2019-08-13 City Council - Full Agenda-2425o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
snl. ,nyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
AUGUST 13, 2019, 7:00 PM
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS ARE WORK SESSIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF. THE
MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC BUT ARE NOT PUBLIC HEARINGS; PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT
TAKEN AT COMMITTEE MEETINGS. THE COMMITTEES MEET CONCURRENTLY IN SEPARATE ROOMS
AS INDICATED BELOW.
1. PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE (COUNCIL CHAMBER)
1. Edmonds Rotary Oktoberfest Special Event Contract (10 min)
2. Report on Bids for the 84th Ave Overlay (10 min)
3. Alternatives Analysis for Willow Creek Daylight Project (10 min)
4. Presentation of Supplemental Agreement with Shannon & Wilson for the Willow Creek Daylight
Project (10 min)
5. Presentation of Professional Services Agreement with Framework for the 2019 Downtown
Parking Study (10 min)
2. FINANCE COMMITTEE (JURY MEETING ROOM)
1. Deputy City Clerk Position (reclassification) (10 min)
2. June 2019 Quarterly Financial Report (15 min)
3. Annual Fund Balance Report (10 min)
4. HB 1406 Implementation (10 min)
3. PLANNING, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE (POLICE TRAINING ROOM)
1. Water/Sewer Maintenance Worker Minimum Qualifications Change (10 min)
2. Deputy City Clerk Position (reclassification) (10 min)
Edmonds City Council Agenda
August 13, 2019
Page 1
1.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/13/2019
Edmonds Rotary Oktoberfest Special Event Contract
Staff Lead: Shannon Burley
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Shannon Burley
Background/History
Each year the Council reviews special event contracts for the City. At this meeting we will present a
contract for a new event in Edmonds the "Edmonds Rotary Oktoberfest".
The Market, Edmonds Arts Festival, 4th of July, Taste and Car Show contracts were previously reviewed
and approved.
Staff Recommendation
It is our recommendation that you review this contract (attached) and submit for approval on the
following meetings consent agenda.
Narrative
The Edmonds Rotary Oktoberfest is a new event that will be held at the Frances Anderson Center Field.
It is our collective goal to hold this event for two years at the Anderson Center before moving it to the
new Civic Center Park provided it is well embraced by the community.
This event will replace the Rotary's former Waterfront Festival event AND will raise funds to support
building a state of the art inclusive playground at Civic Park.
Operating hours are Friday, September 20th (4:30 pm - 10 pm) and Saturday, September 21st (9 am - 10
pm); the event will feature beer tasting from local breweries, craft booths in partnership with Urban
Craft Uprising and a kid zone complete with bouncy houses and family programming in the bandshell.
Dogs will be allowed at this event, in fact there is a doggy parade planned as part of their entertainment.
There will be a small stage with music to serve as background music utilizing specialty speakers which
minimize sound travel distance and they will be utilizing a vendor who specializes in lighting for the
evening hours to reduce impact on the neighborhood.
The goals of the event are to raise money for the new Civic Park playground, build community and
comradery and to bring visitors to Edmonds.
The event organizer (formerly with the Chamber) and members of the Rotary are familiar with our
compostible product requirements and are looking forward to working with Steve Fisher to minimize
waste. There will be food trucks on 7th between Main and Dayton similar to the Arts Festival setup.
Packet Pg. 2
1.1
The Rotary has secured a shuttle service and is working on partnerships with others in town to provide
ample parking / shuttle service for patrons.
The Rotary will comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws.
This contract has been reviewed and approved as to form by legal.
Attachments:
2019 Oktoberfest Contract FINAL
Packet Pg. 3
CONTRACT
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AND
EDMONDS ROTARY CLUB
September 20 — 22, 2019
The following is an agreement ("Agreement") between the CITY OF EDMONDS (hereinafter referred
to as the "City"), and the EDMONDS ROTARY CLUB (hereinafter referred to as the "Rotary")
(collectively, the "Parties").
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Rotary Club proposes to conduct a public event known as "Edmonds
Rotary Oktoberfest" (hereinafter referred to as the "Event"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Event will enhance tourism and promote economic
development, as well as providing an opportunity for good clean fun to its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the considerations the City provides are more than
adequately recompensed by the promises of the Edmonds Rotary Club and the public benefit to be derived
from this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, conditions and performances
set forth below, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Responsibilities of the City (certain Rotary obligations included).
1.1 The City shall provide use of the Playfield, the Bandshell, room 210A at the Frances
Anderson Center, Civic Park Playfield, and 8th Avenue between Main Street and Dayton
Street ("City -Provided Site") so as to allow for the following:
1.1.1 The Event setup shall begin on Friday, September 20, 2019 at 8:00 a.m.;
barricades to be in place by 8:00 a.m.
1.1.2 The Event will run from 4:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Friday, September 20, 2019
and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday, September 21, 2019.
1.1.3 Room 210A shall be under the exclusive control of the Rotary during the period
identified and shall serve as a break room and secure counting location. The
Frances Anderson Playfield shall be used for the stage, beer festival and craft
booths. Children's programming will take place in the Bandshell near the
playground. The section of 8th Avenue described above will be utilized as an
area for food concessions and eating tables.
1.1.4 Civic Park Playfield shall be used exclusively for all -day parking of exhibitors
and staff (controlled by passes and personnel). Parking shall be on the field
located inside of the running track. All vehicles must vacate the field by Sunday
September 22, 2019 at 8:00 a.m. The entrance adjacent to the Boys & Girls Club
is prohibited except for emergency use.
1.1.5 All surfaces listed shall remain available to the Rotary until final cleanup by
Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 12:00 noon.
Packet Pg. 4
1.2 The City may sprinkle the field prior to the event to reduce dust. The playfield irrigation
system shall be turned off by 8:00 a.m. on September 20, 2019. The Rotary agrees to
cover the infield dirt only.
1.3 The City will check out two sets of the required keys to the Rotary President, or
designee.
1.4 The City shall provide up to fifteen (15) picnic tables and up to ten (10) garbage cans
around the outside area. The Rotary shall also provide crew members to assist with the
moving and placement of tables and garbage cans. The Rotary shall be responsible for
providing a dumpster for trash. The Rotary shall provide the City with a list of supplies
(trash can liners, paper towels, etc.), which the City shall order. The Rotary will pay the
invoices for all supplies in a timely fashion.
1.5 All use and configuration of structures, booths and other permanent or temporary
facilities used in the Event may be inspected and reviewed by City Fire Chief, Police
Chief, Building Official and Parks and Recreation Director or their designees to
determine the facilities in use comply with the provisions of State and local law, as well
as to ensure that no lasting or permanent damage shall be done to any public facility or
property.
1.6 Edmonds Fire Marshal shall inspect the facilities prior to the opening to the general public
on or before 2:00 p.m., September 20, 2019, as the Parties shall agree, and note all
potential problems. Prior to the opening of the Event, the Rotary shall correct all problems
related to fire safety. In the event that such problems are not corrected, City may at its sole
discretion cancel the Event or prohibit the attendance of the general public in certain areas,
if in the opinion of the Fire Marshal and at the sole discretion of the City, any violation or
other condition that threatens life, health or property has not been corrected.
1.7 Alcohol may be served, so long as the Rotary obtains all required state licenses and
approvals to serve alcohol. These will be furnished to the City at least two (2) weeks in
advance.
1.8 The City shall provide and install safety barriers at the following two (2) locations for
street closures required to contain the City -Provided Site described in Paragraph 1.1:
1.8.1 8th Avenue at Main Street, to close 8th Avenue
1.8.2 8th Avenue at Dayton Street, to close 8th Avenue
1.9 The Rotary shall obtain a street closure permit as a part of its obligations under
paragraph 2.9, below.
1.10 The Rotary shall work with the City to identify ADA parking stalls. The City shall
provide official handicapped parking signs. One load/unload space each will be marked
on Dayton and Main Street.
1.11 The City shall install Edmonds Oktoberfest street banners as provided by the Rotary at
approved sites. The Rotary shall obtain a Street Banner Permit and pay the required fee.
Packet Pg. 5
1.12 The City has the right to check the noise level of any amplified sound equipment or other
source and require that the volume be reduced if it exceeds the safety limits recommended
by the Seattle King County Department of Health or levels set forth in the ordinances of
the City of Edmonds.
1.13 The City shall provide and oversee police supervision of the Event under the command of
the Chief of Police or his designee. Police staffing levels and fees to be paid to the City
will be mutually determined by the Chief of Police, or his designee, and the President of
the Rotary.
1.14 The City shall supply a list of acceptable compostable and recyclable food ware items and
of suppliers for the compostable items. The City shall provide signage for the on -site
collection containers, and any additional containers, if needed.
1.15 The Rotary must supply power as needed. A Rotary representative and a City Public
Works representative will meet prior to August 23, 2019, to draw up an exterior
electrical plan. The Rotary is responsible for notifying PUD of hookups and scheduling
inspection of temporary panels (including any necessary permits). The City shall
provide the City Electrician to the Rotary on an "on call" basis, and is subject to
reimbursement from the Rotary for time and materials, minimum 4-hour Overtime
Callback. The City Electrician shall have final say in all electrical matters. (No ground
penetrations are allowed unless authorized first by the City Electrician and City Parks
Department). Any unauthorized ground penetrations may be subject to fine and/or
damage cost recovery from the Rotary). The Rotary is not authorized to fasten anything
to the buildings, structures or trees. Doing so may result in damage cost recovery and/or
fine.
1.16 The Rotary must have temporary panels and power poles removed by 12:00 noon on
September 22, 2019.
2. Responsibilities of the Rotary.
2.1 The Rotary will operate the Edmonds Oktoberfest, neither the Rotary nor any of its
officers, agents or employees shall discriminate in the provision of service under this
Agreement against any individual, partnership, or corporation based upon race, religion,
sex, creed, place of origin, or any other form of discrimination prohibited by federal,
state or local law.
2.2 The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 70.160 RCW
(herein after the "smoking ban"), smoking is prohibited in indoor areas, within 25 feet of
vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City and
employees of any vendor at the Event or of the contracting organization are required to
be. This general description of the provisions of the statute is included for the purpose of
reference and is not intended to expand or contract the obligations created by the
smoking ban. The Rotary warrants that it will comply with the smoking ban and will
utilize the services and advice of the Snohomish County Health District in assuring
compliance during the Event described in this Agreement.
Packet Pg. 6
2.3 The Rotary agrees that the Edmonds Oktoberfest is a public event. The Rotary further
agrees that areas provided by the City that are covered under this Agreement, including
but not limited to public right of way, streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, and
gardens, are traditional public forums. As a result, the Rotary shall permit citizens
attending events open to the general public during Edmonds Oktoberfest to exercise
therein their protected constitutional right to free speech without interference on City
property.
2.4 Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 70.93.093, concerning event recycling, the Rotary will
place clearly marked recycling containers throughout the Event area for the collection of
aluminum cans, glass or plastic bottles from event participants, and arrange for recycling
services.
2.5 Chapter 6.80 of the Edmonds City Code ("Plastic Bag Reduction") restricts the use of
single -use plastic checkout bags. The restrictions do not apply to plastic bags used to
carry out cooked food or provided solely for produce, bulk food or meat. The Rotary will
encourage its vendors to comply with the purposes of the ordinance by utilizing paper
bags or encouraging the use of reusable totes whenever practicable.
2.6 Pursuant to the City's Resolution 1412, which prohibits the use of plastic straws, stirrers
and cutlery at public events requiring a contract with the City beginning in 2019, food
vendors at the Event shall provide only certifiable compostable straws, stirrers and cutlery
to Event participants. Pursuant to the City's Resolution 1357, the goal of which is to
promote the use of certifiable compostable food service wares and packaging, food
vendors at the Event are strongly encouraged to provide other certifiable compostable food
service wares to package and present food to Event participants. Aluminum and steel cans,
plastic bottles and certain plastic cups that are accepted as recyclable, can continue to be
acceptable for vendor use. When certifiable compostable food service wares and
packaging are used, and recyclable containers are offered, Event organizers will provide
for the on -site collection of compostable and recyclable materials from event participants,
using designated color -coded collection containers. Event organizers shall ensure that on -
site collection containers are serviced properly and continually during the Event. A Rotary
representative shall meet with the City's Recycling Coordinator or representative prior to
August 23, 2019, in order to be educated on the 3-container system to maximize diversion
of compostable and recyclable materials from the garbage.
2.7 The Rotary may in its discretion limit the participation of any vendor who produces
duplication in order to adequately recognize limitations of space, failure to comply with
applicable State or local health, liquor, or other requirements of law, and in order to
provide an adequate and interesting diversity compatible with the recreation of the citizens
of Edmonds.
