analysis
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
92
$11,941.16
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
92
$11,941.16
02
Geomorphic Analysis
17
$3,059.17
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
376
$50,782.80
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
393
$53,841.98
217
CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS AND ESTIMATING (30% Al
132
$27,338.04
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
175
$37,316.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
307
$64,654.04
01
1 30% Constructability and Estimate
66
$13,669.02
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
111
$23,569.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
177
$37,238.02
02
60% Constructability and Estimate
66
$13,669.02
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
64
$13,747.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 130
$27,416.02
218
RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT
8
$2,067.10
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
80
$14,803.54
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
88
$16,870.64
01
RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT
8
$2,067.10
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
80
$14,803.54
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
88
$16,870.64
219
MANAGEMENT RESERVE FEE ADDITIONAL THROUGH 60
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
01
MANAGEMENT RESERVE FEE ADDITIONAL THROUGH
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
Subtotal:
7,439
$1,346,479.75
284
$28,400.00
1436
$139,094.34
225
$48,466.00
166
$29,109.27
1,609
$224,797.03
192
$26,697.20
214
$51,346.49
2,206
$259,203.94
13,771
$2,153,594.01
EXP
1EXPENSE
1
1 $24,590.00
$1,508.00
$5,563.00
$0.00
$1,038.00
$203.00
$14,348.00
$2,000.00
$290.00
0
$49,540.00
PHASE 2 Hours:
13,772
Cost:
$2,153,594.01
Expense:
$49,540.00
Management Reserve Fee:
$150,000.00
Phase 2 Total:
$2,353,134.01
L
O
r
t�
N
_
_
O
V
C
O
L
It
d
O
d
d
L
_
O
E
I.IA
t
L
O
_
d
E
d
O.
C0
X
�L
E
L
a
d
d
s
Cn
d
d
U-
x
d
E
M
L
a
Q
06.07.2019
Packet Pg. 281
Edmond St Waterfront Connector
5.1.d
PMX
BRUCE MEYERS
Envirolssues
Ott Sakai
Shannon Wilson
Tetra Tech
Tierra Row
TKDA
Via
Total
PHASES
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
Hours
Cost
301
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
270
$57,248.88
0
$0.00
52
$5,364.74
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
33
$5,666.27
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
355
$68,279.90
01
Project Management Plan
20
$3,165.77
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
20
$3,165.77
02
Weekly Project Management Team (PMT) Meetings
36
$8,506.91
0
$0.00
36
$3,692.62
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
20
$3,452.23
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
92
$15,651.76
03
Subconsultant Coordination
38
$7,297.86
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
38
$7,297.86
04
Consultant Team Meetings and Coordination
60
$12,758.41
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
9
$1,462.83
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
69
$14,221.25
05
Monthly Invoice and Progress Reports
20
1 $2,791.75
0
$0.00
16
$1,672.13
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
4
$751.21
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
40
$5,215.08
06
1 Quality Assurance
96
$22,728.18
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
96
1 $22,728.18
302
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
154
$34,948.71
0
$0.00
635
$60,454.98
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
8
$2,106.26
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
797
$97,509.94
01
Informational Tables at Fairs, Festivals, and Pop-up Ev
64
$16,536.79
0
$0.00
141
$13,133.17
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
205
$29,669.96
02
Public Open House Meetings (1) / Online Open House
42
$8,560.02
0
$0.00
234
$23,354.64
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
8
$2,106.26
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
284
$34,020.92
03
Property Owner Briefings
8
$2,067.10
0
$0.00
33
$2,894.29
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
41
$4,961.39
04
Materials
32
$5,717.70
0
$0.00
215
$19,987.16
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
247
$25,704.86
05
Communication Tracking and Comment Management
8
1 $2,067.10
0
$0.00
12
$1,085.72
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
20
$3,152.82
303
STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
460
$93,582.57
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
50
$11,996.84
0
$0.00
510
$105,579.41
01
Agency Stakeholder Engagement Plan
4
$1,033.55
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
4
$1,033.55
02
Environmental Resource Agencies Meetings and Coor
108
$20,905.97
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
108
$20,905.97
03
BNSF Meetings (90%)
34
$9,010.93
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
25
$5,998.42
0
$0.00
59
$15,009.35
04
Final Submittal (90%)
102
$18,341.35
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
25
$5,998.42
0
$0.00
127
$24,339.77
05
Tribes Meetings (90%)
120
$23,182.31
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
120
$23,182.31
06
1 Agency Stakeholder Meetings (90%)
46
$10,664.26
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
46
1 $10,664.26
07
City Council Briefings (90%)
20
$4,005.93
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
20
$4,005.93
08
Technical Committee Meetings (90%)
26
$6,438.26
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
26
$6,438.26
304
ARCHITECTURAL COLLABORATION (VIA) (90%)
196
$43,363.88
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
21
$2,532.39
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
801
$95,832.66
1,018
$141,728.93
01
90% Design
196
$43,363.88
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
20.5
$2,532.39
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
801
$95,832.66
1,018
$141,728.93
305
ART AND CULTURAL COLLABORATION (90%)
0
$0.00
114
$11,400.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
110
$12,885.68
224
$24,285.68
01
ART AND CULTURAL COLLABORATION (90%)
0
1 $0.00
114
$11,400.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
110
$12,885.68
224
$24,285.68
306
90% ENGINEERING FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
1,636
$298,003.94
24521
$0.00
42279
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
492
$64,964.18
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
68,928
$362,968.12
01
1 Basis of Design
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
02
90% Engineering for the Preferred Alternative
1,412
$255,725.36
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
464
$60,311.34
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1,876
$316,036.70
03
City Permits
224
$42,278.57
24521
$0.00
42279
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
28
$4,652.84
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
67,052
$46,931.42
307
90% DESIGN GEOTECHNICAL SUPPORT
8
$2,276.21
1320
$0.00
2276
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
25
$4,084.99
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
3,629
$6,361.20
01
90% Design Geotechnical Support
8
$2,276.21
1320
$0.00
1 2276
$0.00
0
$0.00
25
$4,084.99
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
3,629
$6,361.20
308
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
252
$37,170.75
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
252
$37,170.75
01
Mitigations Plans
252
$37,170.75
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
252
$37,170.75
309
FUNDING SUPPORT EFFORT FOR 90%
32
$6,872.33
3986
$0.00
6872
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
10,890
1 $6,872.33
01
Grant Support (Tetra Tech)
32
$6,872.33
3986
$0.00
6872
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
10,890
$6,872.33
310
CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS AND ESTIMATING (30% Al
120
$21,348.09
12382
$0.00
21348
$0.00
59
$12,632.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
33,909
$33,980.09
01
90% Constructability and Estimate
120
$21,348.09
12382
$0.00
21348
$0.00
59
1 $12,632.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
33,909
$33,980.09
218
RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT
32
$6,872.33
3986
$0.00
6872
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
10,890
$6,872.33
01
RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT
32
$6,872.33
3986
$0.00
6872
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
10,890
$6,872.33
311
MANAGEMENT RESERVE FEE ADDITIONAL THROUGH 90
0$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
Ol
MANAGEMENT RESERVE FEE ADDITIONAL THROUGH
0$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
Subtotal:�3,1601$1601,687.69
1 46,309
911.400.00
80,335
$65,819.72
59
$12,632.00
25
$4,084.99
554
$75,269.11
0
$0.00
50
$11,996.84
911
$108,718.34
131,402
$891,608.69
EXP
EXPENSE
1
1 $1,200.60
1
1 $696.00
$2,943.50
$0.00
$79.00
$203.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$145.00
0
$6,267.10
PHASE 3 Hours: 131,402
Cost: $891,608.69
Expense: $6,267.10
Management Reserve Fee: $150,000.00
Phase 3 Total: $1,047,875.79
Q
06.07.2019
Packet Pg. 282
Edmond St Waterfront Connector
5.1.d
PMX
BRUCE MEYERS
Envirolssues
Ott Sakai
Shannon Wilson
Tetra Tech
Tierra Row
TKDA
Via
Total
PHASE4
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTALCOST
HOURS
TOTAL COST
401
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
270
$57,248.88
0
$0.00
53
$5,457.64
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
70
$12,199.51
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
393
$74,906.03
01
Project Management Plan
20
$3,165.77
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
20
$3,165.77
02
Weekly Project Management Team (PMT) Meetings
36
$8,506.91
0
$0.00
37
$3,785.51
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
40
$7,069.39
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
113
$19,361.82
03
Subconsultant Coordination
38
$7,297.86
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
38
$7,297.86
04
Consultant Team Meetings and Coordination
60
$12,758.41
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
18
$2,876.49
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
78
$15,634.91
05
Monthly Invoice and Progress Reports
20
1 $2,791.75
0
$0.00
16
$1,672.13
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
12
$2,253.62
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
48
$6,717.50
06
1 Quality Assurance
96
$22,728.18
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
96
1 $22,728.18
402
COMMUNITY EVENTS AND ENGAGEMENT (from 90%to
64
$15,959.47
0
$0.00
325
$29,837.03
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
389
$45,796.50
01
Informational Tables at Fairs, Festivals, and Pop-up Ev
24
$6,201.30
0
$0.00
83
$7,843.91
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
107
$14,045.20
02
Property Owner Briefings
8
$2,067.10
0
$0.00
37
$3,262.97
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
45
$5,330.07
03
Materials
8
$1,489.78
0
$0.00
160
$14,724.02
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
168
$16,213.80
04
Communication Tracking and Comment Management
24
$6,201.30
0
$0.00
45
$4,006.14
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
69
$10,207.44
403
STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION
306
$65,305.01
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
22
$5,278.61
1 0
$0.00
1 328
$70,583.62
01
1 Agency Stakeholder Engagement Plan
4
$1,033.55
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
4
$1,033.55
02
Environmental Resource Agencies Meetings and Coor
54
$10,452.99
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
54
$10,452.99
03
BNSF Meetings
32
$8,494.16
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
12
$2,879.24
0
$0.00
44
$11,373.40
04
Tribes Meetings
120
$23,182.31
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
10
$2,399.37
0
$0.00
130
$25,581.67
05
Agency Stakeholder Meetings
46
$10,664.26
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
46
$10,664.26
06
City Council Briefings
24
$5,039.48
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
24
$5,039.48
07
Technical Committee Meetings
26
$6,438.26
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 26
$6,438.26
404
ARCHITECTURAL COLLABORATION (VIA) 100%AND FINi
90
$20,906.71
12126
$0.00
20907
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
106
$13,156.85
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
547
$63,991.76
33,775
$98,055.32
01
ARCHITECTURAL COLLABORATION (VIA) 100%AND FIP
90
$20,906.71
12126
$0.00
20907
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
105.5
$13,156.85
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
547
$63,991.76
33775.0002
$98,055.32
405
ART AND CULTURAL COLLABORATION
25
$6,459.68
80
$8,000.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
106
$11,683.23
211
$26,142.91
01
ART AND CULTURAL COLLABORATIOM
25
$6,459.68
80
$8,000.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
106
$11,683.23
211
$26,142.91
406
FINAL ENGINEERING FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
865
$155,247.99
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
175
$23,033.65
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1,040
$178,281.64
01
Basis of Design
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
02
Final Engineering for the Preferred Alternative
767
$140,818.29
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
175
$23,033.65
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
942
$163,851.94
03
1 Mitigation Design to 100%and Final
98
$14,429.70
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
98
$14,429.70
407
CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS AND ESTIMATING (OTT-S)
36
$8,742.33
5071
$0.00
8742
$0.00
59
$12,632.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
$0.00
13,908
$21,374.33
01
90% Constructability and Estimate
36
$8,742.33
5071
$0.00
8742
$0.00
59
$12,632.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
13907.837
$21,374.33
408
FUNDING
32
$6,872.33
3986
$0.00
6872
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
56
$11,341.68
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
10,946
$18,214.02
01
Funding
32
$6,872.33
3986
$0.00
6872
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
56
$11,341.68
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
10,946
$18,214.02
409
BID SUPPORT
284
$64,429.44
37369
$0.00
64429
$0.00
0
$0.00
16
$2,640.47
22
$3,254.59
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
266
$34,079.55
102,386
$104,404.04
01
Develop Addendums
208
$45,213.20
26223
$0.00
45213
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
140
$16,618.68
71,785
$61,831.88
02
AnswerRFI's
48
$12,261.20
7111
$0.00
12261
$0.00
0
$0.00
16
$2,640.47
20
$2,942.35
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
60
$8,189.27
19,517
$26,033.29
03
Participate in Pre -Bid Meetings
16
$3,994.29
2317
$0.00
3994
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
2
$312.24
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
16
$1,962.88
6,345
$6,269.41
04
Review Bids
12
$2,960.74
1717
$0.00
2961
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
1 0
$0.00
50
$7,308.72
4,740
$10,269.46
410
MANAGEMENT RESERVE (100%AND FINAL)
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
1 $0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
01
Mangagement Reserve
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
Subtotal:
1,972
$401,171.84
58,631
$8,000.00
101,329
$35,294.67
59
$12,632.00
16
$2,640.47
428
$62,986.28
0
$0.00
1 22
1 $5,278.61
919
$109,754.54
163,376
$637,758.42
EXP
1EXPENSE
1
1 $800.40
1
$232.00
1
1 $1,076.00
1
$0.00
1
$5.00
1
$0.00
1
$0.00
1
1 $504.60
$87.00
0
$2,705.00
PHASE 4 Hours:
163,376
Cost:
$637,758.42
Expense:
$2,705.00
Management Reserve Fee:
$50,000.00
Phase 4Total:
$690,463.42
PMX BRUCE MEYERS Envirolssues Ott Sakai Shannon Wilson Tetra Tech Tierra Row TKDA Via Total
TOTAL PROJECT AMOUNT: 12,571 1 $2,375,930.29 105,224 1 $50,236.00 183,099 1 $249,791.24 343 $73,730.00 207 $36,956.72 2,591 1 $363,458.41 192 $41,045.20 286 $72,126.54 1 3,846 1 $478,198.82 308,359 $3,741,473.21
Management Reserve $350,000.00
Project Total $4,091,473.21
06.07.2019
Packet Pg. 283
5.1.e
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
12425 Meridian Ave S., Everett WA 98208
tel (425) 551-1200 • fax (425) 551-1249
www.southsnofire.org
June 12, 2019
City of Edmonds
Attn: Mayor and Council
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Proposed Edmonds Waterfront Connector
Mayor and Council Members,
South County Fire has noticed an increased discussion surrounding the proposed Edmonds
Waterfront Connector. I realize that this has become a very political topic, especially with the
upcoming election season, and we are often drawn into this discussion for our "opinion" on
the necessity of the project.
South County Fire's position remains aligned with the previous positions of the Edmonds Fire
Department and Snohomish County Fire District 1, that it is an issue of public safety.
Currently there are only two access points to the waterfront on the west side of the railroad a
tracks; Main and Dayton streets. In the event of a train blockage, emergency vehicles have NO rn
r
access to the waterfront. As an emergency service provider this is a major concern. N
m
c
Throughout the years, the fire department has developed various emergency response plans
to react during a train blockage. Some examples varied from a Port of Edmonds pick-up truck
fit
to shuttle personnel and equipment that are passed through the stopped train, to having
Kingston Fire Department respond in their fire boat from across the sound. All of these
examples were a very minimal response, and in the event of a large fire or mass casualty
incident, would do very little to mitigate the problem.
Another suggestion was to place an additional fire station on the west side of the tracks.
Housing a station with three members and an engine does very little to solve the issue. A
structure fire response would require a minimum of 18 personnel: 3 fire engines, 1 ladder
truck, 2 medic units and a Battalion Chief. Also, in the event the station was allowed to
respond to calls outside of the west side of the tracks, any blocking incident that occurs while
they are out of quarters, would still face the same disadvantage.
SERVING SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY • BRIER • EDMONDS • LYNNWOOD • MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 284
5.1.e
When asked, the BEST solution to adequately provide emergency response on the west side of
the railroad tracks, which creates an access point for emergency vehicles to respond, is the
proposed waterfront connector project. The fire department has never commented on
financial impacts, non -emergency use (i.e. pedestrian access, ferry access, etc.), specific
location or design.
Again our main concern is public safety and having the ability to provide all resources
necessary to the west side of the tracks in a train blocking emergency.
Respectfully,
Doug Dahl
Interim Fire Chief
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 285
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Land Use Permit Decision -Making and Quasi -Judicial Process
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
As part of the overall update of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), staff is
reviewing the City's land use processes. This review has included discussions of the Councils role in
quasi-judicial decisions as well as other code cleanup matters related to land use decisions and
processes.
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that transfers the quasi-judicial decision -making role
from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the hearing examiner, to the extent allowed
by state law. The adopted resolution requests that city staff and the Planning Board prepare and
forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with this resolution.
The Planning Board heard an introduction on this matter at its May 23, 2018 meeting and held a public
hearing on July 25, 2018, after which the Board adopted a recommendation that was forwarded to the
City Council. The City Council heard an introduction on this subject at the September 4, 2018 Council
meeting and moved to hold a public hearing to receive public feed on the proposed amendments. The
Council's hearing was held on October 2, 2018. On November 20, 2018, the City Council's meeting
included consideration of potential amendments detailing a process where the Council would consider a
request to file a judicial appeal on the November 20, 2018 Council meeting. The Council continued
discussion on the potential amendments with the Council in a judicial appeal role at the March 5, 2019
Council meeting. At the April 23, 2019 City Council meeting, the City Council indicated a desire to
remain sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity for certain permit applications, but not for larger design review
projects or formal plats and planned residential developments.
Staff Recommendation
Move adoption of ordinance provided in Exhibit 1 to future consent agenda to be adopted following
Department of Commerce notice period.
INTRODUCTION
As part of the overall update of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), staff is
reviewing the City's land use processes. This review has included discussions of the Councils role in
quasi-judicial decisions as well as other code cleanup matters related to land use decisions and
processes.
Packet Pg. 286
7.1
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Exhibit 1) in 2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions
to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will move quasi-judicial decision -making
responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards and direct it to the hearing
examiner to the extent allowed by state law. The adopted resolution requests that city staff and the
Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with
this resolution.
TYPES OF CITY COUNCIL QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS
The city council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following applications and
appeals (see ECDC 20.01.003):
Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities; Design review (where a public hearing by the architectural
design board is required); Conditional use permits (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is
required); Variances; Home occupation permit (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is
required); Preliminary formal plat; and Preliminary planned residential development.
Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats; Final planned residential development; and Site
specific rezone.
In addition to the Type IV applications and appeals of Type III-B, pursuant to ECDC 17.00.030.C, the City
Council also sits in a quasi-judicial role for variance applications from public agencies.
QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS CODE AMENDMENTS
Most of the discussion around quasi-judicial decisions before City Council has focused on closed record
appeals of Type III-B decisions (decisions issued by the Hearing Examiner or Architectural Design Board)
to the City Council. At the April 23, 2019 Council meeting, the Council indicated a desire to retain its role
in certain quasi-judicial decisions, but not for design review projects requiring a public hearing by the
Architectural Design Board or for formal subdivisions and planned residential developments. The code
amendments in Exhibit 2 reflect this guidance from the Council.
Other related code amendments discussed below clarify public hearing and appeal proceedings,
eliminate provisions that are not consistent with state law, and provide other clean up and clarifications
related to decision processes.
OTHER LAND USE PROCESS CODE AMENDMENTS
Public Agency Variance
When a public agency applies for a variance from provisions of the zoning ordinance, pursuant to ECDC
17.00.030.C, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation on the variance to the City Council. The
City Council then holds a closed record hearing to consider the variance request. The recent Edmonds-
Woodway High School Playfields Project reviewed by the Council is an example of this process. The
criteria for public agency variances is the same criteria for other variance requests (see ECDC 20.85.010).
Further review of public agency variances before the City Council seems to only result in additional
process since the review criteria is the same. Zoning variances are Type III-B decisions which are
Packet Pg. 287
7.1
appealable to the City Council. Therefore, requiring public agency variances to also be heard by the
Council is proposed to be eliminated (Exhibit 5).
Final Plat and Planned Residential Developments
Final formal plats (subdivision of property into five or more lots) and Final Planned Residential
Developments are currently Type IV -A quasi-judicial decisions made by the City Council. Subdivisions
and Planned Residential Developments require multiple approvals and by the time the final subdivision
or PRD is before the Council much of the construction related to the subdivision has already been
completed. This can include the installation of roads, sidewalks, utilities stubs (water, sewer, power,
gas, cable), and stormwater facilities. Often the only construction that has not been completed is the
residences on the new lots since those permits cannot be issued until the subdivision has been finaled.
There is little new input that can be provided by the Council at final subdivision or PRD review as the
development has largely been completed. This situation has been recognized by the City Council during
recent reviews of some final plats.
Review of final plats by the legislative body used to be something that was required by state law
(Chapter 58.17 RCW). In 2017, the state legislature passed SB 5674 which allows the legislative
authorities to delegate final plat approval to administrative personnel. Exhibit 4 contains amendments
to the City's subdivision regulations (Chapter 20.75 ECDC) which would delegate the Council's role in
reviewing final formal subdivisions to see if they have met the requirements previously established.
Similar amendments to the PRD chapter (Chapter 20.35 ECDC) are included in Exhibit 5.
Related Code Amendments
In reviewing the code to address quasi-judicial decision making by the City Council, other items were
identified that logically should be addressed concurrently with this update.
Chapter 20.06 ECDC - Open Record Public Hearing & Chapter 20.07 ECDC Closed Record Appeals
The distinction is not clear between these chapters because appeals of Type II staff decisions reference
Chapter 20.07 ECDC for the appeal process, but appeals of Type II decision are heard before the Hearing
Examiner in an open record public hearing. As part of this amendment, Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC
are proposed to be combined into a single chapter to remove this confusion (Exhibit 3). As part of this
combination, detail on the appeal format and procedures before the hearing examiner are also being
addressed.
ECDC 20.100.040 Review of approved permits
ECDC 20.100.040 - Review of approved permits is a problematic code section in that it is likely
noncompliant with state law. See the City Attorney's memorandum in Exhibit 2 detailing potential legal
issues with this section. Given these concerns, staff is proposing to delete ECDC 20.100.040 (Exhibit 5).
To make clear that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with
conditions of approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045)
has been added to Chapter 20.110 ECDC - Civil Violation Enforcement Procedure (Exhibit 5).
Development Agreements
Packet Pg. 288
7.1
ECDC 20.01.003, currently identifies the approval process for development agreements (Chapter 20.08
ECDC) as a Type V legislative action. As part of this update, the proposal is to modify the approval
process of development agreements to a Type IV process with an open record public hearing before the
Planning Board, after which the Planning Board would make a recommendation to the City Council
(Exhibit 2 and 5). The City Council would hear the development agreement proposal in a closed record
hearing format. This change recognizes that under state law (Chapter 36.70B RCW), development
agreements are not legislative and, in fact, must be consistent with the local development code.
As a practical matter, the development agreement review process should be generally consistent with
the review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction
with the development agreement. The site -specific rezone is one type of project permit application that
would likely be sought in conjunction with a development agreement. So, it makes sense to use a similar
quasi-judicial process. It would only make sense to process development agreements as legislative if
they are being processed in conjunction with a comprehensive plan amendment, which seems less
likely.
NEXT STEPS
A draft ordinance is provided in Exhibit 1. Notice of the proposed code changes has been provided to
the state Department of Commerce. Staff recommendation is to move the ordinance to an upcoming
consent agenda that allows completion of the Commerce notice period.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance
Exhibit 2: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Draft Amendments
Exhibit 3: Draft Revised Chapter 20.06 ECDC
Exhibit 4 - Draft Chapter 20.75 ECDC Amendments
Exhibit 5 - Related Draft ECDC Amendments
Exhibit 6: Resolution No. 1367
Exhibit 7: May 23, 2018 City Attorney Memorandum regarding ECDC 20.100.040
Exhibit 8: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 9: July 26, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 10: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 11: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 12: November 20, 20180 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 13: March 5, 2019 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Exhibit 14: April 23, 2019 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Packet Pg. 289
7.1.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING VARIOUS PROCEDURES
CONTAINED IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE.
WHEREAS, as part of the overall update of the City of Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC), staff is reviewing the City's land use processes; and
WHEREAS, this review has included discussions of the Council's role in quasi-judicial
decisions as well as other code cleanup matters related to land use decisions and processes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016 expressing the intent
to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that would transfer
the quasi-judicial decision -making role from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards
to the hearing examiner, to the extent allowed by state law; and
WHEREAS, 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 that
resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board heard an introduction on this matter at its May 23, 2018
meeting and held a public hearing on July 25, 2018, after which the Board adopted a
recommendation that was forwarded to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard an introduction on this subject at the September 4,
2018 Council meeting and moved to hold a public hearing to receive public feed on the proposed
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Council's public hearing was held on October 2, 2018; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2018, the City Council's meeting included consideration
of potential amendments detailing a process that contemplated the City Council filing a judicial
appeal of a decision made by the City's hearing examiner as a party, rather than sitting as the
appellate body; and
Packet Pg. 290
7.1.a
WHEREAS, the Council continued discussion on the potential amendments related to the
Council's quasi-judicial appeal role at the March 5, 2019 Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, at the April 23, 2019 City Council meeting, the City Council indicated a
desire to remain sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity for certain permit applications and appeals,
but not for larger design review projects or formal plats and planned residential developments;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 20.01 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Types of Development Project Permits," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A
hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in
underline; deleted text is shown in s4ile thfettgh).
Section 2. Chapter 20.06 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Open Record Public Hearings," is hereby retitled as "Public Hearings and Appeals," and
amended to read as shown on Attachment B hereto, which is incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; text moved from one location to
another is shown in double underline where it was moved to, and shown in
where it was moved from; deleted text is shown in stfike dffoug ).
Section 3. Chapter 20.07 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Closed Record Appeals," is hereby repealed.
Section 4. Chapter 20.75 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Subdivisions," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment C hereto, which is
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline;
deleted text is shown in strike through).
Section 5. Section 17.00.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Application of regulations," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment D hereto,
which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in
underline; deleted text is shown in stile).
Packet Pg. 291
7.1.a
Section 6. Subsection F, entitled "Restoration," of Section 17.40.020, entitled
"Nonconforming building and/or structure," of the Edmonds Community Development Code, is
hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment D hereto, which is incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in s4ike-
thfough)
Section 7. Section 17.40.025 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units," is hereby amended to read as shown
on Attachment D hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full
(new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike thfo g ).
Section 8. Section 17.100.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Conditional use permits (CUP) — Community churches and schools requiring a CUP," is hereby
amended to read as shown on Attachment D hereto, which is incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in st ike-
through)
Section 9. Subsection I of Section 19.00.025, entitled "International Building Code
section amendments," of the Edmonds Community Development Code, is hereby amended to
read as shown on Attachment D hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set
forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike thr-o g ).
Section 10. a new Section 20.02.007 of the Edmonds Community Development Code,
entitled "Notice of final decision," is hereby added to read as shown on Attachment D hereto,
which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in
underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thfoug ).
Section 11. Section 20.06.009 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Notice of final decision," is hereby repealed.
Section 12. Section 20.05.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"General requirements," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment D hereto, which is
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline;
deleted text is shown in st-Fike through).
Packet Pg. 292
7.1.a
Section 13. Section 20.08.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Approval procedure for development agreements," is hereby amended to read as shown on
Attachment D hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new
text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in s4il£e thfough).
Section 14. Section 20.11.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Review procedure — General design review," is hereby amended to read as shown on
Attachment D hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new
text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in s4ike thfettgh).
Section 15. Section 20.12.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Applicability," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment D hereto, which is
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline;
deleted text is shown in st-Fike thr-ough).
Section 16. Section 20.11.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Appeals," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment D hereto, which is incorporated
herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is
shown in strike through).
Section 17. Section 20.12.080 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Appeals," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment D hereto, which is incorporated
herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is
shown in strike through).
Section 18. Section 20.16.110 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Reconsideration and appeal," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment D hereto,
which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in
underline; deleted text is shown in stile).
Section 19. Section 20.16.130 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Building permit application," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment D hereto,
which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in
underline; deleted text is shown in s4ike dffettgh).
Packet Pg. 293
7.1.a
Section 20. Section 20.35.080 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Review process," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment D hereto, which is
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline;
deleted text is shown in strike through).
Section 21. Section 20.45.050 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Review of changes to Edmonds register of historic places properties," is hereby amended to
read as shown on Attachment D hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set
forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strip).
Section 22. Section 20.60.015 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Design review procedures," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment D hereto,
which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in
underline; deleted text is shown in strip).
Section 23. Section 20.85.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"General requirements," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment D hereto, which is
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline;
deleted text is shown in st-Fike-through).
Section 24. Section 20.100.040, entitled "Review of approved permits," is hereby
repealed.
Section 25. A new Section 20.110.045 of the Edmonds Community Development Code,
entitled "Suspension or revocation of permit," is hereby added to read as shown on Attachment
D hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown
in underline; deleted text is shown in strike through).
Packet Pg. 294
7.1.a
Section 26. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 27. 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.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 295
7.1.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2019, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING VARIOUS
PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of 12019.
4840-7251-8158,v. 1
7
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 296
7.1.b
Edmonds
Page 1/6
Sections:
20.01.000
Purpose and general provisions.
20.01.001
Types of actions.
20.01.002
Determination of proper procedure type.
20.01.003
Permit type and decision framework.
20.01.006
Legislative enactments not restricted.
20.01.007
Exempt projects.
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard procedures, decision criteria, public notification, and timing
for development project permit application decisions made by the city of Edmonds. These procedures are intended
to:
1. Promote timely and informed public participation;
2. Eliminate redundancy in the application, permit review, and appeals processes;
3. Process permits equitably and expediently;
4. Balance the needs of permit applicants with neighbors;
5. Ensure that decisions are made consistently and predictably; and
6. Result in development that furthers city goals as set forth in the comprehensive plan.
These procedures provide for an integrated and consolidated land use permit process. The procedures integrate the
environmental review process with land use procedures, decisions, and consolidated appeal processes.
B. The provisions of this title supersede all other procedural requirements that may exist in other sections of the city
code. When interpreting and applying the standards of this title, its provisions shall be the minimum requirements.
Where conflicts occur within provisions of this title and/or between this title and other city code provisions and
regulations, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. Where conflict between the text of this title and the zoning
map ensue, the text of this title shall prevail.
C. Unless otherwise specified, all references to days shall be calendar days. Whenever the last day of a deadline falls
on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall
or the city's development services department is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action the
deadline shall run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday or closed day. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010].
20.01.001 Types of actions.
There are five main types of actions (or permits) that are reviewed under the provisions of this chapter. The types of
actions are based on who makes the decision, the amount of discretion exercised by the decision making body, the
level of impact associated with the decision, the amount and type of public input sought, and the type of appeal
opportunity.
A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and II decisions are administrative decisions made by the development services
director or his/her designee (hereinafter the "director"). Type I permits are ministerial decisions are based on
compliance with specific, nondiscretionary and/or technical standards that are clearly enumerated. Type II permits
are administrative decisions where the director makes a decision based on standards and clearly identified criteria,
but where public notice is required. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set
forth in ECDC 20.97.00406.030..
B. Quasi -Judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of Type II and Type rrr (B only) decisions are quasi-
judicial decisions that involve the use of discretionary judgment in the review of each specific application. Quasi-
judicial decisions are made by the hearing examiner, the architectural design board, and/or the city council.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 297
Edmonds
Page 2/6
C. Legislative Decisions. Type V actions are legislative decisions made by the city council under its authority to
establish policies and regulations regarding future private and public developments, and management of public
lands.
1. Planning Board. The planning board shall hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the city
council on Type V actions, except that the city council may hold a public hearing itself on area -wide rezones to
implement city policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map. The
public hearing shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC, RCW 36.70A.035
and all other applicable law.
2. City Council. The city council may consider the planning board's recommendation in a public hearing held
in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable
law. If the city council desires to hold a public hearing on area -wide rezones to implement city policies, or
amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map, it may do so without forwarding
the proposed decision to the planning board for a hearing.
3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall be provided to the public as set forth in
Chapter 20.03 ECDC.
4. Implementation. City council Type V decision shall be by ordinance or resolution and shall become effective
on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010].
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type.
A. Determination by Director. The director shall determine the proper procedure for all project applications.
Questions concerning the appropriate procedure shall be resolved in favor of the higher numbered procedure.
B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed
collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed
individually under each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may determine
whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the applications are processed individually,
the highest numbered type procedure shall be undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from
the highest numbered to the lowest. When Type III -A and Type III-B permits are consolidated under this
subsection, the project shall proceed under the Type 111-A permit process.
C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection (B) of this section which have the same
procedure number, but are assigned to different hearing bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest
decisionmaker; the city council being the highest body, followed by the hearing examiner, architectural design board
or planning board, as applicable, and then the director. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be processed
according to ECDC 20.06.041010. Concurrent public hearings held with the architectural design board and any
other decisionmaker shall proceed with both decisionmakers present. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A),
2009].
20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework.
A. Permit Types.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 298
7.1.b
Edmonds
Page 3/6
TYPE I
TYPE II -A
TYPE II-B
TYPE III -A
TYPE III-B
Tin
TYPE IV-B
TYPE V
Zoning compliance
Accessory dwelling unit
Contingent critical area
Outdoor dining
Essential public
Fi....'�ats
Site specific rezone
Development
letter
review
facilities
agreements
Lot line adjustment
Formal interpretation of
Shoreline substantial
Technological
Design review ( were
Final planned
Development
Zoning text
the text of the ECDC by
development permit,
impracticality waiver
piAlie heafing by
Fesidential a,.. ,.laps. en4
agreements
amendment; area -wide
the director
where public hearing
for amateur radio
..rehite,.,. ral design
zoning map
not required per ECDC
antennas
bred)
amendments
24.80.100
Critical area
SEPA determinations
Critical area variance
Comprehensive plan
determinations
amendments
Shoreline exemptions
Preliminary short plat
Contingent critical area
Conditional use permits
Annexations
review if public hearing
(where public hearing
requested
by hearing examiner is
required)
Minor amendments to
Land clearing/grading
Shoreline substantial
Variances
Development
planned residential
development permit,
regulations
development
where public hearing is
required per ECDC
24.80.100
Minor preliminary plat
Revisions to shoreline
Shoreline conditional
Home oeeupation
amendment
management permits
use
hearing by hearing-
ed)
Staff design review,
Administrative
Shoreline variance
Prelim nary formal Plat
including signs
variances
Final short plat
Land use permit
Design review (where
Preliminavy planned -
public hearing by
extension requests
residential developmen'
architectural design
board is required)
Sales office/model
Guest house
Preliminary formal plat
(ECDC 17.70.005)
Final formal plats
Innocent purchaser
Preliminaa planned
residential development
determination
Final planned
residential development
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
c
Y
lC
C
O
.y
N
G
r_r
E
L
d
IL
d
N
C
R
J
rn
r
C
d
E
C
O
E
Q
is
L
V
G
V
W
T_
O
C
N
L
d
Q
R
t
V
N
r
's
K
W
C
d
E
v
to
r
Q
Packet Pg. 299
Edmonds
Page 4/6
B. Decision Table.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 300
7.1.b
Edmonds
Page 5/6
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I — IV)
LEGISLATIVE
TYPE I
TYPE II -A
TYPE 11-B
TYPE 111-A
TYPE III-B
TVPE A'
TYPE IV-B
TYPE V
Recommendation by:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Planning board
Planning board
Final decision by:
Director
Director
Director
Hearing
Hearing
Gity e0uneil
City council
City council
examiner/ADB
examinerhkD-B
Notice of application:
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Open record public
No
Only if appealed,
(1) If director
Yes, before hearing
Yes, before hearing
No
Yes, before planning
Yes, before planning
hearing or open record
open record hearing
decision is appealed,
examiner or board to
examiner or board to
board which makes
board which makes
appeal of a final
before hearing
open record hearing
render final decision
render final decision
recommendation to
recommendation to
decision:
examiner
before hearing
council
council or council
examiner
could hold its own
(2) If converted to
hearing
Type III -A process
Closed record review:
No
No
No
No
Yes, before the
Ne
Yes, before the
council
council
Judicial appeal:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
c
Y
lC
C
O
Ah
G
rr
E
L
d
IL
d
N
C
R
J
N
rr
C
d
E
C
O
E
Q
l3
L
V
V
W
r
0
0
N
L
d
Q
R
V
N
r.+
's
K
LU
c
d
E
r
Q
Packet Pg. 301
7.1.b
Edmonds
Page 6/6
C. Any reference to "Type II" in the Edmonds Community Development Code without expressly being modified as
"Type II-B" shall be construed to mean Type II -A for the purposes of this section unless the context clearly suggests
otherwise. [Ord. 4072 § 7 (Att. G), 2017; Ord. 4026 § 4, 2016; Ord. 3982 § 4, 2014; Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3806
§ 2, 2010; Ord. 3787 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall limit the authority of the city council to make
changes to the city's comprehensive plan, or the city's development regulations as part of the annual revision
process. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.01.007 Exempt projects.
A. The following projects are specifically excluded from the procedures set forth in this chapter: historic register
designations, building permits, street vacations, street use permits, encroachment permits, and other public works
permits issued under ECDC Title 18.
B. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.140(2), lot line or boundary adjustments, building and/or other construction permits, or
similar administrative approvals categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21 C
RCW and the city's SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC), or permits/approvals for which
environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits, are excluded from the
requirements of RCW 36.70B.060 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130, which includes the following procedures:
1. Notice of application (ECDC 20.03.002) unless an open record hearing is allowed on the permit decision;
2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional consolidated permit review processing (ECDC
20.01.002(B));
3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 20.06.894010);
4. Single report stating all of the decisions and recommendations made as of the date of the report that do not
require an open public record hearing (ECDC 20.06.002050(C)); and
5. Notice of decision (ECDC 20.06..00920.02.007). [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 302
7.1.c
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chapter 20.06
OPEN RECO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS
Sections:
20.06 000 Genefal.
20.06.000 General
20.06.010 Joint public hearings
20.06.020 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal
20.06.030
Appeals of permit decisions or recommendations
20.06.040
Prehearing conference
20.06.050
Responsibility of director - Open record public hearing
20.06.060
Conflict of interest
20.06.070
Ex parte communications
20.06.080
Disqualification
20.06.090
Burden and nature of proof
20.06.100
Order of proceedings - Predecision open record public hearing
20.06.110
Procedure for an open record appeal hearing
20.06.120
Procedure for closed record decision/appeal
20.06.130 Decisions
20.06.140 Reconsideration of decision
20.06.150 Judicial appeals
20.06.000 General.
Page 1115
A. An open record public hearing is a hearing conducted by an authorized body or officer that creates the ems -
record upon which the outcome of a decision or appeal is based through testimony and the submission of documents
and other evidence . A public hearing may be held prior to the city's decision on a a^vr
project permit application; this is an "open record predecision hearing." A public hearing may be held on an appeal
if no open record predecision hearing was held for the -a peniiAdecision on a project permit application; this is an
"open record appeal hearing."