2.8 The Rotary shall be responsible for restoring the premises to its original condition. A
Rotary representative shall meet with a member of the City's Parks and Recreation
Department prior to September 3, 2019 and on September 22, 2019 to inspect the facility
to document the "original" and post event condition of the Frances Anderson Center and
outside areas.
2.9 The Rotary will provide sufficient portable sani-cans and wash stations.
Packet Pg. 7
2.10 The Rotary shall be responsible for all required city and state permits. The Rotary shall
submit all required application(s) and fees(s) for the Street Banner Permits provided for
by this Agreement. All permits will be arranged through a designated representative of
the City. The Rotary is responsible for obtaining any necessary permits for serving
alcohol on the premises from the state.
2.11 The Rotary shall ensure that all booths/beer garden/wine garden have the necessary state
permits for serving and selling alcohol. Rotary agrees to make its best effort to prevent
service of alcohol to minors, including segregation of the beer garden and wine garden,
posting security at the entrances of the beer garden and wine garden and checking
identification in accordance with common practice. Rotary shall obtain any copyright
licenses necessary for presenting licensed live and recorded music.
2.12 The City of Edmonds shall post "NO DOGS" signs on the Frances Anderson Center
grounds and as per City Ordinance. This provision shall not apply to service animals.
The Parks Director will provide a temporary exemption to the No Dogs ordinance and
allow dogs to be on leash at the Event. Rotary will ensure dogs do not enter the
playground area and will ensure all dog waste is removed from the site. Police will be
notified of any aggressive dog behavior; Parks Director retains the right to suspend
temporary exemption at any time.
2.13 Garbage service shall be contracted and paid for by the Rotary.
2.14 The Rotary shall be responsible for clean-up of the playfield, amphitheater and indoor
space as follows:
1) Restore all areas to their original condition.
2) Pick up all trash and remove all items and equipment related to the Event by 12:00
noon, September 22, 2019 (including grounds and buildings).
3) Power wash clean the following:
a. All paved food concession areas; and
b. All pedestrian walkways/steps around amphitheater.
4) Install drain guards on all affected storm drains prior to the beginning of the Event,
and remove them after clean-up is complete. Drain guards will be provided by the
City. Power washed materials (litter, etc.) must be collected and disposed of and not
pushed to adjacent areas.
5) Pick up and remove all garbage to the size of a cigarette butt, debris, litter,
equipment, and any and all other items made necessary by or used in the provision of
the Event by 12:00 noon, Sunday, September 22, 2019.
6) Disposal of waste water shall be according to the City policy using grease traps
provided, cleaned, and picked up by the Rotary.
2.15 A final inspection of the Event area shall be conducted by the City Parks Maintenance
Division to determine if all areas are clean and returned to their original condition.
Packet Pg. 8
2.16 The Rotary shall submit a cleaning/damage deposit of $1,500.00 to the City prior to
Tuesday, September 3, 2019. The deposit shall be refunded to the Rotary if, upon
inspection, all is in order, or a prorated portion thereof as may be necessary to reimburse
the City for loss or cleaning costs.
2.17 The Rotary shall pay the City Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($850.00) for the above -
mentioned facility use ($750.00 Frances Anderson Center facility rental + $100 for Civic
Park Playfield) prior to Tuesday, September 3, 2019, and shall reimburse the City for the
actual costs of supplies or services furnished by the City, unless otherwise established,
within thirty (30) days of mailing of a final bill by the City.
2.18 The Rotary shall provide a fire watch for all times the Event is open to the general
public. The Fire Marshall or representative shall inspect the Playfield and Amphitheater
with the Rotary President, or designated representative, prior to September 9, 2019 and
any potential problems will be noted and reported to the City prior to the Fire Marshall's
briefing. At 12:00 noon on September 20, 2019, the Fire Marshal shall brief designated
representatives of the Rotary of the location and use of fire service features (fire
extinguishers, pull stations, etc.) in the Frances Anderson Center, as well as inspect for
any electrical and fire safety hazards. The Rotary President and appointed
representatives will be the responsible individuals for performing fire prevention and fire
watch activities.
2.19 The Rotary shall insure that:
1) Kilns, barbecues, forges and other sources of heat shall be insulated from turfed
areas to prevent the heat from killing the grass and sterilizing the soil. All heat
producing appliances in locations other than the food vending area shall be approved
by the Fire Department and may require conditions for their acceptable use. Food
vendor installations will be inspected prior to the Event opening. Tarps, tents,
canopies and covers shall be listed and labeled for flame resistance.
2) Vehicles shall only be allowed on turfed areas to load and unload, with adjacent
streets used for parking during the Event. The Rotary shall notify all individual
residents of the affected areas of 8th Avenue and provide general notice to all the
citizens of the closure of 8th Avenue.
3) Tents are held down with sandbags and not stakes.
2.20 The Rotary shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees
and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits,
including attorney fees, arising from or in connection with the Rotary's performance, or
nonperformance, of this Agreement, except to the extent that claims, injuries, damages,
losses or suits are caused by the sole negligence of the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a
waiver by the Rotary of the immunity provided under Title 51 RCW, but only to the
extent necessary to fully effectuate this promise. This provision shall survive the
termination and/or expiration of this Agreement.
Packet Pg. 9
2.21 The Rotary shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing insurance written on an
occurrence basis with limits no less than $2,000,000 combined single limit per
occurrence and $4,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property
damage. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General
Liability insurance policy and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional
insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall
contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against
whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's
liability. The City shall be named as an insured on the Rotary's General Liability
insurance policy. The insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to contain that the
Rotary's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance. Any insurance, or insurance
pool coverage, maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Rotary's insurance and
shall not contribute to it. The Rotary shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing
the required insurance before using the premises described herein. Insurance shall be
placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII.
2.22 The Rotary agrees to the following general open hours for Edmonds Oktoberfest:
Friday, September 20, 2019 6:00 p.m. — 10:00 p.m.
Saturday, September 21, 2019 11:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m.
The Rotary agrees to keep the hours of operation in the Beer Garden / Wine Garden
within the following schedule:
Friday, September 20, 2019 6:00 p.m. — 10:00 p.m.
Last call 9:30 p.m., no service after 9:45 p.m.
Saturday, September 21, 2019 11:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m.
Last call 9:30 p.m., no service after 9:45 p.m.
2.23 The Rotary shall provide any and all security services necessary during the night time
hours (night time hours being defined as those hours which the Event is not in
operation), sufficient to reasonably secure the area and facilities provided. The City shall
have no responsibility or liability for the provision of security services, nor shall it be
liable for any loss or damage incurred by the Rotary or the participants in the Event.
2.24 The Rotary shall provide fence installation and removal at the Beer Garden / Wine
Garden.
2.25 The Rotary is responsible for contracting with appropriate vendors for power beyond
what the City will provide, as outlined in section 1.16. Further, the Rotary will arrange
for a walk-through with the City Electrician to obtain approval for the accommodation of
power and electricity needs.
2.26 All requests for additional services and concerns of the Event shall be directed by the
Rotary President to the City's designated representative, Parks Deputy Director, who
may be contacted at 425-771-0230.
3. Miscellaneous
3.1 Entire agreement, integration and amendment. This Agreement contains the entire
agreement and understanding between the Parties relating to the rights and obligations
Packet Pg. 10
created hereby, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous negotiations,
understandings, and agreements, written or oral, between the Parties. Any prior
discussions or understandings are deemed merged with the provisions herein. This
Agreement shall not be amended, assigned or otherwise changed or transferred except in
writing with the express written consent of the Parties hereto. Any action to interpret or
enforce this Agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish
County, Washington, and the Parties agree that, as between them, all matters shall be
resolved in that venue.
3.2 Force majeure. The Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in
performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any
governmental authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or
delays in transportation, or due to any other cause beyond the Parties' reasonable control.
In the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the date of delivery or time
for completion will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome
the effect of such delay.
3.3 Relationship between the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to or in
fact create an agency or employment relationship between the Parties. No officer,
official, agent, employee or representative of the Rotary shall be deemed to be the same
of the City for any purpose. The Rotary alone shall be solely responsible for all acts of
its officers, officials, agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the
performance of this Agreement.
DATED this day of , 2019.
CITY OF EDMONDS: EDMONDS ROTARY CLUB:
David O. Earling, Mayor
Its:
Date:
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Pg. 11
Exhibit A: Site Map - INSERT MAP with Water location
u
L
r
C
O
U
O
W
.0
d
N
r
N
d
d
O
Y
0
R
r
O
N
C
O
E
W
J
Q
Z
LL
r
L
�O♦
V
d
d
O
0
a)
r
O
N
r
C
GN
E
t
V
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 12
Packet Pg. 13
1.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/13/2019
Report on Bids for the 84th Ave Overlay
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
None.
Staff Recommendation
Staff will evaluate the construction bids and provide a preliminary recommendation at the Committee
Meeting.
Narrative
On August 8, 2019, construction bids were opened for the 84th Ave. W Overlay project from 220th St.
SW to 212th St. SW. The bid results and a preliminary construction budget will be provided at the
Committee meeting on August 13th. The project consists of a full -width grind and pavement overlay
of 84th Ave. W, construction of new pedestrian curb ramps to meet the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements and replacement of a failing storm line between 216th and 220th Streets.
Solar -powered pedestrian -actuated beacons will be installed at the crosswalk directly in front of the
school.
The City secured a $691,200 federal grant through the Puget Sound Regional Council to complete
the design and construction of the pavement overlay and ADA ramp work. The grant requires a
13.5% local match that will be funded by the REET 126 Fund. The stormwater utility fund (422) will
pay for the replacement of the storm line and a portion of the overlay.
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Packet Pg. 14
8
4-211�hl A-r-\v-/enue Overlay
From 2121�h to 22Wh Streets
Project Limits
WIT
0 — � w
FiA
ate--+
(./) '! � �� .r,Ve�il�� �� �'��� �;r. ,i�+=;�y►t'.�1�k��r'.�1�'!•'�p; . � ,_-7�i- �IC.'._:�`•::sa—�•'���,-'- . I ��'.
d. - .ram _.�..���.� � , � �� . � , . _.] • �^ � - � -
'Tmew, f_
YA
o ZOZA I _L n��
' D
h a b
:s A4jkr - w `
90
0
y
O
d
I
m
y
t
.,
a
Its
1.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/13/2019
Alternatives Analysis for Willow Creek Daylight Project
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On January 22, 2019, staff presented the draft Alternatives Analysis to Council.
Staff Recommendation
Forward this item for a presentation at the August 27, 2019 City Council meeting.
Narrative
The City had previously contracted with Shannon & Wilson to develop pre -design information for the
Willow Creek Daylighting / Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project. The pre -design work spanned several
years, but ultimately concluded in production of the above referenced report, herein referred to as the
"alternative analysis" or "the report". Staff and the consultant will present a re -review of the
methodology of the report, and discuss in more detail, the recommendations made within the report.
Attached, is the text of the report body and one combined exhibit for the preferred alternative
(Alternative #6), only. The full text of the report, with its included exhibits and modelling results, is
nearly 150 pages long and filled with graphics; the length and file size limit our ability to easily share this
information. However the full report, along with the sediment and water quality sampling report which
was also included in the scope work, is available on the City website at the following link:
www.edmondswa.gov/willow-creek-daVlight.html <http://www.edmondswa.gov/willow-creek-
daylight.html>
The Willow Creek Daylight / Marsh Restoration Project is a project which seeks to restore the ecological
function of the Edmonds Marsh between SR-104 and Puget Sound. In order to accomplish this, the
project was really a series of three interrelated sub -projects, now looking more like four sub -projects as
notes:
1) Improve upland channels - this portion of work would improve the dendritic channels which
extend from the main channel up to the outfall sources to promote better flow depths and
velocities for fish passage and reduce sediment deposition through the marsh.
2) Marina Beach Park Daylighting - This is the required new portion of main channel through the
City -owned park west of the BNSF right-of-way; the channel will bisect the existing dog park and
add footbridges and other enhancements consistent with the existing parks master plan.
3) The daylight channel - This is the main portion of work which will excavate a new channel
between the existing storm pipe under Admiral Way and the pre -constructed bridge under BNSF
right-of-way. Daylight of the channel will include plantings and restoration work and may need
Packet Pg. 16
1.3
to address contaminated soils along the proposed alignment; this phase also includes
construction of a pile wall to fit within allowable space.
4) Flood control walls/berms - These additional berms are identified in the latest report as
necessary to eliminate the project tide gate; the berms are necessary to control flooding after
the hydraulics changes the project seeks to create, along with sea -level rise. See report for
more information; but berms may have additional wetland impacts which require mitigation.
With the possible exception of the flood control walls/berms, no sub -portion can move forward
independently of the others. Accordingly, it must be managed as a single project.