B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and IV permit applications and open record appeal hearings on
all appeals of Type II decision appeals shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter. Public hearings
conducted by the city hearing examiner shall also be subject to the hearing examiner's rules.
CA. "Closed record anneal" means an administrative anneal to the city council. Such appeals are decided based on
the previously created record.
i3ei:Fnit ai3i3liegiea when the While such appeal proceedings :s o the r-eeer- with Redo not allow new testimony,
documents or other evidence ^r in f rmMie a4ew^a to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC
20.06-7.005120 B .- and enly appeal ar-guments are allowed based Mon the record.
shall be as
allowed and described in the matrix set forth in ECDC 20.01.003.
r
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 303
7.1.c
Edmonds Page 2/15
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
E. In this chapter, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the words "writing" and "written" shall include
electronic writings and things written electronically.C. Unless other -wise provided, appeals of Type rr decisions-.
2
�nnni
•v
20.06.00-1-010 Joint public hearings.
.y
�
A. Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The developm"r* se es a;,.", ter- of his,lbef designee (he -eia foe • the
CY
"directoocity may tee -jointly conduct any public hearing on a project permit application with any hearing that
r-
may be held -conducted by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, on the proposed action, as long as
the requirements of subsection (C) of this section are met.
R
B. Applicant's Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that the city conduct a joint public hearing
with another agency, as described in subsection (A), above —on ",.email .,..plie. iea be ,.,.ri,binea as long as the joint
o
hearing schedule ^"would allow a decision to be issued within the applicable time periods set forth in this
2
ehaptefTitle 20. i the alte . miN; "If the joint hearing schedule would not allow a decision to be issued within the
applicable time periods, the applicant may agree in writing to " pa-14 eulaf ",.Bain" ifadditionaltime is nee an
�
extension of the applicable time periods in order to oomplete the hear:ngsallow a joint public hearingto be
E
conducted.
a`)
a
C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held with another local, state, regional,
y
federal or other agency and the city, when:
c
�
1. The other agrne s Doin sg o is not expressly prohibited by statute f•^ so;;
�
2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencfies2 applicable notice
p
requirements as set rn4u ; sta44es , rdinaneesor- rules;
W
3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant in enough
W
R
time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city hearing; Brand
N
L
4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the city. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010].
Q.
M
z
MAGA 0-306.020 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal,
V
A. Standing Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an administrative anneal.
d
B. Definition. The term "parties of record," for the purposes of this chapter, shall mean:
1. The applicant
r
v
L
2. Any person who testified at thean open record public hearing on the subject application:
&i
3. Any person who ;ra;.,:a„"" ubffiitssubmitted written comments concerning the subject application -ate
,.!ie heafifte (o . ". ,.f" TMUng. rr ao ;": �� PROVIDED THAT. RgUWns who
t
K
have only signed a petitions are not "parties of record:" and/or
w
c
d
4. The city of Edmonds. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. AL 20091.
E
20.01a00406.030 Appeals of project permit decisions Elations.r
An administrative a gals of a decision on a project permit de eisienaapplication_ Q
on a emit ". i31ie .:,) shall be governed by the following:
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 304
7.1.c
Edmonds Page 3/15
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Standine. Oniy ,.^rties pro^ rd have Stan ine t anneal -.e l,o.,rin 1 body's , ecisi reserved -
B. Time to File. An anneal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the hearing bady'^ written decision on
a project permit application. The anneal period for determinations of nonsi nificance shall be extended for an
additional seven days, if state or local rules adopted pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW allow public comment on a
y
U)
determination of nonsignificance issued as Dart of the ^^ in relation to the applicable project permit
c
deeisierta�plication. Appeals, including fees. must be received by the citv's development services department by
a
mail or by personal delivery at or before 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the anneal period. Anneals received by
mail after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such appeals were
.5
mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the hearing body's
decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the appeal is a Saturday. Sunday, legal holiday designated
by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall or the city's development services department
CY
is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action, then the anneal may be filed on the next day that is
c
not a Saturday. Sunday, holiday or closed day.
M
c
D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required appeal fee as set forth in the
R
city's adopted fee resolution, and contain the following information:
c
0
1. Appellant's name. address, email address, and phone number
N
2. A statement describing appellant's standing to appeal:
3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal;
E
L
d
a
4. Appellant's statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based with c
m
NJ
references to the facts i the record;
5. The specific relief sought:
M
J
6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the
C)
a pellant's signature.
V
w
7. All written submittals should be tuned or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by
w
0
11 inches). with one -inch margins. using readable font tune (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller
o
than 12-point), single sided.
N
m
E. Effect. The timely filing of an anneal shall stay the hearing bo&'^ decision on the applicable project permit
M
application, or portion therdrawn.
V
F. Notice of Appeal. The deve , igmefft sefviees director (heFeina€teF the Tshall provide re written
v0i
notice of the appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.97.00306.020. [Ord. 3817 & 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 &
4 (Exh. A). 20091.
r
0
G. Multiple appeals. More than one appeal maybe filed concerning the same decision on a project permit
p`
application.
M
20.06.040 Prehearinu Conference
t
x
A. The Hearing Examiner may on his or her own order, or at the request of the city, applicant or appellant, hold
w
one or more conferences prior to the hearing to consider:
d
1. Identification, clarification, and simplification of the issues;
t
2. Disclosure of witnesses to be called and exhibits to be presented;
Q
3. MetionsThe scheduling or hearing of motions that any party would like to have considered;
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 305
7.1.c
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 4/15
4. Other matters deemed by the Hearing Examiner appropriate for orderly and expeditious disposition of the
proceedings.
B. Prehearine conferences may be held by telenhone conference
C. The Hearing Examiner shall give notice to all parties of record of any prehearing conference to be held. Notice
shall be in any written form.
D. All parties of record shall participate atin any prehearing conference unless they granted by the
Hearing Examiner not to participate. Failure to participate without such permission may result in that party's waiver
of issues adjudicated during the prehearing conference and/or dismissal of the appeal.-
E. Following the prehearing conference, the Hearing Examiner shall issue an order reciting the actions taken or
ruling on motions made at the conference.
20.06.002050 Responsibility of director for hearing - Open Record Public Hearing.
The director shall:
A. Schedule project permit applications for review and public hearing;
B. Verify compliance with notice requirements;
C. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report which sets forth all of the decisions
made on the proposal as of the date of the report, including recommendations on project permit Vplicationss in the
consolidated permit process that do not by themselves require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall
also describe any mitigation required or proposed under the city's development regulations or SEPA authority. If the
threshold determination, other than a determination of significance, has not been issued previously by the city, the
report shall include or append this determination;
D. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and mail a copy of the notice of decision to those
entitled by this chapter to receive the decision. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.003060 Conflict of interest.
The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics, prohibitions on conflict of interest and appearance of
fairness doctrine as set forth in Chapter 42.23 RCW, and Chapter 42.36 RCW as the same now exists or may
hereafter be amended. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.004070 Ex parte communications.
A. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly, regarding any issue in a proceeding
before him or her, other than to participate in communications regarding procedural aspects necessary for
maintaining an orderly process, unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.
Nothing herein shall prevent the hearing body from seeking legal advice from its legal counsel on any issue.
B. If, before serving as -on the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any member of the hearing body receives
an ex parte communication of a type that could not properly be received while serving, the member of the hearing
body, promptly after starting to serve, shall disclose the communication as described in subsection (C) of this
section.
C. If a member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in violation of this section, he or she shall
place in the record:
1. All written communications received;
2. All written responses to the communications;
3. The substance of all oral communications received, and all responses made; and
4. The identity of each person from whom the member received any ex parte communication.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 306
7.1.c
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 5115
The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on the record. Upon request made after
notice of the ex parte communication, any party desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a
rebuttal statement on the record. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.0N080 Disqualification.
A. Any member who is disqualified shall make full disclosure to the audience of the reason(s) for the
disqualification, abstain from voting on the proposal, and physically leave the hearin rg oom.
B. If enough members of the hearing body are disqualified so that a quorum cannot be achieved, then all members
present, after stating their reasons for disqualification, shall be prequalified and deliberations shall proceed. [Ord.
3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.006090 Burden and nature of proof.
A. Except for Type V actions and, appeals of Type rr actions and elosea record appeal", the burden of proof is on the
proponent. The development —project permit application must be supported by convincing proof -evidence in the
record that it conforms to the applicable elements of the city's development regulations and eomprehensive plan
(review criteria). The proponent must also prove that any significant adverse environmental impacts have been
adequately mitigated.
B. In an appeal of T5Te 11 ,.etions or elosed reeds appeal, the appellant has the burden of proof with respect to
points raised on appeal.
G. in a elosed reeord appeal of the arehiteetural design board, its deeision shall be given substantial deferenee
,., ing deeisie review within its o peftise and , „*mina : its deeisiens. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4
(Exh. A), 2009].
20.06.007100 Order of proceedings — Predecision Open Record Public Hearing.
The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the hearing. The following shall be
supplemented by administrative procedures and/or hearing examiner rules as appropriate.
A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue, the following shall be determined:
1. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and if there is objection, the hearing
body may proceed or terminate the proceeding;
2. Any member disqualifications shall be determined.
B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly known and accepted information, such as:
1. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted development standards, and state and federal law;
2. Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law.
C. Order of presentation. The order of presentation for predecision open record public hearings generally
proceed as follows:
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 307
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Hearing Examiner's or hearing body's introductory statement;
2. Staff presentation;
3. Applicant's presentation;
4. Public testimony on proposal;
5. Response from staff (if any);
6. Rebuttal from applicant (if any);
7. Questions of staff, applicant, or other persons submitting testimony;
8. Deliberation by hearing body if applicable;
Page 6/15
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection C, the order of hearing may be modified or a different order
established if the hearing body deems necessary for the clear and fair presentation of evidence. The order of the
hearing may also be modified as agreed upon by parties with the hearing body's approval.
E. The order of presentation at hearing shall not alter or shift any burdens or presumptions(s) established by
applicable law(s).
EF. Information officially noticed need not be proved by submission of formal evidence to be considered by the
hearing body. Parties requesting official notice of any information shall do so on the record. The hearing body,
however, may take notice of matters listed in subsection (B) of this section at any time. Any information given
official notice may be rebutted.
13G. The hearing body may view the proposed project site or planning area with or without notification to the
parties, but shall put into the record a statement setting forth the time, manner and circumstances of the site visit and
any relevant observations made during the visit.
EH. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may, in
his or her discretion, permit persons a#endingparticipating in the hearing to ask questions of other participants.
Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, approved -an. sy uch questions will be asked of per -sons submitting
toby-through the presiding officer.
liI. When the presiding officer has closed the public eaffiffiewtestimony portion of the hearing, the hearing body
may openly discuss the issue and may further question the staff or any person submitting testimony. An
opportunity to present rebuttal testimony shall be provided if new information is presented irthrough the
questioning. When all evidence has been presented and all questioning and rebuttal completed, the presiding officer
shall officially close the record and end the hearing. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 308
7.1.c
Edmonds Page 7/15
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
20.06.110 Procedure for open record appeal hearing.
A. Anneal hearings shall have a structured format and shall be conducted in a manner deemed by the Hearin
Examiner to make the relevant evidence most readily and efficiently available to the Hearing Examiner and to
w
provide the parties a fair opportunity for hearing
N
0
B. Where the code provides that the appellant has the burden of proof to overcome the City decision being_
a
appealed, the order of hearing is generally as follows:
1. Hearing Examiner's introductory statement;
.2
0
2. Parties' opening statements (if allowed by hearing examiner);
3. Appelant's presentation of evidence and ar ument;
3
CY
4. Department's presentation of evidence and argument;
c
5. Applicant's presentation of evidence and argument(if applicant is not the appellant);
6. Appelant's presentation of rebuttal evidence and argument;
c
0
7. Closing argument of parties (if allowed by hearing examiner);
c
C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection B, the order of hearing may be modified or a different order
g
established if the Hearing Examiner deems necessary for the clear and fair presentation of evidence. The order of
N
the hearing may also be modified as a rg eed upon by the parties with the Hearing Examiner's approval.
0)
r
D. The order of presentation at hearing shall not alter or shift any burden(s) or presumptions(s) established by
E
applicable law(s).
a)
a
E. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may, in his
N
or her discretion, permit persons participating in the hearing to ask questions of other participants. Unless the
presiding officer specifies otherwise, questions will be asked through the presiding officer.
0
J
2M6.1207" Procedure for closed record decision/an_oea4hearin2s.
tU
A. Closed record atalshearings shall be argued and decided based on the record established at the open record
0
U
hearing bee ro the hea fifte b,.,1.4a ff:,.or ,.. ase deei. ion is appeflW, which shall include the written
w
deeisionrecommendation of the hearing body/officer, conies of any exhibits admitted into the record, and official
t°
0
transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings.
c
N
I. At his/her own expense, a party te4 of record may have the official tape recording of the open
L
°'
record hearing transcribed: however, to be admitted in4e the receraconsidered during the closed record hearing,
0.
0
the transcription must be ^per' Wared and certified by a court reporter or a transcriber that is pre-
t
U
a proved by the city. In addition, the cer-tified-transcriptien must be received by the city directly from the
'D
a�
transcriber at least 16 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record shearing. It shall be
T)
each party of record's responsibility to obtain a copy of the transcription from the city.
tY
2. The director shall maintain a list ofpre-approved transcribers'' m aro eeH' appfew,l; and if needed, shall
a
coordinate with parties to alof record so that no more than one official transcripts is ^ami"ea into g1we
L
0
r d )laced before the city council.
B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the city council except: (1) new information required to
rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte communication tqr-e'idedthat is placed on the record during an
w
a pearance of fairness disclosure: and (24 relo...,pA inn r..,ation #tat in the eiginion e fthe eity , ei
o
m
E
1. ADDell.,nt believe that inn r,v,.,tie 4y request i ,r;ti,,g ,.,;phi
who excluded must specifically
U
R
r
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 309
7.1.c
Edmonds Page 8/15
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
C. Parties a;alof record may present written arguments to the city council. Arguments shall a^"^n�
e rt:cul r errors committed by the , ecisio w ake address the applicable decision criteria, with specific references to
the administrative record. The " eell nt shall bear the l.twde to demonstrate that the decision ; elea
------ - --- --- - ------ --------------
----- -------------------------------
eiven ♦he r or.l
D. While written arguments are not reauired. aDee4antnartles of record may submit his,-&�written arguments no
later than 12 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record r-evieruhearing. Parties of recorder
f the appellam. may submit hk nr- her -written arguments or respond in writing to ftVM l nt'sopening arguments no
later than seven working days before the closed record r-evie hearin alltParties may rebut in writing to
responses submitted by parties of record no later than four working days before the closed record revie heari
,3lie nt : of the ., eellant ,3lie nt , a-Y s„1.mi " final s ffeb ttal i ,ritin . to „ iwll nt's rebutta r.,, 1„♦^r
than two wer-kine days be. re the closed reeord-review,
E. Written arguments, responses. and rebuttals and "..rrobutt"1" must be received by the city's development services
department by mail or personal delivery at or before 4:30 p.m. of the date due. Late submittals shall not be accepted.
Submittals received by mail after 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when
such submittals were mailed or postmarked. it shall be the ro sibility of the .."r.;es ; ^ived t^ obtain f r a.o;r
F. All written submittals should be typed or electronically_ formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 111.
with one -inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 121. single
sided. double spaced and without exceeding 12 pages in length, including exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not
already in the record shall not be allowed.
G. The review shall commence with the resolution of appearance of fairness issues. if anv. followed by the
opportunity for oral presentations by the director and other parties of records. including the appe last. After the
presentations, the city council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to parties of record, with an
opportunity for the director, appellant and/or applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council shall
not request information outside the administrative record. If the city council believes that it needs information not
contained in the record to make a Droner decision on the application. it may remand the application to have the
record reopened for that limited purpose.
If information outside the administrative record is offered (in written submittals or oral nresentation) by a nartv of
record, it shall be the responsibility of other parties of record opposing the same to timely object and provide
justification in support of the objection. Objections to information outside the administrative record shall be brought
before the citv council begins deliberations. The Dartv offering the information shall have the opportunity to show
where in the record said information is contained.
H. The city council shall detei:Fai e •, het "r *' ^ ereview the ei4eprecommendation by the hearing body/officer i-s-
elo"rly effesleetisde novo gjymbased on the evidence in the record. The eity " ";1 shall affirm. edify ^ o e
^„t for " . ecisie within the ♦i s ^as set fist), ;,, RCW 36.70B.080. as all -wed by D!''W
36.703'. the -As it deems necessary, theme city council may remand the deeisiet-application with instructions
to the hearing body to reopen the hearing to obtainfer additional information on a subject that is relevant to the
decision criteria.
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 310
7.1.c
Edmonds Page 9/15
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
20.06.008130 Decision.
A. Following the hearing procedure described in ECDC 20.06.047100, or-ECDC 20.06.110, or ECDC 20.06.120, the
hearing body shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. If the hearing is an appeal, the hearing
body shall affirm, reverse or; y
prokib tion r record 1 ^""""" remand the decision for additional information. to
d
r,
B. The hearing body's written decision shall be issued within 10 working days after the close of record of the C
aL
hearing and within 90 days of the opening of the hearing, unless a longer period is agreed to by the parties. Where
the record is voluminous, the hearing bodv may inform the parties during the hearinia that more than 10 working U
days will be necessary to render a decision.
7
C. The city shall provide a notice of decision as provided in ECDC 20.0602.0097.
D. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on an application within the time limits provided for in this section,
CY
it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons
why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision. [Ord. 3817 § 5,
f°
2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
R
20.06�.009 Notiee of final deeisimt-. [RELOCATE TO ECDC 20.02.0071
A. The difeetef issue Anal deeision 120 days t4e issuanee the detefMinatieff
c
shall a natiee ef within of of Of
0
to ECDC 20.02.003; that the time for issuance final deeision
completeness pursuant provided, period of a notice of
be 90 days, for final 30 days, final 30 days. The inelud-e
on a preliminary plat shall a plat and a short plat notiee shall
the SEPA threshold determination for the deseription For
proposal and a of any available administrative appeals.
Type 11, M 1V the the forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C)
and permits, notice shall contain requiremen4s set and explain
that in tax
L
affected property owners may request a change pro er-ty valuation notwithstanding any program of
d
a
m
1. The final deeisien be deliver-ed to the te
ne6ee of shall mailed or- ether -wise appliea-at, any per -son who--
County
-
c
assessor.
J
the deeision be to the by deemed
by the direetB.
<.i
.Notiee of shall provided publie any means reasonable
C
la the 120 day for issuance the final deeisien, deeision in
V
W
calculating period of notiee of or- other- period speeified -
„bseetion (A) of this section, the following p ods shall be o el,,dedi
to
O
1. Any during the has been by the direeter to
O
N
period w-hieh applioant requested earreet plans, perform required
infeizmatien. The be 4am the da4e the dir-eeter-
studies, or provide additional requir-ed per4ed shall ealetilmed
Q.
M
that the infer-mation the for- Aer the date the
t
V
additional previded smisfies request f s -
additional info ided to the eit-y-
.�
a)
N
2. if the direeter deter that the information is insuffleient, the be informed the
-mines submitted appheant shall of
deficieneies the forth in this for the
and proeedures set subsection (B)(1) of section ealoulating exelusion period
shall
r
L
rr
43.21C RGW Chaptef 20.15A ECDC. The time f6f EIS be by
a -ad period pfepafatiea of an shall governed
Chapte f 20.15A ECDC;
t
x
4. Any for issuanee deeision for development
W
+-%
period eonsideration and of a administrative appeals of project-
C
N
appeals,
to by the di fe„teF the .,
., leage,-peFie,1 is
E
unless agFeed and plieaw;
t
c�
R
C. The time limits established in this titledo not apply if a permit-appheatie
r
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 311
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 10115
20.06.048140 Reconsideration of decision.
A. General. Any person identified in ECDC 20.87.00306.020 as having standing to file an administrative appeal
may request reconsideration of a decision of the hearing examiner which issues immediately after the open record
public hearing on a permit application described in this chapter. (There shall be no reconsideration of a decision of
the director (staff), ADB or city council.) Reconsideration is not a condition precedent to any appeal.
Reconsideration shall be limited to:
1. Error(s) of procedure;
2. Error(s) of law or fact;
3. Error(s) of judgment; and/or
4. The discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence,
have been discovered.
B. Time to File. A request for reconsideration, including reconsideration fee, must be filed with the director within
10 calendar days of the issuance of the hearing examiner's written decision. Such requests shall be delivered to the
director before 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the reconsideration period. Requests for reconsideration that are
received by mail after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of this reconsideration period will not be accepted, no matter when
such requests were sent, mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing a request for reconsideration, the day the
hearing examiner's decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the reconsideration is a Saturday,
Sunday, or holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050, or by a city ordinance, then the reconsideration may be filed on
the next business day.
D. Content of Request for Reconsideration. Requests for reconsideration shall be in writing, be accompanied by the
required reconsideration fee, and contain the following information:
1. The name, address, email address, and phone number of the requestor;
2. Identification of the application and final decision which is the subject of the request for reconsideration;
3. Requestor's statement of grounds for reconsideration and the facts upon which the request is based;
4. The specific relief requested;
5. A statement that the requestor believes the contents of the request to be true, followed by his/her signature.
6. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by
11), with one -inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than
12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of a request for reconsideration shall stay the hearing examiner's decision on the
applicable project permit application, or portion thereof, until such time as the hearing examiner issues a decision on
reconsideration.
F. Notice of Request for Reconsideration. The director shall provide ma4e4-witten notice that a request for
reconsideration has been filed to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.0036.020.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 312
7.1.c
Edmonds
Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 11115
G. Hearing Examiner's Action on Request. The hearing examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration
without a hearing, but may solicit written arguments from parties of record. A decision on the request for
reconsideration shall be issued within 10 business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by the city.
1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for all parties of record, regardless of whether
a party filed a motion for reconsideration.
2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a party of record. Any ground not stated in the initial
motion is waived.
3. A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded to the hearing examiner by the city council is not
subject to a motion for reconsideration.
H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration. The hearing examiner shall consider the request for
reconsideration based on the administrative record compiled on the application up to and including the date of the
hearing examiner's decision. The hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or
inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record and the hearing examiner's decision. The reconsideration
decision issued by the hearing examiner may modify, affirm or reverse the hearing examiner's decision.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director shall issue a notice of final decision on reconsideration
in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in ECDC 20.062.OW007.
20AGM*06.150 Judicial ap e
-THavine exhausted anv available administrative anneals. the citv's final decision on an application may be annealed
reeer- ,A4t . st ad-ing t by f4ecommencing a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court.
Such petition must be f4edcommenced within 21 days after issu -nee of the deei iep as provided in Chanter 36.70C
RCW. [Ord. 3817 & 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 & 4 (Exh. A). 20091.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 313
Edmonds
Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Page 12/15
N
d
v
0
L
IL
.2
.y
R
CY
,
c
c�
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions. an
-&6w appealo.. ...---to the oft-, 00uncil, following an -pet.
• c
0
2
m
o
[Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. _
E
L
d
IL
m
,
k M
ma- file- an Admini
(.i
C
V
W
for- the pidIT980S of this @hapt to
0
C
N
L
CD
3. Any PeFson -A
written comments concerning the app4ication at t
heaFing (oF to staffiU" appeal of a Type 11 d 'Alho have An-, are not Parties of
20,0;,004 Appeals of reeommendations and devisions Permit
V
d
LPL
�+
L
M
x
W
d
E
or an additional seven da, s, ifstat@ or- rules adopted pursuant to Chal-te,
t
V
(Q
pumit deeisioo. Appeals, including yken, ------- "Clopment Services depaFtmen' by --ail
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 314
Edmonds Page 13/15
Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 315
Edmonds
Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
Page 14/15
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 316
7.1.c
Edmonds
Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
1
�� ..
Page 15115
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 317
7.1.d
Edmonds
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Chapter 20.75
SUBDIVISIONS
Sections:
20.75.010 Citation of chapter.
20.75.020 Purposes.
20.75.025 Scope.
20.75.030 Subdivision defined.
20.75.035 Compliance required.
20.75.040 Application.
20.75.045 Unit lot subdivision.
20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application.
20.75.055 Lot combination.
20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats.
20.75.065 Preliminary review.
20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit.
20.75.075 Modifications.
20.75.080 General findings.
20.75.085 Review criteria.
20.75.090 Park land dedication.
20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit.
20.75.105 Repealed.
20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short plats.
20.75.110 Changes.
20.75.120 Review of improvement plans.
20.75.130 Installation of improvements.
20.75.135 Preparation of final plat.
20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates.
20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material.
20.75.150 Waiver of survey.
20.75.155 Review of final plat.
20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review.
20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record.
20.75.165 Effect of rezones.
20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions.
20.75.175 Court review.
20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter.
20.75.185 Penalties.
Page 1/14
20.75.010 Citation of chapter.
This chapter may be cited as the City of Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance and shall supplement and implement the
state regulations of plats, subdivisions and dedications found in Chapter 58.17 RCW. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.020 Purposes.
The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance
with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land;
B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways;
C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites
for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements;
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 318
Edmonds
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 2/14
D. To provide for proper ingress and egress, while minimizing impervious surfaces;
E. To require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of subdivided lots;
F. To promote the preservation of critical areas and encourage low impact development;
G. To encourage site design that can make the best use of renewable energy resources including solar and
geothermal;
H. To encourage low impact development (LID) practices when providing for streets and sidewalks. [Ord. 4085 § 18
(Exh. A), 2017; Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.025 Scope.
This chapter shall apply to all divisions of land for any purpose except those set forth in RCW 58.17.040, including
but not limited to:
A. Divisions for cemetery plots or other burial plots;
B. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or by the laws of descent;
C. Divisions for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or travel trailers are
permitted to be placed upon the land and the city of Edmonds has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land
in accordance with this chapter.
Divisions under subsections (A) and (B) of this section will not be recognized as lots for building purposes unless all
applicable requirements of this chapter are met. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.030 Subdivision defined.
A. "Subdivision" means a division of land into lots of any size for the purpose of sale. The term subdivision includes
all resubdivisions of land, short subdivisions, and formal subdivisions. The term "lot" includes tracts, parcels, sites
and divisions. The term "sale" includes lease gift or development or any purpose not excepted in this section. When
reference to "subdivision" is made in this code, it is intended to refer to both "formal subdivision" and "short
subdivision" unless one or the other is specified.
B. "Formal subdivision" means a subdivision of five or more lots.
C. "Short subdivision" means a subdivision of four or fewer lots.
D. "Unit lot subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045 where
compliance with the development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot.
E. "Parent lot' means the lot with legal lot status which establishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision.
F. "Unit lot' means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently transferred upon recording of a
unit lot subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.035 Compliance required.
Any person wishing to create a subdivision or lot line adjustment must first comply with this chapter. [Ord. 4070 § 1
(Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.040 Application.
Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the eewwwaity development services director on forms provided by
the eenmnunivy development services department. A subdivision application will be processed concurrently with any
applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals and other similar approvals, that
relate to the proposed subdivision, unless the applicant expressly requests sequential processing. The application
shall contain the following items in addition to those specified in ECDC 20.02.002:
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 319
Edmonds
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 3/14
A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints required by the eommunivy development_
services department;
B. Title report;
C. A survey map, if required by the sty development services director, of the exterior boundaries of the land
to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the
state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option;
D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC;
E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in -lieu fees, if desired by the applicant;
F. Source of water supply and name of supplier;
G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates and other information
required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic tanks are to be used;
H. Other information that may be required by the sty development services director in order to properly
review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the
proposal. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 62, 2009; Ord. 2379 § 1, 1983].
20.75.045 Unit lot subdivision.
A. Purpose. The unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of land to
create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium
ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. Unit lot subdivisions determine compliance with the
relevant dimensional standards of ECDC Title 16 by analyzing whether the parent lot complies, but not requiring
that each newly created lot within the unit lot subdivision (the unit lot) complies, with those dimensional standards.
A unit lot subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which
the unit lot subdivision is proposed.
B. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family
dwelling units, townhouse, and rowhouses and may be applied only in the following zones: multiple residential,
general commercial, and Westgate mixed -use. A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple
dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building. Flats are permitted as an
element of a unit lot subdivision only when a single lot within a unit lot subdivision contains the entire building in
which flats are located.
C. Association with Site Development — Application Timing. In the case of a vacant lot or a redevelopment site, a
preliminary unit lot subdivision can only be submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a development site plan
as required by Chapter 20.10, 20.11, or 20.12 ECDC, or in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020(B)(3) submitted
in conjunction with or subsequent to a building permit.
D. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot. The parent lot must comply with and is vested to the applicable
development standards (ECDC 20.75.030(E)) in effect at the time a complete application for preliminary unit lot
subdivision is submitted. As a result of the unit lot subdivision, the individual unit lots within the subdivision may
be nonconforming with respect to the bulk and dimensional standards required by ECDC Title 16.
As with dimensional standards, compliance with access standards, including but not limited to fire lanes, drive
aisles, turn-arounds, and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street will be evaluated based on the parent lot's
compliance with such requirements, and not based on whether individual unit lots meet such standards.
E. Future Additions and Modifications. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s)
may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parcel lot. Changes requiring permitting that affect only the
interior of building units will be evaluated for compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior
changes will be evaluated for compliance by considering whether the parent lot would still comply with applicable
development standards. Any application for such external changes will require authorization of all owners of
affected unit lots or approval of the HOA where changes to commonly owned tracts are proposed.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 320
7.1.d
Edmonds Page 4/14
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
F. Homeowners' Association Ownership of Common Areas. Any commonly used areas or facilities within a unit lot
subdivision, including but not limited to common access, garage or parking areas, common open space or recreation
space, common courtyards, commonly used stormwater facilities or side sewers and other similar features, must be
owned and maintained by a homeowners' association with the right to assess the individual unit lot owners as
necessary to properly maintain and repair such areas. Appropriate documentation regarding the rights of the
homeowners association must be submitted for recording with the final plat.
G. Maintenance Agreements for Building Exteriors. Maintenance agreements must be executed and recorded as an
element of the final unit subdivision plat or short plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in cases where
all dwelling units are detached. The maintenance agreement must require equal participation by all owners within
any one building and must be recorded on the final unit lot plat. The requirement does not apply to detached single
family dwelling units. Common wall construction must meet currently adopted building codes.
H. Parking on Different Unit Lots Allowed. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be
provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit as long as the right to use that parking is
formalized by an easement on the final plat.
I. Notice of Unit Lot on the Final Plat. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional
development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the
parent lot must be noted on the final plat.
J. An application for final unit lot plat will not be accepted until all foundations, including common wall
foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land surveyor of record.
K. Review. Unit lot subdivisions of four or fewer lots are processed and reviewed as short subdivisions while five or
more lots are formal subdivisions pursuant to Chapter 20.01 ECDC and the requirements of this chapter. [Ord. 4070
§ 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application.
A. Lot Line Adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an alteration of lot lines between platted or unplatted lots
or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division.
B. Lot Line Adjustment Exempt from Subdivision Review. Except as otherwise provided in this section, lot
adjustments shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter.
C. Lot Line Adjustment Review. All proposals for lot line adjustments shall be submitted to the Edmonds planning
manager or his/her designee for approval. The Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee shall approve the
proposed lot line adjustment unless the manager or his/her designee certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment
will:
1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division;
2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum required by code or make existing
nonconforming setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than before;
3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for the applicable zone;
4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division;
5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any requirement of the ECDC.
D. Application. A lot line adjustment application shall be submitted on forms provided by the city and shall at a
minimum contain the following information:
1. One copy of dimensioned plans on the official city of Edmonds lot line adjustment form. The dimensioned
plans shall be prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington and
shall conform to city of Edmonds survey requirements, as promulgated by the Edmonds planning division.
Information on the plans shall include the following:
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 321
Edmonds
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 5/14
a. Legal descriptions of the existing lots and proposed lot line adjustment(s);
b. The location of all existing structures on the subject parcel(s), including dimensioned setback
information from all existing and proposed lot lines and ingress/egress easements;
c. Locations of all existing ingress/egress and utility easements;
d. Gross lot area for the original parcels and the proposed parcels (gross lot area does not include any lot
area devoted to vehicular ingress/egress easements);
e. The existing zoning of the subject parcel(s);
f. Location of all existing driveways on the subject parcel(s); and
g. The lot lines of adjoining properties for a distance of at least 50 feet.
2. A title company certification which is not more than 30 calendar days old containing:
a. A legal description of the total parcel(s) sought to be adjusted;
b. A list of those individuals, corporations, or other entities holding an ownership interest in the parcel(s);
c. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property(ies) with a description, purpose and reference by
auditor's file number and/or recording number;
d. Any encumbrances on the property; and
e. Any delinquent taxes or assessments on the property.
E. Fee. The application fee shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
F. Expiration. An application for a lot line adjustment shall expire one year after a complete application has been
filed with the city. An extension up to an additional year may be granted by the Edmonds planning manager or
his/her designee upon a showing by the application of reasonable cause.
G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her designee may be appealed to the hearing
examiner as a Type II decision as set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 63,
2009; Ord. 3211 § 1, 1998].
20.75.055 Lot combination.
A. Lot Combination Defined. A lot combination is the combination of two or more legal, illegal, or nonconforming
lots into one or more lots, all of which comply with the provisions of this code in effect at the time of said
combination.
B. An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest in the
property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments.
C. Lot combinations shall be approved as a matter of right unless the development services director finds that the
combination of lots would:
1. Not result in legal conforming lot; and/or
2. Not be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The director shall, as a
part of his decision, determine whether or not the lots, as combined, negatively impact compliance with the
city's urban density requirements as established pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, comprehensive
plan and the Snohomish County planning policies.
D. The director's decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to all properties within 300 feet of the site.
Appeal may be taken from the director's decision within 10 working days of mailing of the decision and posting
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 322
Edmonds
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 6/14
thereof in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 64,
2009; Ord. 3296 § 2, 2000].
20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats.
A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land, showing the existing
conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other information needed to properly review the
proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision may be referred to as a short plat. A preliminary plat shall be
prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to
show clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of 50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering scales may be
used, if necessary. Preliminary plats for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short
plats shall be on an 8-1/2-by- 11 -inch page. The following information shall be shown on the plat:
A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision;
B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision;
C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map;
D. A vicinity sketch;
E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range number;
F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot;
G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any;
H. Lot dimensions and numbers;
I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual shape, steep
topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site;
J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of the owners of
adjacent property;
K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the eonurtunity
development services director. Ten -foot intervals may be used in areas not to be developed. All contour lines shall
be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance to show the topographical relationship of adjacent property
to the proposed subdivision;
L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights -of -way, or easements within or adjacent to
the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the pavement location of existing and proposed streets;
M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of the proposed
subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if any;
N. The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as
requested by the planning development services director;
O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth is to be removed;
P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and proposed drainage
facilities for the site and the adjacent areas;
Q. A statement of improvements to be installed;
R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and areas subject to
flooding;
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 323
7.1.d
Edmonds
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division;
T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within the proposed
subdivision;
Page 7/14
U. Other information that may be required by the community development services director in order to properly
review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the
proposal. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3296 § 1, 2000. Formerly 20.75.055.].
20.75.065 Preliminary review.
A. Responsibility for Review. The eawAntmity development services director, or a designated planning staff
member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The public works director and the
fire department, and other departments if needed, shall participate in preliminary review by appropriate
recommendations on subjects within their respective areas of expertise.
B. Notice of Hearing.
1. When the director of development services has accepted a subdivision for filing, he shall set a
date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC 20.03.003, and by the following for a
formal subdivision:
a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within Snohomish County pursuant to Chapter
1.03 ECC and posting notice in three conspicuous places within 300 feet of any portion of the boundary of
the proposed formal subdivision not less than 10 working days prior to the hearing.
b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within one mile of the city's boundary,
or the proposed subdivision would use the utilities of the city.
c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to the city -county boundary.
d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to a state
highway right-of-way.
e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity location sketch or a location description
in nonlegal language.
C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 120 days from the date of filing.
D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type III -A decision in
accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
E. Short Subdivisions — Staff Review. The director of development services shall review a short
subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required).
F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of the eemffmaity�
development services director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord.
4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009;
Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 1983].
20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit.
The city council shall make its final decision on a proposed formal subdivision within 90 days of the date of filing,
unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time needed to prepare and circulate an
environmental impact statement shall not be included within said 90 days. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3783
§ 13, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 13, 2010].
20.75.075 Modifications.
A. Request. Request for a modification to a requirement of this chapter shall be made on the regular subdivision
application form. The applicant shall state reasons to support the approval of the requested modification.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 324
Edmonds
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 8/14
B. Notice. The notice of the public hearing at which the applicant's proposed subdivision will be considered shall
contain a description of the proposed modification.
C. Consideration. The proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as the proposed subdivision.
The modification may be approved, or recommended for approval, only if all of the required findings set forth in
Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 6, 1998].
20.75.080 General findings.
A proposed subdivision may be approved only if all of the following general findings can be made for the proposal,
as approved or as conditionally approved:
A. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter (as listed in ECDC
20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter.
B. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, or
other adopted city policy, and is in the public interest.
C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification has been
approved as provided for in this chapter.
D. Floodplain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code
relating to floodplain management. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 2466, 1984].
20.75.085 Review criteria.
The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions:
A. Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife habitats, the proposal shall
be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to the resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed
on the proposal to avoid impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways and by relating street, house
site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the land to be divided, or to
nearby residents or property, such as floodplains, steep slopes or unstable soil or geologic conditions, a
subdivision of the hazardous land shall be denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent
with subsections (A)(1) and (2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off -site impacts on drainage, views and so forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout.
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area would be difficult to develop,
the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless special conditions can be imposed on the approval which will
ensure that the lot is developed properly.
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no other feasible access. Special
access provisions, such as shared driveways, turnarounds or frontage streets may be required to minimize
traffic hazards.
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks, public facilities, shorelines and
streams where street access is not adequate.
C. Dedications.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 325
Edmonds Page 9/14
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
1. The city eottnei1-may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for public use.
2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.75.090.
The council may request a review and written recommendation from the planning advisory board.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for streets, including
those on the official street map and the preliminary plat.