The project began with evaluation of several reasonable alternatives for possible alignments which
could be feasibly constructed at the site. Alignments 1 thru 4 were preliminarily evaluated for
feasibility. This step included consultation with Washington State Ferries, the future property owner of
the site on which a majority of the daylighting was to occur. Alignment 1 was essentially a straight
channel from point a to point B; it represented the options which was most feasible to construct and
with the fewest property constraints. Alternatives 2- 4 were varying degrees of channel sinuosity and
buffer averaging to consider for balancing habitat enhancement with feasibility and property
constraints. Alignment number 1 and number 4 were selected as the most feasible alignments, to
receive additional evaluation and hydraulic modelling. An additional fish habitat assessment was
provided by Confluence Environmental, and identified that Alignment 4 provided better habitat creation
opportunity, but still struggled with some velocity issues exceeding capabilities of juvenile salmon.
Through this initial phase, Alignment 4 was selected as the most appropriate alignment which could
possibly receive property owner approval, but still provide significant habitat upon project completion.
In order to address the remaining velocity concerns for Alignment 4, Alignments 5 thru 7 were
developed. Each of these alternatives utilize a channel sinuosity matching that of previous alignment
#4, but also incorporate a low flow bench to better manage low flows and still be able to handle flood
conditions. The differences between alignment 5, 6, and 7 were the edge conditions which help control
the flooding elements. The alignments assumed (5) no tide gate and no flood control berms, (6) no tide
gate with flood control berms, and (7) an automated tide gate and minimal flood control berms. All
three alignments addressed the velocity shortfalls found in alignment #4, but of these alternatives,
Alignment 6 provided the most fish access to the habitat the project would create. Accordingly
Alignment #6 has been selected as the preferred alternative to be used for beginning design of the
daylighting project.
It should be clear that specific habitat enhancement features are not identified or located at this phase.
The addition of the habitat enhancement features such as woody debris, rest pools, and vegetation,
would be evaluated and added during the next/design phase.
With left over grant funding, the City received approval to add an assessment of the impacts of sea -level
rise (SLR) to the scope of work. SLR would obviously impact the City at the sea-wall first and flooding
would come in directly from the Sound if the seawall is not raised in the future. In order to separate out
impacts to and from drainage, the model had to artificially assume that a raised sea-wall would isolate
the Sound from the upland areas. Raising the seawall is an undertaking the City will need to initiate in
the not so distant future. But modeling the remaining impacts of SLR allow us to confirm that we are
making the best decisions which ensure the longevity of project benefits. This information will also help
drive additional capital improvement projects which are needed to maintain the functionality of the
current system as higher levels in the Sound impact the ability of the drainage system to discharge.
Packet Pg. 17
1.3
The findings of this report and additional SLR analysis further confirm and refine what was already
identified in previous studies, in that that the Dayton Street, SR-104, Harbor Square, Shellabarger Marsh,
and Edmonds Marsh are intertwined and all work together as a collective system (under current
conditions). The Willow Creek Daylight project is only one of a series of projects which must occur in
order to restore the ecological functions of the marsh while still managing flood conditions which impact
the City's residents and businesses. The Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station project is one of those
projects, but additional projects to construct flood control berms, treat highway runoff, and possibly
control sediment level from Shellabarger Creek will need to be added to the CIP list; this will be
incorporated into the next Stormwater Comprehensive Plan update. Additional projects to remove
invasive plants, add/re-establish native plants, and/or modify woody debris placements to continue to
refine and improve the marsh habitat should also be anticipated for years following project completion.
Staff recommends Council accept this report as the final deliverable under the pre -design phase of the
Willow Creek Daylighting / Marsh Restoration Project. As the final deliverable, it will be used to inform
the design phase when it begins (pending availability of funding).
Attachments:
Willow Creek Report
Alternative 6
Packet Pg. 18
1.3.a
SUBMITTED TO:
City of Edmonds
Public Works Department
City Hall, 2nd Floor
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
BY:
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
400 N. 34th Street, Suite 100
Seattle, WA 98103
(206) 632-8020
www.shannonwilson.com
011 SHANNON &WILSON
=III SHANNON &WILSON
Submitted To: City of Edmonds
Public Works Department
City Hall, 2nd Floor
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Mr. Zach Richardson
1.3.a
Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Subject: REVISED EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT DESIGN
AND HYDRAULIC MODELING REPORT, WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT
PROJECT, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Shannon & Wilson prepared this report and participated in this Project as a subconsultant to
the City of Edmonds. Our scope of services was specified in Agreement Number 5940 with
the City of Edmonds dated December 18, 2012 and amended on November 1, 2016. This
report presents Willow Creek Daylight, Expanded Marsh Alternatives Concept Design and
Modeling and was prepared by the undersigned.
We are pleased to have the opportunity to assist you with this Project. If you have questions
about the contents of this letter, please contact me at (206) 695-6885.
Sincerely,
Shannon & Wilson, INC.
/20/19
David Cline, PE, CFM
Vice President - Hydraulic Engineer
CBB:CMH:DRC/dre
21-1-12588-050
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 20
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the hydraulic assessment of the Willow Creek daylight channel
alternatives. The City of Edmonds is proposing daylighting Willow Creek as part of the
Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project. The daylighting and marsh restoration Project will
provide access to non -natal juvenile Chinook, and other salmon species, for rearing and
foraging during critical out -migration periods and locations.
This study evaluates the Daylight channel alignment with channel habitat modifications and
the Project performance under extreme tide conditions and sea level rise (SLR) conditions.
The results of the study found that a sinuous channel, with a low flow habitat channel, large
woody debris (LWD), and wetland and riparian buffers provides beneficial habitat for
juvenile salmon meeting fish -passage (accessibility) criteria, as well as providing instream
and marsh connectivity habitat functions.
The study results for flood risks from the Daylight channel found that extreme King tides,
storm surges, and future SLR conditions may increase flooding along the BNSF Railway,
Harbor Square, and SR-104 as a result of Daylight Project. The study evaluated the Daylight
Project channel without flood protection measures, with select flood berms and floodwalls,
and tide gate structures. We found that the Daylight channel would need to include flood
protection berms (or floodwalls) and would ultimately reduce flood risks compared to
existing conditions.
The study findings recommend daylighting Willow Creek as part of the greater Edmonds
Marsh restoration. The Project would include a sinuous tidal channel, composite low -flow
channel with wetland benches, LWD, and robust wetland and riparian buffers. The study
recommends adding flood protection measures of flood berms or floodwalls along the BNSF
Railway, Harbor Square, and SR-104 areas.
In addition, the study found water and sediment quality issues in the marsh. Additional
actions, such as sediment contamination remediation, and water quality monitoring and
fecal coliform source studies, are recommended to restore and improve the marsh health
and ecosystem functions.
Overall, the Daylight Project will provide significant benefit to juvenile Chinook salmon and
other salmonid species as part of the Edmonds Marsh restoration Project. The Project cost
estimate range is $13.6 to $16.6M. The Project is a major undertaking by the City and will
necessitate leadership, partnerships, and significant funding resources to meet the
challenges of estuary and stream restoration of a unique and special resource in an urban
setting.
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 21
=III SHANNON &WILSON
1.3.a
Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................1
2 Site and Project Description......................................................................................................1
3 Scope of Services........................................................................................................................2
4 Expanded Marsh Design Alternatives....................................................................................2
4.1 Initial Daylight Alternatives 1 through 4......................................................................3
4.2 Modified Daylight Alternatives 5 through 7................................................................6
5 Hydraulic Modeling..................................................................................................................9
5.1 Terrain................................................................................................................................9
5.2 Geometry...........................................................................................................................9
5.3 Hydrology.......................................................................................................................11
5.3.1 Hydrologic Boundary Conditions for Initial Daylight
Alternatives1 and 4..........................................................................................11
5.3.2 Hydrologic Boundary Conditions for Modified Daylight
Alternatives5, 6, and 7.....................................................................................12
5.4 Hydraulic Modeling Results.........................................................................................14
5.4.1 Results for Initial Daylight Alternatives 1 and 4...........................................14
5.4.2 Results for Modified Daylight Alternatives 5, 6, and 7................................18
5.4.2.1 Alternative 5 - Meandering Daylight Channel,
Connection West of the Stormwater Pond, Moderate
Riparian Buffer, Complex Low -Flow Fish Habitat
Channel with Large Woody Debris (LWD), No Flood
Berms, Floodwalls, or Tide Gates/Floodgates..................................20
5.4.2.2 Alternative 6 - Meandering Daylight Channel,
Connection West of the Stormwater Pond, Moderate
Riparian Buffer, Complex Low -Flow Fish Habitat
Channel with Large Woody Debris (LWD), with Flood
Berms/Floodwalls, No Tide Gates/Floodgates.................................21
5.4.2.3 Alternative 7 - Meandering Daylight Channel,
Connection West of the Stormwater Pond, Moderate
Riparian Buffer, Complex Low -Flow Fish Habitat
Channel with Large Wood Debris (LWD), with Select
Flood Berms Along SR-104 and With Tide
Gate/Floodgate......................................................................................
22
■ 6 Fish Habitat...............................................................................................................................25
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
iv
Packet Pg. 22
Q
=III SHANNON &WILSON
1.3.a
Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
6.1 Fish Habitat Conditions for Initial Daylight Alternatives 1 and 4..........................25
6.1.1
Accessibility.......................................................................................................26
6.1.2
Instream Habitat................................................................................................29
6.1.3
Riparian Habitat................................................................................................30
6.1.4
Water and Sediment Quality...........................................................................30
6.1.5
Summary of Fish Passage Evaluation — Alternatives 1 and 4 .....................31
6.2 Fish Habitat Conditions for the Modified Daylight Alternatives 5, 6, and 7.........32
6.2.1
Accessibility.......................................................................................................32
6.2.2
Instream Habitat................................................................................................33
6.2.3
Water and Sediment Quality...........................................................................33
6.2.4
Flood Conditions...............................................................................................35
6.2.5
Summary of Fish Habitat Evaluation.............................................................35
7 Cost Estimates..........................................................................................................................36
8 Conclusions and Recommendations.....................................................................................38
9 Limitations
................................................................................................................................41
10 References.................................................................................................................................42
Exhibits
Exhibit 5-1: Spring (King) Tide with Stream Baseflows -
Existing Conditions .........................15
Exhibit 5-2: Spring (King) Tide with Stream Baseflows -
Alternative 1.....................................15
Exhibit 5-3: Spring (King) Tide with Stream Baseflows -
Low (Tidal) Flow Alternative 4 .....16
Exhibit 5-4: 100-Year Flow Existing Conditions............................................................................16
Exhibit 5-5: 100-Year Flow Alternative 1........................................................................................17
Exhibit 5-6: 100-Year Flow Alternative 4........................................................................................17
Exhibit 5-7: Low (Tidal) Flow Existing Conditions.......................................................................23
Exhibit 5-8: Low (Tidal) Flow Alternative 5...................................................................................23
Exhibit 5-9: Low (Tidal) Flow Alternative 6...................................................................................23
Exhibit 5-10: Low (Tidal) Flow Alternative 7.................................................................................24
Exhibit 5-11: 100-Year Flow Existing Conditions..........................................................................24
Exhibit 5-12: 100-Year Flow Alternative 5......................................................................................24
Exhibit 5-13: 100-Year Flow Alternative 6......................................................................................25
Exhibit 5-14: 100-Year Flow Alternative 7......................................................................................25
Q
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
v
Packet Pg. 23
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Exhibit 6-1: Percent Time Providing Suitable Fish Passage Conditions Met for Flood/Ebb
Tides.....................................................................................................................................................28
Tables
Table 1: Alternative 1 Cost Estimate
Table 2: Alternative 4 Cost Estimate
Table 3: 3a - Alternative 6 - Flood Berms Cost Estimate
3b - Alternative 6 - Flood Walls Cost Estimate
Table 4: 4 - Alternative 7 - Cost Estimate
Figures
Figure 1:
Vicinity Map
Figure 2:
Existing Conditions
Figure 3:
Alternative 1 Alignment and Buffers
Figure 4:
Alternative 2 Alignment and Buffers
Figure 5:
Alternative 3 Alignment and Buffers
Figure 6:
Alternative 4 Alignment and Buffers
Figure 7:
Typical Sections
Figure 8:
Alternative 5 Alignment and Buffers