D. Improvements.
1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, pedestrian walks and bicycle
paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems, drainage systems and underground utilities
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements necessary to meet the
purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the requirements of:
a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
b. Chapter 19.25 ECDC, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the eommunity development services director,
the public works director, and the fire chief.
3. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions are met:
a. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed subdivision, from the nearest
public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the land to be divided.
b. The land to be divided is zoned RS-20.
c. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil, drainage and slope conditions are
satisfactory for septic use and that all requirements of WAC 248-96-090 are met.
E. Floodplain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth in the Edmonds
Community Development Code for floodplain management. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 7, 1998;
Ord. 2466, 1984].
20.75.090 Park land dedication.
A. Dedication or In -Lieu of Fee Required. Before or concurrent with the approval of the final plat of any
subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in -lieu of dedication, or do a combination of both, for park
and recreational purposes.
B. Proposal of Dedication. Either the applicant or the city may propose dedication of a portion of the land to be
divided in order to meet the regulations of this section. Payment of in -lieu fees is required unless dedication is
proposed and approved.
C. Review of Dedications. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed at the same time as the subdivision proposal. Any
short subdivision containing a dedication proposal shall be reviewed as if it were a formal subdivision.
D. Factors for Review. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the
Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Recreational Walks Plan. Other factors to be considered include
size, usability and accessibility of the land proposed for dedication, and the possibility of coordinating dedication by
owners of adjacent land.
E. In -Lieu Fee. In -lieu park fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 326
Edmonds Page 10/14
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit.
A. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of the time period established
under RCW 58.17.140, unless the applicant has acquired final plat approval prior to the expiration date established N
under RCW 58.17.140. The time period for subdivisions shall commence upon the date of preliminary plat approval m
by the issuance of a written decision by the Edmonds hearing examiner. In the event that the decision of the hearing 0
examiner is appealed to the Edmends eitt, ,.,.,,. ei anEWT Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall a
commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary plat decision by the ^i r-judiciary. �a
.2
B. Approval of a short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of seven five years ifpreliminary M
short plat approval is issued on or before December 31, 2013, and five years if prelimi val is
s
issued on or after Tana^ y' 'n' ^, unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified M
time period. The time period for short plats shall commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In
CI
the event that the decision of staff is appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish County superior
court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary short plat decision by M
the hearing examiner or judiciary. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3925 § 1, 2013].
20.75.105 Extensions of time. M
Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 1983].
c
0
20.75.107 PFelifHiHHFY HPPFOVal Time limit extension fOF pFeviousty appFoved shOFt plats. y
effeetive date of the or-difia-fiee eedified in this seetion shall hER,e their- pr-elifninar-y appr-evals Effitema4ieally extead
sueh short plats shall expire and have no further validity at the end oftwo years from the eff-eetive date ofthe
E
L
d
a
ordinance codified in this seetion, unless the applicant has aequired final short plat approval within the speeified
time period. Notice of the two year extension from the effective date of the ordinance eodified in this seetion shall
be provided to the parties ofreeord of such preliminary short plats. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3925 §
,
M
J
20.75.110 Changes.
A. Preliminary Plats. The eaffm+uaityLdevelopment services director may approve as a Type Il-decision (Sta€
m
decision Notice required) minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, or its conditions of approval. If the
E
proposal involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or roads, additional impacts to surrounding property, or
other major changes, the proposal shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original application. Application fees
shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC.
Q
B. Recorded Final Plats. An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall be processed in the
U
U
same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to affidavits of correction. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1),
w
2017; Ord. 3736 § 66, 2009].
ti
20.75.120 Review of improvement plans.
0
A. Timing. If improvements are required as a condition of preliminary approval of a subdivision, the applicant shall
a
submit the improvement plan to the director of public works for review and approval, allowing sufficient time for
0
t
proper review before expiration of the preliminary plat approval.
C)
L
B. Engineered Design. All improvement plans shall be prepared, dated, signed and sealed by a licensed engineer
�
registered in the state of Washington, unless the public works director determines that engineer plans are not
necessary. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.130 Installation of improvements.
s
x
A. Timing and Inspection Fee. The applicant shall not begin installation of improvements until the public works
w
director has approved the improvement plans, the public works director and the applicant have agreed in writing on
a time schedule for installation of the improvements, and the applicant has paid an inspection fee, as set in Chapter
0
s
15.00 ECDC.
0
B. Completion — Bonding. The applicant shall either complete the improvements before the final plat is submitted
Q
for city council approval, or the applicant shall post a bond or other suitable surety to guarantee the completion of
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 327
Edmonds
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 11/14
the improvements within one year of the approval of the final plat. The bond or surety shall be based on the
construction cost of the improvement as determined by the director of public works, and shall be processed as
provided in Chapter 17.10 ECDC.
C. Acceptance — Maintenance Bond. The director of public works shall not accept the improvements for the city of
Edmonds until the improvements have been inspected and found satisfactory, and the applicant has posted a bond or
surety for 15 percent of the construction cost to guarantee against defects of workmanship and materials for two
years from the date of acceptance.
D. Short Subdivision — Deferred Installation. If the eamffvdnity development services director determines that
installation of improvements will not be needed at the time of the approval of the final plat of the short subdivision,
the improvements shall be installed or guaranteed by bond before issuance of any development permit for any lot
shown on the preliminary plat. This condition shall be stated on the final plat, and shall be binding on all later
owners of lots created by the subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.135 Preparation of final plat.
A final plat is a final, precise drawing of a subdivision which conforms to the approved preliminary plat, and meets
all conditions of the preliminary approval and all requirements of this chapter. It shall be prepared in accordance
with the following:
A. Surveyor. A professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington shall prepare, or supervise the
preparation of, the final plat.
B. Survey. The surveyor shall survey the land to be divided, and as much of the section(s) in which the land is
located as is needed to properly orient the land within the section(s).
C. Monuments. The surveyor shall set monuments at street intersections, lot and block corners, boundary angle
points, points of curbs in streets, controlling corners on the boundaries of the land, and other points as required by
the public works director. The type of monuments and the method of setting shall be as specified by the public
works director.
D. Standards. The public works director shall set standards for the preparation of final plats. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1),
2017].
20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates.
The following certificates shall be shown on the final plat. Subsections (A) through (G) of this section shall be
signed by the indicated person before the final plat is submitted for review. Subsection (G) of this section is required
for formal subdivision only.
A. Surveyor. The surveyor shall place his seal and signature on the plat along with:
1. A statement certifying that the plat was prepared by him, or under his supervision;
2. A statement certifying that the plat is a true and correct representation of the land surveyed;
3. A full and correct description of the land to be divided.
B. Owner. The owner shall certify that the subdivision has been made with his free consent and according to his
desires. Owners of other interests shown on the title report shall certify that they have notice of the subdivision.
C. Dedications. A certificate of dedication by the owner for all areas to be dedicated to the public, acknowledged by
a notary.
D. Waiver of Claims. A statement by the owner waiving all claims for damages against any governmental authority
which may arise from the construction, drainage and maintenance of required improvements.
E. Waiver of Access. If required by the conditions of the preliminary approval, a waiver by the owner of direct
access to any street from any property.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 328
Edmonds Page 12/14
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
F. Roads Not Dedicated. A statement or other clear indication by the owner if any street is not to be dedicated to the
public.
G. Health Officer. A statement by the city of Edmonds health officer certifying that the proposed means of sewage
disposal and water supply are adequate.
H. Director of Public Works. The following statements to be signed by the director of public works:
1. A statement approving the survey date, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights -of -way, design of
bridges, sewage and water system and other structures; and approving the final plat or short subdivision.
r. .resrzre!eves�� rsre,�e!�crsseesstisrse�n:ees:rsre saw sear�ese rs�
I. Development Services Director. The following statements to be signed by the lunit}�
development services director:
1. A statement that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all conditions of the
preliminary approval; and approving the final plat or shore subdivision.
Approval. A statement to be signed by the mayor and eity clerk that the eity council has approved the finalL
c
•City
plat of a formal subdivision or a short subdivision with a dedioation.
a
K. Taxes. A statement to be signed by the county treasurer that all taxes and delinquent assessments for which the
m
land to be divided may be liable as of the date of the signing of the statement have been paid. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh.
1), 2017].
M
J
20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material.
rn
The following material shall be submitted to the director of public works with the final plat:
E
A. Review Fee. A review fee for the final plat as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid for each check or recheck
c
of the final plat.
E
E
Q
B. Survey Notes. Complete field and computation notes of the plat survey showing the original or reestablished
corners with descriptions and the actual traverse showing error of closure and method of balancing. A sketch
V
showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and distances of the plat shall
w
accompany this data. The allowable error of closure shall not exceed one foot in 5,000 feet.
ti
C. Title Report. A title report showing that ownership and other interests in the land described and shown on the
0
N
final plat is in the name of the person signing the owner's certificate. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
a
20.75.150 Waiver of survey.
c�
z
t�
The director of public works may waive the requirement of a survey for the final plat in the following circumstances
if there will be no adverse effect on the public interest: if the boundaries of the lot proposed for short subdivision
have sufficient existing monuments to define the proposed lot lines.
If the director of public works waives the survey requirements, the applicant shall prepare a final plat that meets all
other requirements of this chapter and which contains legal descriptions of each proposed lot. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh.
1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 9, 1998].
w
20.75.155 Review of final plat.
c
A. Submission. The applicant may not file the final plat for review until the required improvement plans have been
s
submitted for approval to the director of public works.
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 329
Edmonds Page 13/14
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
B. Time Limit. A final plat shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant for correction within 30 days
of its official filing with the director of public works for review, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time limit.
This time period shall not include required environmental review. N
rn
m
C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the development services director shall conduct an o
administrative review the final plat of ^ formal subdi isio and either sign the statements required by ECDC a
20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in Fa
writine. Such administrative action shall be final subiect onlv to right of anneal to the Snohomish Countv superior .9
court. They shall then forward the final plat to the city council for a Type Al A decision after having signed M
statements required by EGDG 20.75.140 or attaching their reeoFmnendation for disapproval.
.y
M
D. City Gouneil Review. if the e4y eeuneil finds that the publie use and interest will be setwed by the prepesed
7
a
be appfeved and the mayef and eity elefk shall sign the statement of the eity eouneil appFoval on the final p1m.
s4divisien and 4ia4 all fequifements of the preliminafy appfoval in this ehaptef have been met, the f4aal plm shall
M
tM
ED. Acceptance of Dedication. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval of the formal
subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, M
that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the formal
subdivision. City eouneil approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all dedication shown on the final plat. o
[Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 67, 2009; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994]. w
m
20.75.158 Short plat Staff review.developmen4 director- shall conduct an administrative review of a proposed short subdivision and either sign the
�
The eonmnunity services director, through his/her designees, the director- of public works and the eenmnunivy
E
statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such
aetien, stming their reasons in vffitiag. Sueh admiaistrmive aetien shall be f4aal subjeet only te r-ight of appeal to the
L
d
a
c
M
�..o„r....-.... A -A 1,.....o.,o,- ♦h.,r — -h A-11 --,;-A f �1 +h- off . +r _ J
> > > > o
rN+
§ 1ST 1994T
E
20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record.
The city clerk shall file the final plat or short plat for record with the county auditor, and arrange for a reproducible
copy to be sent to the public works department and the applicant and a paper copy to be sent to the county assessor
Q
and the een%+ffi*4y development services department. The plat or short plat shall not be considered "approved" until
C)
so filed with the county auditor. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
U
W
20.75.165 Effect of rezones.
'n
ti
The owner of any lot in a final plat filed for record shall be entitled to use the lot for the purposes allowed under the
N
zoning in effect at the time of filing for five years from the date of filing the final plat for record, even if the property
is rezoned; provided, that all requirements of the community development code, other than lot area, are met. [Ord.
a
4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 20171.
V
20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions.
A further division of any lot created by a short subdivision shall be reviewed as and meet the requirements of this
chapter for formal subdivision if the further division is proposed within five years from the date the final plat was
filed for record; provided, however, that when a short plat contains fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section
shall be interpreted to prevent the owner who filed the original short plat, from filing a revision thereof within the
five-year period in order to create up to a total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries. [Ord.
4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 2623 § 1, 1987].
w
20.75.175 Court review.
c
Any decision approving or disapproving any plat or short plat shall be reviewable for unlawful, arbitrary, capricious
M
or corrupt action or nonaction by writ of review before the Superior Court of Snohomish County. The action may be
M
brought by any property owner in the city, who deems himself or herself aggrieved thereby; provided, that
Q
application for a writ of review shall be made to the court within 30 days from any decision so to be reviewed. The
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 330
Edmonds
Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS
Page 14/14
cost of transcription of all records ordered certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the appellant.
[Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017].
20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter.
No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit shall be issued for any lot unless: (1) the subject
property is a lot of record as defined in ECDC 21.55.015; or (2) the property owner is determined to be an innocent
purchaser in accordance with subsection (A) of this section. Where this section authorizes a lot to be developed even
though such lot does not meet the definition for "lot of record" in ECDC 21.55.015, any development on said lot
shall comply with the city's development regulations, including any applicable development regulations regarding
nonconforming lots.
A. "Lot of Record" Status for Innocent Purchasers. An owner of property may obtain "lot of record" status for a
parcel that does not meet the "lot of record" definition. To obtain this status, the applicant must submit an affidavit
with sufficient supporting documentation to demonstrate that:
1. The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property in question. If the
applicant had knowledge of the subdivision (e.g., knowledge that two parcels in question were once part of the
same parcel), but not of its illegality, the innocent purchase status may not be granted;
2. The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm's length transaction;
3. The owner did not purchase the property from a relative;
4. At the time of purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the subject parcel as a
separate lot; and
5. The parcel had a separate tax ID parcel number prior to the purchase of the property by the applicant.
B. The innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring the applicant to make
improvements to the property that would likely have been required by the city had the property been properly
subdivided, unless it is determined that such improvements have already been constructed.
C. An affirmative determination of innocent purchaser and "lot of record" status shall be recorded with the county
auditor. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3982 § 3, 2014].
20.75.185 Penalties.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of any lot
is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020. Each sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of
each separate lot in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. In
addition to these criminal sanctions, the city shall have the right to bring an action to restrain and enjoin any
subdivision, sale or transfer, compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter and obtain other injunctive
relief. The costs of such action shall be paid by the violator and shall include the city attorney's fees. [Ord. 4070 § 1
(Exh. 1), 2017].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 331
7.1.e
Edmonds
Page 1/12
17.00.030 Application of regulations.
A. Code Compliance Required. All land in the city shall be used, and all buildings shall be built, structurally altered,
or moved onto a site, only in compliance with all regulations of this zoning ordinance.
B. Setbacks — Density.
1. Any setback, yard, minimum lot size, or open space required by this zoning ordinance for one use may not
be used to meet minimum requirements of this zoning ordinance for any other use.
2. When an existing lot is subdivided, or is the subject of a lot line adjustment, the new lot lines will not make
any existing improvements nonconforming to the regulations of this zoning ordinance.
C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency
shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a
location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. it this ease, the
aetien of the hearing examiner- shall be a r-eeeffffneada4ion to the eit-y eetmeil.
17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure.
F. Restoration.
If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75 percent or
more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in
full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Determination of
replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be appealable
as a Type II staff decision under the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75 percent of
replacement costs may be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as
existed before the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application for
a building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.025(G) et seq. within 18 months of the date such
damage occurred. The director may grant a one-time extension of up to 180 days if a written extension
request has been received from the applicant prior to the expiration of the initial 18 months.
2. Residential Buildings. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in use solely for residential
purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be reconstructed without regard to the
limitations of subsections (E) and (F) of this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are met:
a. If a nonconforming multifamily residential building or a mixed use building containing multiple
residential units is damaged in excess of 75 percent of its replacement cost at the time of destruction,
the building may be restored to the same density, height, setbacks or coverage as existing before the
destruction or damage occurred if, but only if, an application for a building permit which vests as
provided in ECDC 19.00.025(G) et seq. is filed within 18 months of the date the damage occurred.
The director may grant a one-time extension of up to 180 days if a written extension request has been
received from the applicant prior to the expiration of the initial 18 months.
b. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely on the site. No
nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use
under state law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such
remodel or reconstruction.
c. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not apply to
nonconforming accessory buildings or structures.
d. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined building
envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to the original style
and structure after complying with current codes. Substantial compliance shall be determined by the
city as a Type II staff decision_, exeept thm any appeal of the stag deeisie shall be to the n-ehite,..,,. a
Design Board (APB) ..a4he,. than to the hearing examine . The decision of the 4 DR hearing examiner
shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC 24.47-.08620.06.160.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 332
Edmonds
Page 2/12
3. The right of restoration shall not apply if:
a. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the
owner's agent;
b. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or
owner's agents; or
c. The building was demolished for the purpose of redevelopment
17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units.
A. Illegal or nonconforming accessory dwelling units which registered with the city during the registration period
which ended October 16, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. are hereby declared to be legal nonconforming detached and attached
accessory dwelling units (ADU). Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is defined in Chapter 20.21 ECDC.
B. Once registered, a formerly illegal or nonconforming ADU shall enjoy all the protections and privileges afforded
to a nonconforming building under the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020; provided, however, that sueh ADU T shall be -
subject
impose additional eonditions on the confinued use and eecupaney of the formerly illegal ADU if it is found to
constitute a ' . sent a hazardous condition, or to revoke sueh registration and permit if a
hazardous condition relating to the ADU is not abate .
C. Legal nonconforming units which received a permit certificate confirming such status and listing the physical
dimensions and other characteristics of the structure may be continued in accordance with such permit certificate,
provided, however-, that the registration and permit of a formerly illegal ADU may be revoked and/or conditioned in
accordance with the provisions of ECDC 20.100.040.
D. Failure to register a structure within the time period established by the provisions of this section shall be
considered to be presumptive proof that such a unit is an illegal unit and subject to abatement. The owner of such
structure may overcome such a presumption only by presentation of substantial and competent evidence which
establishes the legal nonconforming nature of such building by clear and convincing evidence that the structure was
permitted by Snohomish County or the city of Edmonds, was permitted by such agency and was in complete
compliance with the applicable provisions of state law and county or city ordinance, at the dates such construction
was initiated and was completed. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008].
17.100.030 Conditional use permits (CUP) — Community churches and schools requiring a CUP.
A. All new churches and schools and any nonconforming church or school whose review has been triggered
pursuant to ECDC 17.40.050 shall register with the staff on a form developed for its use. The staff shall determine
which churches qualify as neighborhood churches; churches failing to register shall be presumed to be community
churches.
B. Decisions to approve, condition, or deny a CUP; to review a CUP; or decline to renew a CUP shall be a Type III-
t-B decision. [Ord. 3783 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 23, 2009; Ord. 3353 § 12, 2001].
19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments.
I. Section 105.5, Permit expiration and extension, is amended to read:
1. Every permit issued under ECDC Title 19 shall expire by limitation 360 days after
issuance, except as provided in ECDC 19.00.025I(2).
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 333
Edmonds
Page 3/12
2. The following permits shall expire by limitation, 180 days after issuance and may not be
extended, unless they are associated with a primary building permit for a larger construction
project, in which case they may run with the life of the primary permit:
Demolition permits;
Permits for Moving Buildings required by Chapter 19.60 ECDC;
Mechanical permits;
Tank removal, tank fill, or tank placement permits;
Grading, excavation and fill permits;
Water service line permits;
Plumbing permits;
Gas piping permits;
Deck and dock permits;
Fence permits;
Re -roof permits;
Retaining wall permits;
Swimming pool, hot tub and spa permits;
Sign permits;
Shoring permits;
Foundation permits.
3. Prior to expiration of an active permit the applicant may request in writing an extension for
an additional year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection
conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended.
Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend
the permit.
4. If the applicant cannot complete work issued under an extended permit within a total period
of two (2) years, the applicant may request in writing, prior to the second year expiration, an
extension for a third and final year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress
inspection conducted by the city building inspector after the previous extension, the permit
shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building
permit fee to extend the permit.
5. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a total of three
(3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the original date of permit
issuance, the permit shall become null and void and a new building permit shall be required,
with full permit fees, in order for the applicant to complete work. The voiding of the prior
permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or Building codes. Whenever an appeal is
filed and a necessary development approval is stayed in accordance with ECDC
20.07.00420.06.040 the time limit periods imposed under this section shall also be stayed
until final decision.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 334
Edmonds Page 4/12
6. The building official may reject requests for permit extension where he determines that
modifications or amendments to the applicable zoning and Building codes have occurred
since the original issuance of the permit and/or modifications or amendments would
significantly promote public health and safety if applied to the project through the issuance of
a new permit.
20.02.007 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 preliminaU 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. For
Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.060(C) and explain
that affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstandine 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.
B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice of final decision, or other decision period specified in
subsection (A) of this section, the following periods shall be excluded:
1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director to correct plans, perform required
studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the director
notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the dates the director determines
that the additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the
additional information is provided to the city;
2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the applicant shall be informed of the
deficiencies and the procedures set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period
shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared pursuant to Chapter
43.21 C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by
Chapter 20.15A ECDC;
4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative appeals of development project
permits, which shall be not more than 90 dayspen record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals,
unless a longer Deriod is aereed to by the director and the applicant:
5. Any extension of time mutually greed to by the director and the applicant in writing_
C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a permit application:
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation;
2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or
3. Is a Type IV permit process identified in ECDC 20.01.003.A.
4. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date that a
determination of completeness for the revised application is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003
and RCW 36.70B.070. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 20091.
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 335
7.1.e
Edmonds
Page 5/12
20.05.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review and decide on conditional use permit applications as Type III-A-B
decisions as set forth in ECDC 20.01.003.
B. Appeals. The hearing examiner decisions on conditional use permit shall be appealable to the city council in
accordance with Chapter 20.06 ECDC. A-^ Ig shallSnohomish be to the County s accordance ourt i ..it
the Land Use Petition Act.
C. Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit or, if no building permit is required, substantially
commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be
null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration date.
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for any extension of time shall be reviewed by the community
development director as a Type II decision.
E. Location. A conditional use permit applies only to the property for which it has been approved and may not be
transferred to any other property.
F. Denial. A conditional use permit application may be denied if the proposal cannot be conditioned so that the
required findings can be made. [Ord. 3783 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 37, 2009; Ord. 2270 § 1,
1982].
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements.
A development agreement is a Type IV development project permit application and shall be processed in accordance
with the procedures established in this title. A development agreement shall be approved by the Edmonds city
council after a public hearing. [Ord. 3817 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
20.11.010 Review procedure — General design review.
A. Review. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold
determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). All other developments may be approved by staff
as a Type I decision. When design review is required by the ADB, proposed development shall be processed as a
Type III-B-A decision. The role of the ADB shall be dependent upon the nature of the application as follows:
1. The ADB shall conduct a public hearing for the following types of applications:
a. Applications that are not consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B).
b. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B) but in which the ADB serves as
the sole decision -making authority.
c. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B) but in which all decision -making
authority is exercised both by staff, pursuant to this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, and by the ADB.
The ADB shall act in the place of the staff for these types of applications.
2. The ADB shall review proposed developments at public meetings without a public hearing and make
recommendations to the hearing examiner to approve, conditionally approve, or deny proposals for
developments that, although consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B), are not subject to a public
hearing by the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section. The hearing examiner shall subsequently hold a
public hearing on the proposal.
3. The ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this
section shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposal. The ADB or hearing examiner may continue
its public hearing on the proposal to allow changes to the proposal, or to obtain information needed to properly
review the proposal. See ECC 3.13.090 regarding exemptions from review required by this chapter.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 336
Edmonds
Page 6/12
4. Notwithstanding any contrary requirement, for a development in which the city is the applicant, the action of
the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this
section shall be a recommendation to the city council.
B. Notice. Public notice by mail, posting or newspaper publication shall only be required for applications that are
subject to environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW, in which case notice of the hearing shall be provided
in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 39, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007].
20.12.010 Applicability.
The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold determination
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other
developments may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When
design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type III-B-A
decision. [Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
20.11.040 Appeals.
All design review decisions of the hearing examiner or the ADB are appealable to superior court in accordance with
Chapter 36.70C RCW. appealable to the eity eetmeil as :a^a in Chapter- 29n7EGDC [Ord. 3736 § 40, 2009;
Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007].
20.12.080 Appeals.
A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020(B) are appealable to superior court in
accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.appealable to the city council as ide i Chapter 20.07 Errs These are
the only decisions by the ADB in this chapter that are appealable.
B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable- to superior court in accordance with
Chapter 36.70C RCW.te the eity eouneil as ided in Chapter- 20.07 Error
C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that
the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC.
Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. [Ord. 3736 § 45, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
20.16.110 Reconsideration and appeal.
Reconsideration of the hearing examiner's ruling shall be governed by ECDC 20.06.848150. Appeal of the hearing
examiner's ruling shall be governed by Chapter 20.8-7-06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 48, 2009; Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord.
3474 § 1, 2003].
20.16.130 Building permit application.
A. Any building permit for an EPF approved under this chapter shall comply with all conditions of approval in the
conditional use permit. In the event a building permit for an EPF is denied, suspended or revoked due to a failure to
comply, the department shall submit in writing the reasons for denial to the project sponsor.
B. No construction permits may be applied for prior to conditional use approval of the EPF unless the applicant
signs a written release acknowledging that such approval is neither guaranteed nor implied by the department's
acceptance of the construction permit applications. The applicant shall expressly accept all financial risk associated
with preparing and submitting construction plans before the final decision is made under this chapter.
C. Building permits for an EPF which fail to comply with the conditions of approval shall be suspended and a report
made to the director. The director shall institute a proceeding before the hearing examiner to permit the EPF's
sponsor a hearing at which to show cause why its conditional use permit should not be revoked or further
conditioned. Such hearing shall be conducted as if it were a Type III-A-B decision in accordance with Chapter 20.06
ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 49, 2009; Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003].
20.35.080 Review process.
A. An application for a PRD has two stages. The first stage, the preliminary PRD, includes the following:
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 337
7.1.e
Edmonds Page 7/12
1. Pre -Application Staff Review. The preliminary plans of the proposal shall be submitted to the planning
manager for review and comment. This provides an opportunity for the developer to work with the city staff to
design a total plan which best meets the goals of the city and the needs of the developer. Such potential
problems as drainage, topography, circulation, site design and neighborhood impact should be identified and
addressed before the proposal is submitted for formal review.
2. Pre -Application Neighborhood Meeting. The applicant shall host a public pre -application neighborhood
meeting to discuss and receive public comment on the conceptual proposal. The applicant shall provide notice
of this meeting to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site by depositing written notice in the U.S.
Mail postage paid at least 14 calendar days in advance of the meeting to all persons and entities shown as
having an ownership interest in the land records of Snohomish County. An affidavit of mailing shall be
provided to the city by the applicant attaching its mailing list.
While this meeting will allow immediate public response to the proposal in its conceptual form, comments
submitted during this meeting are not binding to the applicant or staff. However, staff may make general
recommendations to the applicant as part of the formal application based on the input from this meeting to the
extent that said comments are consistent with the adopted provisions of the Edmonds Community Development
Code and the comprehensive plan. As a courtesy, the applicant shall provide summary minutes of the meeting
to all of those in attendance within two weeks of the date of the meeting.
3. Review by the Architectural Design Board. The design board will review the project for compliance with the
urban design guidelines, landscaping, and/or the single-family design criteria in ECDC 20.35.060 and forward
their recommendation of the site and building design on to the hearing examiner for his consideration. Their
review will be at one of their regularly scheduled meetings, but will not include a public hearing or the ability
for the public to comment on the project.
4. The Public Hearing with the Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner shall review the proposed PRD for
compliance with this section as a Type III-B-A decision.
If, after all appeals are exhausted, the proposal is denied, a similar plan for the site may not be submitted to the
development services department for one year. A new plan which varies substantially from the denied proposal,
as determined by the development services director, or one that satisfies the objections stated by the final
decision -maker may be submitted at any time.
An applicant who intends to subdivide the land for sale as part of the project shall obtain subdivision approval
in accordance with Chapter 20.75 ECDC before any building permit or authorization to begin construction is
issued, and before sale of any portion of the property. The preferred method is for the applicant to process the
subdivision application concurrently with the planned residential development proposal.
B. The second stage of the PRD process, the final PRD, consists of the city's review of the final plans for
consistency with the preliminary PRD as approved. The decision at this stage will be made by city staff ••�
plat.final PRD is submit4ed as a eanselida4ed appliemieff with a per-ff�t that requir-es eity eeidneil review, i.e., a formal
subdivision The final PRD will be subject to the following review:
1. The applicant shall submit the final development plan to the development services director, conforming to
the preliminary plan as approved, and all applicable conditions of that approval. The planning manager shall
review the plan along with the city engineer and make a final decision. The plan shall contain final, precise
drawings of all the information required by ECDC 20.35.030. The applicant shall also submit all covenants,
homeowners' association papers, maintenance agreements, and other relevant legal documents.
2. If city staff finds that the final development plan conforms to the preliminary approval, and to all applicable
conditions, staff shall approve the plan and its accompanying conditions as a covenant which touches and
concerns the subject property, incorporating by reference all maps, drawings and exhibits required to specify
the precise land use authorized. A file shall be maintained by the development services department containing
all maps and other documents or exhibits referred to in the approval. The approval shall also contain a legal
description of the boundary of the proposal. The covenant shall be recorded with the county auditor if no
subdivision plat is to be recorded.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 338
Edmonds Page 8/12
3. The provisions of approval shall be restrictions on the development of the site. Revocation of approval or
abandonment as provided in this chapter shall eliminate all requirements imposed under the planned residential
development plan, such as alternative bulk development standards, and shall cause the old underlying bulk
development standards to be in full force and effect. [Ord. 3822 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3787 § 3, 2010; Ord. 3465 § 1,
2003].
20.45.050 Review of changes to Edmonds register of historic places properties.
A. Review Required. No person shall change the use, construct any new building or structure, or reconstruct, alter,
restore, remodel, repair, move or demolish any existing property on the Edmonds register of historic places or within
a historic district on the Edmonds register of historic places without review by the commission and without receipt
of a certificate of appropriateness, or in the case of demolition, a waiver, as a result of the review.
The review shall apply to all features of the property, interior and exterior, that contribute to its designation and are
listed on the nomination form. Information required by the commission to review the proposed changes are
established in rules.
B. Exemptions. The following activities do not require a certificate of appropriateness or review by the commission:
ordinary repair and maintenance which includes painting or emergency measures defined in ECDC 20.45.000 (K).
C. Review Process.
1. Requests for Review and Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness or Waiver. The building or zoning
official shall report any application for a permit to work on a designated Edmonds register property or in an
Edmonds register historic district to the commission. If the activity is not exempt from review, the commission
shall notify the applicant of the review requirements. The building or zoning official shall not issue any such
permit until a certificate of appropriateness or a waiver is received from the commission but shall work with the
commission in considering building and fire code requirements.
2. Commission Review. The owner or his/her agent (architect, contractor, lessee, etc.) shall apply to the
commission for a review of proposed changes on an Edmonds register property and request a certificate of
appropriateness or, in the case of demolition, a waiver. Each application for review of proposed changes shall
be accompanied by such information as is required by the commission established in its rules for the proper
review of the proposed project.
The commission shall meet with the applicant and review the proposed work according to the design review criteria
established in rules. Unless legally required, there shall be no notice, posting or publication requirements for action
on the application, but all such actions shall be made at regular meetings of the commission. The commission shall
complete its review and make its recommendations within 30 days of the date of receipt of the application. If the
commission is unable to process the request, the commission may ask for an extension of time.
The commission's recommendations shall be in writing and shall state the findings of fact and reasons relied upon in
reaching its decision. Any conditions agreed to by the applicant in this review process shall become conditions of
approval of the permits granted. If the owner agrees to the commission's recommendations, a certificate of
appropriateness shall be awarded by the commission according to standards established in the commission's rules.
The commission's recommendations and, if awarded, the certificate of appropriateness, shall be transmitted to the
building or zoning official. If a certificate of appropriateness is awarded, the building or zoning official may then
issue the permit.
3. Demolition. A waiver of the certificate of appropriateness is required before a permit may be issued to allow
whole or partial demolition of a designated Edmonds register property or in an Edmonds register historical
district. The owner or his/her agent shall apply to the commission for a review of the proposed demolition and
request a waiver. The applicant shall meet with the commission in an attempt to find alternatives to demolition.
These negotiations may last no longer than 45 days from the initial meeting of the commission, unless either
party requests an extension. If no request for an extension is made and no alternative to demolition has been
agreed to, the commission shall act and advise the official in charge of issuing a demolition permit of the
commission's decision on the waiver of a certificate of appropriateness. Conditions in the case of granting a
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 339
Edmonds
Page 9/12
demolition permit may include allowing the commission up to 45 additional days to develop alternatives to
demolition. When issuing a waiver the commission may require the owner to mitigate the loss of the Edmonds
register property by means determined by the commission at the meeting. Any conditions agreed to by the
applicant in this review process shall become conditions of approval of the permits granted. After the property
is demolished, the commission shall initiate removal of the property from the register.
4. Appeal of the Commission's Decision on a Waiver of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The commission's
decision regarding a waiver of a certificate of appropriateness shall be appealable to the hearing examiner
pursuant to Chapter 20.06 ECDC „ ay*^ pHeal^a o h ei ^^ ^�within 14 calendar days. The appeal must
state the grounds upon which the appeal is based.
The appeal shall be ^ ,^a by the eeufleil only en the ro eras of the ^ . Appeal of hearing
examiner's decision regarding a waiver of a certificate of appropriateness may be appealed to superior court. [Ord.
3397 § 1, 2002].
20.60.015 Design review procedures.
A. Staff Approval. Except as referred to the architectural design board pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section,
and except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the planning manager, or designee, shall review all
applications for design review under this chapter, and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application in
accordance with the policies of ECDC 20.10.000 and the standards and requirements of this chapter; provided, that
for murals and artwork the planning manager or designee shall review the application in accordance with the criteria
set forth in subsection (C) of this section. The decision of the planning manager on any sign permit application shall
be final except that signs reviewed by the architectural design board are appealable to the hearing examiner.
1. The planning manager or designee may refer design review applications to the architectural design board for
the types of signs listed below, where the planning manager determines that the proposed sign has the potential
for significant adverse impacts on community aesthetics or traffic safety:
a. Any sign application for an identification structure as defined by this chapter;
b. Any sign application for a wall graphic as defined by this chapter;
c. Any proposed sign that the planning manager determines to be obtrusive, garish or otherwise not
consistent with the architectural features of the surrounding neighborhood.
B. Review by Architectural Design Board. The architectural design board shall review those signs listed in
subsection (13)(1) of this section and any sign permit referred by the planning manager pursuant to subsection (A)(1)
of this section.
1. The ADB shall review any sign permit application that requests a modification to any of the standards
prescribed by this chapter. The ADB shall only approve modification requests that arise from one of the
following two situations:
a. The request is for signage on a site that has a unique configuration, such as frontage on more than two
streets, or has an unusual geometric shape or topography;
b. The request is for signage on a building that has unique architectural elements or features or details that
substantially restrict the placement or size of signage relative to other buildings in the vicinity.
2. The ADB may approve the requested modification only if it meets the following criteria:
a. The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design and
proportions with development throughout the site and with similar signage in the vicinity;
b. In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by
more than 50 percent.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 340
Edmonds Page 10/12
C. Staff Review of Murals and Artwork. When a proposed wall graphic is proposed as a mural or artwork, the
planning manager or designee shall review and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application in
accordance with the following criteria. While a separate sign permit is required for each wall graphic, the staff may
make a single design review decision on wall graphics that consist of related murals or artwork. Related murals or
artwork may include multiple proposals for sites within reasonable proximity to each other that are related by theme,
style, materials used, and/or context. The decision of the staff on any design review application containing a mural
or art as a wall graphic may be appealed to the ^' e4hearing examiner pursuant to the procedure established in
Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
1. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to enhance the aesthetics of the city and to ensure quality
and maintenance standards are observed. No recommendation shall be based upon the content or message
expressed by an artist or in a work of art. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design
or architectural elements of the building and the historic and pedestrian -oriented character of the downtown
area.
2. Specific submission requirements for design review include, but are not limited to:
a. Site sketch showing locations of artwork;
b. Minimum one -fourth -inch scale color drawings of the art concept or art component;
c. Material/color samples;
d. Written Proposal. A written proposal in eight-and-one-half-inch-by-ll-inch format to include a
description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork; detailed maintenance requirements; a
schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; artist's resume; and evidence of assumption of
liability by applicant or designee; and
e. When required pursuant to ECDC 20.45.050, a certificate of appropriateness shall be obtained from the
historic preservation commission for murals on designated historic structures or within a designated
historic district.
3. Review Criteria. Review criteria for the design review include:
a. Quality of the materials used to create the artwork. Materials should be resistant to fading; no
fluorescent paints;
b. Durability and permanence, including ability to withstand age, vandalism, and weathering.
Consideration should be given to anti -graffiti coating; and
c. Compatibility of the artwork with architectural elements, other elements of the street, and adjacent
structures. Compatibility shall be determined by relationships of the elements of form, proportion, scale,
color, materials, surface treatment, and size and style of lettering. Lettering shall be minimized, but may
be considered for inclusion when necessary to the artistic content.
D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A), (B), and (C) of this section, sign permit applications shall not
be referred to or reviewed by the architectural design board if the proposed sign constitutes a modification to an
existing sign and involves no significant alteration or modification to the size, height, design, lighting or color of the
existing sign. Sign permit applications for such sign modifications shall be processed and subject to review in the
same manner as provided for staff review in subsection (A) of this section. [Ord. 4064 § 1 (Att. A), 2017; Ord. 4039
§ 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 60, 2009; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
20.85.020 General requirements.
A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review variances as Type III-A-B decisions in accordance with provisions of
Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 341
7.1.e
Edmonds Page 11/12
B. Appeals. Appeals,-eMc hearing examiner decisions on variance shall be
annealable to the citv council in accordance with Chanter 20.06 ECDC..as�
C. Time Limit. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or
the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before m
the expiration and the city approves the application. c
L
D. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the community a
development director as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required). I
E. Location. A variance applies only to the property for which it has been approved and may not be transferred to
any other property. [Ord. 3783 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 70, 2009]. y
M
7
a
C
20.100.040 Review of appmved .
M
al
C
A. Scope. Any permit approved by the eity under the eenmnunity development code may be
reviewed under this Y
M
section if the conditions of the permit are not being met, the requirements of the eity eode of
Edmonds are not being�- 2
C
A
U
o.,: v., A dthis ti
B. lnitia4ion be initiatedb
N
of review may
under seeony:
Q
r
1. The comnaunity development ;
L
0
IL
a)
N
3. An application, aeoompanied by the applieation fee set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC, of three persons li.
to
C. Review Pfeeedufe.
C
d
The director the in that the is being
E
•ti
vffiting
reviewed,1.
of community serviees shall notify permittee per-F.4t
C
aa)
G
2. if the the defieieneies, but fails to do the time, the director
pefffii4ee eeuld feasenably eeFfeet so within speeified
c
the ,.
tions the
nd of permit-.
LUIJ
3. if the to the defleieneies for the to the
only reasonable ways eorreet are per-mittee eease
permitted , the
to impose the the director the
city new or ehanged conditions on permit, of eonmnunity servioes shall refer matte+
to the hear-:,,... examiner for
a+
d
r
exist,5. if the hearing examiner finds that deficiencies
and that they ean be reasonably eorreeted by W
ehanged eanditions en the
z
permit,pefmit k
r___1 1___ LI__ -----------1 — 11— 4__
. C
c0
G6. if the hearing examiner finds that the only reasonable way to eor-reet the defieieneies is for the permittee to eease -
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 342
Edmonds
Page 12/12
7. if the permit is revoked, the permit shall be ntill and void, and all aetivivy allowed by the permit shall eease. .
3112 § 29 1o9151
NEW SECTION
20.110.045 Suspension or revocation of permit. (n
The city shall retain the right to suspend or revoke a permit issued under this development code that fails to comply c
with any conditions of approval of said permit, or which operates in a manner inconsistent with representation made a
in the application. The suspension or revocation of a permit maeappealed to the Hearing Examiner under
Chapter 20.06. ECDC. Upon receipt of a timely appeal under Chapter 20.06 ECDC, suspension or revocation shall c
by stayed pending decision on the appeal; provided that such a stay shall affect any stop work order issued by the
Director.
.y
O
7
Li
2
C
O
A
N
C
r
E
L
4)
IL
a�
c
J
N
r
C
d
C
d
Q
V
C
t�
W
L
d
Nd
LPL
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018.
Packet Pg. 343
7.1.f
RESOLUTION NO. 1367
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING INTENT TO REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL
AND OTHER VOLUNTEER CITIZEN BOARDS FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL
PERMIT PROCESSING TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW UPON
ADOPTION OF THE REVISED EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE.
WHEREAS, the city has undertaken a comprehensive review of the city's land use permit
processing regulations; and
WHEREAS, the city council has played a quasi-judicial role in certain land use permits for many
years; and
WHEREAS, the city council has been deliberating whether to continue serving in that role; and
WHEREAS, the city council understands that many citizens want the city council to serve in a
quasi-judicial role, believing that the council would be more responsive to the desires of the
public than a hearing examiner who is not elected; and
WHEREAS, that desire of some of the public underscores one of the main difficulties with the
council serving in that role, namely, that the council may be pressured to make a decision that
may be contrary to the standards that the council has adopted to govern such decision -making;
and
WHEREAS, that difficulty also increases the legal risk to both city and to the councilmembers
themselves; and
WHEREAS, council engagement in quasi-judicial decision -making also prevents the city council
from being able to freely discuss pending land use matters with constituents and suggests that
councilmembers should not testify before the hearing examiner out of concern that they might
later need to recuse themselves in the event of an appeal to the city council; and
WHEREAS, the city council believes that it can adopt additional procedures that will ensure that
the city council stays abreast of pending land use applications and that the public interest in
access to justice is adequately addressed; now therefore
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1, The city council intends to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development
Code that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibility from the city council and
other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law.
ti
to
CO)
T_
6
z
a
0
0
(n
x
w
a)
E
z
Q
Packet Pg. 344
7.1.f
Section 2. The city council hereby requests that city staff and the planning board prepare and
forward to the city council revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code that are
consistent with this resolution.
RESOLVED this 9ch day of August, 2016.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, S OTT SSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO.
F EDMONDS
YOR, DAVE EARLING
August 5, 2016
August 9, 2016
1367
r
a
Packet Pg. 345
7.1.g
Date: May 23, 2018
To: Edmonds Planning Board
Copy: Kernen Lien
From: Jeff Taraday
Re: Legal basis for repeal of ECDC 20.100.040
This memo sets forth a legal rationale for the repeal of ECDC 20.100.040.
The History of this Section
This code section was last amended by Ordinance 3112 in 1996. The code
does not indicate what ordinance originally adopted this section. We do
know that it existed in a 198o version of the code. Based on this date, we
know that it significantly predates the state's adoption of the Regulatory
Reform Act (chapter 36.7oB RCW) and the Land Use Petition Act (chapter
36.70C RCW), which were both adopted in 1995• This helps explain the
inconsistencies between this section and those state laws.
Ordinance 3112 adopted significant amendments to the code in 1996. The
ordinance contains 44 pages and 40 sections. The whereas clauses
mention the Regulatory Reform Act (chapter 36.7oB RCW) generally, but
they do not provide any meaningful legislative intent related to the ECDC
20.100.04o amendments. Only subsection C was amended at that time.
And due to the lack of strike -through and underlining, we cannot easily
discern what changes were made.
The drafters of the 1996 ordinance could have identified the
inconsistencies between this section and state law at that time. Their
review was so broad, however, that the difficulties in harmonizing this
section with the recently adopted state laws probably escaped their
attention. And, in defense of the drafters, the courts did not make their
reading of these new laws, particularly LUPA, clear until several years
later.
is1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 1 P 206.273.7440 I F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com
Packet Pg. 346
7.1.g
Most of chapter 20.10o ECDC was repealed in 2009 with Ordinance 3736.
For reasons that are not yet clear, ECDC 20.100.040 was not repealed at
that time.
Difficulty Harmonizing with the ReMulatory Reform Act
The Regulatory Reform Act requires cities to provide a consolidated
permit review process. "The review process shall provide for no more than
one consolidated open record hearing and one closed record appeal. If an
open record predecision hearing is provided prior to the decision on a
project permit, the process shall not allow a subsequent open record
appeal hearing." RCW 36.7oB.o6o. Any review of an approved permit
under ECDC 20.100.04o necessarily involves review of a permit that has
already gone through the City's permit review process, including any
applicable opportunity for appeals. Where that process already included a
hearing, another hearing under ECDC 20.100.040 could violate the
hearing number limits set forth in the Regulatory Reform Act.
The Act also states that "[e]ach local government shall adopt procedures to
monitor and enforce permit decisions and conditions." RCW
36.7oB.16o(3). But that enforcement authority should not necessarily be
read as authority to conduct additional hearings, notwithstanding the
hearing limits contained in RCW 36.7oB.o6o. The City's enforcement
procedures are contained in chapter 20.110 ECDC. Additionally, the City
has a process to address nuisances in chapter 6.2o ECC. So, the public
interest sought to be protected by ECDC 20.100.040 is largely protected
via other provisions of the code, with one notable exception discussed
below.
Difficulty Harmonizing with the Land Use Petition Act
Another problem with ECDC 20.100.040 is that it could suggest to the
public that collateral attacks on approved permits are available when they
are not. Such collateral attacks conflict with the finality requirement of the
Land Use Petition Act.
"A land use petition is barred, and the court may not grant review, unless
the petition is timely filed with the court and timely served ...." RCW
36.70C.040(2). The strength of this finality requirement was emphasized
in Chelan County. v. Nykreim,146 Wn.2d 904, 933, 52 P•3d 1,15 (2002).
In that case, Chelan Country tried to argue that "a county cannot be
prevented from revoking an improperly issued land use approval under res
Packet Pg. 347
7.1.g
judicata or in the interest of administrative finality." Id. The court rejected
that argument.
Leaving land use decisions open to reconsideration long after
the decisions are finalized places property owners in a
precarious position and undermines the Legislature's intent
to provide expedited appeal procedures in a consistent,
predictable and timely manner.
As amici curiae point out, if this court allows local
government to rescind a previous land use approval without
concern of finality, innocent property owners relying on a
county's land use decision will be subject to change in policy
whenever a new County Planning Director disagrees with a
decision of the predecessor director.
Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim,146 Wn.2d 904, 933, 52 P•3d 1,15 (2002). We
know from the Nykreim case that even an erroneous decision is entitled to
finality under LUPA if that decision is not timely challenged. Against this
backdrop, one can imagine many situations where application of ECDC
20.100.040 would be impossible to square with LUPA's finality
requirement. Whether or not one likes the holding of Nykriem, it is the
law of the land and the city's code should be drafted to be consistent with
that law. The current code creates unrealistic expectations.
There are still situations (where permit conditions are not being met and
other means of compliance have failed) where the City would be entitled to
revoke a permit. Even so, the revocation language in ECDC 20.100.040
should be revised and relocated to the enforcement chapter.
Packet Pg. 348
7.1.h
Board Member Lovell pointed out that a public hearing on the draft Housing Strategy is scheduled for June 13"', followed by
further Planning Board discussion on June 27. He asked why the hearing is scheduled prior to continued Board discussion.
Director Hope responded that staff felt it would be useful for the Board to hear from the public prior to their continued
discussion and recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime, the Task Force will also provide input and
recommendations.
Board Member Lovell pointed out that there are very few opportunities for the development of multifamily housing on either
public or private land in Edmonds, particularly given the current zoning and land use regulations. He asked if more work
should be done in the strategic planning portion of the strategy to zero in more on areas within City that can be appropriate for
these types of development. The narrative in the plan does not speak to the fact that Edmonds is a high -income, single-family,
commuting community. The Board is being asked to do something about all of this; and based on his experience, he sees an
awful lot of public concern as the action items are implemented moving forward. He expressed his belief that the plan is terrific
and covers everything the City could possibly do, but implementation could become mind boggling. Director Hope recalled
that the idea was to identify the things the City could reasonably take on, and it does not mean that every action item will lead
to implementation. The action items are intended to provide a toolbox of actions the City could consider to address housing
issues. Some of the action items will be implemented at a later time via code amendments, and others will be worked out
during budget discussions. For example, the City Council set aside money to work on homeless services, and the City is a
member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability. By sharing the resources of the jurisdictions that participate in the alliance,
they may be able to provide gap financing for a non-profit developer to develop lower -income housing. These developments
may not be located in Edmonds but would be nearby. Again, she said these details would be worked out after the draft Housing
Strategy has been adopted.
Board Member Crank recalled that the City Council set aside $250,000 in 2017 to study homelessness and the potential to
partner with non-profit organizations to address the problem. With the budgeting coming up in 2018, there is a possibility that
if the City, via the Planning Board, does not come up with some decision on the Housing Strategy, perhaps that money will be
taken away and/or reallocated somewhere else. The importance of expediting the homelessness conversation, with involvement
by Cohn Consulting, is to get something going so when it is time to talk about homelessness again during the next budget cycle
it does not get pulled away because there has been no movement. Director Hope said the City Council had originally intended
that the Housing Strategy be done by 2019, but they have since asked staff to speed it up. The goal is to complete the project
in 2018.
Board Member Robles recalled that one of the Board's suggestions was to stress "aging in place." The solution to aging in
place is also the solution to affordable housing for rebound families, separated families, low-income families, etc. He is
interested to see what the community input will be towards the draft Housing Strategy given that one solution will help solve
both problems. As an example of this concept, Director Hope said the City has heard from some people who are concerned
about how ADUs will impact their neighborhoods, but others would really like to promote that option. These concerns could
be worked out at the code level. The issue before the Board is whether or not the draft Housing Strategy provides an appropriate
toolbox for the City to work from.
Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that when the draft Housing Strategy is presented at the public hearing, it would be
helpful for staff to provide a statement of recommendation for the Board to consider. Director Hope responded that this would
probably not be available at the public hearing, where the idea is to listen to the public's concerns and ideas. However, staff
could certainly provide a statement of recommendation when the Board continues its discussion on June 27`'. Board Member
Rubenkonig commented that having a statement of recommendation from staff helps the Board to focus its discussion. She
appreciates when this information is part of the Board's packet.
The Board took a short break at 9:25 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Board Member Crank left the meeting z
and did not return. co
PERMIT DECISION MAKING — OUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES t
x
w
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 z
U
2
a
Planning Board Minutes
May 23, 2018 Page 13
Packet Pg. 349
7.1.h
decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial means "court like," which implies that the proceedings must be
similar to those followed by a court. If the requirements are not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is
challenged. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of due process such as the proper notice of the hearing,
providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full
disclosure of the facts being considered by the decision -making body (no ex-parte contacts), an impartial decision maker free
from bias and conflicts of interest (appearance of fairness), and the decisions must be based on the facts of the case and not on
political pressure or vocal opposition.
Mr. Lien advised that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the
ECDC that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards
to the extent allowed by state law. The resolution requests that the City staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the
City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with the resolution. He explained that, as a legislative body, the City
Council Members like to be responsive to their constituents. However, when quasi-judicial matters are brought before them,
they cannot discuss the issues with their constituents without creating ex-parte communications and violating the Appearance
of Fairness rules. In addition, the City Attorney has advised that having the City Council sit in a quasi-judicial capacity on
land use matters presents a dilemma if decisions are not made based on code. A City Council Member could be held liable if
for making arbitrary and capricious decisions.
Mr. Lien advised that the City Council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following:
• Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the Architectural Design
Board is required, conditional use permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances,
home occupation permits, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential development (PRD).
• Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats, final PRD, site specific rezones, and variance applications
from public agencies.
Mr. Lien proposed the following amendments:
• Remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decisions primarily involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process.
Type III-B decisions would be moved to the Type III -A column and the "A" and "B" qualifiers would be removed.
Staff has also conducted an electronic search of the code for Type III and removed all of the "A" and `B" qualifiers
from the text.
• Leave site -specific rezones (Type IV-B) as quasi-judicial decisions that require final approval by the City Council.
Site -specific rezones are a mixture of legislative and quasi-judicial. Decisions are based on criteria, but because they
require a change to the zoning map, they must be passed by ordinance before the City Council.
Modify the subdivision (ECDC 20.75) and PRD (ECDC 20.35) chapters to remove the City Council from the final
approval process. Currently, preliminary formal plat and PRD decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner, and the
City Council approves final formal subdivisions and PRDs (Type IV -A). Typically, all of the subdivision
improvements have been installed prior to application for final approval, and the City Council's final approval is
simply based on whether or not all of the requirements of preliminary approval have been met. When the City Council
originally adopted Resolution No. 1367, State law required the legislative body to make the final decision on formal
plats. However, recently approved Senate Bill 5674 allows this legislative authority to be delegated to administrative
personnel.
• Eliminate the sentence from ECDC 17.00.030.0 requiring the City Council to review public agency variance requests. 66
Variances are normally heard by the Hearing Examiner and decisions are based on criteria spelled out in the code for -W
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 x
would make the decision on all variance applications. w
c
• Remove ECDC 20.100.040, which is in conflict with the Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) E
but retain a section elsewhere in the code that allows the City to revoke a permit if the conditions of the permit are not
c�
a
Planning Board Minutes
May 23, 2018 Page 14
Packet Pg. 350
7.1.h
being met. It appears that ECDC 20.100.040 was established in 1980, which is when the framework of the current
ECDC was established. The Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) were passed in about 1995.
The Regulatory Reform Act limits the City to one open record hearing on a decision process. Because ECDC
20.100.040 could result in an endless number of public hearings, it is in direct violation of the Regulatory Reform Act.
There are also inconsistencies with LUPA and the concept of finality. As per LUPA, once a land use permit has been
approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed. However,
ECDC 20.100.040 opens it up to where a permit does not have finality associated with it. ECDC 20.100.040 is also
inconsistent with LUPA in that it allows for collateral attack. As per LUPA, projects that were not appealed cannot
be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process.
Combine ECDC 20.06 (Open Records Public Hearings) and 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) into a single
chapter. The titles of these two code sections do not match up with their content. For example, ECDC 20.07 has
references regarding appeals, which can be open record appeals, and this tends to confuse people. The City Attorney
has also recommended additional details regarding appeal briefings before the Hearing Examiner. Appeals before the
Hearing Examiner are similar to a court proceeding in that people present their cases and the Hearing Examiner issues
a decision. Currently, when people file appeals to the Hearing Examiner, they are not required to spell out what their
arguments will be until they are made before the Hearing Examiner. The City Attorney has recommended that a
briefing schedule for appeals should be added to this section to outline the process so that arguments are written out
before an appeal goes before the Hearing Examiner.
Mr. Lien said his intent is to have the specific code amendment language ready for the Board's review on June 27' with a
potential public hearing on July 25' followed by a recommendation to the City Council.
Board Member Lovell clarified that the revisions are being driven by a specific request from the City Council via Resolution
No. 1367. The Board Members have all been briefed in the past about the importance of quasi-judicial proceedings, so he
questioned the need to have an additional study session prior to the public hearing.
Chair Monroe asked about the original intent for the "review of approved permits" clause. Mr. Lien said he searched legislative
history, and it appears it was tied in with larger code updates. There is nothing specific about its history and it is not possible
to identify its intent. The City Attorney drafted a memorandum relative to the issue that will be included in the next packet.
The clause was adopted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act, which lays out the decision -making process, and the provision has
only been used once in the 10 years he has been with the City.
Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the chart provided by Mr. Lien to illustrate the various decision -making processes. It
is clear that many decisions will still take place and the Architectural Design Board will still be involved in quasi-judicial
decisions. The only change they are looking at per the City Council's request is to remove them from the quasi-judicial process.
Mr. Lien agreed that is the main intent of the proposed amendments, with a few minor cleanup items as described earlier. He
confirmed that he is working closely with the City Attorney to create the appropriate code language for the proposed
amendments.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the proposed amendments do not represent significant changes. However, she
suggested that both charts should identify who is responsible for making the final decisions. Mr. Lien said when the
amendments come back to the Board, all of the proposed language, including the updated charts, will be available. However,
he explained that the tables are intended to be different. One table describes the types of decisions and the other identifies who
makes the final decisions, how decisions are made, and how decisions are appealed.
The Board agreed to move forward with a public hearing on June 271h without an additional study session. Following the public z
hearing, the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. 00
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA t
x
w
There was no discussion about the extended agenda.
d
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
z
c�
a
Planning Board Minutes
May 23, 2018 Page 15
Packet Pg. 351
7.1.i
review resulting in one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide. However, he received an email from the DOE on July
121, announcing new wetland guidance. He has since verified the City Council's intent to update the wetland regulations with
the most recent guidance, which requires the Board to consider additional updates. The additional updates will be presented to
the Board on August 22nd, and the Board will need to hold another public hearing before forwarding a recommendation to the
City Council.
Mr. Lien reviewed the four sections of the CAO that were part of the update to be consistent with the 2016 guidance. He
explained that the new 2018 guidance pertains primarily to the buffer sections and the wetland ratings would remain nearly the
same. The 2016 guidance has four sets of wetland buffers based on habitat scores, and the 2018 guidance only has three sets
of buffers and the habitat scores are calculated differently. In the 2016 guidance, the lower Category 5 habitat score was not
much different than the Category 3 and 4 habitat scores, so it was combined with Category 4.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING -QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES
Mr. Lien reviewed that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt
revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making
responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by law. The resolution requests
that the staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council code revisions that are consistent with the resolution.
Mr. Lien explained that the City currently has 5 decision processes as spelled out in the table in ECDC 20.01.003:
• Type I are staff decisions with no notice and include lot line adjustments, critical area determinations, shoreline
exemptions minor amendments to planned residential development (PRD), minor preliminary plat amendments and
staff administrative design review.
• Type II are staff decisions with notice and include accessory dwelling units (ADUs), State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) determinations, preliminary short plats, land clearing and grading, revisions to shoreline management permits,
administrative variances, and shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is not required.
Type III are quasi-judicial decisions. Type III -A decisions include critical area variances, contingent critical area
review if a public hearing is required, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required,
shoreline variances, and shoreline conditional uses. Type III -A decisions are not appealable to the City Council.
Type III-B decisions include outdoor dining, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is requested, shoreline
substantial development permits where a public hearing is required and shoreline conditional uses and variances. Type
III-B decisions are appealable to the City Council and include essential public facilities, design review where a public
hearing by the ADB is required, conditional use permits and home occupation permits where a public hearing by the
Hearing Examiner is required, variances, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential developments
(PRDs).
• Type IV are quasi-judicial decisions that are appealable to the City Council. They include final formal plats, final
PRDs and site -specific rezones.
• Type V are legislative decisions that include development agreements, zoning text amendments, area -wide zoning
map amendments, Comprehensive Plan amendments, annexations and development regulations.
Mr. Lien explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial decisions are the
application of those policies. Quasi-judicial decisions have stricter procedural requirements that include proper notice of
hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say,
full disclosure of all facts being considered by the decision -making body, impartial decision makers free from bias and conflicts
of interest, and decisions that are based on the facts of the case rather than on political pressure or vocal opposition.
Mr. Lien reviewed that during the City Council's discussions relative to Resolution No. 1367, Councilmembers voiced
frustration with the ex-parte contact prohibitions and concern about potential liability issues. They asked the staff and Planning
Board to prepare and forward revisions to the code that would remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decision -making
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 2
Packet Pg. 352
7.1.i
making responsibility. Some code changes have already been implemented since adoption of the resolution. For example, the
City Council was removed from the appeal process for decisions related to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline
Master Program (SMP). He reviewed the current proposal as follows:
• The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would be modified by changing all Type III-B decisions that were appealable to the
City Council to Type III -A decisions that are appealable to Superior Court and not the City Council. The Type III-B
decision process would then be eliminated.
• The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would also be modified to make development agreements, which are currently listed
as Type V legislative decisions, Type IV quasi-judicial decisions. As proposed the process for development
agreements would be similar to the process for site -specific rezones.
• A number of amendments are proposed to update existing code language to be consistent with the changes proposed
in Table 20.01.003. These changes were identified via an electronic search of the entire code.
• The proposal would move final plat approval for subdivisions and PRDs from being Type IV -A quasi-judicial
decisions before the City Council to being Type I administrative decisions. Subdivisions and PRDs require a multi-
step process that starts with preliminary plat approval by the Hearing Examiner who may identify a number of
conditions. The next step is civil design and infrastructure work. By the time final plats and PRDs get to the City
Council for final approval, all of the preliminary requirements have been met and often all of the improvements have
been installed and there is very little the City Council can do to affect change. Consistent with recent Senate Bill
5674, which allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel, proposed amendments to ECDC
20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would remove the City Council from the final approval process.
• An additional change would be made to ECDC 20.75 to update the approval time periods. During the recent economic
downturn, changes were made to extend the approval period for final and preliminary plats. However, this provision
has expired and will be removed.
• All references in the code to Community Development Director will be changed to Community Services Director.
• ECDC 17.00.030.0 would be amended by eliminating the sentence that requires the City Council to review public
agency variance requests. Currently, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to the City Council, and the
City Council holds a closed -record hearing and makes the final decision. This amendment would take the City Council
out of this quasi-judicial process.
• ECDC 20.100.040 is currently a problematic code section that is likely noncompliant with State law. It allows a
property owner within a certain distance of a subject property to request that the permit be opened up again once it
has been approved. Essentially, the provision could result in endless public hearings and was drafted prior to the
Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, which limits the number of open record hearings to just one. The provision also runs
counter to the Land Use Petition Act (RCW 36.70A), which states that once a land use permit has been approved and
no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed even if it did not comply with
permitting criteria when approved. It also prohibits projects from being collaterally attacked through other
administrative permit review processes. Given these legal ramifications, staff is recommending that the provisions be
deleted. However, to ensure that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with
conditions of approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045) would be
added.
• There is confusion between Open Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.06) versus Closed Record Public Hearings
(ECDC 20.07). Currently, appeals of Type II staff decisions reference ECDC 20.07 for the appeal process, but appeals
of Type II decisions are heard before the Hearing Examiner in an open record public hearing. The proposal is to
combine the two sections into a single chapter and provide additional details about the appeal format and procedures
before the Hearing Examiner.
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 3
Packet Pg. 353
7.1.i
ECDC 20.01.003 currently identifies the approval process for development agreements as a Type V legislative action.
The City Attorney has recommended that the approval process for development agreements be modified to a Type IV
process with an open record public hearing before the Planning Board who would make a recommendation to the City
Council. The City Council would hear the proposal in a closed record hearing format. Development agreements are
similar to contract rezones and provide a way for the City to place more restrictive requirements on a project than the
underlying zoning would allow. The development agreement review process should be generally consistent with the
review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction with the
development agreement. For example, a site -specific rezone is one type of project permit application that would likely
be sought in conjunction with a development agreement. Therefore, it makes sense to use a similar quasi-judicial
process.
Board Member Lovell clarified that, as currently proposed, Type III decisions would require an open record public hearing
before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said that would be true in most cases, but the ADB would participate in the design
review process for applications that require SEPA. He referred back to the Table in ECDC 20.01.003, which outlines the types
of actions and their respective review processes. As proposed, all of the permits that are appealable to the City Council now
would be changed to be appealable to Superior Court. The only exception would be site -specific rezones and development
agreements, which would be appealable to the City Council via a closed record public hearing. Board Member Lovell asked
if the City Council would have an opportunity to negotiate with the developer about what the appropriate conditions of a
development agreement might be.
City Attorney Taraday described how he envisions the development agreement process moving forward, starting with him
working with the staff and applicant to craft a draft development agreement to present to the Planning Board in an open record
public hearing. The Planning Board would accept testimony from the applicant and public and then forward a recommendation
to the City Council as to what the terms of the development agreement should be. Following a closed -record public hearing,
the City Council can adopt the development agreement exactly as recommended by the Board or they can modify it based on
their discussion. Because the City Council's hearing would be closed record, they would not be able to solicit any new
information or ask questions about things that are not already on the record. If the Board doesn't ask the questions and get all
of the pertinent information into the record during its hearing, it cannot be added to the record at a later time as part of the
Council's review. The Planning Board would be the finders of fact for the City Council. The development agreement process
is similar to the process the City currently uses to review site -specific rezones. However, instead of voting on an ordinance to
adopt a development agreement, the City Council would vote to accept or modify the terms of the development agreement that
is put forward by the Planning Board.
Board Member Rosen asked if there is a financial impact associated with sending appeals to Superior Court as opposed to the
City Council. City Attorney Taraday answered that judicial appeals typically cost more than administrative appeals. However,
it is important to keep in mind that not everything would remain the same. For example, taking the City Council out of the
appeal process would liberate them to participate in the hearing process and to appeal decisions made by the Hearing Examiner
and ADB to Superior Court. Currently, the City Council does not have the ability to appeal Type III-B decisions because they
are the body who hears the appeals. If a judicial appeal is initiated for a Type III-B decision, the appellant would have to move
the appeal forward with no help from the City. Under the proposed amendment, if the appellant and the City are aligned and
have the same consensus, the City Council can appeal a Hearing Examiner decision on its own, saving the taxpayers and
citizens a lot of money and time. Essentially, the City Attorney would be responsible to appeal the decision to Superior Court.
He summarized that significant changes take place when you free up the City Council to appeal its own Hearing Examiner
decisions.
Mr. Lien advised that the fee for appealing decisions to the City Council is currently $500, and City Attorney Taraday added
that the fee to appeal a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) decision to Superior Court is $250. The big cost difference is related to
attorney fees, as many people do not have the ability to file appeals to Superior Court on their own. He also agreed that
appellants are probably less likely to appeal actions to Superior Court than to the City Council. Mr. Lien pointed out that
appellants often hire attorneys to present their cases to the City Council, as well.
Chair Monroe recognized that Resolution No. 1367 mandates that the City Council be removed from the quasi-judicial decision -
making process. He asked if staff believes the proposed amendments are the only way to implement the resolution. Mr. Lien
said he does not know of any other way to accomplish the task other than altering the processes. City Attorney Taraday agreed
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 4
Packet Pg. 354
7.1.i
that, from a high-level overview, there is no other way to accomplish the task, but the details of the process could certainly be
modified, as well. He expressed his belief that the proposed changes represent what the City Council asked the staff and
Planning Board to do.
Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed changes would take the City Council completely out of quasi-judicial decisions
that are made by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien responded that would be true unless the City Council opposes a decision
made by the Hearing Examiner and decides to appeal to Superior Court.
City Attorney Taraday explained that potential liability to the City and individual Councilmembers was a significant factor in
the City Council's decision to adopt Resolution No. 1367. City Councilmembers are elected to be legislators and represent
their constituents, not to be judges. It is difficult for Councilmembers, who are accustomed to being responsive to their
constituents, to play the role of judge and judicially apply the code based on the record in front of them. Some are unable to
fill this role, and they end up making arbitrary and capricious decisions that are not consistent with law or the record. When
this occurs, the City could be subjected to millions of dollars in damages. These same risks would not be present if the City
Council were to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision to Superior Court. While the City may not win the appeal, the risks would
be minimized.
City Attorney Taraday explained that, under the current process, City Council Members are unable to participate in public
hearings for quasi-judicial actions because it would disqualify them from hearing an appeal under the Appearance of Fairness
rules. If they no longer have to serve in this capacity, they could feel free to be a party of record and participate in hearings to
represent their constituents' viewpoints.
Vice Chair Cheung asked about the process the City Council would use to appeal Hearing Examiner decisions to Superior
Court. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Council would probably meet in an executive session with their attorney
to discuss the Hearing Examiner decision, as well as the pros and cons of moving forward with an appeal and the likelihood
the City would prevail. Ultimately, the City Council would make a legislative decision about whether to appeal or not. No
public hearing would be required, but the vote would need to take place in a public meeting. Vice Chair Cheung asked if the
City would be responsible to pay additional attorney fees associated with the appeal. City Attorney Taraday answered that the
City Attorney's Office is retained on a flat -fee basis. They get paid the same amount every month regardless of whether there
is litigation or not. Mr. Lien pointed out that the City has incurred additional attorney fees for closed record appeals to the City
Council when an independent attorney must be hired to represent the City's case while the City Attorney represents the City
Council.
Board Member Lovell asked how other cities have addressed this issue. City Attorney Taraday advised that the Washington
Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) pleads with cities to do this because it significantly reduces risk. Before the City Council
adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, the Executive Director of the WCIA asked them to please consider getting out of the
quasi-judicial decision -making process because of the risk it creates to the City and the public.
Chair Monroe reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing is not to debate the merits of Resolution No. 1367, which
has already been adopted by the City Council. The purpose of the hearing is to decide if the proposed amendments are the
right way to implement the resolution.
Gary Nelson, Edmonds, observed that this issue has been debated by many jurisdictions for a number of years. Three months
following the City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 1367, Proposition 4 appeared on the ballot to change the charter for
Snohomish County. The issue had come before the County Council twice before and was defeated both times. The results of
the ballot measure in Edmonds was interesting, as 57.7% of the precincts voted no. It appears that the majority of City residents
have strong feelings about what their City Council and appointed officials are responsible to do. He said he is concerned that
the proposed amendments would significantly increase the cost of appealing quasi-judicial decisions. In addition to a filing
fee, appellants may have to hire an attorney to assist in the appeal to Superior Court.
Mr. Nelson commented that staff put a lot of thought into many of the proposed changes, and most appear to be very reasonable.
However, it is not likely that the proposed changes to the quasi-judicial appeal process will be acceptable to the residents of
Edmonds. While City Attorney Taraday suggests the changes will liberate the City Council and eliminate potential conflicts,
most citizens of Edmonds expect their elected officials to carry on their current role and make responsible decisions regardless
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 5
Packet Pg. 355
7.1.i
of their personal opinions. They have been elected to study the facts and make decisions based on law. He is disappointed
with Councilmembers who say this responsibility is too difficult, and perhaps they should consider resigning their positions.
The appointed officials are very responsible and capable of providing recommendations to the City Council, but the City
Council should retain the right to make the final decision.
Mr. Nelson expressed his belief that the current approach for appeals is accurate and responsible and the City should simply
maintain this process and table the proposed amendments. However, he would like the other proposed amendments to go
forward as presented. He referred to written comments (Attachment 8) he submitted prior to the meeting, including a list of
LUPA issues. He summarized that although neighbors sometimes quarrel over issues, none of the issues are so difficult that
appeals to Superior Court are warranted. He said he supports the current process of a Hearing Examiner decision that is
appealable to the City Council. He pointed out that appealing decisions to the Superior Court can be costly and take
significantly more time. In most cases, appellants have to hire an attorney to represent their case. He encouraged the Board to
consider what is in the best interest of the citizens of Edmonds. They should strive to avoid increasing the financial impacts to
citizens and prolonging the process of appeals. Sending appeals to the City Council is a timely approach that works.
Board Member Lovell referred to Mr. Nelson's written comments (Attachment 8), which state that RCW 36.70C defines land
use decisions as "a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the
determination, including those with authority to hear appeals. " He expressed his belief that the Hearing Examiner meets this
criterion. The Hearing Examiner has the background, experience and know how to make decisions based on all the facts and
City regulations, and their decisions should stand. If someone wants to appeal, they should have to go to the higher authority,
which he believes is the Superior Court. He said he supports the changes as proposed.
Vice Chair Cheung asked how often quasi-judicial decisions are appealed. Mr. Chave reviewed that the permit review process
was originally set up in 2009 to take the City Council out of closed record appeals, but it was put back into the process in 2010.
Since that time, the City Council has only heard a few appeals.
Vice Chair Cheung asked if there are any other appeal options the Board could consider other than City Council or Superior
Court. Mr. Lien pointed out that appeals to shoreline permits go to the Shoreline Hearings Board rather than to Superior Court,
but if the Council is removed from quasi-judicial decision making, Superior Court would be the next step for all other appeals.
Chair Monroe expressed his belief that the City Council is in the best position to make decisions for Edmonds. He questioned
why the City Council does not want to retain this decision -making ability. He said he is a little leery of giving up the values of
Edmonds into the hands of the Snohomish County court.
Vice Chair Cheung said he understands that the City Council would prefer not to have to make these decisions, but the same
could be said for citizens who are asked to serve on juries. He recognized that there are a lot more opportunities for ex-parte
communications to occur with the current process, but these same concerns could be attributed to someone who is asked to
serve on a jury. Mr. Lien explained that the amendments would not remove the City Council from the process. The City
Council would still be responsible for establishing the policies and regulations that are applied to specific permits. Chair
Monroe agreed but pointed out that the proposed amendments would remove the City Council from the role of interpreting the
rules and policies. He understands why the City Council supports the change, but he is not sure it will benefit the citizens and
the City.
Board Member Robles cautioned that a certain balance must be made between risk and inherent risk and decisions should not
be made based on monetary aspects alone. He recalled a recent rezone that came before the Planning Board. A lot of work
was done by the applicant and staff, but the public was not properly notified of the proposal and were ill prepared to participate
in the hearing. The developers seemed to have an advantage over the citizens and the Board was constrained by the facts and
couldn't help represent the citizen's concerns based on the constraints of the quasi-judicial process. He asked if that is
analogous to what the City Council would be faced with because they would be constrained to talk only about the facts of the
proposal. City Attorney Taraday commented that the Board has more latitude in an open record public hearing than the City
Council has in a closed record public hearing. The Board should never feel constrained in collecting the facts and information
needed to make a recommendation.
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 6
Packet Pg. 356
7.1.i
City Attorney Taraday referred to Vice Chair Cheung's earlier comment comparing the City Council's role to that of a jury.
He explained that for site -specific rezone applications and development agreements, the Planning Board would serve as the
jury in the sense that the Board would conduct the hearing and collect testimony and evidence from witnesses. The Board gets
to make factual findings based on everything they hear and see and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. The
Hearing Examiner would play this same role in Hearing Examiner permits. Even with the current process, the City Council
does not get to play that role because they are limited to the evidence collected by the Board or Hearing Examiner. He
summarized that, in court, juries are not asked to make legal decisions or answer questions of law. The judge hears the legal
stuff and the jury hears the factual stuff and they come together to make a decision. Currently, the City Council is frequently
asked to make legal decisions when they are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
RELATED TO PUBLIC HEARING PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES TO THE
CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT
DATED JULY 25, 2018.
Chair Monroe recognized that the City Council has already made the decision to remove themselves from quasi-judicial
decisions via Resolution No. 1367, and the proposed amendments are intended to implement this earlier action. However, he
suggested that the motion should include a recommendation that the City Council carefully consider the concerns that have
been discussed by the Board before taking final action. Mr. Lien commented that the Board can recommend approval or denial
of the proposed amendments or recommend changes, regardless of the Council's direction in Resolution No. 1367.
Mr. Chave referred to Mr. Lien's earlier comment about how the monetary impact of the proposed amendments would be less
if you consider the overall process and risks. The real question is if you want the City Council to be more involved in the
legislative role where they are able to represent the interest of their constituents. As pointed out by Mr. Lien and City Attorney
Taraday, there are struggles that any City Council will encounter when they try to work both roles because it requires them to
step out of one to be in the other. Councilmembers are elected to represent their constituents, and that is difficult to do when
they are required to act as judge on quasi-judicial decisions. This conflict of roles is at the heart of the proposed changes.
Mr. Chave commented that very few appeals end up before the City Council. If there are few appeals, maybe the risk isn't so
high. On the other hand, if there are few appeals, the proposed amendments would not create a significant impact to citizens.
As a staff person, he supports wanting the City Council to represent its citizens. They are most effective when they are able to
develop and oversee regulations. Citizens are much better off having their voices heard during the legislative processes that
establish codes and regulations. It is better for the City Council to make decisions at the rule level rather than at the end of the
process trying to figure out how to not follow the rules in order to represent their constituents.
Board Member Robles observed that one law of risk management is you want the entity that is best qualified to handle the risk
to carry the risk. He asked what type of citizens would end up having to litigate their way back to wholeness if the amendments
are adopted as proposed. In other words, he asked who would be impacted the most? Mr. Lien said it could be anyone, from
major land owners to single property land owners. Everyone would be treated the same. He advised that in most of the appeals
he has heard before the City Council, attorneys have been involved. Sometimes property owners pool their resources to get
representation, but it is not a requirement.
City Attorney Taraday said he can think of several LUPA actions (not more than 10) that have been appealed to the City
Council during his tenure as City Attorney. In at least three cases the appellants were pro say. He explained that a LUPA
action is on the record and appeals to Superior Court do not require witnesses or cross examination. The court simply reads
the facts from a sheet of paper. The appeal decision is based on the same record that would be sent to the City Council for
consideration.
Board Member Robles asked how undue influence could play into a Councilmember's decision. City Attorney Taraday
explained that anyone sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity is required to disclose relationships that could cause bias. A
Councilmember who is strongly anti -development would not necessary be required to disclose this information but basing a
decision solely on this strong bias could create liability for the City, and that is where the biggest risk lies.