Figure 9:
Alternative 6 Alignment and Buffers
Figure 10: Alternative 7 Alignment and Buffers
Figure 11: 11A -1% (100-Yr) SAIC Stream Flood Hydrographs, King Tide and King Tide
with Sea Level Rise Tidal Boundary Conditions
11B -1% (100-Yr) SAIC Stream Flood Hydrographs, Storm Surge Tide and
Storm Surge Tide with Sea Level Rise Tidal Boundary Conditions
Figure 12: 12A -1% (100-Yr) Anchor QEA Stream Flood Hydrographs, King Tide and
King Tide with Sea Level Rise Tidal Boundary Conditions
12B -1% (100-Yr) Anchor QEA Stream Flood Hydrographs, Storm Surge Tide
and Storm Surge Tide with Sea Level Rise Tidal Boundary Conditions
Figure 13: Modeling Nodes
Figure 14: 100-Year Flood Water Surface Elevation and Velocity Node 2 - Upstream of
BNSF Bridge
Figure 15: Late Spring Fish Habitat Water Surface Elevation and Velocity Node 2 -
Upstream of BNSF Bridge
Figure 16: 100-Year Flood Water Surface Elevation and Velocity Node 3 - Upstream of
Daylight Channel
21-1-12588-050
vi
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 24
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Figure 17: Late Spring Habitat Water Surface Elevation and Velocity Node 3 - Upstream
of Daylight Channel
Figure 18: 100-Year Flood Water Surface Elevation and Velocity Node 4 - Center of
Marsh
Figure 19: Late Spring Fish Habitat Water Surface Elevation and Velocity Node 4 -
Center of Marsh
Figure 20: 100-Year Flood Water Surface Elevation and Velocity Node 5 - Willow Creek
Downstream of Hatchery
Figure 21: Late Spring Fish Habitat Water Surface Elevation and Velocity Node 5 -
Willow Creek Downstream of Hatchery
Figure 22: 100-Year Flood Water Surface Elevation and Velocity Node 6 - Shellabarger
Creek Downstream of SR 104
Figure 23: Late Spring Fish Habitat Water Surface Elevation Velocity Node 6 -
Shellabarger Creek Downstream of SR 104
Figure 24: 24A - Existing and Alternative 1 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
24B - Existing and Alternative 1 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 25: 25A - Existing and Alternative 4 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
25B - Existing and Alternative 4 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 26: 26A - Existing and Alternative 1 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
26B - Existing and Alternative 1 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 27: 27A - Existing and Alternative 4 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
27B - Existing and Alternative 4 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 28: 28A - Existing and Alternative 5 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
28B - Existing and Alternative 5 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 29: 29A - Existing and Alternative 5 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
29B - Existing and Alternative 5 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
vii
Packet Pg. 25
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Figure 30: 30A - Existing and Alternative 5 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
30B - Existing and Alternative 5 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 31: 31A - Existing and Alternative 5 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
31B - Existing and Alternative 5 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 32: 32A - Existing and Alternative 5 - Storm Surge with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
32B - Existing and Alternative 5 - Storm Surge with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 33: 33A - Existing and Alternative 5 - Storm Surge with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
33B - Existing and Alternative 5 - Storm Surge with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 34: 34A - Existing and Alternative 6 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
34B - Existing and Alternative 6 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 35: 35A - Existing and Alternative 6 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
35B - Existing and Alternative 6 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 36: 36A - Existing and Alternative 6 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
36B - Existing and Alternative 6- King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 37: 37A - Existing and Alternative 6 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
37B - Existing and Alternative 6 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 38: 38A - Existing and Alternative 6 - Storm Surge with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
38B - Existing and Alternative 6 - Storm Surge with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 39: 39A - Existing and Alternative 6 - Storm Surge with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
viii
Packet Pg. 26
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
39B - Existing and Alternative 6 - Storm Surge with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 40: 40A - Existing and Alternative 7 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
40B - Existing and Alternative 7 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 41: 41A - Existing and Alternative 7 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
41B - Existing and Alternative 7 - King Tide with Late Spring Fish Habitat
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 42: 42A - Existing and Alternative 7 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
42B - Existing and Alternative 7- King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 43: 43A - Existing and Alternative 7 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
43B - Existing and Alternative 7 - King Tide with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 44: 44A - Existing and Alternative 7- Storm Surge with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
44B - Existing and Alternative 7 - Storm Surge with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 45: 45A - Existing and Alternative 7 - Storm Surge with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Inundation Depths (ft)
45B - Existing and Alternative 7 - Storm Surge with SAIC 1% (100-Yr) AEP
Inflow Hydrographs and Sea Level Rise, Maximum Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 46: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide Flood Depths and Velocities
Node 1- Outlet of Daylight Channel
Figure 47: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide with Sea Level Rise, Flood Depths
and Velocities Node 1- Outlet of Daylight Channel
Figure 48: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide Flood Depths and Velocities
Node 2 - Upstream of BNSF Bridge
Figure 49: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide with Sea Level Rise, Flood Depths
and Velocities Node 2 - Upstream of BNSF Bridge
Figure 50: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide Flood Depths and Velocities
Node 3 - Center of Daylight Channel
Figure 51: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide with Sea Level Rise, Flood Depths
and Velocities Node 3 - Center of Daylight Channel
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
ix
Packet Pg. 27
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Figure 52: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide Flood Depths and Velocities
Node 4 - Upstream End of Daylight Channel
Figure 53: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide with Sea Level Rise, Flood Depths
and Velocities Node 4 - Upstream End of Daylight Channel
Figure 54: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide Flood Depths and Velocities
Node 5 - Center of Marsh
Figure 55: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide with Sea Level Rise, Flood Depths
and Velocities Node 5 - Center of Marsh
Figure 56: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide Flood Depths and Velocities
Node 6 - Willow Creek Confluence with Marsh
Figure 57: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide with Sea Level Rise, Flood Depths
and Velocities Node 6 - Willow Creek Confluence with Marsh
Figure 58: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide Flood Depths and Velocities
Node 7 - Shellabarger Creek Downstream from SR-104
Figure 59: Late Spring Habitat Flows and King Tide with Sea Level Rise, Flood Depths
and Velocities Node 7 - Shellabarger Creek Downstream from SR-104
Appendix
Important Information
21-1-12588-050
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 28
=III SHANNON &WILSON
1.3.a
Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
2D
two-dimensional
AEP
Annual Exceedance Probability
cfs
cubic feet per second
City
City of Edmonds
FIPS
Federal Information Processing Standard
HAT
high astronomical tide
HDPE
high -density polyethylene
HEC-RAS
Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System
LiDAR
light detection and ranging
LWD
large woody debris
mm
millimeters
NAD
North American Datum
NAVD88
North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RCP
reinforced concrete pipe
ROW
right-of-way
SLR
sea level rise
SR
State Route
SRFB
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
SVOCs
semi -volatile organic compounds
Unocal
Union Oil Company of California
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WAC
Washington Administrative Code
WDFW
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WSDOT
Washington State Department of Transportation
WSEL
water surface elevation
Q
21-1-12588-050
A
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 29
=III SHANNON &WILSON
INTRODUCTION
1.3.a
Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
This report presents the hydraulic assessment of the Willow Creek daylight channel
alternatives. We have provided our services in general accordance with the Supplemental
Contract Agreement #5940 Supplemental Agreement No. 2, signed November 1, 2016.
2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek flow from the south and east to the west through
residential Edmonds, Washington (the City) (Figure 1). The two streams reach a confluence
at the Edmonds Marsh (the marsh) and are joined by local stormwater system outfalls from
State Route (SR-) 104, the Harbor Square commercial development, and the Point Edwards
residential development to the south. The marsh historically connected to the Puget Sound
through an open channel near Brackets Landing and later near the location of the Port of
Edmonds Marina. As the surrounding area has developed, the channel was piped along
Admiral Way to an outfall at Marina Beach Park (Figure 2).
The City has completed a feasibility study concerning the daylighting of Willow Creek
downstream of the marsh through land owned by Union Oil Company of California
(Unocal) with plans to transfer the property to the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) for the Edmonds Crossing Project (Shannon & Wilson, 2015). The
feasibility study's preliminary daylight alignment is a continuation of the straight portion of
the existing channel to a crossing beneath the BNSF Railway Company tracks at a bridge,
then through the Marina Beach Park (Figure 3). These daylighting efforts will re -introduce
tidal flows to the marsh, increasing beneficial flushing and promoting connectivity for
non -natal juvenile salmon habitat, among others.
For this study, the City and grant agencies are exploring an expanded restoration footprint.
The original feasibility study concept design Daylight channel, Alternative 1 in this report,
was a straight channel constrained by the BNSF right-of-way (ROW) to the west and the
future Edmonds Crossing WSDOT ferry crossing to the east on the Unocal property. The
City has contracted Shannon & Wilson to evaluate a more sinuous daylight channel
alignment through the Unocal property which is the planned location fo the WSDOT
Edmonds Crossing ferry parking areas. The goal of the additional hydraulic modeling
studies is to analyze available increases in habitat restoration area and effects of a more
sinuous channel on velocity, depth, and inundation areas within the marsh. This analysis of
a larger restoration footprint also involves a fish habitat study, quarterly water and annual
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 30
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
soil and sediment sampling in the potential expanded area, and sampling of the existing
channel for benthic macro -invertebrates to inform the design phase. This report concerns
the extended daylight grading, wetland habitat increases, cost estimate updates, and
hydraulic analysis.
3 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services includes performing a hydrologic and hydraulic (drainage) study to
evaluate the potential effects from daylighting Willow Creek via an expanded restoration
alternative. The draft drainage study tasks include:
■ Develop a conceptual expanded restoration plan (Selected Alternative) with input from
the City Public Works and Parks department and the Project team hydraulic engineer,
wetland scientist, and fish biologist.
■ Develop an alternative description, grading plan, cost estimate, and calculation of
habitat area increase for the Selected Alternative compared to the alternative described
in the feasibility study.
■ Perform hydraulic modeling of the Selected Alternative and provide depth, velocity,
and inundation information.
■ Provide a fish habitat summary of the Expanded Marsh Restoration Alternatives using
the hydraulic modeling results (memo to be provided at a later date).
4 EXPANDED MARSH DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Shannon & Wilson, in conjunction with the City, developed three initial concept daylight
channel alternative alignments and plans for review and comment by WSDOT Ferries.
These three alternatives were developed to expand upon the original straight daylight
alignment in the Feasibility Study. A goal of this study, and requirement of the Salmon
Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) grant, was to evaluate a sinuous channel planform and the
improved habitat benefits to fish. The original daylight alignment is straight and follows
the west side of the Unocal property parallel to the BNSF Railway. Alternatives 1 through 3
lay out the original daylight alignment (Alternative 1) and additional plans with increased
sinuosity with riparian buffers of differing widths (Figure 3-5).
A current constraint on the Project site, at the time of this report's scope of services and
contract period, are the plans by WSDOT Ferries to use Unocal property for the future
Edmonds Crossing location. Unocal will transfer the property to WSDOT Ferries upon
completion of the remedial investigation and site cleanup. Adding daylight channel
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 31
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
sinuosity and riparian buffers will widen the Project footprint and encroach into areas
shown on the WSDOT Ferries Edmonds Crossing plan having future structures, parking,
drop-off lanes, and stormwater infrastructure.
For these reasons, City staff and Shannon & Wilson met with WSDOT Ferries on November
8, 2017, to present the revised daylight Alternatives 1 through 3 below. WSDOT Ferries staff
provided feedback regarding an acceptable daylight channel and riparian buffer
configuration within the context of the future Edmonds Crossing Project. Alternative 4 was
developed based on the feedback from WSDOT Ferries and City staff at the meeting and is
described further below.
Having agreement by WSDOT Ferries on the Project plan is an important step for the
Project. Grant funding agencies are requiring the City to provide a Memorandum of
Understanding for WSDOT Ferries as the eventual landowner for working with the City to
develop the daylight Project. The grant agencies will not continue to fund the Project until
this agreement is in place.
We note that the daylight alternative alignment and grading plans described below can, and
will, be modified in future final design and permit phases of the Project. These adjustments
in the plans are anticipated based on the results of the hydraulic model and geomorphic
assessments, conditions of permits, technical feedback from the granting agencies, and most
importantly, feedback from the City staff, Council, and the Community of Edmonds.
4.1 Initial Daylight Alternatives 1 through 4
The initial daylight Alternatives 1 through 3 were presented by the City to WSDOT Ferries
below. As an outcome of the meeting, WSDOT Ferries provided comments regarding
parking area and stormwater pond footprint impacts, for which Alternative 4 was then
developed to perform the comparative hydraulic modeling analysis with Alternative 1.