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 7
Packet Pg. 357
7.1.i
Board Member Rosen said the severity of the situation appears to come from City Councilmembers who cross the line. It
would help him to better understand the problems they are trying to solve. Is the problem based on exposure to risk they have
encountered over the many years they have been doing quasi-judicial appeals, or were the amendments initiated based on
feedback from the WCIA? Mr. Chave answered that in his tenure with the City he has seen things that concerned him in terms
of how things play out at the Council level. This is not simply an academic discussion but based on real -life experiences.
Board Member Rosen asked, in the scheme of risk, how does the Council's involvement in quasi-judicial appeals compare.
City Attorney Taraday said the amendments are intended to manage but not eliminate risk. In his opinion, the amendments
represent a very sensible way to manage risk. Divorcing politics from the land use issues, you get a better land use application
process and better policies. It is important to understand that, while the City Councilmembers may have a better sense of the
values of the City than a Hearing Examiner or judge, those values are not supposed to be expressed when processing land use
applications. They are supposed to be expressed when adopting code regulations. Mr. Lien referred to City Attorney Taraday's
2016 memorandum stating that not only is it a risk to the City but individual Councilmembers could also be liable for decisions
made in the quasi-judicial process.
CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chair Monroe voiced reservations about the proposed amendment to take the Council out of the quasi-judicial decision -making
process, recognizing that it is nearly impossible to write codes that developers cannot eventually find loopholes around. He
said he is shocked that the City Council wants to give away this power. He believes the proposed changes will eventually be
adopted by the City Council but the Board should emphasize the need for the Council to take a hard and careful look at the
pros and cons before making a final decision.
CHAIR MONROE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THAT THE BOARD ADVISES THE CITY
COUNCIL TO TAKE A HARD LOOK BEFORE GIVING AWAY THIS PUBLIC TRUST. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG
SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND.
Vice Chair Cheung voiced concern about turning over quasi-judicial decisions to a judge who may not be as familiar with the
City's codes as the City Council. The City Councilmembers are accountable to their constituents. He understands the potential
conflicts of interest but agrees the Council should carefully weigh the pros and cons before making a decision. It is different
for petitioners to stand in front of a judge who would expect them to present their appeal in a more legal manner versus speaking
before the City Council. On the other hand, it sounds like appeals are not common and most people who appeal are probably
more experienced and have their own counsel.
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chair Monroe closed the public hearing.
The Board took a 5-minute break at 8:32 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE AT 9107 AND 9111— 236TH STREET SW FROM RS-8 TO RM-1.5
Chair Monroe reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. He reminded the Board
of the appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents
or proponents regarding the issues in the rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered
no. He also invited Board Members to disclose any ex-parte communications, and none indicated any. He asked if any member
of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective
manner. None indicated a concern. Lastly, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Board Member's participation
as a decision maker in the hearing. No one in the audience indicated a concern. All those who planned to participate in the
hearing were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they give would be the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth.
Mr. Shipley presented the Staff Report and Martin Reimers was present to represent the applicant.
Planning Board Minutes
July 25, 2018 Page 8
Packet Pg. 358
7.1.j
implement the goals with the assumption that the goals were already accepted. The presentation, in addition
to presenting the goals as settle, predetermined the audience's objections. The Housing Director and the
consultant told the audience that the strategy would not increase crime in Edmonds from low income
persons, would not attract homeless people and would not raise taxes. The message the audience heard was
that anyone opposing the housing strategy was a selfish bigot which the citizens found quite offensive. In
his 30-year career as a business executive, a board director and a non-profit director, he never saw a strategy
presented that was devoid of the resources to successfully implement the strategy; for the City, that is the
budget. He questioned how attendees could possibly choose among six goals and provide suggested
improvements without knowing the cost of the goals and the impact they would have on other City
priorities. To do so without understanding the tradeoffs was to live in la -la land. He questioned not having
any idea of the cost, impacts and tradeoffs when the City has been working on the housing strategy since
2015. It was not selfishness or bigotry to ask the core question, what can realistically be accomplished with
the resources available and what is given up to accomplish those goals. That is the responsibility of the
Council, citizens or any steward of the strategy. If the City expected the citizens' support, he asked that
they be respected.
7. STUDY ITEMS
1. PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Resolution No. 1367
o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity
■ Frustrations with ex-parte contact prohibitions
■ Liability issues for council members
o Resolution No. 1367
■ Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions
to the ECDC modifying the City Council's role in quasi -decision making processes
o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367
• Decision processes
o Administrative Decisions
■ Type I - Staff decision no notice
■ Type II - Staff decision with notice
o Quasi-judicial Decisions
■ Type III - Hearing Examiner/ADB
■ Type IV - Plats/PRDs/Site Specific Rezone
■ Appeals of Type II and Type III-B
- Type II appeals to Hearing Examiner at open record public hearing
- Type III-B appeals to City Council at closed record hearing
o Legislative
■ Type V
ECDC 20.01.003
o Table of land use decisions
Quasi-judicial Decisions
o Legislative vs. Quasi-judicial
■ Legislative decisions establish policies for future application
■ Quasi-judicial are the application of those policies
o Strict procedural requirements
■ Property notice of hearing
■ Providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to
hear what others have to say
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 3
Packet Pg. 359
7.1.j
■ Full disclosure to everyone of the facts being considered by the decision -making body (i.e.,
no ex-parte contacts)
■ An impartial decision -maker free from bias and conflicts of interest
■ Decisions based on facts of the case, not on political pressure or vocal opposition
• ECDC 20.01.003
o Table of land use decisions with revisions
■ Move III-B decisions moved to III -A column, Type becomes III
■ Type IV -A moved to Type I column
■ Development Agreements moved from legislative process to Type IV quasi-judicial
■ Attachment in packet includes related ECDC text amendments
• Type IV -A: Subdivisions and PRDs
o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments
o All requirements of preliminary approval have been met
o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval
o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel
o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 delegates final approval to staff
• ECDC 17.00.030 - Public Agency Variance
o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any
other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to
build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning
ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall
be a recommendation to the city council
• ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits
o Conflicts with state law
■ Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW
- One open record public hearing
- ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings if three neighbors within 300
feet of a project keep requesting review of approved permits
■ Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW
- "Finality" - Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely
filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply
with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim)
- Habitat Watch v. Skagit County - Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through
another administrative permit review process
■ New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to
suspend or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which
operates in a manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application
• ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings
o Confusing cross references regarding appeals
o Combine into a single chapter
o Added some language for prehearing conferences
o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings
• Development Agreements
o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial
decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council
o Council considers development agreement in closed record review
o Consistent with state law (Chapter 36.70B RCW); development agreements are not legislative,
but must be consistent with local development code
• Next steps
o On extended agenda for September 18 but that date does not allow adequate time for noticing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 4
Packet Pg. 360
7.1.j
o Suggesting public hearing on September 25 although there are already four public hearings on
that agenda
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis requested the PowerPoint be provided to Council. She recalled this
change was made immediately after Councilmembers Petso and Bloom left the Council and two new
Councilmembers were elected. She urged the new Councilmembers to read and understand the change,
explaining it takes citizens' voices away from City Council and all appeals will be to the hearing examiner
and on to Superior Court which costs a great deal. She referred to an email from Gary Nelson that said the
cost was $240 and attorney fees were $200-500/hour. She recalled the Council hearing approximately ten
cases in the past. She suggested this change be reconsidered as the City Council makes serious decisions
about housing, land use, the Shoreline Master Program, critical areas, etc. and she did not support having
that done by the hearing examiner and Superior Court.
Councilmember Johnson said she has experienced both sides of the process. When decisions were
appealable to Superior Court in the past, her father protested a neighbor's short subdivision when the
hearing examiner made what she and her father felt was a bad decision. Her father hired an attorney and
with her help, went through the process. Given the choice to go to Superior Court, they chose not to continue
as they did not want to spend the money. As a Councilmember she has experienced this process when the
Council has had to hire separate attorneys for the Council and go through elaborate quasi-judicial
procedures. That experience convinced her this role was not the best for the City Council.
Councilmember Johnson read from a presentation to the City Council from City Attorney Jeff Taraday that
explains why this an appropriate role, "In considering whether the Council wants to continue in a quasi-
judicial capacity, Mr. Taraday suggested we ask ourselves why. If it's because the City Council can make
better decisions than the hearing examiner, that they have more expertise than the hearing examiner, then
that's a valid reason to continue this practice so that we can correct the hearing examiner's errors. There
was another way to accomplish that, by appealing the hearing examiner's decision under LUPA. For
example, when the hearing examiner makes an unpopular decision or the City Council has concerns with
the decision, the Council can vote to appeal the decision and direct the City Attorney to file a land use
petition action appeal to superior court. As a result, the City Attorney would argue on the Council's behalf
to convince the court that the hearing examiner's decision was wrong. He explained that there are benefits
to that process from a risk management perspective. If he goes to court and argues the hearing examiner's
decision is wrong and the judge upholds the hearing examiner's decision, no damage claim will be filed
against the City. Conversely, if an appeal goes before the City Council acting as a decision maker and
constituents are clamoring to overturn the hearing examiner decision and the Council does so when it
shouldn't, then the City could face a significant damage claim as a result of that action. He summarized
that from a risk management standpoint, much of the same thing can be accomplished by directing him to
appeal hearing examiner decisions versus having the Council in the position of the decision maker."
Councilmember Johnson found this very useful information for the City Council to consider; it is a way for
the City Council to respond to constituents, to be able to have open conversations with them without
jeopardizing Council decisions.
Councilmember Johnson said when ponding how to ensure good decision making, one of the essential
issues is the hearing examiner himself. If the City has a good hearing examiner, and she believed Phil
Olbrechts was one of the best she has seen, who does not make mistakes and there haven't been decisions
overturned, the City rely on him and the Council can act as a check and balance. Upon very careful
consideration, that is the direction she was leaning but she was willing to listen to testimony and think about
the matter very thoroughly.
Councilmember Johnson invited Mr. Taraday to add to what she read. Mr. Taraday said he still agreed with
those comments, that was still his opinion in terms of weighing the pros and cons. If Councilmembers
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 5
Packet Pg. 361
7.1.j
believe they have more expertise than the hearing examiner and can make better decisions, that is the one
valid reason for keeping the Council in quasi-judicial decision making. The significant role the City Council
can play on behalf of its citizens should not be discounted, to essentially be the citizens' advocate by taking
appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizens when the Council feels an error has been made. In that
situation, the citizens do not pay any of the costs; and it is essentially a cost-free appeal to the City on behalf
of the citizens assuming the City Attorney's flat fee arrangement continues. He noted for the record, there
is an assumption being made that Superior Courts are only accessible to those who hire attorneys. However,
many LUPA cases brought against City were by pro se litigants on their own behalf; Superior Court does
not necessarily require hiring counsel.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the June 10 comments submitted by Gary Nelson to the Planning Board,
specifically Snohomish County Superior Court filing fees would be $240. Mr. Taraday said that was about
right. Councilmember Teitzel inquired about the fee to appeal a hearing examiner decision to the City
Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the City's appeal fees:
• Appeal of staff decision to the hearing examiner: $400
• Appeal of Type III-B decision to City Council: $500
• Appeal of a notice of civil violation: $880
Councilmember Teitzel summarized potentially an appeal to Superior Court would be less expensive than
an appeal to the City Council. Councilmember Teitzel again referred to Mr. Nelson's comments that state
the filed appeal will cause delays in resolving each case. As of August 28, 2017, the waiting time for a
LUPA civil appeal is approximately 9 to 10 months. Mr. Taraday answered LUPA cases are heard on a
separate schedule, the waiting time quoted was probably true for civil actions generally, but LUPA cases,
because they are on the record, they are generally given an expedited schedule that is usually faster.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the $200-$500/hour cost to be represented by an attorney
was accurate. Mr. Taraday agreed that was in the ballpark, noting people who have come to the City Council
have also hired lawyers; lawyers can be hired for either venue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it was
more likely to see people represented in Superior Court, noting there have been a number of hearings where
the appellant was not represented by an attorney. She recalled Councilmember Johnson saying her parent
could not afford to take an issue to Superior Court, anticipating appealing to City Council would have been
more affordable. She recalled in the past, the City Council upheld most of the hearing examiner's decisions
but also overturned some, based on fact, not on personal feelings or emotions. When Councilmembers are
sworn in on a quasi-judicial matter, they can recuse themselves if they have any bias, ex-parte
communication or conflict of interest. The only time the Council was required to hire a separate attorney
was when a Councilmember filed a quasi-judicial appeal on an issue in their neighborhood.
With regard to endless public hearings, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in the six years the Council
heard quasi-judicial appeals, there were approximately ten. Mr. Lien clarified the point regarding endless
public hearing was not related to quasi-judicial decisions; it was related to amendments to a different code
section, reviews of approved permits (a permit that has been approved and construction has started and
review of the permit can be opened and sent back to the hearing examiner).
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has faith in the City's Hearing Examiner, Phil Olbrechts but
people make mistakes and bringing an appeal to City Council provides the ability to double check his
decisions. She recalled there were a couple times the Council reversed the hearing examiner's decisions,
not based on emotion or politics, but based on the Council's interpretation versus the interpretation of one
person. She urged the Council to think carefully about this, noting there were pitfalls in both processes. She
agreed with Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis for the new Councilmembers in particular to read the
information carefully because it takes away the rights that citizens used to have. She asked if a public
hearing was held when this change was made. Mr. Lien answered the minutes of the three meetings where
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 6
Packet Pg. 362
7.1.j
it was discussed are in the packet; the resolution was passed at the third meeting. He was uncertain whether
a public hearing was held. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not see a public hearing in the
minutes.
On behalf of the newer Councilmembers, Mayor Pro Tern Nelson said they are no longer new.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the two key issues discussed in 2016, frustration with ex-parte contact
prohibitions and liability issues for Councilmembers, recalling in the 3-4 quasi-judicial issues he has been
involved in, avoiding ex-parte contact was difficult. When Councilmembers are approached and have to
tell citizens they cannot talk about an issue, there is a sense of frustration on both the citizens' part as well
as the Councilmember's. That was a key factor for him in considering this. Mr. Taraday said
Councilmembers generally run for office to be responsive to constituents; it is frustration for elected
officials in a quasi-judicial context because they cannot be responsive to their constituents when they are
unable to talk to them. He suggested that was an issue that Councilmembers should think carefully about;
whether they were comfortable with and wanted to be put in a situation whether they could not engage with
constituents regarding a project or would they rather be able to engage, and be able to say, I'm concerned
too and testify before the hearing examiner. Councilmembers could testify to the hearing examiner if they
were liberated from the burden of remaining impartial because of the quasi-judicial aspect.
Mr. Taraday said the Council may assume by hearing appeals, they will right a wrong and be on the side of
their constituents and be the heroes of the day. However, sometimes the opposite happens, the Council is
forced to vote against the will of their constituents such if the application meets the requirements, it must
be approved. In that instance, not only can the Council not talk to their constituents, in addition they may
end up doing the exact opposite of their constituents want the Council to do which could be uncomfortable
and not necessarily the position the Council wants to be placed in.
Councilmember Mesaros asked how many Type III-B appeals there have been in the five years. Mr. Lien
answered there have been 4 since 2009, the Burnstead plat (upheld), Hillman critical area reasonable use
variance (overturned), design review Building 10 (remanded to ADB and then overturned) and a fence
height variance (upheld). Mr. Taraday referred to the Building 10 appeal, explaining a LUPA appeal was
filed following the City Council's action that was essentially stayed pending a new application and approval
of the new application allowed the earlier LUPA to be dismissed. He clarified he did not want the Council
to presume the City would have prevailed on the first LUPA; it is entirely possible that had that situation
not been worked out, that case may not have gone the City's way. Just because the City has not an adverse
judgment recently, he did not want the City Council to be overly bullish on City's chances of always
prevailing.
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis said the Hillman critical area was a code problem and the appellant
wrote the code change. The Council found an issue with the code and it was good to have someone fact -
check the code. She said she has never seen a summary list of appeals or been asked to go with citizens to
an appeal since 2016. Mr. Taraday said the code has not been changed to take the Council out of process
yet. Mr. Lien said there have been no appeals to the Council since 2016.
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis commented this same quasi-judicial approach went before the
Snohomish County voters in November 2016 as Proposition 4 and the majority of voters voted no, 57.7%
in Edmonds.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the Hillman example and asked what the process would look like if that
had been reviewed by Superior Court instead of the City Council. Mr. Lien explained that was a critical
area reasonable use variance. The appellant did not write the code change; the code change was related to
the definition of minimal reasonable economic use. The code said a single-family residence was a minimal
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 7
Packet Pg. 363
7.1.j
reasonable economic use. The City Council overturned the hearing examiner's decision because the Council
determined what was proposed was not the minimal reasonable economic use. After the hearing, that section
was removed from the definition of minimal reasonable economic use so that a single-family residence was
no longer assumed to be minimal reasonable economic use. Mr. Taraday explained if the appellant had not
had the option of coming to the City Council to challenge the hearing examiner's decision, it would have
gone to Superior Court and the City Attorney would have argued on the City's behalf to convince the judge
that that was the wrong decision and that the residence could have been smaller, etc. With regard to the
code change, the need to make changes arises a variety of ways, via an application that does not reach a
hearing where an ambiguity is pointed out and flagged for amendment, a hearing examiner decision that
flags an issue for later amendment, etc. Ambiguity in the code will continue to arise whether it is the Council
or Superior Court reviewing appeals.
Councilmember Tibbott summarized the appeal could have happened either of two ways. Mr. Taraday
agreed, it just would have been a different body making the decision. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the
code amendment was made after the legal process was completed. Mr. Lien answered the code amendment
does not necessarily have to wait until the decision is made but it would not apply to a project that is already
vested.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the comment about overturning a decision/mistake made by the hearing
examiner and asked what the appeal body was overturning. Mr. Taraday explained the hearing examiner
makes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a decision. The decision has to rest on the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law. It is difficult for a finding of fact to be overturned on a closed record appeal
because, by definition, the appeal body is not receiving new evidence and is reviewing the same information
the hearing examiner received. It is unlikely in looking at the same exact evidence, the appeal body will
reach a different factual finding. There are situations where a finding of fact can be overturned but it is less
common. Most of time, if the Council retained this function, the issue was trying to determine whether the
hearing examiner made an error in its legal opinion. Those are legal arguments; frequently attorneys on
both sides will make argument to the City Council explaining why the code should be interpreted one way
or another. That was more likely to be in the realm of the City Council if the Council retained this quasi-
judicial function.
Councilmember Tibbott observed the Council would be serving as judges as if they had a specialty as
lawyers and understanding the proceedings. Mr. Taraday answered essentially, by definition if the Council
was ruling on a legal argument, they were playing a legal role.
Councilmember Tibbott said he may be new to the Council, but he served four years on the Planning Board
where there were also quasi-judicial reviews. He recalled some were handled well and some were handled
poorly. Those that were handled poorly was due to the way they came to the Planning Board from staff.
The Board was not adequately prepared, did not receive information in enough time to prevent ex-parte
interaction and as a result some decisions were skewed by outside information that was beyond the closed
record. He found that very distressing now that he understands what the process is supposed to look like.
He did not want the Council to be in the position of ferreting that out and potentially at risk of liability due
to mishaps. He assumed that could be fixed, but there were significant logistical steps that needed to be
taken to protect the quasi-judicial process. His experience in a quasi-judicial role was not positive; it
requires specialized training to interpret findings, especially real estate zoning laws which are within the
realm of the hearing examiner to review. At this point he still supported Resolution 1367 and the role it
outlined for the City Council.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers who had not been through the process to
read the cases so they understand the Council's role, anticipating staff could provide links to the
information. She recalled one of the cases was regarding a fence and the point at which the height of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 8
Packet Pg. 364
7.1.j
fence was measured. Mr. Lien clarified it was a fence on top of a retaining wall. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas recalled that decision was reversed. Mr. Lien advised it was upheld. With regard to ex-parte
contact, in all the years she was on Council and heard appeals, she had only been contacted twice about
cases and in both she very professionally said she could not discuss it and that stopped the conversation.
She recalled during the process Councilmembers are asked to reveal ex-parte contact and on occasion a
Councilmember recused themselves.
Councilmember Mesaros recalled visiting City Hall and upon seeing Mr. Lien, asking him about a project
and if there were any problems. Mr. Lien responded they should not talk about it because if there were
problems and they were appealed, Councilmember Mesaros could be required to make a decision in a quasi-
judicial hearing. That was insightful on Mr. Lien's part. As Councilmember Tibbott said, a Councilmember
may be talking to citizens about a project in its infancy and unknowingly be tainted by that discussion later
in the process. As Mr. Taraday said, Councilmembers pride themselves on their accessibility to citizens;
however, citizens may offer input early in the process before an appeal, resulting in a Councilmember being
involved in ex-parte contact before the appeal process even begins.
Mr. Lien said in reviewing the three meetings in 2016 agendas, none of them were public hearings. This
item is on the extended agenda for September 18; the Council could have further discussion prior to a public
hearing or schedule a public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson offered to work with Mr. Lien to select a date
for the public hearing. Councilmembers were agreeable to that approach.
2. INTRODUCTION TO UPDATING CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS FOR WETLANDS
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien said this is the third time this topic has been presented to
the Council. He reviewed:
• Background
o Completed comprehensive CAO update in May 2016
o June 2016 Department of Ecology Issues updated Wetland Guidance in Publication No. 16-06-
001
o Updated Wetland Guidance Incorporated into Shoreline Management Program
o Shoreline Management Act vs. Growth Management Act
■ Shoreline Master Program applies in shoreline jurisdiction
■ CAO applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction
o SMP Periodic Review
• This updated focuses on SMP Excepted Sections
o ECDC 23.50.010.13, Wetland Ratings.
o ECDC 23.50.040.F.1, Standard Buffer Widths.
o ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands.
o ECDC 23.50.040.K, Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands
• History repeats itself (almost)
o Public Hearing before Planning Board on July 11, 2018
o Ecology issues new wetland guidance on July 12, 2018
■ "If you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you
use these modified wetland buffer tables in your update."
• Ecology 2018 Wetland Guidance
o "We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland
data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to
make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores."
Wetland Buffer Requirement Tables
2016
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 4, 2018
Page 9
Packet Pg. 365
7.1.k
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to staff s recommendation, pointing out having the utilities become
private was not one of the options. She asked if privatization of water and sewer was common in a city like
Edmonds. Ms. McConnell answered it is not common. With a new subdivision with a private road where
there is not a need for the City to own and maintain the utility system, a private sewer main may be installed
via the development process. The water main would be in the City street and water service lines to
individual properties. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for confirmation that staff was not recommending
privatization. Ms. McConnell agreed staff was not. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City needed
to protect environment.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the applicant's BLA map, relaying her understanding there were two
issues, first the lot line adjustment. It would be possible to create the amber and green lots in such a way
that they could be built upon by allocating the northern portion of the amber lot to a different lot. If the
intent was two building sites, one south of Excelsior Place and another north of Excelsior Place, both would
be outside the critical areas and it would be possible build there. The second issue is the vacation of
Excelsior Place. Although Excelsior Place serves as a private driveway, it is serving more than what a
normal private driveway would serve, especially due to the northern, western and eastern sections. An
improvement would be appropriate notwithstanding the current meandering onto private property. Since
the Fire Department may require a 20-foot wide right-of-way, she concluded it did not make sense to
abandon the public right-of-way so she will vote no.
Duane Landsverk, applicant, asked Councilmember Johnson if she felt it was appropriate for the
additional lots to the east, for them to suggest that they open the public right-of-way of Excelsior. First it
would need to be constructed and then people would be sent to the end of Excelsior where they would
trespass across neighboring lots to the east where there is no public access. Excelsior dead -ends and is only
20 feet wide. Councilmember Johnson said testimony has stated one can travel Excelsior Place and exit to
the east. Mr. Landsverk said his private driveway meanders in and out of Excelsior; it is marked private
and anyone using it is on private property. The public portion of Excelsior is 100% cut off. Councilmember
Johnson asked if it was physically possible to drive to the east. Mr. Landsverk answered not without
trespassing.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO VACATE WITH THE
CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT IN EXHIBIT 1. MOTION CARRIED (5-1),
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL
PRnC'F,ggF,C
Mayor Earling announced the Council would not discuss Agenda Items 8.1 and 8.2 tonight.
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Resolution No. 1367
o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity
■ Frustrations with ex-parte contact prohibitions
■ Liability issues for councilmembers
o Resolution No. 1367
■ Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions
to the ECDC modifying the City Council's role in quasi -decision making processes
o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 2, 2018
Page 15
Packet Pg. 366
7.1.k
Council Quasi-judicial Decisions
o Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities; Design review (where a public hearing by the
architectural design board is required); Conditional use permits (where a public hearing by the
hearing examiner is required); Zoning Variances; Home occupation permit (where a public
hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Preliminary formal plat; and Preliminary planned
residential development.
o Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats; Final planned residential development;
and site specific rezone.
o ECDC 17.00.030.C: The City Council also sits in a quasi-judicial role for variance applications
from public agencies.
Potential Code Amendments
o Type III-B
o Type IV -A
o ECDC 17.00.030 - Public agency variances
o ECDC 20.100.040 - Review of Approved Permits
o ECDC 20.06 (Open Record Public Hearings) and ECDC 20.07 (Closed Record Public
Hearings)
o Development Agreements
ECDC 20.01.003 - Type III-B
o Revisions to the table of land use decisions
o Removing the City Council from appeal of quasi-judicial decisions could allow the Council to
appeal on the behalf of citizens
■ Council would be provided notice of Type III decisions
Type IV -A: Subdivisions and PRDS
o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments
o All requirements of preliminary approval of been met
o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval
o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel
o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would delegate City Council's role in review
of final formal plats and PRDs to staff
ECDC 17.00.030 - Public Agency Variance
o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any
other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to
build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning
ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall
be a recommendation to the city council
ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits
o Conflicts with state law
■ Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW
- One open record public hearing
- ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings
■ Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW
- "Finality" - Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely
filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply
with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim)
- Habitat Watch v. Skagit County - Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through
another administrative permit review process
o New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to suspend
or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which operates in a
manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application
ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 2, 2018
Page 16
Packet Pg. 367
7.1.k
o Confusing cross references regarding appeals
o Combine into a single chapter
o Added some language for prehearing conferences
o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings
Development Agreements
o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial
decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council
o Council considers development agreement in closed record review
o Likely process in conjunction with site specific rezone
Mr. Lien said staff is seeking direction from Council regarding the proposed code amendments.
Councilmember Teitzel commented there has been some incomplete information shared with the City
Council from outside sources. There was an assertion that other City Councils have not gotten out of the
quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien displayed a survey of appeals to City Council from Municipal Research
Center (MSRC) and City Attorney Jeff Taraday's list serve poll:
No appeals to City Council Appeals to City Council
• Bainbridge Is • Lynnwood • Bellevue
• Bremerton • Marysville • Bellingham
• Buckley • MLT o Only premilitary plats and variances related to plats
• Clyde Hill • Mukilteo o All other decisions are Court appeals
• Duvall • Snohomish • Ellensburg
• Everett • Shoreline • Kirkland
• Federal Way • Spokane Vly • SeaTac (considering getting out)
• Lakewood • • Snoqualmie
• Sumner
Under review: Renton
Councilmember Teitzel recalled there was a point made that Snohomish County Council had ballot measure
Prop 4 several years ago that was similar to what the Council is considering. In reading the voters pamphlet
and arguments for and against, he saw nothing about the Snohomish County Council having the ability to
consider an objection by a citizen and potentially taking appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizen
which is something the City Council is considering. He asked if Snohomish County Council had the option
to appeal on behalf of citizens. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding of 2016 Snohomish County Prop 4
was what he forward to Councilmembers from the voters pamphlet. He did not have any information that
the Snohomish County was considering the process staff has suggested where the City Council could appeal
the Hearing Examiner decision. There were similarities between this proposal and Prop 4 but they are not
identical.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether any of the cities had gone from quasi-judicial to non -quasi-
judicial. Mr. Lien said that would have taken a lot of research. Councilmember Buckshnis said this
information only identifies cities that have appeals to City Council and cities that do not. It does not address
other cities such as Edmonds that have changed. She hoped Edmonds would continue to have appeals to
City Council.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the cities that still have appeals to City Council and believed
there were more.
With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis' question, Mr. Taraday explained cities have only had Hearing
Examiner authority since approximately 1977; most of those cities preexisted that date. One could assume
most Council's had quasi-judicial capacity before 1977. Some cities may have abandoned quasi-judicial a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 2, 2018
Page 17
Packet Pg. 368
7.1.k
long time ago or more recently, but it would be a time-consuming exercise to determine who abandoned it
and when. Councilmember Buckshnis commented politics were way different in 1977. What is going on
now is relevant including that some large cities still use a quasi-judicial system. Mr. Lien said Edmonds
switched to the Hearing Examiner process in1980 and appeals went to City Council. Prior to that, the City
had a Board of Adjustment that heard variances and that was a quasi-judicial decision process. Board of
Adjustment decisions were appealable to Superior Court.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, said the quasi-judicial issue is important because, 1) it impacts more
residents, 2) the action the Council takes will maintain the path of working together or begin to drive a
wedge between certain groups, and 3) people outside Edmonds will make decisions about the community
and how it develops instead of local officials. After researching this issue, she was opposed to the effort
remove this from the Council. The main reason this issue was being brought up was lability concerns raised
by some Councilmembers; by eliminating the quasi-judicial process from the Council, the risk to the City
will be greatly reduced. This seems to be a weak reason because the Council has extensive legal
representation as well as liability insurance that could be used to defend any decision reached by the Council
that ends up in litigation. She pointed out the recent action taken by the Council to pass the safe storage gun
ordinance and assumed legal counsel cautioned that passing such an ordinance might result in litigation.
The Council did it anyway and now the City is being sued. She asked whether removing this process from
the Council would benefit residents today or in the future, make it easier for residents to resolve
disagreements or issues or make it more complicated, and whether it will keep the Council directly involved
in Edmonds issues. She concluded abdicating this vital function would place a barrier between the elected
officials and the citizens and will result in entities outside Edmonds making important decisions for
Edmonds instead of local elected officials. She urged the Council to retain the Council in this process.
John Reed, Edmonds, explained when making improvements to their home on 6' Avenue South in 1990,
an issue arose regarding access to a deck they planned to add on the west side of their home. Their side
setback was 5 feet but there was a 3'/2 wide deck stairway that extended part of the length of the house.
They applied for a variance to extend the deck to the end of the home and then cut over to the required 5-
foot setback. The Hearing Examiner denied their request so they appealed to the City Council under the
quasi-judicial process in place at that time. They and their neighbors represented themselves at the City
Council. One of the neighbors 25 feet away told the Council they had wild, late night parties and the deck
would infringe on their privacy and ability to sleep and the Council denied their request for a variance by a
3-4 vote. They subsequently designed access to their deck from inside the home. They undoubtedly would
not have paid a large fee, traveled to Everett and presented their request to Snohomish County Superior
Court. Since 1990 the process was changed to require appeals to Superior Court and then in 2009 changed
back to appeals to Council. He urged the Council to retain the current process because he believed it was
what the citizens who elected them expect.
Speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE), Mr. Reed referred to a letter, Exhibit
21 in the packet, highlighting ACE's support for retaining the quasi-judicial process at the City Council
level because Edmonds citizens elect Councilmembers to represent them and the existing process retains
that representation. It provides a less costly way for citizens to have their voices heard by the local residents
they elect. While the basis for this change is the risk involved in quasi-judicial hearings, in fact all City
Council decisions carry a degree of risk which is the reason for the City Attorney and why the City carries
liability insurance. Very few land use matters are currently appealed beyond the Hearing Examiner and the
Council spends little time on appeals. Councilmembers are familiar with Edmonds issues, but Snohomish
County Superior Court and land use staff are not. ACE urged the Council to vote to retain the current
process for quasi-judicial appeals.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 2, 2018
Page 18
Packet Pg. 369
7.1.k
Gary Nelson, Edmonds, referred to his correspondence to the City Council and that Planning Board
describing his opposition to moving from a citizen -friend approach to quasi-judicial matters to an unfriendly
approach that requires an appeal to Snohomish County Superior Court. When the Council passed Resolution
1367 in 2016, the Charter Review Commission put Prop 4 on the ballot which essentially addressed the
same idea of moving to a court appeal. There was little public discussion prior to the election; however,
57.7% of Edmonds voters voted no. His philosophy is the best government is the one closest to the people
which is the City Council. The City Council acts as a jury on many of the appeals that would come to the
Council under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). It does not require any specialized training; jurists do
not have any training when they make a decision. Citizens rely on the City Council's judgment; the Council
is presented material on the record and citizens expect the Council to use that judgment in the best interest
of the City. He asked the Council to oppose this change and continue the process that has been successful
for many years.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he participated in appeals while on the City Council; those decisions are
important to people making the appeal. He felt privileged to serve the citizens as a judge and current
Councilmembers should feel the same, that they are looking out for the citizens. This system has worked
for a long time because the Council follows strict rules of behavior and have not gotten themselves into a
lawsuit.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, strongly opposed these changes and feared this was another piecemeal amendment
to the code. In March 2015 the City launched a major update of the development code including hiring
Makers to assist with that process. He met with Makes and the City to describe his issues with the code; the
code has been highly flawed for a long time. He recalled Duane Bowman saying in 2005 that the code
needed to be updated. Consideration of this change should be done as part of a comprehensive, major update
of the code. The City's webpage regarding the code update has not been updated since March 2016 so he
had no idea where that update stands. He did not have faith in the City's Hearing Examiner system and if
anything, the City Council should hear more appeals, not less.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of public hearing.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to four cases brought to City Council prior to his being on the Council,
two related to larger developers, one of which was Building 10. He asked how long it took for the Council
to hear that appeal. Mr. Lien answered the Building 10 appeals took place over four Council meetings.
There was one closed record review before the Council for the first set of appeals; that was cut short and
remanded back to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to issue findings. The ADB issued findings, it
was appealed again and the City considered the appeals over three meetings.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was present for one of those and recalled the presentation to Council took
over an hour. One of his concerns is the actual process the Council could look forward to. To him, there
was a big difference between hearing a review for a neighbor adding on to their deck versus a large project
like Building 10 or the Burnstead subdivision. He asked how long the Burnstead appeal took. Mr. Lien
recalled it took at least 2-3 Council meetings. Mr. Taraday said Burnstead originated at City Council before
he was City Attorney, went to the courts, the Court of Appeals remanded to the Hearing Examiner and then
it came to the City Council on another administrative appeal.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was sympathetic to the idea of listening to appeals from neighbors on
personal issues but those cannot be separated from the larger appeals that take many days, have a great deal
of detailed information and require a courtroom -like setting for presenting information. He recalled
presentations to the Council from citizen groups and others presenting information with no opportunity to
cross-examine and verify facts. The larger and more complex the issue, the greater the need for the Council
to have the ability to cross-examine and verify information which requires more than a closed record review.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 2, 2018
Page 19
Packet Pg. 370
7.1.k
Councilmember Tibbott explained when the Council is asked to review an appeal, the Council is asked to
judge the Hearing Examiner's decision -making process, not the validity of the project. Mr. Taraday agreed,
explaining the Council does not have any decisions where the Council holds the open record hearing. If the
Council were holding the open record hearing, Councilmembers could cross-examine witnesses. The
Council is not a jury, juries hear original testimony. The Hearing Examiner hears witnesses speak and has
the opportunity to ask questions and play a fact-finding role. When appeals come to the Council, it is on
record and the Council only hears what was already provided to the Hearing Examiner and no new
information can be provided.
Councilmember Tibbott asked what it would be like for a citizen to take a request for an appeal to Superior
Court. Mr. Taraday recalled a couple citizens have filed their own LUPA appeals and represented
themselves pro se. LUPA appeals are on the record, there are no witnesses, no new evidence, basically the
petitioner writes a brief explaining to the court why the decision was erroneous. The City responds to that
brief with an explanation of why the decision was correct and the petitioner is provided an opportunity for
rebuttal to explain why the City's argument is wrong and there is some time for oral argument in front of
the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked how long reviews in front of a judge usually last. Mr. Taraday
answered the oral argument in front of the court includes an initial hearing which is usually 10 minutes and
the hearing on the merits lasts 20-60 minutes depending on the generosity of the judge.
Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it would possible to retain a review process that is not a quasi-
judicial review. For example, a citizen does not agree with a Hearing Examiner decision and wants to appeal
it to Superior Court but has an opportunity to bring it to the City Council first. The City Council could hear
the arguments and chose to appeal on the citizen behalf. Mr. Taraday said that is one of the ideas he and
Mr. Lien are considering; that is the suggestion about providing notice of hearings to the City Council. The
City Council would receive a notice of application whenever there was a Type III proposal and would have
the opportunity to attend the hearing. Once the decision is issued and there is an aggrieved constituent who
feels justice was not done, the system being contemplated would allow the City Council to appeal the
Hearing Examiner's decision in the name of the City on behalf of a constituent who feel it was unjustly
decided. That decision could be discussed with legal counsel in executive session as potential litigation and
Council could get a candid sense from the City Attorney on the merits of the Hearing Examiner's decision
and the Council would decide in open session whether to appeal. That is a way of representing constituents
in a manner that allow Councilmembers to talk to them and in a manner that was truly responsive to their
concerns without being bound by the decision criteria when the Council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Councilmember Tibbott commented under that scenario, Councilmembers could walk a property, ask
questions, etc. Mr. Taraday agreed, there would be no restriction on ex parte communication in that
scenario; Councilmembers could talk with constituents, conduct site visits, etc. Councilmember Tibbott
asked if the Council could request an open meeting with citizens to address the issue with Council. Mr.
Taraday said there are only 21 days to file a LUPA appeal. For example, if the Hearing Examiner's decision
is issued on a Friday, constituents could come to the next Council meeting to ask the Council to appeal or
one or more Councilmembers could inquire about it offline and/or discuss it in executive session.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the process whereby a citizen who felt aggrieved by a Hearing Decision
could ask the Council to consider it and asked how a citizen would know that avenue is available to them.
Mr. Taraday said the code language has not yet not finalized. If the City Council directed, staff could to
develop that process. Councilmember Teitzel was not interested in forcing citizens to go to Superior Court
without having that course available. If there was a less formal process whereby citizens could approach
the Council to say the Hearing Examiner erred, the Council could consider it and determine if it had merit
and appeal to Superior Court on the citizen's behalf. If that avenue did not exist, he supported retaining
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 2, 2018
Page 20
Packet Pg. 371
7.1.k
quasi-judicial authority. If that avenue exists, he was leaning away from the Council retaining quasi-judicial
authority as long he was convinced that avenue was available and reasonable for citizens.
Mayor Earling advised Agenda Item 9.1 would be moved to a future meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Johnson pointed out staff s research included two appeals that required counsel for the
City Council, Carol Morris. She asked how much was spent on the Burnstead and Pt. Edwards projects.
Mr. Lien said he could research cost. The City utilized Carol Morris on three appeals; the only one where
she was not hired was the fence appeal. Councilmember Johnson recalled there was advice two years ago
from WCIA, MSRC and the City Attorney to move away from the quasi-judicial review.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in seeing in writing what has been discussed behind the
scenes. She was not seeing much difference between the quasi-judicial process and that process which
would still take time, Council involvement, attorneys and staff. She asked staff to return with that process
in writing.
Councilmember Tibbott raised a point of order that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was insinuating there
have been private discussions on these matters. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified her request was
for staff to return with a proposal for the Council to appeal decisions to Superior Court on a citizen's behalf.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email stating the City has had four closed record reviews since
2009. Mr. Lien said there have been four closed record reviews on appeals since 2009, there have been
other closed record reviews such as the public agency variance. Councilmember Buckshnis said those
closed record review appeals were Pt. Edwards, Willowdale, Hillman and Burnstead. Mr. Lien agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis said those were part of the normal part of a Councilmember's job.
Councilmembers are not scientists, yet they make important decisions about the Shoreline Master Program.
She did not see any reason to change the current process.
Councilmember Tibbott said one of the things he was trying to understand was changes in state law related
to the review process such as only one closed record review and one appeal is allowed. He asked if there
was a further process if those two are exhausted. Mr. Taraday answered administratively there is not,
administratively the State allows one open record hearing and one closed record review. Councilmember
Tibbott asked if a citizen could appeal the Council's decision on a Hearing Examiner's to Superior Court.
Mr. Taraday explained the open record hearing takes place at the Hearing Examiner, the closed record
review takes place at the City Council which is the end of the administrative work and there is either a final
decision that no one appeals or there is a subsequent appeal that goes to Court.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON, TO FORWARD THIS TO A FUTURE AGENDA WITH A LONGER TIME FOR
DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has been discussing this for a while tonight and
there still seems to be a lot of questions. She would like to have time to discuss it so she recommended
moving it to another meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO INCLUDE WHEN THIS COMES BACK, DETAILS ABOUT THE
PROCESS WHEREBY A CITIZEN COULD COME TO COUNCIL, PRESENT THE FACTS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 2, 2018
Page 21
Packet Pg. 372
7.1.k
ABOUT THEIR CONCERN ABOUT A HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND THE COUNCIL
COULD APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZEN.
Mr. Lien said staff would return with code language regarding how the Council could appeal the Hearing
Examiner or ADB decision on the citizen's behalf.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. STUDY ITEMS
1. CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE REPORT
Due to the late hour, this item was omitted from the agenda.
2. DISCUSSION ON PROHIBITING EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE (EPS OR
"STYROFOAM") IN FOOD PACKAGING
Due to the late hour, this item was moved to a future agenda.
3. VIDEO STREAMING OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Council President Nelson commented this issue has been raised in a variety of ways. Previously all Council
meetings were televised. Then the Council changed to a committee structure, committees meet in separate
meetings and there is only an audio recording. Anyone wanting a copy of the audio recording must make a
submit a request. What is accessible to citizens online with regard to committee meetings is minutes. He
wanted the Council to do better job in terms of transparency; as Gary Council President Nelson said, the
best government is one that is closest to the people. If the public is unable to attend a meeting, the next best
thing is to watch it live. An op ed by Teresa Whipple on September 9t'', Let's Talk about Transparency,
relayed her frustration in trying to cover Council committee meetings when she cannot be in three places
at the same time. To that end, he invited a subject matter expert, Michelle Earl -Hubbard, Vice President of
the Board of Washington Coalition for Open Government, a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring
transparency and open government to speak to the Council. She is also a media law attorney.
Ms. Earl -Hubbard introduced her daughter, a youth outreach ambassador, also interested in open
government. Council President Nelson originally asked Toby Nixon, President of Washington Coalition
for Open Government but he is a member of the Kirkland City Council which also meets on Tuesdays. She
is an open government and media law attorney representing news organizations through Washington and
in five other states and for the past 22+ years she has handled litigation involving open government laws.
She urged the City to consider doing in committees what they already do in Council meetings. It is
wonderful there are cameras in Council Chambers livestreaming the meeting and that there is
downloadable, click on demand video available online. However, because committee meetings are held
simultaneously in separate rooms, the public cannot watch them. She recognized the challenge for the press,
they cannot be in all the places they need to be. In places like Edmonds that do not have large newspapers,
television stations or media outlets, what happens does not get covered unless there are citizens like My
Edmonds News.
Ms. Earl -Hubbard urged the Council to add what they already do in Council meetings to their committee
meetings because seeing is believing. A citizen could record a meeting themselves and put it on You Tube
or their Facebook page, but it would be their version and may not be authentic or gavel -to -gavel and may
be taken out of context. Therefore, it is always wiser for the government to control the mic and put it all out
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 2, 2018
Page 22
Packet Pg. 373
7.1.1
City Engineer Rob English drainage currently runs down Bell Street to an existing infiltration facility that
does not have the capacity to handle the runoff. In working with Public Works operations, the City's
stormwater engineer identified a solution to take the line across 1015 Bell Street and connect to an existing
storm drain in the alley north of Bell Street. There would be a 10-foot easement on the western side of the
parcel to install the pipe.
It was the consensus of Council to forward this to the Consent Agenda.
2. LAND USE PERMIT DECISION -MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien recalled the Council has previously discussed the Council's
role in the quasi-judicial decision making process. Most of the discussion has been the Council's role in
Type III decisions. Following the October 2nd public hearing, Council requested staff return with code
language reflecting the Council acting on behalf of citizens by filing a judicial appeal.
Mr. Lien reviewed potential amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code detailing the
process for Council appeal of a Type III decision:
• ECDC 20.03.002 Notice of Application (NEW SUBSECTION)
H. For all Type III permit applications, notice of application shall also be provided to the City
Council by email.
• ECDC 20.03.003 Notice of Public Hearing (NEW SUBSECTION)
F. For all Type III applications, notice ofpublic hearing shall also be provided to the City Council
by email.
• 20.02.007 Notice of final decision. (MOVED FROM ECDC 20.06.009)
A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the
determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for
issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30
days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include the SEPA threshold determination
for the proposal, and a description of any available administrative appeals, and for all Type III
decisions, information as to how to inform the city council as to alleged errors in the decision.
3. For all Type III decisions, notice of final decision shall be provided to the City Council by
email.
• 20. 06.= City council as party of record in Tyke III procee&gs_(NEW SUBSECTION)
A. Intent. The city council has eliminated its role as the quasi-judicial decision -maker on
administrative appeals of Type III decisions in favor ofhaving the ability to participate in such
matters as a party ofrecord at both the administrative level and in the courts, through a LUPA
action, if necessary. The notice provisions in ECDC 20.03.002, ECDC 20.03.003, and ECDC
20.02.007 reflect the interest of the city council in overseeing the decision -making process on
Type III applications. City council oversight is intended to ensure that the CiU s code is being
properly administered and interpreted by the Type III administrative decision -maker. Tyke III
applications are ofparticular concern to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare,
and therefore are of particular concern to the city council, because they involve higher levels
of discretion and can allow for variances from the Edmonds Community Development Code
adopted by the city council. Because of the nature of Type III decisions and its interest in seeing
its legislation properly applied, the city council would be prejudiced by an erroneous Type III
decision. To ensure that erroneous Type III decisions can be corrected swiftly. the city council
shall be an official party ofrecord in all Type III proceedings, whether its members participate
in the Type III process or not.
B. Exercise of Party of Record Status. As a trustee of the public interest, the city council is not
required to participate in the Type III process to satisfy the exhaustion (of administrative
remedies) requirement that applies to other would-be parties ofrecord. The city council retains
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 20, 2018
Page 19
Packet Pg. 374
7.1.1
its party of record status throughout the administrative process, even where it does not
participate. The city council may ask the Type III decision -maker to reconsider its decision,
but not doing so in no way diminishes its party of record status for the purpose of seeking
judicial review under LUPA, chapter 36.70C RCW. Any decision by the city council to seek
reconsideration or to commence a LUPA proceeding shall be made during an open public
meeting.
Mr. Taraday said one of main reasons for the addition of 20.06.XXX.B is to satisfy LUPA standing
requirements so if the matter reaches Superior Court, it can stay in Superior Court.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to reference to "the City Council" filing a judicial appeal and
asked who is responsible as there are seven members. Mr. Lien said that is addressed in the next section.
Mr. Lien continued his review of the potential amendments:
• 20. 06.XVC Informingthe he city council ofalleged errors in Type III decisions. (NEW SUBSECTION
A. warty ofrecord, as defined by ECDC 20.06.030, may bring alleged errors to the city council's
attention and request that the city council appeal a Type III decision on behalf of the citizens
and the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. To make this request, a party of
record should:
L Have already sought reconsideration of the decision pursuant to ECDC 20.06.010;
2. Make the request to the city council within seven (7days of the decision on
reconsideration; and
3. Make the request by:
i. Submitting it in writing to the Council's legislative%xecutive assistant and the
Development Services Director; or
ii. Verbally requesting it at a regular City Council meeting
B. The city council's decision to appeal or not appeal a Type III decision in response to such a
request is a legislative decision that is not subject to review under LUPA. Making such a
request has no impact on the time within which one would be required to commence a LUPA
action.
C. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventingthe he city council from appealing a decision on
a Type III application in the absence of an appeal request made pursuant to this section.
Mr. Lien advised staff is only seeking input tonight, not a decision.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the statement, "Any decision by the city council to seek
reconsideration or to commence a LUPA proceeding shall be made during an open public meeting." and
asked if that meant the Council would debate the merits of an appeal at the dais. Mr. Taraday said likely
the Council would discuss the merit of a case in executive session under potential litigation and make a
decision in open session. The Council could have that discussion in public, but he did not recommend it.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the public will not know the basis of the decision if the
Council discussed the matter in executive session. Mr. Taraday said the request from a citizen is the primary
basis for the appeal. Even if the Council were sitting in an appellate capacity, he would also not publicly
discuss a close question of law. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented as the appellate body, the
Council currently has discussions in public. Mr. Taraday said court proceedings would be public, the same
as the Council's current appellate decision.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what happened if the Council missed the 7-day appeal timeframe.
Mr. Taraday said the 7-days was "should" not "shall." If someone made a request on the 8t1' or 10'1' day, the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 20, 2018
Page 20
Packet Pg. 375
7.1.1
Council has a reasonable basis for saying no, but the Council still has the ability to appeal. He clarified the
Council is not restricted to the 7-day timeline but is subject to the same 21-day LUPA deadline.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what currently ensures a case is heard by the Council within 21
days. Mr. Lien explained the appeal to City Council is an administrative appeal. Currently the Council's
decision is the final decision and that starts the 21-day period for a LUPA appeal. If the Hearing Examiner's
decision is the final decision by the City, that starts the 21-day period.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Council is informed of an appeal request. Mr. Lien
answered in the current process, the Council is informed when an appeal is filed. Under the proposed
process, Council will receive notice of the Hearing Examiner's final decision. Mr. Taraday explained it was
a "belt and suspenders" approach: the belt is the ability for citizens to come to Council and request an appeal
and the suspenders are Councilmembers can raise a concern.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the total cost to a citizen. Mr. Lien said currently if a citizen appeals a
Type III decision to the City Council, the fee is $500. Under the proposal, a citizen files a request for
reconsideration which costs $250 and the Hearing Examiner issues their decision on reconsideration. The
citizen could then ask the Council to file a judicial appeal. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized the City
Council was interjecting themselves as a legislative body to appeal to Superior Court on behalf of a citizen.
Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what happened if some Councilmembers did not agree
with filing an appeal. Mr. Lien said it would require a majority of Council to initiate an appeal.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien explained the proposed process changes the City Council's role;
instead of a quasi-judicial, the Council would essentially become an appellant. Mr. Taraday clarified the
phrase, "on behalf of a citizen," the citizen would not be a party to the LUPA appeal unless they fled their
own appeal. Filing on behalf of a citizen means the City of Edmonds as directed by the City Council is
appealing the Hearing Examiner decision. The citizen may benefit if the City wins and the decision
reversed, but he would not be representing the citizen in Superior Court. Councilmember Buckshnis
commented fortunately the City currently has a flat rate attorney; if the City returned to an hourly attorney,
a lot of money could be spent on this process. Mr. Taraday said the Council could also change the process
if they returned to an hourly attorney.
Councilmember Teitzel said his interest was not making this harder for citizens and although it sounds very
complicated, it actually makes it easier for a citizen to pursue an appeal because they would not have to
hire an attorney and the filing fees are less than appealing to the City Council in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Mr. Lien said currently, if a citizen files an appeal to City Council, the cost is $500 and the cost to file a
judicial appeal at Superior Court is $240. Petitioning the Council to appeal removes a step in the process
for the citizen. Councilmember Teitzel commented it also obviates the need for the citizen to hire attorney.
Mr. Lien said a citizen can represent themselves pro se in an appeal to Superior Court. Councilmember
Teitzel said if the City Council appeals, the City Attorney's office would represent the City. Mr. Lien
agreed.
Councilmember Teitzel asked if the proposed process was simpler and less costly for a citizen. Mr. Lien
answered it takes one step out of the process, the closed record appeal to City Council, and eliminating a
step makes it simpler. Mr. Taraday said it eliminates a step if the Council agrees to appeal which should
not be presumed. It is possible there will be citizens who request the Council appeal and the Council will
decide not to. Mr. Lien said even if the Council does not agreed to appeal, it still eliminates a step before
the citizen can appeal to Superior Court. Councilmember Teitzel said under the quasi-judicial process, the
Council hears the case and renders a decision and the citizen can appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday
advised the judicial appeal never goes away but the administrative appeal goes away on Type III under this
proposal.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 20, 2018
Page 21
Packet Pg. 376
7.1.1
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how and when a citizen would make their case to the City Council. It
appeared it would be in writing for discussion in executive session but if it was at a City Council meeting,
how did the citizen get on the agenda. Mr. Lien reviewed the timing, a citizen had seven days following the
reconsideration decision. The Hearing Examiner typically issues decisions on Fridays. If a citizen chose,
they could come to City Council on the following Tuesday. The request would not be in the packet, but the
Council would have received the notice of final decision on reconsideration.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if the notice to Council would include all the documentation presented to
the Hearing Examiner for reconsideration. Mr. Lien said the notice of application and notice of public
hearing, staff report, and all materials associated with the application are included with the Hearing
Examiner agenda. The Council could be added to receive the Hearing Examiner and ADB agendas.
If a citizen disagreed with the Hearing Examiner's decision, Councilmember Tibbott asked how they would
get on the Council's Tuesday agenda. Mr. Lien said they would not have to be on the agenda; they can
make their request by, 1) in writing to the Council's legislative assistant and Development Services
Director, or 2) verbal request at a regular City Council meeting during audience comments.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if the three -minute audience comment would be their only opportunity to
request the Council appeal. Mr. Taraday said it would be up to the Council President if he/she wanted to
allow more than three minutes. If a citizen requests an appeal during audience comments, the Council has
several options including amending the agenda to add more time to hear from the citizen at the same meeting
or the next meeting, scheduling an executive session at that meeting or the next meeting, etc.
Councilmember Tibbott said one thing that was compelling to him about the proposed process was it offered
the Council an opportunity to walk a site, get more information from the parties, etc. which the Council
was not able to do in the existing quasi-judicial review. He asked at what point more exploratory analysis
could be done. Mr. Taraday said one of the advantages of the notice provisions was they were designed to
invite the City Council into the process at the earliest possible stage. For example, after seeing a notice, a
Councilmember could decide to attend and/or testify at the Hearing Examiner hearing, talk with the
neighbors, etc., because there are no concerns with ex parte communication that exists in the current
process. Councilmember Tibbott asked if Councilmembers could attend the reconsideration hearing. Mr.
Lien explained there is no hearing for reconsideration. The Council will receive the request for
reconsideration and the concerns raised regarding the Hearing Examiner's decision.
With regard to the seven days, Councilmember Mesaros said there are four times a year when there is a
fifth Tuesday where the Council does not meet for ten days. The citizen could still submit a written request
but the opportunity to make a request at a Council meeting could expire during those ten days. He noted
that was especially true in December when the Council does not meet for a period of time due to the
holidays. Mr. Lien said the Hearing Examiner meets on the second and fourth Thursday of every month
and he has 10 business days to issue a decision, typically the Friday following 14 days. He agreed there
were instances there would not be an opportunity to make a request in person and the citizen would need
to file a written request.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Teitzel said the objection he has he heard to moving away from the quasi-judicial was it
may erode the ability of Council to be advocates for their constituents. However, it was his understanding
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 20, 2018
Page 22
Packet Pg. 377
7.1.1
this revised process may actually improve the Council's ability to advocate for their constituents. Mr.
Taraday agreed, because as judges the Council cannot advocate on behalf of one of the parties.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling said he has reason to believe the political dynamics in Washington, D.C. are shifting with
the knowledge of another party taking over authority within the House of Representatives. Sound Transit
has been trying break loose $1.2B in funding to get light rail to Lynnwood and that was recently
accomplished. Sound Transit will also be receiving a $650M low interest loan. In speaking with one of
Congressman Larsen's aides, he mentioned for the first time in two years they are getting more return
emails when asking questions within the administration which the aide viewed as real progress. Mayor
Earling was hopeful many things could be moved along. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Teitzel said this week is a time to be thankful. He was thankful for the opportunity to live
in the most beautify city in the state, for being able to serve on Council and enacting policies to keep
Edmonds beautiful, for his family including his wife and daughters and for being a graduate of Washington
State University. He said Go Cougs.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was thankful to be Packers' fan, for people who support the
environment and for all the help staff provides. She urged everyone to spread kindness.
Councilmember Johnson wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving and said go Cougs.
Council President Nelson wished a Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Councilmember Tibbott wished a Happy Thanksgiving, offered his condolences to Cougs and said go
Huskies.
Councilmember Mesaros wished a Happy Thanksgiving.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she spent the past week on the hill in Washington, D.C. and she
agreed a new-found energy was resurging. She wished everyone a nice Thanksgiving and go Huskies.
Mayor Earling said go Cougs.
10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 20, 2018
Page 23
Packet Pg. 378
7.1.m
where the homeless went when it was freezing and who helped them. She lives near Lake Ballinger; there
is a man named Bob who car camps down the street, there are people camping in the Safeway parking lot
and she sees tarps where the homeless are trying to find a safe place to sleep and hide from the police. The
response to the homeless community cannot always be move along, you're someone else's problem because
that is not a good statement of our values. If the City's budget is not a reflection of the values, she asked
how are we showing these people we value their lives.
Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, referred to the presentation on the Edmonds Homeless Assessment and
thanked the City for taking the time to look more closely at the issue and spending the resources to do so.
Although she was not specifically a homeless advocate or a person who provides direct services to people
in need of housing, she was a strong supporter of giving regularly to charitable organizations like St.
Vincent de Paul. She also believed in general people will pitch in to help each other when they know what
the needs are and when those in need are willing if they are able to participate in helping themselves. There
will always be some who need more help than others due to mental illness or disabilities. It wasn't clear to
her if the assessment included all the faith -based organizations in Edmonds that serve people in need or just
a few. Before the City Council makes any considerable financial commitment to addressing the needs of
the homeless, she encouraged them to look for existing programs that are working, where people are moving
from crisis to stability in a way that is dignified and allows them to eventually move beyond the need for
government assistance. Having tangible metrics can lead to finetuning a plan or even cause it to change
course. She urged the Council not to use the model that Seattle adopted where the answer seems to simply
be to spend more money. She encouraged the Council to look at the program established in Bourbon
County, New Jersey where a regional center -based approach was able to help the chronically homeless
move from crisis to permanent housing. Pooling resources can enable dollars to go further and minimize
overlap. Regarding the consultant's findings that Edmonds is the only city in the region not funding human
services directly, she asked if the cities with dedicated staff are seeing measured success in reducing the
number of homeless in their communities. Just because a city has dedicated staff does not mean it is time
or money well spent if it is not effective. She urged the Council to look for prudent solutions and not rush
into hiring staff or building structures simply to copy what nearby cities are doing before developing a solid
and reasonable strategy so Edmonds can be the town that gets helping the homeless right.
Dave Guber, Edmonds, referred to a Seattle Times article about a study sponsored by the business
community in Seattle who is at their wit's end trying to deal with homelessness issues at their front doors.
They tracked 100 homeless people who had been responsible for 3,562 criminal cases that were referred to
the courts, approximately 35 per homeless person. Seattle and King County have spent a billion dollars and
their response is essentially to de -police the homeless crime problem. Before Edmonds jumps into the
Seattle model of how to treat homelessness, he urged them to consider the disastrous results Seattle has
gotten, anticipating Edmonds would get the same results if the same approach was used. He spoke as
someone who was almost homeless at one time following a stroke; he lost his job and all his savings and
was in foreclosure but managed to work his way out which he acknowledged was very, very hard. He was
not addicted to drugs and hadn't commit any crimes; he worked 60-70 hours week. If people are enabled
to become homeless, become drug addicts, and commit crimes without consequences, they will never take
responsibility for their actions. He concluded sometimes it is necessary to make a touch choice, to say your
situation is your responsibility, it is not the citizens of Edmonds' responsibility and we're not going to
subsidize and enrich the homeless industry with $200,000/year to develop a solution that don't solve the
problem and just makes it worse.
8. STUDY ITEMS
1. LAND USE PERMIT DECISION -MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien commented this is the fourth time this has been before the
Council. He reviewed:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 5, 2019
Page 12
Packet Pg. 379
7.1.m
• Overview
o September 4, 2018 Introduction
o October 2, 2018 Public Hearing
o November 20, 2018 Introduction to Process for requesting Council to File an Appeal
Tonight
o Looking for consensus on Council Role
Mr. Lien reviewed the Type III-B Review Process flowchart
• Application received
o Staff Review
■ 28-Day Completeness Review
■ Notice of Application and Public Hearing issued
- Under new process, Council gets email notice at least two weeks before hearing
■ Staff Report and Agenda Posted/Published
- Under new process, Council emailed staff report and agenda seven days before hearing.
Begin to understand whether item is controversial and peak Council attention
o Hearing Examiner Review
■ Hearing Examiner Public hearing held
- Under new process, option for Councilmember participation at public hearing
■ Hearing Examiner Decision Issued 10 days after hearing
- Under new process, Council as party of record (POR) receives decision
■ Request for Reconsideration Filed
- POR must file request within 10 calendar days (potential code update to 14-days)
- Under new process, Council as POR could request reconsideration or receives request
for reconsideration
■ Hearing Examiner Decision on reconsideration issued
- Decision on reconsideration issued 10 business days after request for reconsideration
- Under new process, Council as POR receives decision on reconsideration
o Council Review
Current Closed Record Review Process
Potential Council Judicial Appeal Process
Appeal filed to
POR files appeal to City Council
Request for
POR makes request for Council judicial
City Council
within 14 days of decision on
Council
appeal within 7 days of decision on
reconsideration or original
Appeal
reconsideration (verbally or at City
decision if request for
Council meeting)
reconsideration not filed.
Written
Optional. Written arguments,
Council
Council, City Attorney and staff discuss
Arguments
rebuttals, and surrebuttal 12
Considers
merits of decision in executive session.
through 2 days before closed
Request for
Majority of Council decides in open
record hearing before City
Judicial
session whether or not to file a judicial
Council
Appeal
appeal.
City Council
May occur over a number of
Judicial
City Attorney prepares and files appeal if
Closed Record
Council meetings
Appeal
Council decided to appeal. Must be fled
Hearing
within 21 days after decision on
reconsideration (or original decision if
reconsideration not requested. Any party
of record may also file a judicial appeal
regardless of Council decision.
Council
Council may affirm, modify or
decision
reverse Hearing Examiner
decision. With agreement from
applicant, decision may be
remanded.
Judicial
Applicant or appellant may file
Appeal
judicial appeal
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 5, 2019
Page 13
Packet Pg. 380
7.1.m
Mr. Lien said the last time this was discussed, he used a phrase that gave the City Attorney pause, that the
City Council would appeal on behalf of a citizen. The Council would not actually appeal on behalf of the
citizen, the Council would be appealing as the Council's oversight role of implementation of the code that
is adopted by the Council. If someone requests an appeal and the Council agrees the Hearing Examiner
erred, the Council is appealing on behalf of the City and how the code is being implemented.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed with Mr. Lien's explanation, noting public comment illustrated there
was some confusion. The proposal does not involve the City Attorney representing individual citizens. If
the City Council decides to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision, it's possible the City's interest is aligned
with the interest of citizen who may have requested the appeal but that does not mean that the City Attorney
is representing that citizen. The citizen may not participate in the appeal at all.
Mr. Lien reviewed:
Appeal process
o Does the Council wish to main its current rule in quasi-judicial decisions, or continue to pursue
the new role as a potential judicial appellant?
o Exhibit 2 — Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Table (components of analysis and
considerations for Council to act as judge compared to considerations for Council to act as
prospective appellant)
Next Steps?
o Preparation of Draft Ordinance Council Consideration
o Other related code amendments
o New chapter 20.06 ECDC
o Elimination of ECDC 20.100.040
o Final subdivision process
o Other cleanup and clarification related to decision process
Councilmember Buckshnis commented since only six Councilmembers are present tonight and this is an
ordinance, the chair cannot vote to break a tie. Mr. Taraday agreed the Mayor could not vote because
although there is no ordinance tonight, it would be adopted in the form of an ordinance and there would be
no point in having the Mayor vote on this when he could not vote on the ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she will continue to hold her position. The presentation does not mention
the human element; if there was a 4-3 vote with 3 Councilmembers who are adamantly opposed to an
appeal, the appeal is "toast." In land use issues, it is a citizen's right to do what they want with regard to an
appeal and the Council should stay out of the process.
Councilmember Mesaros pointed out regardless of what the City Council decided to do, under the proposed
process judicial appeal process, a citizen would still have the right to bring an appeal themselves. Mr. Lien
agreed. Councilmember Mesaros emphasized the Council would not be impinging on a citizens' right to do
what they wanted to do; it would be positioning the City Council to be an advocate with them if the Council
felt it was in the City's best interest.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if any other cities were doing the new process. Mr. Taraday said not
identical to this process but there are cities and counties that have appealed their own Hearing Examiner
decisions. The City of Kirkland recently had an unsuccessful case and the City of Gig Harbor has done it
in the past.
Councilmember Mesaros was in favor of the new process. He liked it because it puts the City Council in
the position of being an advocate with a citizen, provides an opportunity to communicate with them early
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 5, 2019
Page 14
Packet Pg. 381
7.1.m
in the process and an opportunity to interact more with citizens. He concluded it was a good direction to
take.
Councilmember Teitzel said as an elected official, he felt a duty to constituents to be an advocate. He had
a concern with the current quasi-judicial process, recalling last year Councilmember Nelson referenced the
term "quasi" as meaning sort of but not really. In that role the Council is sort of a judge but not officially a
judge; the Council is acting in that capacity interpreting the code. It was more appropriate for the Council
to support citizens by appealing a case that was ruled on improperly and not according to code and advocate
for citizens rather than acting as a judge and jury which he did not feel was his role as an elected official.
He was not concerned about the personal liability or the liability of the City under the current role, but
wanted the best quality decisions for citizens which could be better accomplished by being an advocate
rather than a judge. He expressed support for the new process.
Councilmember Tibbott asked about Kirkland's appeal and who they appealed to. Mr. Taraday explained
Kirkland appealed a Hearing Examiner decision to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Mr. Lien said it was an
odd case in that the City of Kirkland was the applicant; the Hearing Examiner denied the application and it
was appealed. The city lost at the Shoreline Hearings Board because no one took the opposite position;
there was only one appellant and no one arguing against it. Mr. Taraday said to combat against that, there
would need to be an entity defending the Hearing Examiner's decision. In many instances that might one
of the other parties defending the Hearing Examiner's decision, but there could be situations like Kirkland's
where the City would need to appoint another attorney to defend the Hearing Examiner's decision. He
anticipated that would be rare because typically in a contested situation, there would be someone on the
other side.
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about changes in State law. Mr. Lien answered Section 2.100.040 is the
review of approved permits. Mr. Taraday said that code section dates back to pre-LUPA times before it was
clear that land use decisions were final 21 days after the decision. The existing language in Section
2.100.040 is problematic because it suggests permit approvals can be constantly revisited. That concept is
not reconcilable under State law which is the reason for the proposing change.
Councilmember Tibbott said the part of the new process that appeals to him is understanding when an
applicant brings something to the Hearing Examiner, it is fully vetted and a decision is made. If the applicant
chooses to appeal, the Council is alerted and has the discretion to visit the site or obtain new information.
Conversely, under the current process, the Council cannot obtain an additional information. He recalled
participating in quasi-judicial reviews where the Council is restricted to the evidence that has already been
presented. Under the proposed process, the Council would have the opportunity to come alongside an
applicant at the Hearing Examiner. Under those circumstances, he asked how the Hearing Examiner would
obtain additional testimony from a City Councilmember. Mr. Lien explained after the Hearing Examiner
holds the public hearing, the hearing is typically closed. Occasionally the Hearing Examiner will keep the
hearing open to allow additional information. Once the public hearing is closed, no additional information
may be raised. In the closed record review process, there are some exceptions that allow new information
to be introduced such as information that was inadvertently left out. Under the current process, the only
way the Hearing Examiner would hear additional information is following the closed record review the
Council remanded the process back to the Hearing Examiner with the agreement of the applicant.
Councilmember Tibbott asked about new information in the new process. Mr. Lien answered it would be
the same under the new process. Once the Hearing Examiner closes the public hearing, that's it for the
established record. With the new process, instead of a closed record review process at the City Council and
potentially remanding to the Hearing Examiner, the City Council can ask for reconsideration. If the Council
was not in a quasi-judicial role, once the Hearing Examiner issues his decision, the Council could request
reconsideration within the first ten days. The Hearing Examiner considers the request for reconsideration
and issues a decision on reconsideration. No new additional information would be provided to the Hearing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 5, 2019
Page 15
Packet Pg. 382
7.1.m
Examiner and the next step would be an appeal. Councilmember Tibbott clarified no new information
would be introduced but the Council could request reconsideration on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Lien
explained the way the code is written, whoever requests the Council file an appeal should have also
requested reconsideration. The thought process was the applicant has exhausted all their administrative
remedies.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if the Council would be requesting reconsideration, not the applicant. Mr.
Lien said under the new process, the Council is a POR and any POR can request reconsideration and can
appeal. Councilmember Tibbott observed after the decision on reconsideration, it would theoretically go to
judicial appeal. Mr. Lien agreed, should a majority of Council choose to do that.
Council President Fraley-Monillas appreciated hearing Councilmembers, Mr. Lien and Mr. Taraday's
opinions. However, she has a different opinion after doing this for nine years and so far there have been no
issues with the Council hearing closed record reviews, no more hiccups than with any other process. She
said it was nice to hear that Councilmembers want to get involved in citizen land disputes and disputes in
general. However, she was more interested in being an advocate for citizens so they have a place to go if
they do not agree with the Hearing Examiner's decision. She understood the proposed process, but she
disagreed having lived through it and preferred the Council maintain its current role.
Councilmember Nelson said the quasi-judicial hearing process exists in the State of Washington at many
levels, probably the most well-known is the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). The GMHB
does extensive rulings in land use planning and is required by law to be comprised of at least three elected
city or county officials. Although the City's process may be imperfect and frustrating, there is
accountability. The Hearing Examiner is not elected; judges are elected, Councilmembers are elected. It is
important that the Council be held accountable for its decisions which the Hearing Examiner is not. Citizens
should have the best access possible and the existing process works.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO HAVE THE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS REMAIN INTACT WHICH MEANS
NOT APPROVING OR EVEN DISCUSSING THESE CHANGES ANY FURTHER.
Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order. The Council is missing one Councilmember tonight. This
is a very important issue to the City and has direct bearing on how the Council supports its constituents. He
said the absent Councilmember Johnson deserved a say so there was full Council vote on such an important
issue.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO
TABLE THE ISSUE UNTIL COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON CAN PARTICIPATE IN PERSON
OR BY PHONE.
Council President Fraley-Monillas questioned whether a motion to table was appropriate. Mr. Taraday
advised it was.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TIED (3-3) COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, MESAROS, AND
TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday advised this was a procedural vote so the Mayor could vote to break a tie.
MAYOR EARLING VOTED YES, AND THE MOTION CARRIED (4-3).
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she will schedule this on an agenda when the seventh
Councilmember is available and has been briefed and updated.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 5, 2019
Page 16
Packet Pg. 383
7.1.m
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, asking whether the vote on a motion to table required a
supermajority. Mr. Taraday said a motion to table does not require a super majority vote. The Mayor can
vote to break a tie on any non -ordinance and any resolution that not involve the payment of money. A vote
on a procedural matter is an appropriate use of the Mayor's tie -breaking power.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
2. PSRC VISION 2050 PLANNING PROCESS
Development Services Director Shane Hope Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties part of PSRC.
• Vision 2040 4 Vision 2050
o A strong economy and a healthy environment
o Preserve waters, farms, recreation and resource lands
o Urban Growth Area and centers strategy
o Local actions to achieve regional VISION
• 2050 Population Forecast
o The long-range forecast is for continued growth
■ The region is projected to grow by about 1.8 million people between 2017 and 2050
■ The region is projected to add about 1.2 million jobs between 2017 and 2050
• Who will be living here?
o In 2050, the region's residents will be:
■ Older
- 18% of the region's population will be over the age of 65 by 2050, up from 14% today
■ More diverse
- Between 2000 and 2016, 81 % of the region's population growth was people of color
■ In smaller households
- In 2050 there will be 2.36 people per household on average, down from 2.50 today
SEPA Environmental Review
o Environmental Process
■ Vision 2050 SEPA Process
■ Final EIS issued for Vision 2040 - Spring 2008
■ Scoping for Supplemental EIS - Spring 2018
■ Process to select alternatives - Fall 2018
■ Issue Draft SEIS, comment period - March 2019
■ Select preferred alternative - Spring 2019
■ Issue draft VISION 2050 Plan - Summer 2019
■ Issue Final SEIS, adopt VISION 2050 - Spring 2050
Scoping: What PSRC Heard
o Housing supply and affordability top concerns
o Growth strategy should be achievable and reflect known trends
o Address climate, access to jobs, equity, and health
o Revisit the role of urban unincorporated areas
o Perspectives on implementation
■ Need accountability and incentives to implement
■ Strategy should provide local flexibility
Growth Alternatives
o Stay the Course
■ Compact growth focused in Metropolitan and Core cities with regional growth centers
- Maintains current adopted strategy
- Largest shares of growth to Metropolitan cities of Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Bremerton
and Tacoma
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 5, 2019
Page 17
Packet Pg. 384
7.1.n
move into assisted living, and the bank refused to finance. Staff also learned there were other buildings that
had a similar issue. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the banks had changed their way of evaluating
buildings. Ms. Hope agreed there was a general trend of banks getting tighter in the last several years which
increased the likelihood that they would notice this issue.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to Ms. Kondo's comment about a letter from the Planning Department
allowing the condo to be rebuilt and asked whether the interim ordinance would allow that letter to be
provided. Ms. Hope said the interim ordinance would allow the City to issue a letter to the bank because it
would state under the existing code, it would be allowed to be rebuilt.
Councilmember Teitzel was concerned about the problem that had been created for citizens, noting in some
cases, the ability to sell their condominium was their lifeblood, thus the need for the City to move quickly
to resolve this issue. He asked whether the interim ordinance would apply to apartments buildings,
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, etc. Ms. Hope said it applies to multifamily; there are a number of apartment
and condominium buildings. She did not believe it would apply to duplexes but buildings with more units.
Councilmember Teitzel was uneasy the full universe regarding the number of units was not well understood.
He was hopeful that as work on a permanent ordinance continued, that could be identified. He supported
the interim ordinance due to the need to move forward quickly on a temporary basis.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
TEITZEL, TO ADOPT THE INTERIM ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Hope asked about scheduling a public hearing on May 14. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she
will research having a hearing prior to committee meetings.
3. LAND USE PERMIT DECISION -MAKING AND OUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Tonight looking for consensus on Council role:
o Quasi-judicial appeal, or
o Council as appellant
• Regardless of decision on Council quasi-judicial role, move forward with other previously
presented related code amendments
o Type IV -A (Final Formal Plats and PRDs)
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
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO REMOVE THE TOPIC FROM THE TABLE. MOTION CARRIED (6-1)
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING NO.
Councilmember Johnson distributed a proposed amendment to 20.01.003.A Permit Type and Decision
Framework. She expressed concern with the cost of outside counsel and staff resources following the quasi-
judicial review of two major projects, the Burnstead subdivision near Hickman Park and Building 10 at Pt.
Edwards. The Council discussed the quasi-judicial process at the Council retreat three years ago; this is an
opportunity to consider all the public comments and give direction to staff. She proposed moving three
decisions (design review, preliminary formal plat and preliminary planned residential development) from
Type IIIB which includes Council review, to Type IIIA which does not include Council review. This would
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 23, 2019
Page 9
Packet Pg. 385
7.1.n
accomplish what she initially sought, to get the Council out of the protracted quasi-judicial hearing process,
noting the Council's review of those two matters occurred prior to four Councilmembers being on Council.
Mr. Lien displayed the table in ECDC 20.01.003.A. explaining generally Type IIIA decisions are not
appealable to City Council and Type IIIB decisions are appealable to City Council. With regard to Building
10 and the Burnstead development, design review or a public hearing by the Architectural Design Board
(ADB) is required. If that section were moved, it would apply to larger commercial developments as well.
Generally projects that required ADB review also trigger SEPA, multifamily developments of five or more
units or commercial developments with 4,000 square feet of commercial area and 20 new parking spaces.
The Burnstead development was a preliminary formal plat and a planned residential development. If the
Council only did not want to hear quasi-judicial on those type of projects, the simple fix would be to move
them from Type IIIB column to the Type IIIA column and they would not be appealable to City Council
which is basically Councilmember Johnson's proposed amendment.
Councilmember Johnson asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday if that could legally be done. Mr. Taraday said
there is no legal prohibition on creating different processes for different types of applications. If the Council
wanted to retain its quasi-judicial role for a certain subset of applications and not have a quasi-judicial role
for another subset, it was free to do that.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if this was an action item. Mr. Lien said the action staff is seeking is
direction whether the Council wants to remain in quasi-judicial and whether to bring back the other
amendments. Councilmember Mesaros referred to public comment that there is less cost to appeal to the
City Council compared to Superior Court and asked Mr. Lien what the fee was to appeal to City Council.