■ Alternative 1- Straight daylight channel (Figure 3)
- Straight tidal channel planform (1,909 feet, 2.59-acre channel)
- Low sinuosity (one meander bend)
- Parallel to and abutting the BNSF Railway property at top of west bank
- 2.45-acre riparian buffer (in WSDOT Ferries area)
■ Zero buffer width to the west, zero acres (BNSF Railway)
■ 97-foot-wide average buffer width to the east, 2.45 acres (WSDOT Ferries)
- Minimum footprint impacting the WSDOT Ferries plan
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 32
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
■ Alternative 2 - Sinuous daylight channel through middle of stormwater pond with
moderate riparian buffer (Figure 4)
- Sinuous tidal channel planform (length 2,066 feet, 3.21-acre channel and stormwater
pond restoration)
- Higher sinuosity (six meander bends)
- Offset from BNSF Railway
- 4.93-acre riparian buffer (in WSDOT Ferries area)
■ 89-foot-wide average buffer width to the west, 2.70 acres (BNSF Railway)
■ 77-foot-wide average buffer width to the east, 2.37 acres (WSDOT Ferries)
- Channel through and restoring 1.45 stormwater pond area as wetlands (WSDOT
Ferries)
- Moderate footprint impacting the WSDOT Ferries plan
■ Alternative 3 - Sinuous daylight channel through middle of stormwater pond with the
largest riparian buffer (Figure 5)
- Sinuous tidal channel planform (length 2,032 feet, 3.31-acre channel and fill of
stormwater for shallow marsh area)
- Moderate sinuosity (four meander bends)
- Partially offset from BNSF Railway
- 8.33-acre riparian buffer (in WSDOT Ferries area)
■ 75-foot-wide average buffer width to the west, 2.24 acres (BNSF Railway)
■ 200-foot-wide average buffer width to the east, 6.00 acres (WSDOT Ferries)
- Channel through and full habitat restoration of stormwater pond area (WSDOT
Ferries)
- Maximum footprint impacting the WSDOT Ferries plan
■ Alternative 4 - Sinuous daylight channel with connection west of the stormwater pond
and moderate riparian buffer (Figure 6)
- Sinuous tidal channel planform (length 2002 feet, 1.79 acres and stormwater pond
connection as wetland restoration area)
- High sinuosity (six meander bends)
- Partially offset from BNSF Railway
- 4.32-acre riparian buffer (in WSDOT Ferries area)
■ 25-foot-wide average buffer width to the west, 0.78 acres (BNSF Railway)
■ 135-foot-wide average buffer width to the east, 3.53 acres (WSDOT Ferries)
- Channel connection on west side of stormwater pond with wetland restoration in
pond area
21-1-12588-050
4
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 33
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
- Moderate footprint impacting the WSDOT Ferries plan
Each of the alternatives above used the Typical Daylight Channel Section Without Habitat
Benches as shown in Figure 7. More complex channel geometry for habitat purposes was
analyzed in the subsequent, Modified Alternative, modeling studies. The initial daylight
cross section includes excavation of 15 feet bottom width and approximate 50 feet top width
channel with 2 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (2H:1V) side slopes. Excavation of native and fill
material along the alignment with backfill of clean fill over a high -density polyethylene
(HDPE) liner (as an option for potential contaminated zones), with streambed materials,
topsoil import, riparian, wetland marsh, and streambank plantings.
Each of the alternatives above has identical upstream tidal channel excavations in the
central area of Edmonds Marsh with invasive species treatment actions as part of the marsh
restoration plan.
The Project hydraulic modeling and fish habitat benefits of Alternatives 1 and 4 are
described in Sections 5 and 6 below. Shannon & Wilson submitted a report to the City in
September 2016 and Confluence Environmental in December 2017 that outlines the
modeling and fish habitat results for Alternatives 1 through 4. The results of these analyses
were used to inform development of the Modified Alternatives 5 through 7 described in the
following report section. A few key findings were as follows:
■ Both Alternatives performed similarly for the daylight channel and marsh hydraulics
■ Flooding for the alternatives occurs to the north from Shellabarger (Stella's) Marsh,
similar to existing conditions
Flood overtopping of the Harbor Square Berm and the BNSF Railway did not occur for
the hydrology and tidal boundary conditions modeled. The tidal and stormwater flood
water surface elevation (WSEL) of 12.0 feet provided only 0.1-foot of clearance at certain
low points along the Harbor Square berm and the BNSF Railway; larger tidal events
would likely be worsened for the Daylight Channel Project compared to existing
conditions.
Alternative 4 daylight channel sinuosity, length and complexity would provide better
habitat for fish. Additional complexity through benching and LWD would improve fish
habitat conditions.
■ Alternative 4 riparian conditions are minimal to the north (and west) and could be
expanded and improved to increase the buffer width along the BNSF Railway.
■ Water quality sampling performed by Shannon & Wilson (2019) indicates moderately
acceptable water quality conditions with a few exceptions.
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 34
1.3.a
011111 SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
o Certain water quality samples showed exceedances for fecal coliform, low
dissolved oxygen, high pH, copper and lead.
■ Heavy metal, copper and lead exceedances were limited by location
and temporarily, and do not appear to be persistent water quality
issues.
■ pH was characterized with low pH in winter periods at WC-02 and
WC-03, and high pH at multiple locations in September 2017. The
high pH measurements may be a data collection error. Additional
sampling is recommended to confirm pH conditions.
■ Dissolved Oxygen (DO) - Low DO was observed at only a single
time/location, and does not appear to be a persistent water quality
issue.
■ Fecal Coliform - High fecal coliform counts were observed at multiple
locations and monitoring periods, with very high fecal coliform
measurements made in late summer / early fall 2017. Fecal coliform
appears to be a more persistent water quality problem in Willow and
Shellabarger Creeks, Edmonds Marsh and Marina Beach Park
shoreline area. Additional monitoring and a Microbial Source
Tracking (MST) study is recommended.
o Sediment quality samples at WC-03, Harbor Square stormwater outfall area,
high volatile organic and semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs),
including diesel and gas range organics and polyaromatic hydrocarbon
compounds were observed. Additional stormwater and sediment quality
monitoring and sediment contamination remediation in this outfall area is
recommended.
The daylighting of Willow Creek will provide better fish passage for juvenile Chinook
and other fish species, unobstructed access into the Edmonds Marsh system for the first
time in many decades. The proposed restoration will provide access and suitable habitat
for juvenile Chinook salmon to support their rearing and growth. Of the two initial
alternatives evaluated, Alternative 4 would provide more and better habitat conditions
than Alternative 1. The sinuosity of Alternative 4 and expanded channel areas and
vegetated riparian corridor would provide substantially better habitat than Alternative
1.
4.2 Modified Daylight Alternatives 5 through 7
Three additional modeling alternatives were developed to address the concerns stated in the
previous report section, and to improve fish habitat and flood conditions for the Project
Alternatives 5 through 7. To start, each of the modified Project Alternatives tidal channel
cross sections were updated with a low -flow habitat channel and wetland benches with
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 35
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
placement of LWD throughout the channel to increase channel complexity, hydraulic
roughness and energy dissipation, and improve forage and habitat conditions for juvenile
fish (Figure 7 - Typical Daylight Channel Section - With Habitat Benches and Large Woody
Debris). These modifications provide increased low -flow depths and reductions in tidal
channel velocities, with cover for rearing and foraging, that benefit fish habitat conditions.
The second aspect of the modifications was related to evaluation of extreme tides, king tides
and tidal storm surge and future SLR conditions, which is described in more detail in
Section 5, Hydraulic Modeling, below. The concern with the Daylight Project is that the
current drainage system has a tide gate and smaller culverts that either block, or
substantially attenuate (reduce) tidal inflows into and water elevations in the marsh when
the tide gates are open. With the future Daylight tidal channel, attenuation effects will not
occur, and extreme tidal conditions could increase flood impacts along SR-104, Harbor
Square, and the BNSF Railway. In our modeling analysis described below, we found that
SLR conditions cause flooding along the Daylight channel and along the Port of Edmonds
and City's waterfront seawall. To evaluate the effects of the Daylight channel Project
separately, we assumed that the City will modify and increase the height of the seawall in
the future to accommodate SLR as a separate Project from this Daylight project. This
assumption allows us to delineate the flood effects of the Daylight Channel project from
flooding that occurs from overtopping of the seawall.
The Modified Daylight Alternatives 5 through 7 below address these fish habitat and tidal
extreme flood conditions, as described below:
■ Alternative 5 - Sinuous daylight channel with connection west of the stormwater pond
and moderate riparian buffer, no flood berms, floodwalls, or tide gates/floodgates
similar to previous Alternative 4 (Figure 8)
- Revised Daylight tidal channel geometry with a low -flow habitat channel, marsh
benches, and LWD.
- Raise seawall along Port and City waterfront assumed to take place in the future
- Sinuous tidal channel planform (length 1,945 feet, 2.84 acres, and 1.31 acre
stormwater pond connection as wetland restoration area)
- High sinuosity (six meander bends)
- Partially offset from BNSF Railway
- 4.92-acre riparian buffer (in WSDOT Ferries area)
■ 25-foot-wide average buffer width to the west, 0.74 acres (BNSF Railway)
■ 135-foot-wide average buffer width to the east, 4.18 acres (WSDOT Ferries)
- Channel connection on west side of stormwater pond with wetland restoration in
pond area
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 36
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
- Moderate footprint impacting the WSDOT Ferries plan
■ Alternative 6 - Sinuous daylight channel with connection west of the stormwater pond
and moderate riparian buffer, similar to Alternative 4, with floodwalls/berms (Figure 9)
- Revised Daylight tidal channel geometry with a low -flow habitat channel, marsh
benches, and LWD
- Raise seawall along Port and City waterfront assumed to take place in the future
- Floodwall/flood berms along BNSF Railway, SR-104 areas to prevent tidal storm
surge and SLR flooding
- Sinuous tidal channel planform (length 2,008 feet, 2.74 acres, and 1.31 acre
stormwater pond connection as wetland restoration area)
- High sinuosity (six meander bends)
- Partially offset from BNSF Railway
- 4.28-acre riparian buffer (in WSDOT Ferries area)
■ 10-foot-wide average buffer width to the west, 0.12 acres (BNSF Railway)
■ 135-foot-wide average buffer width to the east, 4.16 acres (WSDOT Ferries)
- Channel connection on west side of stormwater pond with wetland restoration in
pond area
- Moderate footprint impacting the WSDOT Ferries plan
■ Alternative 7 - Sinuous daylight channel with connection west of the stormwater pond
and moderate riparian buffer, similar to Alternative 4, with self-regulating tide gate /
flood gate (Figure 9)
- Revised Daylight tidal channel geometry with a low -flow habitat channel, marsh
benches, and LWD.
- Raise seawall along Port and City waterfront assumed to take place in the future.
- Floodgate/tide gate with self-regulating control set at closure elevation of 10 feet to
allow regular tidal flows and prevent extreme tides into the marsh area.
- Floodwall/flood berms along SR-104 to Dayton Street areas to prevent tidal storm
surge and SLR flooding.
- Sinuous tidal channel planform (length 1,925 feet, 2.84 acres, and 1.31 acre
stormwater pond connection as wetland restoration area)
- High sinuosity (six meander bends)
- Partially offset from BNSF Railway
- 4.92-acre riparian buffer (in WSDOT Ferries area)
■ 25-foot-wide average buffer width to the west, 0.74 acres (BNSF Railway)
■ 135-foot-wide average buffer width to the east, 4.18 acres (WSDOT Ferries)
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 37
=III SHANNON &WILSON
1.3.a
Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
- Channel connection on west side of stormwater pond with wetland restoration in
pond area
- Moderate footprint impacting the WSDOT Ferries plan
5 HYDRAULIC MODELING
The Shannon & Wilson Willow Creek Daylight Feasibility Study (2013) utilized
one-dimensional hydraulic modeling in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) 4.0 program (Anchor
QEA, 2015). For this Willow Creek Daylight Expanded Marsh Concept Design and
Hydraulic Modeling Report, we developed a new HEC-RAS2D (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 2016) model.
5.1 Terrain
The Initial Daylight Alternatives 1 and 4, HEC-RAS 2D model, utilizes light detection and
ranging (LiDAR) data from 2004, 2008, and 2012 combined with topographic survey at the
site. Grid cells for calculations and visualization were spaced evenly through the
two-dimensional (2D) modeling area at a 10-foot by 10-foot resolution. All data was set to
horizontal coordinate system North American Datum (NAD) 1983 StatePlane Washington
North Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 4601 (U.S. Feet) and vertical
coordinate system North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).
We updated the terrain with current LiDAR to better analyze extreme tide and SLR
conditions along the Edmonds waterfront seawall area. The modeling terrain was updated
for Alternatives 5 through 7 using a combination of 2014 and 2016 LiDAR, 2008 and 2015
topographic field survey. Terrain grids utilize a cell size of 1 foot horizontal and 1 foot
vertical. All data was set to horizontal coordinate system NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington
North FIPS 4601 (U.S. Feet) and vertical coordinate system NAVD88.
5.2 Geometry
Grading plans and surfaces for the two Initial Daylight Alternatives 1 and 4 hydraulic
models were developed using AutoCAD Civil3D and then exporting the surfaces
geographic information system. Grading was developed for the daylight channel,
stormwater pond and connections, and the tidal channel excavations and stream
connections farther upstream in Edmonds Marsh.
21-1-12588-050
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 38
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
These grading surfaces were imported into the HEC-RAS RAS mapper application and were
combined with LiDAR survey data from 2004, 2008, and 2012 terrain described above. The
2D modeling grid area was expanded from the feasibility study limits to include the Marina
Beach Park, the Unocal property, and the entire Edmonds Marsh and Shellabarger Creek
Marsh (Stella's Marsh) west of SR-104.
The system of stormwater culverts and tide gates downstream of the existing Willow Creek
channel were modeled using survey and as -built data provided by the City and as described
in the feasibility study (Shannon & Wilson, 2015). For the Existing Conditions model, the
tide gate is located in the stormwater pipe and vault system in the Marina Beach Park
parking lot. The tide gate is allowed to operate as a normal flap gate (opening/closing with
the tide) from November through March. From April through October, the tide gate is
chained open.
The following is a list of culvert sizes and locations used in the existing conditions
geometry.
■ Two 72-inch by 48-inch corrugated metal pipe arches beneath SR-104 (also in proposed
alternatives).
■ One 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) beneath berm upstream of BNSF Railway
(Note: The 36-inch culvert at this location is gated shut year-round.)
■ Two 42-inch RCP beneath BNSF Railway leading to Admiral Way (Port of Edmonds).
■ One 42-inch composite culvert from Admiral Way to the tidal outlet with a tide gate.
The modeling extents and geometry for the Modified Daylight Alternatives were
re -configured to capture the expected flood extents of extreme tides and year 2100 SLR tidal
boundary conditions. This included extending the modeling grid area to include the Port of
Edmonds along the seawall north toward the current -day WSDOT Ferry dock and
Brackett's Landing to capture tidal flooding and overtopping of the Port of Edmonds and
City's waterfront seawall. This was necessary to differentiate the flood effects from SLR
overtopping of the waterfront seawall and tidal flooding derived from the proposed Project
Daylight channel.
Hydraulic structures such as culverts and gates were modeled within the defined storage
area/2D connectors. Culvert data was entered based the previous HEC-RAS2D model and
updated using a combination of 2015 survey and data obtained from the Dayton Street and
SR-104 Storm Drainage Alternatives Study (SAIC, 2013).
A Manning's roughness coefficient shapefile was created for existing conditions based on
recent aerial imagery. The alternatives used a modified Manning's roughness coefficient
21-1-12588-050
H
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 39
=III SHANNON &WILSON
1.3.a
Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
shapefile that incorporated the daylight channel. Within the daylight, the roughness
coefficients alternated between regular channel and partially blocked areas to simulate LWD
installations within the channel for natural juvenile salmon habitat.
5.3 Hydrology
Hydrologic inputs for both the Initial Daylight Alternatives 1 and 4 and the Modified
Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 are described in this section of the report.
5.3.1 Hydrologic Boundary Conditions for Initial Daylight Alternatives 1 and 4
The hydrology inflows to the Project Daylight channel and Edmonds Marsh modeling
domain include upstream flow sources from Shellabarger Creek and Willow Creek,
stormwater inputs from Point Edmond, and the WSDOT SR-104 overflow. Downstream
hydrologic boundary conditions are tidal conditions of the Puget Sound. These hydrologic
inflows and boundary conditions were used with high tides under current conditions and
SLR conditions for year 2100 to evaluate present-day and future project performance. For
upstream flows, two sources of hydrologic inflows exist.
SAIC developed a watershed scale model of the marsh, stream, and stormwater system
using Hydrologic Simulation Program - FORTRAN for the City's improvements at Dayton
Street to the north (SAIC, 2013). This analysis provides 100-year peak flow estimates for
Willow and Shellabarger Creeks, Harbor Square, and the Point Edwards stormwater
inflows. For the Initial Daylight Alternatives 1 and 4, the inflow peaks from the SAIC report
were applied to a Soil Conservation Service Type IA distribution and the resultant
hydrographs were applied at their respective inflow locations at the edge of the HEC-RAS
2D modeling grid for both the 100-year flow or the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability
(AEP) event and for the low -flow conditions.
The downstream tidal boundary condition was replicated from the Feasibility Study as the
same two -week period of tidal activity, including a king tide (high astronomical tide [HAT])
of 10.7 feet NAVD88 (SAIC, 2013). In the Feasibility Study hydrology, the king tide aligns
with the initial peak of the 100-year storm. We evaluated the timing of the stormwater
inflow hydrograph to the timing of the crest of the HAT and the resulting tide gate closures
to identify a worst -case timing condition. Flood models were run for a peak 100-year storm
occurring 12 hours before the crest of the HAT. These shifted boundary conditions showed
minor increases in flood elevations throughout the system compared to existing conditions.
The tidal downstream boundary condition, and SAIC upstream stream flows and
stormwater peak inflow hydrographs, with a combined peak flow rate of 138 cubic feet per
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 40
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
second (cfs), were applied to the model as unsteady -state conditions for peak flows and
low -flow habitat spring juvenile fish migrations (Figures 11A and 11B).
Anchor QEA also developed a second model of stream inflows to the site. These peak
stream flows are 91 cfs followed by a 12-hour period of varying flow near 72 cfs before
tailing off down to a constant low flow. This peak of 91 cfs was estimated to be near the
100-year storm and 72 cfs was estimated to be an average annual storm event (Anchor QEA,
2015) (Figures 12A and 12B).
Anchor QEA developed low -flow inflows estimated at 0.8 cfs (0.5 cfs Shellabarger Creek
and 0.3 cfs Willow Creek). These design events were based on previous modeling by
Anchor QEA in 2007 and information in the SAIC stormwater modeling report (Anchor
QEA, 2013; SAIC, 2013). The low -flow event will be almost entirely driven by tidal inflows
and represents tidal inundation and wetland functions in existing and proposed conditions
during late spring and early summer when non -natal juvenile salmon would be present in
the system.
Shannon & Wilson modeled both the SAIC 1% AEP and the Anchor QEA 1% AEP events
with a two -week downstream tidal condition period, including a HAT. The hydraulic
modeling results discussed in Section 5.4 below use the SAIC 1% AEP flood event due to
our higher confidence in the flow rates from the SAIC stormwater model.
5.3.2 Hydrologic Boundary Conditions for Modified Daylight Alternatives 5, 6, and 7
Several combinations of upstream inflow and downstream extreme tide and SLR boundary
conditions were developed for Modified Daylight Alternatives 5, 6, and 7. The hydrologic
inflow and downstream tidal boundary condition combinations are outlined below:
Downstream Tidal Boundary Conditions - Tidal stage hydrographs (WSEL vs Time)
simulate downstream tidal elevations along the Daylight channel and the waterfront
seawall in the model. Three tidal boundary conditions were used.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2012 - Tidal data for the
Seattle, Washington, Elliot Bay (Station Identification: 9447130) gauge. The December
17, 2012 (16:00 hrs), was considered a representative observed extreme storm surge tide
event, with a peak tidal elevation of 12.12 feet (NAVD88). This event was utilized to
develop alternatives to flooding within the marsh and simulate the potential WSELs and
velocities the different analysis nodes might experience at a worst -case scenario.
King Tide (HAT) - This stage hydrograph was copied from the previous study
HEC-RAS 5.0.3 model. It is considered the yearly HAT of 10.7 feet NAVD88 (SAIC,
2013).
21-1-12588-050
WA
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 41
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
2100 SLR - The USACE Sea Level Change Curve Calculator (2017.55) was utilized to
predict possible increases in sea level by the year 2100. Using the calculator for the
Edmonds Marsh location, the NOAA Low to Intermediate and USACE Intermediate
SLR of 1.77 feet was selected for the Project. For our purposes, this number was
rounded to 2 feet. We note that the NOAA high and USACE high predictions estimate
SLR by 5 to 6.7 feet by year 2100. The tidal hydrograph elevation ordinates for the
NOAA 2012 event were increased by 2 feet to produce a year 2100 SLR downstream
boundary condition tidal elevation hydrograph.
Stormwater and Stream Inflow Conditions - Inflow hydrographs (flow vs time) were used
to simulate the influence of hydrologic runoff excess volume discharging into the marsh.
The inflow hydrograph data was utilized from the previous study and input into the HEC-
RAS 2D model relatively close to the same location as the previous study. Figures 11 and 12
present the NOAA 2012 and 2100 SLR tidal boundary conditions plotted along with the 100-
year (1% AEP) SAIC hydrographs.
■ Willow Creek at hatchery
- Low Flow - 0.68 cfs
- 100-year (1% AEP) SAIC - 48.55 cfs
- 100-year (1% AEP) Anchor QEA at peak - 77.27 cfs
■ Shellabarger Creek upstream of Stella's Marsh
- Low Flow - 0.13 cfs
- 100-year (1% AEP) SAIC - 72.84 cfs
- 100-year (1% AEP) Anchor QEA at peak -14.77 cfs
■ Dayton Street - Harbor Square Inflow just inside marsh
- 100-year (1% AEP) SAIC - 7.15 cfs - SAME AS DAYTON STREET
■ Marsh Internal with WSDOT Manhole Overflow inside marsh
- 100-year (1% AEP) SAIC - 9.63 cfs -SAME AS STORMWATER INFLOW FROM
DEVELOPMENT
■ Point Edwards Stormwater System within daylight channel
- 100-year (1% AEP) SAIC - 9.63 cfs
■ Dayton Street edge of mesh on Dayton Street -ONLY IN EXISTING CONDITIONS
- 100-year (1% AEP) SAIC - 7.15 cfs
Initial Conditions - Initial WSELs were used in the Edmonds Marsh submesh under
existing conditions for the NOAA 2012 and year 2100 SLR simulations. These initial WSEL
values simulate the water levels in the marsh at the time the simulation begins. The initial
21-1-12588-050
13
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 42
1.3.a
011111 SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
WSELs were calculated based on a tide -only simulation run and do not include the stream
and stormwater inflow hydrographs.
Hydrograph Lag - A 12-hour lag was applied to the inflow hydrographs for the NOAA
2012 and 2100 SLR flow data for the Alternative 7 scenario. This was to allow the marsh to
fill to 10 feet NAVD88, simulating tide gate closure, before the hydrograph peaks arrived
from Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek. This was necessary to simulate the worst case
conditions with respect to storage volume in the marsh.
5.4 Hydraulic Modeling Results
2D unsteady -state modeling runs were created representing existing conditions and
proposed conditions for Initial Daylight Alternatives 1 and 4 and the Modified Daylight
Alternatives 5, 6, and 7. The Initial Daylight Alternatives analyze the 100-year storm and
low -flow tidal habitat events. The Modified Daylight Alternatives analyze the 100-year
storm event with King and Storm Surge tidal conditions, and low -flow tidal habitat events,
including year 2100 SLR for these various boundary conditions.
5.4.1 Results for Initial Daylight Alternatives 1 and 4
2D unsteady -state modeling runs were created representing existing and proposed
conditions for Alternatives 1 and 4 for each of the 100-year storm and low -flow tidal habitat
events. The models predict velocity, depth, and WSELs across the site. Specific output
nodes listed below were used to frame the analyses (Figure 13).
1. Downstream tidal boundary
2. Upstream of BNSF bridge
3. Upstream end of daylight channel
4. Center of marsh
5. Willow Creek, downstream of the hatchery
6. Shellabarger Creek, downstream of the culvert crossing SR 104
Comparisons of the results for each geometry at the 100-year storm and low -flow tidal
habitat event are provided in Figures 14 through 23. Comparison maps of depths and
velocities for the existing and selected alternative are provided in Figures 24 through 27 and
Exhibits 5-1 through 5-6.
21-1-12588-050
14
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 43
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON
Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED
Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Exhibit 5-1: Spring (King) Tide with Stream Baseflows - Existing Conditions
Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Maximum
Node Average
1 0.00
Maximum Minimum Average
0.02 2.45 7.55
Inundation
Maximum (Acres)
13.13
2
Existing Conditions has no chann
3 0.21
0.50 0.00 2.58
3.22
20.8
4 0.00
0.02 0.00 0.00
0.06 0
L
5 0.07
0.08 0.00 0.20
0.22 a
6 0.01 0.31 0.00 2.98 3.52
NOTES:
Existing Node 1 is north of Node
1 for both proposed conditions. Node 2 in proposed grading area only.
ftls = foot per second
Exhibit 5-2: Spring (King) Tide with Stream Baseflows - Alternative 1
D.