Mr. Lien answered an appeal of a Type IIIB decision to City Council is $500; the filing fee for a judicial
appeal to Superior Court is $240. The cost is in regard to legal representation; appeals to Superior Court
may be more likely to have legal representation although appeals to City Council often have legal
representation. For example, both the Burnstead and Building 10 appeals had legal representation for all
parties involved.
Councilmember Mesaros asked how many items that have come to the City Council for quasi-judicial
review were then appealed to Superior Court, thereby adding a step for citizens rather than making it
simpler. Mr. Lien said there have been four appeals to City Council in the last ten years (Burnstead Plat,
Hillman critical area variance, Pt. Edwards Building 10, and the Willowdale Fence), two went on to
Superior Court. There were two closed record appeals on the Burnstead development, one in 2007 that went
to the appellant court and was remanded back to the Council. The second closed record appeal in 2012 was
not appealed further. Building 10 was appealed to Superior Court; prior to a decision being issued in
Superior Court, a settlement agreement was reached.
Councilmember Mesaros said his concern was related to cost and the fact that if an appellant does not like
the Council's decision, they have expended a considerable amount of money and then have to spend more
to appeal to Superior Court. This is an opportunity for the City Council to be advocates for constituents
which is not allowed under the current quasi-judicial process. During a quasi-judicial review, the Council
cannot talk to constituents and can only review the record created by the hearing examiner. He referred to
Councilmember Johnson's proposal, noting it may reduce the number of City Council quasi-judicial
reviews thereby creating less bureaucracy for citizens. Mr. Lien said the packet included a comparison
prepared by the City Attorney of the Council in the quasi-judicial role versus the other role.
Councilmember Buckshnis said in the nine years she and Council President Fraley-Monillas have been on
Council there have been eight quasi-judicial reviews where the Council either affirms or disagrees with the
hearing examiner's decision and in most cases have affirmed the hearing examiner's decision. Mr. Lien
displayed the chart in 20.01.003.A, advising in addition to appeals, the Council also makes quasi-judicial
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 23, 2019
Page 10
Packet Pg. 386
7.1.n
decisions such as formal plats, final formal plats, final planned residential development (PRD), site specific
rezones, and public agency variances such as high school. He summarized there have been other quasi-
judicial decisions that have come to the City Council, but only four Type IIIB quasi-judicial appeals.
Councilmember Buckshnis said citizens have a right to speak to their Councilmembers rather than go to
Superior Court. The change was made in 2010 and it has remained for 9 years. The problem she envisioned
with the Council advocating was the possibility of a 4-3 Council vote. For example if she was on the
minority side, City employees would be advocating for the majority and she anticipated this could become
a political hot potato when the minority did not want staff to advocate for a citizen in Superior Court.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if respected Councilmember Johnson's proposal only addressed
multifamily. Mr. Lien said if the highlighted decisions were moved, design review by the ADB would apply
to design reviews that trigger SEPA which is multifamily of 5+ units or commercial of 4,000+ square feet.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the quasi-judicial review related to locating a house in a critical area.
Mr. Lien explained that was the Hillman Variance; critical area variances are now in the Type IIIA column.
When the critical area code was updated a few years ago, based on the resolution that the Council wanted
to get out of quasi-judicial review, those no longer come to City Council. Councilmember Buckshnis
supported having the Council in a quasi-judicial role because she believed citizens have a right to appeal to
City Council.
Council President Fraley-Monillas supported retaining the City Council in a quasi-judicial role. If
Councilmember Johnson's proposal is approved, individual homeowners could still appeal to City Council.
Mr. Lien explained if the amendments proposed by Councilmember Johnson were approved, essential
public facilities, conditional use permits which require a public hearing by the hearing examiner, zoning
variances, height and setback variances and home occupation permits where a public hearing is required by
the hearing examiner, would remain in the Type IIIB column.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for examples of essential public facilities. Mr. Taraday answered
it is anything that is difficult to site such as jail, a train station, garbage dump, or other public facilities that
are essential to society that are generally difficult to site. State law required cities adopt processes for siting
essential public facilities.
Councilmember Tibbott said he has thought a lot about whether the Council should remain in the quasi-
judicial process. He was not confident sending an appeal to Superior Court would serve their best interest.
Due to ambiguities in the code, it serves citizens well for the City Council to hear appeals. He was in favor
of the Council maintaining its quasi-judicial role. However, he appreciated Councilmember Johnson's
amendment because it eliminated a couple of the topics he was most reluctant to review, partially because
of what he witnessed as a Planning Board member when the Burnstead development and Building 10 came
to the City Council. He was in favor of the amendments proposed by Councilmember Johnson and requested
additional language in the code to help buttress the way reviews come to the City Council. Often the Council
is surprised by them or not well informed in advance so there is the potential for Councilmember to hear
additional information about a site outside the record. He suggested there be a better process for bringing
information to the City Council and Planning Board.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his discussion with Mr. Taraday about a recent Council quasi-judicial
review. In the beginning he had no conflict of interest, but as the process unfolded, he realized he had more
information about the topic than was introduced. He suggested training for the Council that allows an
executive session or ability to voice concern about continuing as an impartial member of the review panel.
Mr. Taraday had assured him that could be part of the quasi-judicial process. Councilmember Tibbott said
if WCIA is concerned about the Council's exposure to liabilities, it may be helpful for WCIA to provide
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 23, 2019
Page 11
Packet Pg. 387
7.1.n
training regarding how quasi-judicial reviews are conducted. He summarized he was in favor of retaining
the Council in a quasi-judicial role and supported the amendment proposed by Councilmember Johnson.
Councilmember Teitzel found the decision matrix very helpful. There has been a great deal of discussion
about the cost to a citizen under the current quasi-judicial process to bring an issue to Council versus the
new process. It was his understanding the cost to bring an appeal to the City Council was $500. Under the
new process where a citizen brings an issue to Council and states their belief that an error has been made
and Council agrees to advocate for the citizen, there is no cost to the citizen. Mr. Lien agreed.
Councilmember Nelson expressed support for the Council's role in quasi-judicial reviews. It is a way for
citizens to have an accessible form of quasi judiciary. It may be imperfect but it works and allows citizens
to come to City Council. In practice, the Council rarely exercises the role. It is a small price to pay for that
accessibility.
Mr. Lien summarized a majority of the City Council wants to stay in the quasi-judicial role. Staff will
prepare an ordinance, taking into consideration Councilmember Tibbott's comments. He asked for
confirmation that the Council supported Councilmember Johnson's proposed amendment, remaining in a
quasi-judicial role but moving the highlighted permit types into the Type IIIA column. A majority of the
Council supported Councilmember Johnson's proposed amendment. Mr. Lien advised that change would
be included in the ordinance.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
Discussion about adding an agenda item regarding rring the Citizen's Housing Commission
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to comments during Audience Comments regarding the
Housing Commission.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD TO THE HOUSING COMMISSION RESOLUTION THAT APPLICANTS
MUST NOT CURRENTLY BE SERVING ON BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS OR HAVE SERVED
ON BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday said as this was a regular meeting, items could be added to the agenda via a vote
of the Council. If the intent is to amend a resolution that has already been adopted, that requires another
resolution. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked why the resolution could not simply be amended. Mr.
Taraday advised the resolution could be amended via another resolution. If the Council's intent is to vote
on a resolution not currently before the Council and have it signed by the Mayor without coming back to
the Council, that intent should be clear in the motion as that is not the normal process.
Councilmember Johnson raised a point of order and suggested putting this on a future agenda due to
procedural issues.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested the Council adopt a new resolution, adding that no citizen
currently serving on a board or commission or serving on a board or commission for the last two years for
review at the next Council meeting.
Mayor Earling spoke in favor of the point of order made by Councilmember Johnson.
Mr. Taraday explained as the Council President, Council President Fraley-Monillas could schedule a new
resolution on the next agenda without a vote of the Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the
amendment does not change the intent of the resolution establishing the housing commission. Mr. Taraday
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 23, 2019
Page 12
Packet Pg. 388
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
ECC 5.32 and 5.05.060; Park Rules and Dog Rules
Staff Lead: Carrie Hite
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Carrie Hite
Background/History
Staff took recommended changes to the Planning Board in March. In addition, these recommended
changes were presented to the PPW committee last week. The PPW committee is forwarding this for a
discussion at full Council.
Staff Recommendation
Discuss proposed changes and forward to consent.
Narrative
There are several recommended changes to the Park rules that are being requested. These will assist in
operating parks for the safety of all.
The changes include the following:
1. Adding a chapter to prohibit smoking/vaping in parks.
2. Add a chapter to prohibit feeding wildlife on waterfront beaches.
3. Changing park hours to read " closed from sunset to sunrise" .
4. Clarifying chapter 5.32.030 about the allowance motor vehicles in parks.
5. Clarifying 5.32.040 to be consistent with our practice.
6. A few smaller housekeeping items.
In addition to these recommended changes to the Park rules, staff are also recommending changes to
chapter 5.05.060 Dogs on public grounds as it relates to parks. Currently, if someone with a dog wants
to follow the rules, they would need to consult the City code to determine where they can walk their
dog. Staff are recommending that we allow dogs in all parks, on leash, with the exception of playfields,
beaches, playgrounds, the spray ground and school grounds. Currently, the school district is exploring
their policy and will work with the City if they would like this amended. The Parks department is
prepared to install dog waste stations at all of our parks and encourage dog walkers to pick up after
their pets.
Attached are strikeout versions for both ECC 5.32 and 5.05.060 as it relates to recommended changes.
Attachments:
Park Regulations Redline (with SEC edits) 6.6.19
Dogs on Public Grounds strike and edit 6.5.19 ch final
Packet Pg. 389
8.1.a
5.32.010 Park closing hours.
All parks shall be closed from sunset to sunrise between the h, ufs of 10;
,n 6.00 a.m. every day unless otherwise posted by the city park and
recreation department. It is unlawful for any person to loiter on, remain in,
or otherwise be on said premises between the stated hours unless written
permission is granted by the mayor, a department head, or a police officer
or firematrfighter of the city.
5.32.030 Motor vehicles prohibited from city parks.
It is unlawful to operate motor vehicles of every kind and description,
whether licensed or unlicensed, speeifieall including but not limited to
two -wheeled motor vehicles such as mini -bikes, motorcycles, and
trailbikes, and batteryoperated vehicles in or on any park, with the
exception of Segway's being allowed along the waterfront marine walkway;
provided, the director of parks and recreation is authorized to post a notice
or notices prescribing parking areas, roadways, entrances and exits for
motor vehicles to and within said parks which posted areas, and only said
areas, shall be open for motor vehicular purposes. The owner and/or
operator of any motor vehicle found within or on any said public park, other
than in the areas posted as hereinabove provided is guilty of a misdemeanor.
5.32.040 Drinking intoxicants or using e-e controlled substancesiReel
des in public parks prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to consume any intoxicating liquor or use any
controlled substances' as defined by n Chapters 5.04 and 5.14
of the Edmonds Cites—F-C- ' c , o n, n, within any public park, beach or
playground within the city of Edmonds whether owned by, leased or
otherwise under the supervision of the city, unless authorized by a Special
Event Permit
5.32.045 Smoking and vaping in public parks prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to smoke or light cigarettes, cigars, tobacco,
marijuana, or other smoking material, or to use electronic cigarettes or
vaping devices within city parks. The director of parks and recreation shall
post signs in appropriate locations prohibiting smokingand nd vapin in n the
citesparks.
5.32.050 Horses and similar animals.
Unless otherwise directed by the director of parks and recreation as set forth
in ECC 5.05.150, it is unlawful for any person to ride, lead or otherwise
permit any horse, joss, mule, donkey, burro, pig and/or bovine animal to
be within or on any park unless utilized for ADA purposes.
Packet Pg. 390
8.1.a
5.32.100 Fishing pier regulations.
It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any of the following
regulations on the Edmonds public fishing pier at the Edmonds boat harbor
adjacent to Dayton Beach Park:
A. No person shall permit any animal to enter or remain on the fishing pier;
provided, however, that this section shall not apply to service animals seeing
eye dogs that are being used by bled persons needing an accommodation
for the purpose of aiding them going from place to place.
B. No person shall use or operate any wheeled vehicle upon the fishing pier,
including but not limited to any motor vehicle, bicycle, roller skates,
skateboard, or Segwav; provided, however, this section shall not apply to
authorized police, fire and public works vehicles, wheelchairs being used
by handicapped persons and carriages/strollers for children.
its.
C. No person shall cast fishing tackle of any kind or description, including
but not limited to, hooks, lines and/or sinkers, from the fishing pier at any
location where signs are posted to prohibit such casting.
5.32.106 Feeding wildlife on city beaches prohibited.
No person shall intentionally feed, attract, or artificially sustain wildlife on
city beaches. The feeding of indigenous wildlife is prohibited in all city
beach areas unless otherwise posted. This section does not apply to
authorized feeding_ programs established with the Washington state
department of fish and wildlife.
Packet Pg. 391
5.05.060 Dogs on public grounds.
A. It shall be unlawful for an owner to allow any dog to stray and/or enter
with or without a leash or other means of restraint upon any school ground,
playfield, playground, sprayground paw or any public beach, waterfFont of
•
11
MIN
IN
re�r�s�asPMrMe!tiss.
BE. All Dogs are permitted in city parks, the waterfront walkway and
on other public property not listed in subsection (A) of this section, and the
afeas designated „b seetio (B) of this seetion. shall be on a leash and in
the owners control at all times. Doas are permitted off leash. and under the
owners control at the off leash area south of Marina Beach Park. e*eept fer
Packet Pg. 392
8.1.b
CD. Nothing herein shall be determined to require the posting of notices to
exclude animals; provided, however, that such postings may be undertaken
at the discretion of the director manage of parks and recreation.
Dl✓. The regulations under ECC 5.05.070 relating to animal waste and the
removal and proper disposal of said waste will be strictly enforced.
Packet Pg. 393
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Utility Rate Analysis & future adoption of a Utility Rate Ordinance
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On June 11, 2019, staff presented this item to the Parks & Public Works committee and it was forwarded
to City Council for review and discussion.
Staff Recommendation
Schedule a public hearing and prepare an ordinance for potential action.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds operates a combined utility operation which incorporates potable water, sanitary
sewer, and storm and surface water management functions. The City received the draft combined utility
rate study from its consultant, the FCS Group. The findings show increases in potable water, sanitary
sewer, and storm and surface water management utility rates. This funding will help address rising costs
including but not limited to: inflation and the rising maintenance and operations costs, wholesale cost
increases for potable water from Alderwood Water and Wastewater District, the replacement of aging
and failing water/sewer/storm infrastructure as part of the annual replacement projects and upcoming
larger capital projects. The rate increases recommended and proposed by staff will make it so that the
City will only need to acquire bonds for some of the larger future capital projects. The cost for annual
maintenance and replacement projects will be rate funded, thereby resulting in considerable, 40%+
capital project cost, savings to the City.
Attachments:
Attachment 1
- Edmonds DRAFT Water Rate Model
Attachment 2
- Edmonds DRAFT Stormwater Rate Model
Attachment 3
- Edmonds DRAFT Sewer RR Model - PAYG
Attachment 4
- Edmonds DRAFT Sewer RR Model - $9M Bond
Attachment 5
- 2019 Utility Rate Update - Presentation
Packet Pg. 394
8.2.a
City of Edmonds
Water Rate & GFC Model
,= Summary
Total Capital Projects $ 4,697,000 $ 2,553,456 $ 2,941,994 $ 3,727,356 $ 3,895,916 $ 4,051,752 $ 4,007,305 $ 4,167,597 $ 4,920,017 $ 3,974,671 $ 4,133,658
Grants and Developer Contributions $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ -
PWTF Loan Proceeds
Revenue Bond Proceeds - -
Use of Capital Fund Balance 4,697,000 2,553,456 2,941,994 3,727,356 3,895,916 4,051,752 4,007,305 4,167,597 4,920,017 3,974,671 4,133,658
Direct Rate Funding
Total Funding Sources $ 4,697,000 $ 2,553,456 $ 2,941,994 $ 3,727,356 $ 3,895,916 $ 4,051,752 $ 4,007,305 $ 4,167,597 $ 4,920,017 $ 3,974,671 $ 4,133,658
Revenues
Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates
Non -Rate Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenses
Cash O&M Expenses [1]
Debt Service
System Reinvestment
Rate Funded CIP
Total Expenses
Annual Rate Adjustment
Rate Increases Dictated by.,
Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase
Coverage After Rate Increases
$ 8,674,361 $ 8,725,504 $ 8,776,860 $ 8,828,564 $ 8,880,483 $ 8,932,939 $ 8,985,426 $ 9,038,480 $ 9,091,726 $ 9,145,167 $ 9,199,177
1,538,298 1,371,765 940,642 946,060 951,995 957,496 963,449 969,424 975,351 980,707 986,834
$10,212,658 $ 10,097,269 $ 9,717,502 $ 9,774,624 $ 9,832,478 $ 9,890,435 $ 9,948,876 $ 10,007,903 $ 10,067,077 $ 10,125,874 $ 10,186,011
$ 6,198,021 $ 6,563,441 $ 6,611,060 $ 6,852,790 $ 7,116,241 $ 7,378,191 $ 7,653,880 $ 7,944,657 $ 8,251,180 $ 8,574,646 $ 8,916,397
1,256, 540 1,258,950 1,254,358 1,254,742 1,275,378 1,270,093 1,253,081 1,243,796 1,253,179 1,249,168 1,250,620
2,400,000 2,500,000 2,600,000 2,800,000 3,050,000 3,200,000 3,400,000 3,600,000 3,821,799 3,974,671 4,133,658
$ 9,854,561 $ 10,322,390 $ 10,465,417 $ 10,907,532 $ 11,441,620 $ 11,848,284 $ 12,306,960 $ 12,788,453 $ 13,326,158 $ 13,798,485 $ 14,300,675
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy Analysis
$ 8,674,361 $
9,161,779 $
9,676,488 $
10,220,166 $
10,794,283
$ 11,292,365
$ 11,813,064
$ 12,358,126 $
12,928,165 $
13,524,323 $ 14,041,610
$ 358,098 $
133,894 $
16,508 $
49,550 $
17,034
$ 46,980
$ 44,588
$ 40,186 $
780 $
48,402
3.72
3.60
3.64
3.87
4.03
4.23
4.37
4.60
4.75
4.96 5.09
)perating Fund
$ 1,058,098 $
897,049 $
913,556 $
963,106 $
980,140 $
1,027,119 $
1,071,707 $
1,111,894 $
1,112,673 $
1,161,075 $
1,161,075
;apital Fund
3,306,123
4,028,315
4,178,223
3,748,722
3,394,584
3,036,877
2,914,745
2,838,338
2,230,266
2,711,394
3,207,591
)ebt Reserve Fund
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
1,200,608
Total
$ 5,564,828 $
6,125,971 $
6,292,387 $
5,912,436 $
5,575,331 $
5,264,604 $
5,187,060 $
5,150,839 $
4,543,547 $
5,073,076 $
5,569,274
;ombinedMinimum Target Balance
$ 1,869,210 $
1,928,114 $
1,962,181 $
1,991,346 $
2,023,186 $
2,054,835 $
2,088,177 $
2,123,372 $
2,145,264 $
2,159,378 $
2,171,972
Prepared by FCS GROUP Edmonds DRAFT Wa
(425) 867-1802 Packet Pg. 395
8.2.b
r r:
V 'f. City of Edmonds
Stormwater Rate & GFC Model
Revenue Requirement Analysis
Expenses
Cash Operating Expenses
$ 2,726,795
$ 2,830,315
$ 2,919,099
$ 3,013,050
$ 3,112,595
$ 3,218,202
$ 3,330,380
$ 3,449,693
$ 3,576,752
$ 3,712,232
$ 3,856,870
Debt Service
756,109
756,991
755,466
753,654
758,532
756,365
723,044
722,625
596,427
601,012
600,619
System Reinvestment
1,250,000
1,750,000
2,100,000
2,500,000
2,600,000
2,750,000
2,900,000
3,050,000
3,300,000
3,450,000
3,600,000
Rate -Funded CIP
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Additions to Meet Minimum Operating Fund Balance
-
-
-
Total
$ 4,732,904
$ 5,337,306
$ 5,774,565
$ 6,266,704
$ 6,471,127
$ 6,724,567
$ 6,953,425
$ 7,222,318
$ 7,473,179
$ 7,763,244
$ 8,057,489
Revenues
Rate Revenue
$ 4,462,767
$ 4,473,924
$ 4,485,109
$ 4,496,321
$ 4,507,562
$ 4,518,831
$ 4,530,128
$ 4,541,454
$ 4,552,807
$ 4,564,189
$ 4,575,600
City Utility Tax Revenue
446,277
447,392
448,511
449,632
450,756
451,883
453,013
454,145
455,281
456,419
457,560
Other Revenue
83,944
84,245
79,470
79,686
79,748
80,120
80,213
80,540
80,658
80,996
81138
Total
$ 4.992.988
$ 5.005.562
$ 5.013.089
$ 5.025.640
$ 5.038.067
$ 5.050.835
$ 5.063.354
$ 5.076.139
$ 5.088.746
$ 5.101.605
$ 5.114:298
Expenses
Cash Operating Expenses (Excluding City Taxes)
$
2,280,519
$ 2,382,922
$ 2,470,588 $
2,563,418
$ 2,661,839
$ 2,766,318
$ 2,877,368
$ 2,995,547
$ 3,121,471
$ 3,255,813
$ 3,399,310
Revenue Bond Debt Service
565,078
564,642
563,675
562,546
566,588
565,416
563,802
563,062
563,248
567,833
567,441
Additional Coverage Required
141,269
141,160
140,919
140,636
141,647
141,354
140,951
140,766
140,812
141,958
141,860
Total
$
2,986,866
$ 3,088,725
$ 3,175,181 $
3,266,600
$ 3,370,074
$ 3,473,089
$ 3,582,121
$ 3,699,375
$ 3,825,531
$ 3,965,605
$ 4,108,611
Revenues
Rate Revenue (Excluding City Taxes)
$
4,462,767
$ 4,473,924
$ 4,485,109 $
4,496,321
$ 4,507,562
$ 4,518,831
$ 4,530,128
$ 4,541,454
$ 4,552,807
$ 4,564,189
$ 4,575,600
GFC Revenue
43,240
43,348
43,457
43,565
43,674
43,783
43,893
44,002
44,112
44,223
44,333
Other Revenue
73,594
73,594
73,594
73,594
73,594
73,594
73,594
73,594
73,594
73,594
73,594
Interest Earnings
45,600
36,777
23,215
18,180
16,865
14,732
15,285
28,314
42,314
59,179
76,981
Total
$
4,625,201
$ 4,627,643
$ 4,625,375 $
4,631,661
$ 4,641,695
$ 4,650,940
$ 4,662,901
$ 4,687,365
$ 4,712,827
$ 4,741,185
$ 4,770,508
Prepared by FCS GROUP Edmonds DRAFT Storm
(425)867-1802 Packet Pg. 396
r r:
V 'f. City of Edmonds
Stormwater Rate & GFC Model
Revenue Requirement Analysis
Sufficiency Test Driving the Deficiency None Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash
Maximum Deficiency From Tests $ (260,084) $ 331,744 $ 761,476 $ 1,241,065 $ 1,433,060 $ 1,673,732 $ 1,890,071 $ 2,146,179 $ 2,384,433 $ 2,661,639 $ 2,943,191
less: Net Revenue From Prior Rate Increases - I (426,085) (894,880) (1,410,562) (1,651,405) (1,902,960) (2,165,685) (2,440,055) (2,726,569) (3,025,745
Net Revenue Deficiency $ (260,084) $ 331,744 $ 335,390 $ 346,185 $ 22,498 $ 22,327 $ (12,890) $ (19,505) $ (55,622) $ (64,930) $ (82,554
Plus: Adiustment for Taxes (33.796) 43.108 98.949 161.268 186.217 217.491 245.602 278.882 309.842 345.863 382.449
Rate Revenue at Existing/Adopted Rates
$ 4,462,767
$ 4,473,924
$ 4,485,109
$ 4,496,321
$ 4,507,562
$ 4,518,831
$ 4,530,128
$ 4,541,454
$ 4,552,807
$ 4,564,189
$ 4,575,600
Revenues from Prior Rate Increases
426,085
894,880
1,410,562
1,651,405
1,902,960
2,165,685
2,440,055
2,726,569
3,025,745
Rate Revenue Before Current Year Rate Increase
$ 4,462,767
$ 4,473,924
$ 4,911,194
$ 5,391,202
$ 5,918,124
$ 6,170,237
$ 6,433,089
$ 6,707,138
$ 6,992,862
$ 7,290,758
$ 7,601,345
Required Annual Rate Increase
-6.59%
8.38%
8.84%
9.41 %
3.53%
3.89%
3.62%
3.87%
3.64%
3.85%
3.95°%
Number of Months New Rates Will Be In Effect
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
■ 12
S 12
Info: Percentage Increase to Generate Required Revenue
-6.59%
8.38%
8.84%
9.41%
3.53%
3.89%
3.62%
3.87%
3.64%
3.85%
3.95%
Policy Induced Rate Increases 0.00% 9.50% 9.50% 9.50% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%
impacts ot Rate increases
Z11116
zfzllr
rizz
zilizi
ZTZ4r
r
rZ;Ilzs
Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
$
4,462,767
$ 4,898,947
$ 5,377,757
$ 5,903,366
$ 6,154,849
$ 6,417,046
$ 6,690,412
$ 6,975,424
$ 7,272,577
$ 7,582,389
$ 7,901,239
Full Year Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
4,462,767
4,898,947
5,377,757
5,903,366
6,154,849
6,417,046
6,690,412
6,975,424
7,272,577
7,582,389
7,901,239
Additional Taxes Due to Rate Increases
City Utility Taxes
$
-
$ 42,502
$ 89,265
$ 140,704
$ 164,729
$ 189,821
$ 216,028
$ 243,397
$ 271,977
$ 301,820
$ 332,564
Excise Taxes
6,375
13,390
21,106
24,709
28,473
32,404
36,510
40,797
45,273
49,885
Total
$
-
$ 48,878
$ 102,655
$ 161,810
$ 189,438
$ 218,295
$ 248,433
$ 279,907
$ 312,774
$ 347,093
$ 382,449
Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase
$
260,084
$ 44,401
$ 28,519
$ 4,170
$ 24,789
$ 6,188
$ 21,781
$ 7,884
$ 22,563
$ 9,467
'.
Coverage After Rate Increase
4.15
4.72
5.38
6.14
6.36
6.64
6.94
7.26
7.58
7.85
8.19
Operating Reserve Ending Balance
$
710,084
$ 391,713
$ 406,124
$ 410,294
$ 435,083
$ 441,270
$ 463,051
$ 470,935
$ 493,498
$ 502,965
$ 502,965
Operating Reserve Target Balance
$
281,160
$ 293,785
$ 304,593
$ 316,038
$ 328,172
$ 341,053
$ 354,744
$ 369,314
$ 384,839
$ 401,402
$ 419,093
# of Days of Cash Operating Expenses
114 Days
60 Days
60 Days
58 Days
60 Days
58 Days
59 Days
57 Days
58 Days
56 Days
54 Days
Prepared by FCS GROUP Edmonds DRAFT Storm
(425)867-1802 Packet Pg. 397
8.2.c
,.Y'_> City of Edmonds
Sewer Rate & GFC Model
Summary
Total Sewer Capital Projects
3,938,680
2,459,749
2,533,541
2,634,882
2,740,278
8,849,889
2,963,885
3,082,440
3,205,738
3,333,967
18,467,326
Funding Sources for Sewer Capital Projects
Grants/Outside Funding Sources
$
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $
-
$ - $
-
Debt Proceeds
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Capital Fund Balance
3,938,680
2,459,749
2,533,541
2,634,882
2,740,278
7,662,728
2,963,885
3,082,440
3,205,738
3,333,967
18,467,326
Rates
-
-
-
-
-
1,187,161
-
-
-
-
-
Total
$
3,938,680
$ 2,459,749
$ 2,533,541
$ 2,634,882
$ 2,740,278
$ 8,849,889
$ 2,963,885
$ 3,082,440 $
3,205,738
$ 3,333,967 $
18,467,326
Total WWTP Capital Projects
$
2,434,187
$ 7,500,000
$ 7,500,000
$ 350,000
$ 350,000
$
$ -
$ $
-
$ $
Funding Sources for WWTP Capital Projects
Grants/Outside Funding Sources
$
10,000
$ -
$ 100,000
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ $
$ $
Miscellaneous (Biosolids, Lynnwood, Etc.)
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
Debt Proceeds
-
-
-
-
Use of Capital Fund Balance
79,703
-
-
-
-
Intergovernmental Contributions
2,329,484
7,485,000
7,385,000
335,000
350,000
Total Funding Sources
$
2,434,187
$ 7,500,000
$ 7,500,000
$ 350,000
$ 350,000
$
$
$ $
$ $
Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates
$ 8,408,534
$ 8,450,577
$ 8,492,830
$ 8,535,294
$ 8,577,970
$ 8,620,860
$ 8,663,964
$ 8,707,284
$ 8,750,821
$ 8,794,575
$ 8,838,548
Contributions from Agencies for WWTP O&M
2,562,165
2,651,724
2,746,107
2,845,722
2,950,986
3,062,357
3,180,335
3,305,468
3,438,355
3,579,652
3,730,078
Contributions from Agencies for WWTP Debt Service
125,950
126,168
126,429
109,670
73,894
73,406
73,707
73,895
-
-
-
Non -Rate Revenues
853,034
857,238
861,463
865,709
869,977
874,266
878,576
882,908
887,262
891,637
896,035
Total Revenues
$ 11,949,683
$ 12,085,706
$ 12,226,828
$ 12,356,394
$ 12,472,827
$ 12,630,889
$ 12,796,583
$ 12,969,556
$ 13,076,437
$ 13,265,864
$ 13,464,660
Expenses
Cash O&M Expenses
$ 7,907,334
$ 8,140,402
$ 8,390,137
$ 8,652,735
$ 8,929,190
$ 9,220,588
$ 9,528,116
$ 9,853,070
$ 10,196,872
$ 10,561,075
$ 10,947,379
Sewer Debt Service
1,298,188
1,294,468
1,295,704
1,297,480
1,278,258
1,281,733
1,273,587
1,213,888
1,194,339
1,197,153
1,198,150
Transfer to WWTP Capital Fund for WWTP Debt Servi,
255,929
256,371
256,902
222,847
150,151
149,159
149,772
150,154
-
-
-
Rate Funded System Reinvestment
2,450,000
2,900,000
3,350,000
3,850,000
4,000,000
4,150,000
4,350,000
4,600,000
4,850,000
5,050,000
5,200,000
Rate Funded CIP
-
-
-
-
-
1,187,161
-
-
-
-
-
Additions to Operating Reserve
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,327
-
-
-
-
Total Expenses
$ 11,911,451
$ 12,591,242
$ 13,292,743
$ 14,023,062
$ 14,357,599
$ 15,988,642
$ 15,305,801
$ 15,817,112
$ 16,241,211
$ 16,808,228
$ 17,345,529
Annual Rate Adjustment
0.00%
7.00%
7.00%
7.00%
7.00%
7.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
Rate Increases Dictated by:
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Analysis
Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
$ 8,408,534
$ 9,042,117
$ 9,723,441
$ 10,456,102
$ 11,243,969
$ 12,091,202
$ 12,516,208
$ 12,956,153
$ 13,411,561
$ 13,882,978
$ 13,259,651
Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase
38,232
13,722
14,322
19,427
455,456
(311,468)
876,628
882,122
926,449
924,263
-
Coverage After Rate Increases
3.52
3.81
4.15
4.52
5.06
5.56
5.73
5.86
6.16
6.35
5.72
Fund Balances
2019
2020
2021
2022i
i
i
Operating Fund
1,355,974
1,369,696
1,384,018
1,403,445
1,517,742
1,206,274
1,614,134
1,668,968
1,722,010
1,781,622
1,781,622
Sewer Capital Fund
8,636,246
5,075,589
1,890,372
2,638,384
3,777,633
-
1,535,206
3,585,307
5,840,892
8,195,245
2,230,739
WWTP Capital Fund
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Capital Project Sinking Fund
-
700,000
1,410,500
2,131,658
2,863,632
3,606,587
4,360,686
5,126,096
5,902,987
6,691,532
-
Bond Reserve
1,150,177
1,150,177
1,150,177
1,111,347
1,111,347
1,111,347
1,111,347
1,111,347
1,111,347
1,111,347
1,111,347
Total
$ 11,142,397 $
8,295,462 $
5,835,067 $
7,284,833 $
9,270,355 $
5,924,208 $
8,621,373
$ 11,491,718
$ 14,577,236
$ 17,779,746 $
5,123,708
Combined Minimum Target Balance
$ 2,167,157 $
2,194,811 $
2,225,420 $
2,218,695 $
2,249,653 $
2,285,526 $
2,321,948
$ 2,363,073
$ 2,402,854
$ 2,447,563 $
2,494,771
FCS GROUP Edmonds DRAFT Sewer RR Model - PAYG
(425) 867-1802 Summary Packet Pg. 398
8.2.d
,.Y'_> City of Edmonds
Sewer Rate & GFC Model
Rp� Summary
2020
2021
2022i
i
i
Total Sewer Capital Projects
3,938,680
2,459,749
2,533,541
2,634,882
2,740,278
8,849,889
2,963,885
3,082,440
3,205,738
3,333,967
18,467,326
Funding Sources for Sewer Capital Projects
Grants/Outside Funding Sources
$
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $
-
$ - $
-
$ - $
-
Debt Proceeds
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Capital Fund Balance
3,938,680
2,459,749
2,533,541
2,634,882
2,740,278
8,849,889
2,963,885
3,082,440
3,205,738
3,333,967
18,467,326
Rates
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
$
3,938,680
$ 2,459,749
$ 2,533,541
$ 2,634,882
$ 2,740,278
$ 8,849,889 $
2,963,885
$ 3,082,440 $
3,205,738
$ 3,333,967 $
18,467,326
Total WWTP Capital Projects
$
2,434,187
$ 7,500,000
$ 7,500,000
$ 350,000
$ 350,000
$ $
-
$ $
-
$ $
Funding Sources for WWTP Capital Projects
Grants/Outside Funding Sources
$
10,000
$ -
$ 100,000
$ -
$ -
$ $
$ $
$ $
Miscellaneous (Biosolids, Lynnwood, Etc.)
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
Debt Proceeds
-
4,154,057
4,154,057
-
Use of Capital Fund Balance
79,703
-
-
-
-
Intergovernmental Contributions
2,329,484
3,330,943
3,230,943
335,000
350,000
Total Funding Sources
$
2,434,187
$ 7,500,000
$ 7,500,000
$ 350,000
$ 350,000
$ $
$ $
$ $
Rate Revenues Under Existing Rates
$ 8,408,534
$ 8,450,577
$ 8,492,830
$ 8,535,294
$ 8,577,970
$ 8,620,860
$ 8,663,964
$ 8,707,284
$ 8,750,821
$ 8,794,575
$ 8,838,548
Contributions from Agencies for WWTP O&M
2,562,165
2,651,724
2,746,107
2,845,722
2,950,986
3,062,357
3,180,335
3,305,468
3,438,355
3,579,652
3,730,078
Contributions from Agencies for WWTP Debt Service
125,950
126,168
296,678
450,167
414,391
413,903
414,205
414,393
340,498
340,498
340,498
Non -Rate Revenues
853,034
857,238
861,463
865,709
869,977
874,266
878,576
882,908
887,262
891,637
896,035
Total Revenues
$ 11,949,683
$ 12,085,706
$ 12,397,077
$ 12,696,892
$ 12,813,324
$ 12,971,386
$ 13,137,081
$ 13,310,053
$ 13,416,935
$ 13,606,361
$ 13,805,158
Expenses
Cash O&M Expenses
$ 7,907,334
$ 8,140,402
$ 8,390,137
$ 8,652,735
$ 8,929,190
$ 9,220,588
$ 9,528,116
$ 9,853,070
$ 10,196,872
$ 10,561,075
$ 10,947,379
Sewer Debt Service
1,298,188
1,294,468
1,295,704
1,297,480
1,278,258
1,281,733
1,273,587
1,213,888
1,194,339
1,197,153
1,198,150
Transfer to WWTP Capital Fund for WWTP Debt Servi,
255,929
256,371
602,844
914,732
842,036
841,044
841,657
842,039
691,885
691,885
691,885
Rate Funded System Reinvestment
2,450,000
2,800,000
3,000,000
3,250,000
3,700,000
4,150,000
4,350,000
4,600,000
4,850,000
5,050,000
5,200,000
Rate Funded CIP
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Additions to Operating Reserve
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Expenses
$ 11,911,451
$ 12,491,242
$ 13,288,686
$ 14,114,948
$ 14,749,484
$ 15,493,366
$ 15,993,360
$ 16,508,998
$ 16,933,096
$ 17,500,113
$ 18,037,414
Annual Rate Adjustment
0 00',
• 00',
. ii',
• 00',
. 0i',
• 00',
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
Rate Increases Dictated by:
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Analysis
Rate Revenues After Rate Increase
$ 8,408,534
$ 8,957,611
$ 9,542,543
$ 10,165,671
$ 10,829,490
$ 11,536,655
$ 11,942,169
$ 12,361,936
$ 12,796,458
$ 13,246,254
$ 13,659,954
Net Cash Flow After Rate Increase
38,232
39,542
29,835
13,098
40,236
37,521
21,346
9,128
35,121
13,955
-
Coverage After Rate Increases
3.52
3.75
3.23
2.93
3.19
3.43
3.51
3.60
3.74
3.85
3.94
Fund Balances
2019
2020
2021
2022i-
2025
2026i
Operating Fund
1,355,974
1,392,846
1,422,681
1,435,779
1,476,015
1,513,536
1,534,882
1,544,010
1,579,131
1,593,086
1,593,086
Sewer Capital Fund
8,636,246
7,087,981
5,692,671
5,897,717
6,444,698
1,519,910
2,609,146
3,848,068
5,234,187
6,714,788
728,076
WWTP Capital Fund
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
Capital Project Sinking Fund
-
700,000
1,410,500
2,131,658
2,863,632
3,606,587
4,360,686
5,126,096
5,902,987
6,691,532
-
Bond Reserve
1,150,177
1,496,119
1,842,062
1,803,232
1,803,232
1,803,232
1,803,232
1,803,232
1,803,232
1,803,232
1,111,347
Total
$ 11,142,397
$ 10,676,946
$ 10,367,914
$ 11,268,386
$ 12,587,577 $
8,443,264
$ 10,307,946
$ 12,321,406
$ 14,519,537
$ 16,802,638 $
3,432,508
Combined Minimum Target Balance
$ 2,167,157
$ 2,540,753
$ 2,959,956
$ 2,995,881
$ 3,026,840 $
3,062,712
$ 3,099,134
$ 3,140,259
$ 3,180,040
$ 3,224,750 $
2,580,071
FCS GROUP Edmonds DRAFT Sewer RR Model - $9M Bond
(425) 867-1802 Summary
R;
fA
tip
d
O
W
3
d
Cl)
t-
LL
Q
L3
N
C
O
E
W
r
L
V
R
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 399
8.2.e
City of Edmonds
k7n,6;�e
FCS CROUP
Solutions -Oriented Consulting
7-i
Packet Pg. 400
8.2.e
Agend? A
N
21
C
a
Overview
Discussion of Key Assumptions
Review of Draft Results/Scenarios
Water
Stormwater
Sewer
Sample Bill Comparison
Questions/Discussion
Pa e 2
Packet Pg. 401
8.2.e
Overview of Utilit
Rate Studv Process
--------------------------------------------------------------------♦
1 ♦
Forecast
Establish - - Costs &
Fiscal Policies - -
' Revenues
`---------------------------------I---------------------------------%
Focus for today's session
Costs by
Function
Fixed
Charges
Costs by
Customer
Class
Volume
Charges
06
w
r
a
Pa e 3
Packet Pg. 402
8.2.e
•:� Overview of Revenue Requirement Analysis
Defines "cost -based rates" as rates based on aggregate obligations
Operating costs
Capital project expenditures
Debt service payments
Other financial needs
Establishes a multi -year financial plan beyond the current budget cycle
Key Elements of Revenue Requirement Analysis:
Defining revenues and expenses
Developing capital funding strategy
Establishing fiscal policy "framework"
Pa e 4
Packet Pg. 403
8.2.e
Key Assumptions
Annual Cost Inflation
■ General (CPI): 2.5%
■ Benefits:10.0%
■ Water Purchase Costs:
— 19% in 2020; 8% in 2021; 5%+/- per year
thereafter
■ Construction Costs: 4.0%
Annual Growth
■ Water/Sewer: z 85 ERUs per year
■ Stormwater: z 55 ESUs per year
Operating Forecast
■ Generally based on 2019 — 2020 Budget
— Adjusted for inflation in future years
— Taxes computed on projected revenues
Pa e 5
Packet Pg. 404
8.2.e
Utility Policies (Goals)
Rate analysis policy on a 3 year cycle to:
Improve ability to weather financial cycles, risks and disruptions
Stabilize rates over time
Account for changes that are outside or control (Alderwood Rates)
Account for large future projects
Capital Fund Policy
Meet all utility financial obligations
`Pay as you go' Rate funding for replacement/maintenance give significant savings
to the program.