Node Average
1 0.21
Xximum
1.42
Minimum
0.09
Average
2.20
Maximum
6.78
2 0.53
1.97
0.45
2.36
6.42
3 1.10
2.83
0.00
0.90
3.80
4 0.03
0.13
3.06
3.37
5.19
5 0.01
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.31
6 0.03
0.69
1.06
1.51
3.30
NOTES:
Existing Node 1 is north of Node 1 for both proposed conditions.
ftls = foot per second
27.4
Q
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
15
Packet Pg. 44
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Exhibit 5-3: Spring (King) Tide with Stream Baseflows - Low (Tidal) Flow Alternative 4
Velocity (ft1s) Depth
Inundation
Node Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum (Acres)
1 0.24 1.50 0.09 2.21 6.78
2 0.58 1.99 0.44 2.34 6.31
3
0.20
1.26
0.00
0.93
3.77
4
0.03
0.14
2.72
3.13
30.1
5.15
5
0.01
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.28
6
0.02
0.40
0.85
1.28
3.28
NOTES:
Existing Node 1 existing is north of Node 1 for both proposed conditions.
ftls = foot per second
Exhibit 5-4: 100-Year Flow Existing Conditions
k-00 Velocity (ft/s) MMF-
D.
1F
Node Average Maximum Minimum
1 0.00 0.00
2.51
Average
7.62
Maximum
13.19
2
3 0.07 0.33
0.00
1.84
4.26
4 0.00 0.15
0.00
0.08
1.24
5 0.06 0.66
0.00
0.18
1.24
6 0.02 0.53
0.00
3.53
4.87
NOTES:
Existing Node 1 is north of Node 1 for both proposed conditions. Node 2 in proposed grading area only.
ftls = foot per second
26.6
Q
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
16
Packet Pg. 45
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Exhibit 5-5: 100-Year Flow Alternative 1
1 0.23 1.57 0.08 2.20 6.78
2 0.53 2.01 0.42 2.38 6.43
3
0.65
2.27
0.06
1.16
4.13
4
0.05
0.90
2.93
3.26
29.3
5.19
5
0.04
1.70
0.00
0.01
0.42
6
0.05
1.20
1.06
1.60
3.44
NOTES:
Existing Node 1 is north of Node 1 for both proposed conditions.
ftls = foot per second
Exhibit 5-6: 100-Year Flow Alternative 4
..
Ok- Maximum LinimumML Avel,
1 0.23 1.56 0.08 2.20
6.78
2 0.60 2.08 0.38 2.33 6.33
3 0.17 1.05 0.00 1.09 4.12
31.1
4 0.06 0.96 2.62 3.06 5.18
5 0.03 1.72 0.00 0.01 0.41
6 0.05 1.20 1.02 1.43 3.44
2
c
Q
0
Q.
NOTES:
aYi
Existing Node 1 is north of Node 1 for both proposed conditions.
m
j
ftls = foot per second
c
Initial Daylight Alternative hydraulic modeling results show both Alternatives 1 and 4
perform similarly for hydraulic stormwater conveyance and flood conditions with no
measurable differences between Alternative 1 and 4, and results are summarize for both.
z
Hydraulic conditions for fish habitat and fish passage are described further in Section 6. A
a
summary of key observations from the Initial Alternatives hydraulic modeling include:
■ The daylight channel Project will have flooding along SR-104 at the north end of
Shellabarger (Stella's) Marsh toward the Dayton Street intersection.
■ SR-104 is not overtopped for the flood conditions analyzed at the 72-inch pipe arch
culvert crossings.
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
17
Packet Pg. 46
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Flood overtopping of the Harbor Square berm and the BNSF Railway along the northern
and western edges of Edmonds Marsh did not occur. However, modeled flood water
surfaces show near overtopping of the BNSF Railway and the Harbor Square berm
elevation.
■ The new daylight channel will have increased conveyance to drain stormwater inflows
from Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek, Harbor Square, and the WSDOT SR-104
manhole overflow compared to existing conditions on each tidal exchange.
■ The daylight channel has velocities predicted higher than 2 feet per second (ft/s) at the
Marina Beach Park area, which, if deep enough, could pose public safety risks.
5.4.2 Results for Modified Daylight Alternatives 5, 6, and 7
Hydraulic model simulations were computed for the Modified Daylight Alternatives 5, 6,
and 7 using the combination of hydrologic inflows and tidal boundary conditions described
above in Section 5.3.2. WSELs, depth, and velocities were calculated and output from the
model at the same seven output nodes as previous models.
We present detailed descriptions and hydraulic modeling figure outputs for each of the
Alternative 5, 6, and 7 in the following sections of the report. The following section
describes the modeling results for Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 and the various tidal/flood
scenarios. Comparison figures of existing to proposed conditions for depth and velocity for
each of the Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 are referenced in their respective results sections below
(Figures 28 through 45). Exhibits 5-7 through 5-14 present depth and velocity hydraulic
modeling numerical results and Figures 46 through 59, show existing and proposed Project
velocity and depth conditions at each of the following modeling nodes.
1. Downstream tidal boundary
2. Upstream of BNSF bridge
3. Center of daylight channel
4. Upstream end of daylight channel
5. Center of marsh
6. Willow Creek, downstream of the hatchery
7. Shellabarger Creek, downstream of the culvert crossing SR 104
The following are a few key findings for the Modified Daylight Alternative hydraulic
modeling results:
■ Alternative 5 — Daylight Channel with sinuosity, low -flow habitat channel, and LWD,
no flood berms/floodwall and no tide gate/floodgate.
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
18
Packet Pg. 47
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
- Alternative 5 provides beneficial increases in marsh inundation and connectivity.
The low -flow habitat channel and LWD complexes increased hydraulic roughness
and flow depths and reduced channel velocities, providing improved and suitable
habitat for fish.
- Alternative 5 without flood berms/floodwalls and without tide gate/floodgate
increase King tide and storm surge tide condition flooding along the BNSF Railway,
Harbor Square, and SR-104 and Dayton Street intersection.
- Alternative 5 is not a viable alternative as the Daylight Project, without flood
protection measures, would increase and exacerbate flood conditions for extreme
tide events and future SLR scenarios.
■ Alternative 6 - Daylight Channel with meanders, low -flow habitat channel, and LWD,
flood berms/floodwall and no tide gate/floodgate.
- Alternative 6 provides beneficial increases in marsh inundation and connectivity
similar to Alternatives 5 and 7. The low -flow habitat channel and LWD complexes
increased hydraulic roughness and flow depths and reduced channel velocities,
providing improved and suitable habitat for fish.
- Alternative 6 with flood berms/floodwalls and without tide gate/floodgate decreases
King tide and storm surge tide flood conditions along the BNSF Railway, Harbor
Square, and SR-104 and Dayton Street intersection.
- Alternative 6 is a viable alternative for the Daylight Project by providing flood
protection measures thereby improving and reducing flood risks for extreme tide
events and future SLR scenarios.
■ Alternative 7 - Daylight Channel with meanders, low -flow habitat channel, and LWD,
select flood berms/floodwall along SR-104 and tide gate/floodgate.
- Alternative 7 provides beneficial increases in marsh inundation and connectivity
similar to Alternatives 5 and 6. The low -flow habitat channel and LWD complexes
increased hydraulic roughness and flow depths and reduced channel velocities,
providing improved and suitable habitat for fish. The drawback for the tide
gate/flood gate is that the gates close at higher tide conditions and limit connectivity
and fish passage into the marsh during higher and extreme tide events.
- Alternative 7 with select flood berms/floodwalls and with tide gate/floodgate
increases King tide and storm surge tide condition flooding along the BNSF Railway,
Harbor Square, and SR-104 and Dayton Street intersection. The increase in flooding
over existing conditions is that the tide gates allow tidewater into the marsh up to
elevation 10 feet and current operations allow the tide gate to close on the incoming
tide at a much lower level, thereby providing more flood storage in the marsh.
- Alternative 7 for the Daylight Project has the self-regulating tide gate which does not
provide adequate flood storage in the marsh and has impacts for fish habitat
connectivity during higher and extreme tide conditions.
21-1-12588-050
ID
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 48
=III SHANNON &WILSON
1.3.a
Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
5.4.2.1 Alternative 5 - Meandering Daylight Channel, Connection West of the
Stormwater Pond, Moderate Riparian Buffer, Complex Low -Flow Fish Habitat
Channel with Large Woody Debris (LWD), No Flood Berms, Floodwalls, or
Tide Gates/Floodgates
Spring (King) Tide with Late Spring Habitat Flows and SLR (Figures 28A, 28B, 29A, and
29B) - Alternative 5 shows increases in marsh inundation footprint. The additional
inundation areas would provide benefit to fish habitat. We note that overtopping of the
BNSF Railway property that lies lower than the tracks occurs to the north along the Harbor
Square area. Depths in the main tidal channel downstream are as much as 6 feet, with the
maximum depths in the marsh about 3.5 feet. Maximum velocities in the marsh are low and
in the Daylight channel range from 2 ft/s up to more than 5 ft/s at the Marina Beach Park
daylight outlet on the ebb tide. Peak velocities appear to occur when flow depths on the
Daylight outlet are low, thereby not indicating a public safety issue. Peak velocities in the
Daylight channel upstream are on the flood and ebb tides. King tides with SLR of 2 feet
cause flooding of Dayton Street, Harbor Square, the BNSF Railway, and areas to the north
with the new Dayton Street pump station without the presence of a floodwall or flood berm
along the BNSF Railway and SR-104 areas. For inundation areas, depths, velocities, and
habitat conditions, neither Alternatives 5, 6, or 7 are substantially different between the
three alternatives for hydraulic performance conditions. This section provides the detailed
habitat benefit description for Spring Tide with Late Spring Habitat Flows hydraulic
conditions results for all the Alternatives 5, 6 and 7.
Spring (King) Tide with SAIC 1% AEP (100-Year) Flood and SLR (Figures 30A, 30B, 31A,
and 31B) - Alternative 5 shows flooding similar to existing conditions as a result of King
tides with a 100-year flood event. Velocity conditions are similar to the spring tide event
described above. Without a floodwall or flood berm along the BNSF Railway and SR-104,
the King tide with 100-year flood event and SLR would increase flooding of the Dayton
Street/SR-104 intersection, Harbor Square, and the BNSF Railway, which is an unacceptable
outcome for this alternative. Additional floodwalls or flood berms are needed to prevent
Daylight channel flood increases with future SLR. Alternative 5 would cause extreme tide
flooding of adjacent infrastructure and property, as a result of the Daylight Project.
Storm Surge with SAIC 1% AEP (100-Year) Flood and SLR (Figures 32A, 32B, 33A, and
33B) - Alternative 5 shows flooding similar, and slightly greater than, existing conditions as
a result of storm surge tides with a 100-year flood event. Velocity conditions are similar to
the spring tide event described above. Without a floodwall or flood berm along the BNSF
Railway and SR-104, the storm surge tide with 100-year flood event and SLR would increase
21-1-12588-050
20
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 49
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
flooding of the Dayton Street/SR-104 intersection, Harbor Square, and the BNSF Railway,
which is an unacceptable outcome for this alternative. Additional floodwalls or flood berms
are needed to prevent Daylight channel flood increases with future SLR.
5.4.2.2 Alternative 6 - Meandering Daylight Channel, Connection West of the
Stormwater Pond, Moderate Riparian Buffer, Complex Low -Flow Fish Habitat
Channel with Large Woody Debris (LWD), with Flood Berms/Floodwalls, No
Tide Gates/Floodgates
Spring (King) Tide with Late Spring Habitat Flows and SLR (Figures 34A, 34B, 35A, and
35B) - Alternative 6 shows increases in marsh inundation footprint. For inundation areas,
depths, velocities, and habitat conditions, neither Alternatives 5, 6, or 7 are substantially
different between the three alternatives for hydraulic performance conditions. Refer to
Alternative 5 Spring Tide with Late Spring Habitat Flows for more detailed information on
hydraulic conditions results.
Spring (King) Tide with SAIC 1% AEP (100-Year) Flood and SLR (Figures 36A, 36B, 37A,
and 37B) - Alternative 6 shows substantially reduced flooding compared to existing
conditions as a result of King tides with a 100-year flood event as a result of installing a
flood berm/floodwall along the BNSF Railway, Harbor Square, and SR-104 areas. The
portion of flooding that occurs near the SR-104 and Dayton Street intersection is from the
Dayton Street stormwater inflows, which now and in the future will be accommodated by
the City's new stormwater pump station planned for construction in 2019. Velocity
conditions are similar to the spring tide event described above. The flood berm/floodwall
structures also provide protection from SLR tidal flooding and show substantial reductions
in flooded areas along the BNSF Railway, Harbor Square, and SR-104 compared to
Alternative 5 in (Figure 34A vs. Figure 31A) discussed above. Again, the residual flooding
in Dayton Street and Harbor Square is from Dayton Street stormwater inflows that will be
handled by the new pump station.