Repayment of Interest on a $10M bond at 4.5% over lifetime is approx $5.2M*
Avoid deferral of fiscal maintenance responsibilities
Keep intergenerational equity
Target includes reserves for R&R,
Cost overruns, and Emergencies
Accounts for seasonal fluctuations in spending
*Approx. $4.31VI in 2019 $ using 2.5%CPI (43% total project cost savings)
FCS -... .
,
Solutions
-Oriented
Consulting
8.2.e
Setting up policies (examples)ca
Operating Reserve Minimum cash reserve to accommodate varied
revenue and expenditure timing
Capital Reserve To meet emergency repairs, unanticipated capital,
and project cost overruns
Replacement Reserve Rate funded capital — annual basis.
Funding (RRF)
Equipment Reserve To fund ongoing vehicle and equipment
replacement
Debt Service Coverage Compliance with existing debt covenants and
maintain credit worthiness for future debt needs
Revenue Sufficiency Set rates to meet the total annual financial
obligations of the utility and be self supporting
Policy Targeta
21
Water = 90; Sewer = 45-90
>%
Storm/Solid Waste = 30 Days 0
1-2% of capital assets (origin.
2
cost)N
d
Original Cost Depreciation;
a
Replacement Cost Depreciatic
Q
Estimated replacement value
Target 2.0 or higher
o
Minimum 1.25
LO
Rates shall be set to cover 0&I
r
E
debt service, reserves and fisc
a
policy achievement
E
a mm
Pa e 7
Packet Pg. 406
8.2.e
s;> C a
ital Needs Forecast — Water
Capital Funding Strategy
$21,867,000 in capital projects from 2019 - 2024
Water Mains: $20,072,000 Reservoirs: $1,795,000
Cash resources are expected to fully cover the projected capital costs
Reflects "pay-as-you-go" (cash -only) funding philosophy
7-i
Pa e 8
Packet Pg. 407
8.2.e
Water Revenue Reauirement Forecast
$15.0
$12.0
C $9.0
M $6.0
$3.0
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
0&M Expenses
Reserve Funding
Debt Service System Reinvestment
—Revenue @ Existing Rates —Revenue @ Proposed Rates
Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
Pa e 9
Packet Pg. 408
8.2.e
•:;> Water Financial Plan Scenarios
2016 Study
Proiected
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Water Rate Increase
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
Projected AWWD Rate Increase
9.9%
3.1%
5.3%
5.3%
5.3%
Projected Water Purchase Costs $ Millions
$2.0
$2.1
$2.2
$2.3
$2.4
Alderwood WWD rate increases are higher than previously projected
Cumulative projected 2019 — 2024 increase is 63% (was 38% in 2016 Study) ($500,000)
7-i
Pa e 10
Packet Pg. 409
8.2.e
s;> C a
ital Needs Forecast -
Capital Costs by Year
$7.0
$6.0
$5.0
c $4.0
R $3.0
$2.0
$1.0
$-
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Stormwater
Capital Funding Strategy
Grants
$6,900,450
Loans 26%
$408,750
1%
Leg. App.
$515,000
2%
$26,807,000 in capital projects from 2019 - 2024
Cash resources are expected to cover � 99% of the projected capital costs
Reflects "pay-as-you-go" (cash -only) funding philosophy
City received $545,000 loan from Snohomish County Public Works Assistance Fund
Part of loan already drawn ($408,750 of proceeds remaining)
• Increases stormwater utility's annual debt service by z $33,000
7-i
A
21
C
a
FCS -..-11
Packet Pg. 410
GRONbmm
Solutions
-Oriented
Consulting
8.2.e
Stormwater Revenue Requirement Forecast
$8.0
y $6.0
C
0
=_ $4.0
$2.0
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
��— 0&M Expenses
Reserve Funding
Debt Service 6-1 System Reinvestment
—Revenue @ Existing Rates — —Revenue @ Proposed Rates
I =13.-
-.
Annual Stormwater Rate Increase
9.5%
9.5%
9.5%
4.0%
4.0%
Monthly Single -Family Bill
$17.18 $18.81
$20.60
$22.56
$23.46
$24.40
Tax
$1.72 $1.88
$2.06
$2.26
$2.35
$2.44
Total
$18.09 $20.69
$22.66
$24.82
$25.81
$26.84
Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
7-,
.y
21
M
C
a
Pa e 12
Packet Pg. 411
8.2.e
Stormwater Financial Plan Scenarios
2016 Study
Proiected
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Stormwater Rate Increase
7.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
System Reinvestment Funding ($ Thousands)
$1,800
$1,950
$2,050
$2,100
$2,100
Debt Service $ Thousands
$671
$670
$669
$675
$673
Compared to 2016 Study,
Cumulative net cash requirement for 2020 — 2024 CIP increased by $3.1 million
$1.7 million in additional system reinvestment funded from 2020 — 2024
Debt service is z $85,000 per year higher, due to
$33,000 per year for new Snohomish County Public Works Assistance Fund loan
$52,000 per year for 2013 Bond payment (previously included in sewer debt service)
7-j
Pa e 13
Packet Pg. 412
8.2.e
s;> C a
ital Needs Forecast — SewL-lll
Capital Costs by Year
$12.0 —
$10.0 —
$8.0
$6.0
$4.0
$2.0
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Capital Funding Strategy
Grants/Misc,
$170,000
1%
Other Agencie
$8,801,000
210%
Cash
$32,320,000
$41,291,000 in capital projects from 2019 — 2024 *Excludes $15 m
WWTP Projects: $18,134,000 Sewer Mains: $16,417,000 replacement cost
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer: $6,665,000 - Lift Station No. 1 Study: $75,000* expected to occu
within 10 years
Cash resources are expected to fully cover the projected capital costs
Reflects "pay-as-you-go" (cash -only) funding philosophy
Olympic View WSD, Mountlake Terrace, Ronald WWD pay for z 49% of net WWTP costs
Ca
FCS - .. - 14
Packet P
Solutions
-Oriented
Consulting
8.2.e
$15.0
o $12.0
,;'.MllX1
$6.0
$3.0
Sewer Revenue Requirement Forecast
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
0&M Expenses
Reserve Funding
Debt Service 6-1 System Reinvestment
—Revenue @ Existing Rates — — Revenue @ Proposed Rates
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
Monthly Single -Family Bill (Per Unit)
$43.65 $46.71
$49.98
$53.48
$57.22
$61.23
Tax
$4.37 $4.67
$5.00
$5.35
$5.72
$6.12
Total
$48.02 $51.38
$54.98
$58.83
$62.94
$67.35
Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
7-i
A
y
21
M
C
a
Pa e 15
Packet Pg. 414
8.2.e
Sewer Financial PI
narios
.&ILTMI
RIM
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
System Reinvestment Funding ($ Thousands)
$2,800
$3,000
$3,250
$3,700
$4,150
Debt Service $ Thousands
$1,551
$1,899
$2,212
$2,120
$2,123
2016 Study
Proiected
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
System Reinvestment Funding ($ Thousands)
$1,250
$1,500
$1,900
$2,100
$2,500
Debt Service $ Thousands
$1,604
$1,605
$1,572
$1,479
$1,481
2019 — 2024 CIP is $24.5 million higher in current study than projected in 2016 study
WWTP improvements ($18 m), Lake Ballinger TS ($6 m), Dayton Main Replacement from V — 91" ($3.4 m)
Rate increases reflect planned replacement of Lift Station 1 within 10 years ($15m); not included in 2016 study
Ca
Mh N
a
Pa e 16
Packet Pg. 415
8.2.e
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
$265.51
ill—314" Sinale-Famil
10ccf
$193.22 $175.43 $174.38
$158.61 $136.25
$132.38 $131.61 $129.77 $120.48 $118.40 $104.72
�Ne
c
0
* Rates assume 10 ccf/month usage for water/sewer as applicable
** Has not had a rate adjustment in at least the past 6 years.
*** 55% sewer rate increase expected per sewer comp plan and rate analysis
**** 10% total increase expected in 2020
***** 10% increases in storm rates for 2020 and 2021
N
21
M
a
am- Pae17
8110141611
E ' ' Packet Pg. 416
8.2.e
202
300 $273.48
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 Total Bill — 3/4" Sinqle-Famil
$199.01
$180.69 $179.61 $163.37 $140.33
$140.02
o�� oa`�
5 o� �o
10ccf
$135.56 $133.66 $124.09 $121.95 $107.86
* Rates assume 10 ccf/month usage for water/sewer as applicable
* Rates assume 3% rate increases for each year after 2019 for all other jurisdictions
* Edmonds rates increased per recommendations
FCS GROU
Solutions -Oriented Consulti
N
21
M
a
8.2.e
$300.00 $281.68
$250.00
$200.00
$150.00
$100.00
$50.00
■
as C►:
M
■
$204.98 $186.11 $185.00
$168.27 $147.18 $144.54 $139.63 $137.67
$127.82 $125.61 $111.10
eo GQi
Na
* Rates assume 10 ccf/month usage for water/sewer as applicable
* Rates assume 3% rate increases for each year after 2019 for all other jurisdictions
* Edmonds rates increased per recommendations
Ca
rrt;� Uxv u Paae 19
So[utions-Oriented Cons&c Packet Pg. 418
8.2.e
2022 Total Bill — 3/4" Single -Family 9, lOccf*
$350.00
$300.00 $290.13
$250.00 $211.13
$zoo.00 $191.70 $190.55 $173.32
$156.63 $148.88 $143.81 $141.80 $131.65 $129.38
$150.00 $114.43
$100.00
$50.00
o � \e C?�J o o ao�o� ooa
N
�o
* Rates assume 10 ccf/month usage for water/sewer as applicable
* Rates assume 3% rate increases for each year after 2019 for all other jurisdictions
* Edmonds rates increased per recommendations
Ca
Pa e 20
Packet Pg. 419
8.2.e
uestions I Discussion
b-
Ca
Pa e 21
Packet Pg. 420
8.2.e
Senjur Pro ec� lVariag r
(211,235) 502 �2S'g
Drrta�t r�; GROUP,
•:;> FCS GROUP
Solutions -Oriented Consulting
ca
Packet Pg. 421
8.2.e
Rate Increases 2010 to 201
Water
Sewer
Storm
8/1/2010
7.50%
1/1/2010
0%
8/1/2010
1/1/2011
7.50%
1/1/2011
0%
1/1/2011
1/1/2012
7.50%
1/1/2012
0%
1/1/2012
1/1/2013
7.50%
1/1/2013
0%
1/1/2013
1/1/2014
9.00%
1/1/2014
9.50%
1/1/2014
1/1/2015
9.00%
1/1/2015
9.50%
1/1/2015
1/1/2016
9.00%
1/1/2016
9.50%
1/1/2016
1/1/2017
9.00%
1/1/2017
9.50%
1/1/2017
1/1/2018
9.00%
1/1/2018
9.50%
1/1/2018
1/1/2019
9.00%
1/1/2019
9.50%
1/1/2019
08
.y
21
C
a
8.00%
8.007 C
0
8.00%
C
M
8.00% m
a
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
10.00%
10.00% T
10.00%
Pa e 23
Packet Pg. 422
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/18/2019
Monthly Council Subcommittee Reports and Minutes
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A. For information only.
Narrative
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to report on items discussed at their committee meetings
held the previous week. The committee meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
FC061119
PPW061119
PSPP061119
Packet Pg. 423
9.1.a
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
June 11, 2019
Elected Officials Present
Councilmember Diane Buckshnis (Chair)
Councilmember Tom Mesaros
Staff Present
Scott James, Finance Director
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
Rob English, City Engineer
Jerrie Bevington, Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Jury Meeting Room. The agenda was reordered
Edmonds Public Facilities District Financial Report
Edmonds Center for the Arts Director of Operations Matt Keller relayed the PFD Board's appreciation
to the Council and Mayor for the City's generous contribution. Mr. Keller referred to the Statement of
Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net Position for the 12 Month Period Ended December 31, 2018
compared to 2017 and the Quarter 1 statement 2019 compared to 2019. PFD Board Chair Popke and
PFD Board Members David Brewster and Ray Liaw were also present. Mr. James identified
information the Contingent Loan Agreement states the PFD shall provide the Financial Committee:
• Quarterly report summarizing financial activity
Each November a report summarizing financial expectations for the following year
Within 9 months after the end of the year, complete financial statements
Discussion followed regarding the PFD Board's management of the ECA, the PFD/ECA Strategic
Plan, concern ticket sales are down in an exuberant market, difference between the season
(September -June) and the fiscal year, show diversity to attract diverse audiences, the goal to break
even on operations, sales tax revenue that funds bond payments, improving financial trends, positive
net position expected in 2019, the grant that offsets a portion of Mr. Keller's salary, cashflow, major
fundraising events in May and September, number of ECA staff, and interest expense.
It was agreed the PFD would meet with the Finance Committee next quarter (possibly August) and
provide the Strategic Plan and an updated sales tax projections.
Action: Information only
2. Civic Field Debt Service Options Discussion
Mr. James reviewed:
• Comparison of 20, 25 & 30 Year Bond Debt Service Payments
$2.5 million Debt Service
Payments
20 Year
25 Year
30 Year
Payment Totals
$3,329,650
$3,596,750
$3,894,150
$ over 20 Year Bond
--
$267,100
$564,500
% over 20 year bond
0.0%
8.0%
17.0%
$3.0 million Debt Service
Payments
20 Year
125 Year
1 30 Year
Payment Totals
1 $3,973,200
1 $4,303,000
1 $4,647,050
o�
r
to
0
U
U_
r
c
a�
E
V
R
Q
Packet Pg. 424
9.1.a
06/11/19 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
$ over 20 Year Bond
--
1 $329,800
$673,850
% over 20 ear bond
0.0%
1 8.3%
17.0%
$2.5 million Debt Service
Payments
20 Year
25 Year
30 Year
Payment Totals
$4,619,950
$5,011,600
$5,402,800
$ over 20 Year Bond
--
$381,650
$782,850
% over 20 year bond
0.0%
8.3%
16.9%
12/31/19 Outstanding Governmental Debt
o Total $5,500,607
Ms. Hite commented the cost estimates are subject to change and the funding gap could exceed $3M.
Scott Bauer, NW Municipal Advisors, commented on rates.
Discussion and questions followed regarding choices for funding Civic Park development, selecting an
amount to begin a bond issue in September, launching a gift catalog, funds raised for the Veterans
Plaza, period to raise funds (now through April 2020), cost to hire a fundraising firm, extending the
date by which grant funds have to be spent, bond anticipation note (BAN) as an option, establishing a
Parks Foundation, other park funding needs, raising the EMS levy (requires a public vote), and a
suggestion to identify and approach potential donors.
Action: Schedule for full Council
3. April 2019 Monthly Financial Report
Mr. Turley reviewed the report, highlighting:
• General Fund Changes in Fund Balance
o Committee suggestions:
■ Provide the General Fund Changes in Fund Balance report quarterly
■ Provide annual amounts for 2015-2017 and quarterly for 2018 and 2019
L.I.D. Fund Control
o Collected funds from property owners responsible for repaying LID
Questions and discussion followed regarding expenditure from Edmonds Homelessness Response
Fund (will require a budget amendment), parking infraction penalties revenue, sales tax revenue,
increase in retail automotive sales tax and decrease in construction sales tax.
Action: Schedule on Consent
2. Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Discussion
Mr. James highlighted revisions to the policy in response to Council input at the May 7t" meeting:
• A timeline for when the replenishment plan would be presented to Council
• Who is responsible to preparing and presenting the plan
• Amount of reserves used
• Whether it is anticipated additional reserves will be needed in the following budget cycle, and
• If no additional reserves are needed, then the report to Council must include a plan to
replenish the used reserves
Questions and discussion followed regarding existing reserves, information to include in the
presentation to full Council, and highlighting that the City is financially well managed.
Action: Schedule presentation to full Council
4. Washington State Auditor's Office Financial Intelligence Tool (FIT)
o�
r
O
U
U-
r
c
a�
E
a
Packet Pg. 425
9.1.a
06/11/19 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 3
Mr. James demonstrated the Washington State Auditor's Office FIT website
(https://portal.sao.wa.gov/FIT), explaining it was an effort to provide financial information to citizens to
promote transparency. Discussion followed regarding information that could be added.
Action: Presentation by State Auditor to full Council
5. Utility Rate Increase & Future Adoption of a Utility Rate Ordinance
Mr. Williams reviewed:
• Overview of Utility Rate Study Process
• Overview of Revenue Requirement Analysis
• Key assumptions
o Annual Cost Inflation
o Operating Forecast
o Annual Growth
Utility Policies (Goals)
o Rate analysis policy on a 3-year cycle
o Capital Fund Policy
Examples of policies that should be developed
o Operating Reserve
o Capital Reserve
o Replacement Reserve Funding (RRF)
o Equipment Reserve
o Debt Service Coverage
o Revenue Sufficiency
Capital Needs Forecast - Water
o $21,867,000 in capital projects from 2019-2024
o Cash resources are expected to fully cover the projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
Water Revenue Requirement Forecast
Proposed
Projected
Existing
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Water Rate Increase
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
Monthly single-family bill @ 7ccf
(w/tax)
$52.07
$54.00
$55.33
$58.07
$60.95
$63.04
Capital Needs Forecast - Stormwater
o $26,807,000 in capital projects from 2019 to 2024
o Cash resources are expected to cover - 99% of projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
Stormwater Revenue Requirement Forecast
Proposed
Projected
Existing
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Stormwater Rate Increase
9.5%
9.5%
9.5%
4%
4%
Monthly single-family bill w/tax
$18.09
$20.69
$22.66
$24.82
$25.81
$26.84
Capital Needs Forecast - Sewer
o $41,291,000 in capital projects from 2019 to 2024
o Cash resources are expected to fully cover the projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
Sewer Revenue Requirement Forecast
Proposed Projected
a
Packet Pg. 426
9.1.a
06/11/19 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 4
Existing
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
Monthly single-family bill w/tax
$48.02
$51.38
$54.98
$58.83
$62.94
$67.35
• Total Bill compared to other cities/utility districts @ 10ccf
o Most expensive (Seattle): $265.51
o Edmonds: $132.38
o Least expensive (Lynnwood): $104.72
Questions and discussion included increased water purchase costs, history of rate increases,
percentage of stormwater funding in daylighting of Willow Creek, intergenerational equity (future
ratepayers sharing in the cost of capital projects), effect of Shoreline acquiring Ronald Sewer District,
effect on rates of bonding (instead of pay-as-you-go), other cities/districts' increases, providing a
comparison of the total bill using projected new rates, Council vote last year regarding rates, and
including historical rates in the presentation.
Action: Schedule for full Council
7. Supplemental Agreement with Parametrix for the Edmonds Street Waterfront
Mr. Williams reviewed:
• Timeline and next steps
o 2012
■ Don't Block our Beach Rally
■ First responders recognition of access issues
o 2014
■ Council prioritizes and emphasizes need for access
0 2015-2016
■ Alternatives analysis
■ Waterfront connector at Edmonds Street
o 2017-2019
■ Preliminary design
0 2019-2020
■ 30%/60% design
■ 90% Design
■ Final design
Scope Review — Major Tasks and how tasks fit together
o Public Involvement (Tasks 202, 302, 402)
o Engineering for the final design
o Arts/Cultural Collaboration (Tasks 207, 305, 405)
o Stakeholder coordination (Tasks 203, 303, 403)
o Architectural Collaboration (Tasks 205, 304, 404)
o Environmental Documentation (Tasks 214, 308)
Cost Review
Phase 2 — 60%
Phase 3 — 90%
Phase 4 — 100%
Project Totals
Design
$2,153,594
$891,609
637,558
$3,682,961
Mgmt Reserve
150,000
150,000
50,000
350,000
Total
2,303,594
1,041,609
687,758
4,032,961
Expenses
4,540
6,267
2,750
58,512
Phase Totals
$233533134
$1,0473876
$6903463
$43091,473
• Project Partners
Project Partners Amount Phase
a
Packet Pg. 427
9.1.a
06/11/19 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 5
City of Edmonds
$100,000
Study
$150,000
Planning
BNSF Railway
$50,000
Study
$50,000
Planning
Community Transit
$5,000
Study
$5,000
Planning
Port of Edmonds
$25,000
Study
$75,000
Planning
$1,500,000
Construction
Sound Transit
$10,000
Study
$10,000
Planning
Washington State
$500,000
Study
$700,000
Planning
$6,000,000
Design/Const
$1,050,000
Desi n/Connt
• Project Funding Status
Grant Requests
Amount
I Phase
BUILD Federal
$18,856,000
1 Construction
Grant opportunities
Amount
Phase
INFRA (Federal)
TBD
Construction
RCO State
TBD
Construction
Dept of Ecology State
TBD
Construction
Bicycle & Ped II State
TBD
Construction
PSRC Count
TBD
Construction
PSAR Large Capital State
TBD
Construction
Questions and discussion included when the structure was named the "Waterfront Connector,"
timeframe for 30%/60% design tasks, amount of the local match (which means any non-federal
funds), and add a total to the list of funding provided by project partners.
Action: Schedule for full Council
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Q
Packet Pg. 428
PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
June 11, 2019
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Councilmember Kristiana Johnson (Chair) Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Councilmember Dave Teitzel Rob English, City Engineer
Mayor Dave Earling Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Mike Del-illa, Senior Utilities Engineer
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The agenda was reordered.
1. ECC 5.32 and 5.05.060; Park Rules and Dog Rules
Ms. Hite explained she was asked by Snohomish County Public Health to add no smoking/vaping in
parks. The parks already have no smoking signs, but it is not codified so it is not enforceable. Staff
maintains a list of issues that arise frequently; adding no smoking/vaping in parks provided an
opportunity to make some additional housekeeping changes. The proposed changes were also
reviewed by the Planning Board in March. She reviewed the following:
Changes to Park Rules:
1. Add a chapter to prohibit smoking/vaping in parks. Marijuana added at the City Attorney's
recommendation
2. Add a chapter to prohibit feeding wildlife on waterfront beaches
3. Change park hours to read " closed from sunset to sunrise"
4. Clarify chapter 5.32.030 about the allowance motor vehicles in parks
5. Clarifying 5.32.040 to be consistent with the City's practice
6. Small housekeeping items
a. ADA language
b. Prohibiting the drinking of intoxicants or use of controlled substances unless authorized
by a special event permit
Discussion following regarding the source of concern with feeding wildlife on waterfront beaches,
whether people feed geese at Civic Field, Parks equipment that removes goose waste, and anticipation
development of Civic Park will reduce the presence of geese. Ms. Hite said there would be no increased
expense for enforcement.
Ms. Hite explained people calling to ask where they can walk their dogs are referred to the code which
contains a very specific list of locations. Research done by a Parks intern found most cities in the greater
Puget Sound area allow dogs on leash in parks. She reviewed changes to Chapter 5.05.060 Dogs on
Public Grounds that would allow dogs on leash and under the owner's control in all parks, with the
exception of playfields, public beaches, playgrounds, the spray ground and school grounds. Parks plans
to install dog waste stations at all parks.
Questions and discussion followed regarding allowing dogs on the track at Civic Field, anticipated
additional expense for enforcement and dog waste bags, Police Department and Animal Control's
support of the change because it is clearer and easier to enforce, dogs at Civic Field to discourage
geese, dogs at concerts in the park, no change to the prohibition of dogs at the summer market and
plans for a public campaign if the Council approves the change.
Packet Pg. 429
06/11/19 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 2
Action: Scheduled for full Council
2. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Parametrix for the Edmonds Street
Waterfront Connector
Mr. Williams reviewed:
Timeline and next steps
0 2012
■ Don't Block our Beach Rally
■ First Responders recognition of access issues
0 2014
■ Council prioritizes and emphasizes need for access
0 2015-2016
■ Alternatives analysis
■ Waterfront connector at Edmonds Street
o 2017-2019
■ Preliminary design
0 2019-2020
■ 30%/60% design
■ 90% Design
■ Final design
Scope Review — Major Tasks and how tasks fit together
o Public Involvement (Tasks 202, 302, 402)
o Engineering for the final design
o Arts/Cultural Collaboration (Tasks 207, 305, 405)
o Stakeholder coordination (Tasks 203, 303, 403)
o Architectural Collaboration (Tasks 205, 304, 404)
o Environmental Documentation (Tasks 214, 308)
Cost Review
Phase 2 — 60%
Phase 3 — 90%
Phase 4 —100%
Project Totals
Design
$2,153,594
$891,609
637,558
$3,682,961
Mgmt Reserve
150,000
150,000
50,000
350,000
Total
2,303,594
1,041,609
687,758
4,032,961
Expenses
4,540
6,267
2,750
58,512
Phase Totals
$2,353,134
$1,047,876
$690,463
$4,091,473
• Project Partners
Project Partners
Amount
Phase
City of Edmonds
$100,000
Study
$150,000
Planning
BNSF Railway
$50,000
Study
$50,000
Planning
Community Transit
$5,000
Study
$5,000
Planning
Port of Edmonds
$25,000
Study
$75,000
Planning
$1,500,000
Construction
Sound Transit
$10,000
Study
$10,000
Planning
Washington State
$500,000
Study
$700,000
Planning
$6,000,000
Design/Const
$1,050,000
Design/Const
Packet Pg. 430
06/11/19 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 3
• Project Funding Status
Grant Requests
Amount
Phase
BUILD (Federal)
$18,856,000
Construction
Grant opportunities
Amount
Phase
INFRA Federal
TBD
Construction
RCO State
TBD
Construction
Dept of Ecology State
TBD
Construction
Bicycle & Ped II State
TBD
Construction
PSRC (County)
TBD
Construction
PSAR Large Capital State
TBD
Construction
Questions and discussion followed regarding the source of the $2.3M, funding the City has provided,
potential sources for a local match (any non-federal funds), whether BNSF will provide further funding,
cost of phase 1 ($1.69M), cost of the supplement contract exceeding the original contract, comments
from citizens expressing preference for investing the funds in safety improvements on Hwy 99, the
Tribes awaiting further information, environmental analysis, mitigation strategy for any identified
impacts, SEPA determination, whether an EIS will be required, 1 % for Art, whether there are legal
issues associated with locating the connector on the border of a marine sanctuary (Councilmember
Teitzel will forward email to Mr. Williams), distance from the pier to the railroad tracks, crash protection
for the pier, ensuring the conditions under which the connector would be used for ferry offload are clearly
stated and in writing with WSDOT, effect of sea level rise on this structure, potential offsite mitigation at
Edmonds Marsh, and identifying stakeholder groups. Committee suggestions included the following:
• Add noise study (from emergency vehicles) to assumptions on page 30
• Add an additional Council meeting in final tasks
• Missing text at the bottom of Page 59
• Identify stakeholders that should be included in public process and communicate with them early
in the process
• In presentation to Council, include refresher about analysis of alternatives
Action: Schedule for full Council
3. Utility Rate Increase & Future Adoption of a Utility Rate Ordinance
Mr. DeLilla distributed FCS Group's analysis. Mr. Williams reviewed:
• Overview of Utility Rate Study Process
• Overview of Revenue Requirement Analysis
• Key assumptions
o Annual Cost inflation
o Operating Forecast
o Annual Growth
• Utility Policies (Goals)
o Rate analysis policy on a 3-year cycle
o Capital Fund Policy
• Examples of policies that should be developed
o Operating Reserve
o Capital Reserve
o Replacement Reserve Funding (RRF)
o Equipment Reserve
o Debt Service Coverage
o Revenue Sufficiency
• Capital Needs Forecast - Water
o $21,867,000 in capital projects from 2019-2024
Packet Pg. 431
9.1.b
06/11/19 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 4
o Cash resources are expected to fully cover the projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
• Water Revenue Requirement Forecast
Proposed
Projected
Existing
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Water Rate Increase
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
Monthly single-family bill @ 7ccf
(w/tax)
$52.07
$54.00
$55.33
$58.07
$60.95
$63.04
• Capital Needs Forecast - Stormwater
o $26,807,000 in capital projects from 2019 to 2024
o Cash resources are expected to cover — 99% of projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
• Stormwater Revenue Requirement Forecast
Proposed
Projected
Existing
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Stormwater Rate Increase
9.5%
9.5%
9.5%
4%
4%
Monthly single-family bill (w/tax)
$18.09
$20.69
$22.66
$24.82
$25.81
$26.84
• Capital Needs Forecast — Sewer
o $41,291,000 in capital projects from 2019 to 2024
o Cash resources are expected to fully cover the projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
• Sewer Revenue Requirement Forecast
Proposed
Projected
Existing
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
Monthly single-family bill (w/tax)
1 $48.02
$51.38
$54.98
$58.83
$62.94
$67.35
• Total Bill compared to other cities/utility districts @ 10ccf
o Most expensive (Seattle): $265.51
o Edmonds: $132.38
o Least expensive (Lynnwood): $104.72
Discussion and questions followed regarding the planning period for the rate study, annual growth
forecast, whether the 5% increase could be reduced to 4% with a leaner fund balance, expected life of
new pipes, and a suggestion to emphasize the benefit of pay-as-you-go versus bonds.
Action: Schedule for full Council
4. Presentation of a Local Agency Agreement for Construction Management, Material
Testing and Inspection Services for the 84th Ave Overlay
Mr. English advised the construction contract estimate is $925,000. The City received a federal grant
two years ago. The scope of the project is 84th Ave from 220th Street to 212th Street and includes
stormwater improvements (—$500,000) and upgrading non -compliant ADA curb ramps. Federal funding
requires additional administrative work; this agreement would provide construction management to
assist the project manager during the construction phase. Following evaluation of the four responses to
the RFQ, staff selected WH Pacific. A scope of services and fee will be negotiated.
Discussion and questions followed regarding the federal grants funding the management reserve,
inability to include sidewalks and/or trails in the project, sufficient sunlight for solar powered pedestrian -
actuated beacons, and lack of in-house capacity for this work.
Packet Pg. 432
9.1.b
06/11/19 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 5
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda once the scope is negotiated and contract prepared as long as
fee is less than the city's preliminary estimate ($137,200)
5. Presentation of an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mountlake Terrace for Aquatic
Vegetation Removal in Lake Ballinger
Mr. English explained as a result of work done by the Lake Ballinger Forum and residents, a
management plan has developed to help treat invasive species in the lake (milfoil, pond weed and water
lily). Mountlake Terrace secured a grant through DOE to fund development of a plan/strategy. The plan
includes chemical treatment (applying an herbicide to public lands on the north shore in late July,
monitoring and reapplication) and a physical treatment (workshop to teach residents how to remove
invasive species and installation of burlap barriers).
Discussion and questions followed regarding ensuring the herbicide is safe for humans and animals,
public outreach to residents, and when this comes to Council including an explanation of the testing
done to ensure the herbicide is safe for humans and animals.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
6. Presentation of an Intergovernmental Services Agreement with the Snohomish County,
for Development of an On -Going Water Quality Monitoring Program for Lake Ballinger
Mr. English explained as a result of efforts by the Lake Ballinger Forum, a water quality monitoring
program, "Lakewise" is being established for the lake which has been successful implemented by
Snohomish County. This program includes training residents to take water quality samples and submit
them to a lab. Once the data is available, Snohomish County will consult with the Lake Ballinger Forum
on the findings. One resident has volunteered to receive the training; more volunteers are being sought.
A brief discussion followed regarding the cost.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
7. Lynnwood Mazda Pedestrian Easement
Mr. English explained a development project by Lynnwood Mazda for a showroom and service center
will require frontage improvements on Hwy 99 and 76th Avenue W. Frontage improvements include 7-
foot sidewalks and street trees in tree grates along both property frontages. To provide the
improvements, portions of the public sidewalk will encroach onto private property in 10 locations on
Hwy 99 and 76th, requiring a public pedestrian easement. A similar easement for the Hyundai building
will be presented to the PPW Committee in July. The business is responsible for the cost of the frontage
improvements. Councilmember Johnson requested staff research and report on what appeared to be a
walkway on the northwest side of the property.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
8. Larsen Short Plat -10-ft Street ROW Dedication along 75th PI W and Retaining Wall
Maintenance Easement along 72"d Ave W
Councilmember Teitzel referred to an email from a citizen regarding the legal authority for easements
and right-of-way when reviewing proposed development projects including whether staff had the
authority not to require minimum access widths, etc. Mr. English said staff will address the questions
raised in the email at the July PPW Committee meeting.
Mr. English explained this is a 3-lot subdivision at 15729 75th Place W. The development code requires
dedication of 10 feet of right-of-way for the street as well as a maintenance easement adjacent to the
Packet Pg. 433
9.1.b
06/11/19 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 6
retaining wall. A brief discussion followed regarding whether access could be provided on the north
side.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
9. Wassail Pedestrian Easement at the NE Corner of 639 2nd Ave
Mr. English explained the applicant plans to demolish the existing structure and construct a new single
family home. Site conditions preclude a traditional corner so the proposal is for the sidewalk on 2nd Ave
to curve across private property to connect to the Caspers St sidewalk.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
10. 10-ft Sanitary Sewer Easement along the west property boundary of 625 Alder Street
Mr. English explained during review of a building permit for a single family residential addition at this
address it was discovered an easement did not exist for the public sewer main on the west side the of
property. The easement is required as part of the building permit application. Discussion followed
regarding other instances where there are no easements.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Packet Pg. 434
9.1.c
PUBLIC SAFETY, PERSONNEL & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
June 11, 2019
Elected Officials Present Staff Present
Councilmember Mike Nelson (Chair) Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Councilmember Neil Tibbott
Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Police Training Room.
1. Indigenous Peoples Land Acknowledgment for Public Meetings
Ms. Hope explained the agenda memo includes several options for an indigenous peoples land
acknowledgement. No cities in Washington are stating an acknowledgement, but it is becoming a
more common practice in some organizations, particularly arts and cultural organizations. There are
several Coast Salish Tribes in the Puget Sound area. Options include a specific statement read at the
beginning of either all Council meetings, a monthly Council meeting, printed on the agenda, etc. The
intent of the acknowledgement is to raise awareness for the public and reach out to Native peoples
and be proactive in recognizing them. The City already does some proactive efforts such as notices to
the Tribes regarding environmental review, the marsh project, but this would be a more public effort.
Next steps could include outreach to the Tulalip representative, meeting of the full Council to discuss
language and method of use (tentatively scheduled for June 25), Council action (vote, refer for further
study, etc.), and implementation of Council action.
The committee suggested staff contact Todd Zackey, Marine & Nearshore, Tulalip Tribes, and/or the
Tulalip Tribes' historian. Questions to ask:
• What kind of statement would be meaningful for the Coast Salish people?
• Whether a short statement read at every meeting or a longer, more detailed monthly
acknowledgement would be more meaningful
• Whether an acknowledgement statement printed on all agendas would be meaningful
Discussion included options for the content of the acknowledgement statement, Edmonds' history that
includes timber and Native fishing, the statement as a way to acknowledge Edmonds' history, and at
what meetings a statement would be read.
Action: Schedule for full Council (tentatively scheduled for June 25)
2. Draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)
Ms. Hope explained development of the UFMP began in 2017. After the initial draft was reviewed by
Council and no action was taken, a supplemental process began that included an informal team of
City staff, Tree Board members, Planning Board members and members of the public to address
Edmonds -specific aspects of the Plan. She reviewed changes to new, revised draft UFMP:
• Housekeeping changes
• Removed references to specific dollar values represented by tree functions
• Removed a map and references to tree planting opportunity areas
• Added background discussion of tree issues
• More attention to native trees of our area
• Addition of information on city regulations for development
Packet Pg. 435
9.1.c
06/11/19 PSPP Committee Minutes, Page 2
The five goals and actions in the Plan remain the same. Discussion followed regarding how the UFMP
helps inform the development of policy at the Council level, places where the sidewalk is raised by
tree roots, right tree right place, updating the Street Tree Plan, revisions to the section regarding
emerging diseases and pests, and appreciation for including photographs of local trees in the Plan
making it more of an Edmonds plan.
Action: Schedule for full Council
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Packet Pg. 436