Storm Surge with SAIC 1% AEP (100-Year) Flood and SLR (Figures 38A, 38B, 39A, and
39B) - Alternative 6 shows substantially reduced flooding compared to existing conditions
as a result of storm surge tides with a 100-year flood event as a result of installing a flood
berm/floodwall along the BNSF Railway, Harbor Square, and SR-104 areas. The hydraulic
modeling results for storm surge condition are similar to the flood improvements for
current and future SLR conditions from storm surge tide conditions with a 100-year flood
event described in the previous paragraph.
21-1-12588-050
21
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 50
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
5.4.2.3 Alternative 7 - Meandering Daylight Channel, Connection West of the
Stormwater Pond, Moderate Riparian Buffer, Complex Low -Flow Fish Habitat
Channel with Large Wood Debris (LWD), with Select Flood Berms Along
SR-104 and With Tide Gate/Floodgate
Spring (King) Tide with Late Spring Habitat Flows and SLR (Figures 40A, 40B, 41A, and
41B) - Alternative 7 shows increases in marsh inundation footprint. The floodgate would be
completely open during spring tide conditions for fish habitat purposes. For inundation
areas, depths, velocities, and habitat conditions, neither Alternatives 5, 6, or 7 are
substantially different between the three alternatives for hydraulic performance conditions.
Refer to Alternative 5 Spring Tide with Late Spring Habitat Flows for more detailed
information on hydraulic conditions results. The primary difference with Alternative 7 is
that the tide gate is closed at higher water levels, thereby causing a fish passage barrier in
these conditions.
Spring (King) Tide with SAIC 1% AEP (100-Year) Flood and SLR (Figures 42A, 42B, 43A,
and 43B) - Alternative 7 shows the floodgate closing at elevation 10 feet (NAVD88) with
moderate improvements in reducing flooding compared to existing conditions for King
tides with a 100-year flood event. Less flooding occurs along the SR-104 flood berm, but
minor flooding does occur along the BNSF Railway leading to the Harbor Square area on
the west side of the marsh. Velocity conditions are similar to the spring tide event described
above. The floodgate with select flood berms along SR-104 provide reductions in flooding
from SLR tidal flooding along SR-104 with some flooding occurring along the BNSF Railway
leading to the Harbor Square area on the west side of the marsh. The residual flooding in
Dayton Street and Harbor Square is from Dayton Street stormwater inflows that will be
handled by the new pump station.
Storm Surge with SAIC 1% AEP (100-Year) Flood and SLR (Figures 44A, 44B, 45A, and
45B) - Alternative 7 shows substantially reduced flooding compared to existing conditions
for storm surge tides with a 100-year flood event as a result of installing a flood
berm/floodwall along the BNSF Railway, Harbor Square, and SR-104 areas. The hydraulic
modeling results for storm surge condition are similar to the flood improvements for
current and future SLR conditions from storm surge tide conditions with a 100-year flood
event described in the previous paragraph.
We note that the Alternative 7 floodgate performance is problematic when considering the
alternative flood hydrology described by Anchor QEA (2015) with a 12-hour stormwater
flood peak and extended falling limb hydrograph. This type of hydrograph increases
overall flow volumes filling the storage areas and causes flooding along the BNSF Railway,
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
22
Packet Pg. 51
=III SHANNON &WILSON
1.3.a
Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Harbor Square, and SR-104. The flooding from this hydrology scenario is similar to existing
conditions flooding and thereby negates the intended benefit of the floodgate.
Exhibit 5-7: Low (Tidal) Flow Existing Conditions
Velocity (ft/s) Depth (ft) Maximum
Inundation
Node Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum (Acres)
1 0.01 0.07 0.00 1.86 6.32
2
3 0.23 1.29 0.00 0.97 1.50
13.4
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.98 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00
NOTES:
Node 2 in proposed grading area only.
fUs = foot per second
Exhibit 5-8: Low (Tidal) Flow Alternative 5
Velocity (ft/s)
D.
Node Average Maximum
1 1.59 5.63
Minimum
0.00
Average
2.15
Maximum
6.62
2 0.60 1.20
1.17
2.63
6.07
3 0.50 1.97
0.00
1.88
3.35
4 0.06 0.31
0.18
2.07
3.55
5 0.00 0.01
0.24
2.07
3.57
6 0.02 0.92
0.00
1.52
3.14
Exhibit 5-9: Low (Tidal) Flow Alternative 6
1
0.96
5.97
0.00
2.09
6.62
2
0.59
1.19
1.17
2.63
6.07
3
0.49
1.95
0.00
1.88
3.35
4
0.06
0.32
0.70
2.58
4.07
5
0.00
0.02
0.27
2.10
3.60
6
0.03
1.07
0.00
1.57
3.20
L
m
a
21.7 r-
21.7
Q
21-1-12588-050
23
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 52
=III SHANNON &WILSON
Exhibit 5-10: Low (Tidal) Flow Alternative 7
1.3.a
Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
1
1.08
5.90
0.00
2.06
6.62
2
0.59
1.15
1.17
2.64
6.09
3
0.50
1.84
0.00
1.90
3.32
4
0.06
0.34
0.55
2.45
3.89
5
0.00
0.02
0.26
2.11
3.55
6
0.03
1.08
0.00
1.61
2.98
21.5
Exhibit 5-11: 100-Year Flow Existing Conditions
(ft/s)
DepthVelocity
Node Average Maximum Minimum
1 0.01 0.07
0.00
Average
1.99
Inundal
Maximum (Acre,
6.52
2
3 0.30 1.37
0.00
1.51
3.72
35.9
4 0.00 0.11
0.00
0.05
0.87
5 0.08 0.42
0.00
0.05
0.41
6 0.83 0.94 0.00 4.42 4.65
NOTE:
Node 2 in proposed grading area only.
Exhibit 5-12: 100-Year Flow Alternative 5
DepthVelocity (ft/s)
Node Average Maximum Minimum Average Maxim:
1 1.87 6.58 0.00 2.11 6.62
2 0.62 1.44 1.18 2.76 6.10
3 0.53 1.93 0.00 2.15 4.33
37.3
4 0.11 0.81 0.39 2.71 4.90
5 0.01 0.06 0.17 2.40 4.57
6 0.04 0.20 0.00 1.81 3.97
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
24
Packet Pg. 53
Q
1.3.a
01111 SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Exhibit 5-13: 100-Year Flow Alternative 6
1 1.60
2 0.67
7.23 0.00 2.16 6.62
1.56 1.18 2.76 6.10
3
0.53
1.94
0.00
2.15
4.37
4
0.10
0.74
0.59
2.91
31.7
5.14
5
0.00
0.03
0.15
2.36
4.59
6
0.07
0.33
0.00
1.47
3.70
Exhibit 5-14: 100-Year Flow Alternative 7
Average Maximum Minimum Averai,
1 1.93 6.69 0.00 2.07
2 0.68 1.53 1.18 2.76
6.62
6.11
3 0.53 1.81 0.00 2.17 4.35
31.6
4 0.10 0.73 0.53 2.87 5.07
5 0.00 0.04 0.18 2.40 4.59
6 0.05 0.23 0.00 1.91 4.10
6 FISH HABITAT
r-
0-
Paul Schlenger (formerly Confluence Environmental now with Environmental Science
Y
d
;v
Associates) is a Puget Sound shoreline fish habitat expert that reviewed and provided input
3
on the Initial and Modified Daylight Alternatives. His findings and recommendations are
c
summarized in the following sections of the report.
6.1 Fish Habitat Conditions for Initial Daylight Alternatives 1 and 4
c
a�
This evaluation of the fish habitat conditions provided by the alternatives being considered
a
for the Willow Creek Daylighting Project focused on conditions for juvenile Chinook
salmon who are listed in the Endangered Species Act as threatened and are a focus of
recovery efforts throughout Puget Sound. Adult Chinook will not spawn in a stream
system such as the Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek complex because they require
larger streams and rivers (e.g., Snohomish River). However, juvenile Chinook salmon have
been documented to outmigrate from their natal rivers and use the estuaries, marshes, and
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
25
Packet Pg. 54
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
lower stream areas in smaller streams like those provided in Edmonds Marsh (Beamer and
others, 2003; Beamer 2006; Hirschi and others, 2003). Juvenile Chinook move along the
shoreline of Puget Sound and would potentially use the Edmonds Marsh during the spring
and when they are of sizes typically between 2.5 and 4 inches (approximately 60 to 90
millimeters). The habitat conditions that are favorable for juvenile Chinook are similar to
those of other juvenile salmon species (e.g., Coho); therefore, this evaluation can be
considered indicative of benefits to juvenile salmon.
■ The potential fish habitat conditions provided by the proposed alternatives were
evaluated through consideration of four components:
- Accessibility - ability for juvenile salmon to move into an area based on water
velocity and depth
- Instream habitat - quality and quantity of suitable aquatic habitats to support
juvenile salmon rearing
- Riparian habitat - quality and quantity of upland habitats adjacent to the instream
habitats
- Water and sediment quality - condition of basic water quality parameters and
contaminants, as well as sediment contaminant chemistry
6.1.1 Accessibility
As noted above, the juvenile Chinook salmon that the restoration is targeting will access the
marsh by moving into the daylighted Willow Creek channel from Puget Sound. Their
ability to move into the restored habitats is dependent upon their swimming abilities and
habitat preferences for water depth, which are both influenced by their body size.
Fish passage requirements are less clear in tidal areas compared to freshwater streams
(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW] Water Crossing Design Guidelines
(Barnard and others, 2013). The law requires that fish passage is provided at manmade
barriers, such as water crossings (Revised Code of Washington (State) 77.57.030), but it is
not clear how efficiently or continuous over time that passage needs to be provided
(Barnard and others, 2013). In the case of the Willow Creek Daylight, the Project will
remove a significant barrier that was installed by the Port of Edmonds when they rerouted
the stream in the 1950s.
Questions then remain regarding the Daylight channel design and the future velocity,
depth, cover, and temperature conditions. The complication of fish passage in tidal
environments is that access to or through intertidal habitats is naturally intermittent because
of tidal processes. In tidal environments, the exchange of water into and out of coastal
21-1-12588-050
26
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 55
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
marshes, lagoons, and embayments can naturally have periods of time when depths are too
shallow and velocities are too fast.
Design guidelines or evaluation guidelines for providing suitable conditions for fish access
have not been fully developed for tidal environments such as the Willow Creek Daylighting
Project or for fish the size of the juvenile Chinook salmon entering from Puget Sound.
Although not strictly applicable in tidal settings like the Willow Creek Daylight channel, the
criteria established in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 220-110-070 for culverts
in freshwater provides a basis of comparison for the anticipated fish passage conditions for
the proposed alternatives. The data and fish passage criteria in the WAC closest to the
expected juvenile Chinook, between 2.5 and 4 inches, that will enter the Daylight Channel
are 6-inch trout. Given the larger size of the trout, they will have greater swim abilities than
the smaller juvenile Chinook and can therefore be expected to be able to swim against faster
water velocities than juvenile Chinook. For 6-inch adult trout, the WAC establishes a
minimum depth of 0.8 foot and a minimum hydraulic drop (step) of 0.8 foot. The maximum
velocity criteria are based on fish navigating various culvert lengths listed below.
■ For culverts less than 100 feet in length, the maximum velocity is 4.0 ft/s,
■ For culverts 100 to 200 feet long, the maximum velocity is 3.0 ft/s, and
■ For culverts longer than 200 feet, the maximum velocity is 2.0 ft/s.
Barnard and others (2013) provides additional guidance on velocities in culverts related to
juvenile salmon size. Barnard and others (2013) references a previous WDFW report on fish
passage through culverts that recommended design criteria for juvenile salmon greater than
2.4 inches (60mm) to be 1.3 ft/s (Powers and Bates, 1997). This is approximately the size that
juvenile Chinook potentially entering the restoration site will be. The Powers and Bates
(1997) velocity is a recommendation that is not a codified design requirement. Barnard and
others (2013) also notes that the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe reports, based on a review of ten
references, that the maximum velocity for juvenile salmon passage through culverts was
found to be 1.0 ft/s with a range of 0.5 to 2.0 ft/s.
The fact that these criteria were established for freshwater culverts is a significant difference
from the proposed daylighted channel and marsh, because there are design elements for
habitat complexity that can change generally uniform velocity conditions into a series of
pools and riffles providing variable velocity conditions. The habitat complexity elements of
the design will further benefit fish passage conditions with respect to fish accessibility,
velocity, and depth criteria.
For this evaluation, hydraulic modeling output presented in Section 5.4.1 was analyzed for
fish accessibility conditions of Alternative 1 (straight channel) and Alternative 4
21-1-12588-050
27
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 56
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
(sinuous/meandering channel). Fish passage conditions were evaluated assuming typical
spring freshwater flows from the two creeks (0.8 cfs baseflows) entering Edmonds Marsh
and the observed tidal exchange over a 14-day period. Depth and velocity outputs were
analyzed at Node 2 in the downstream end of the daylighted channel (just upstream from
bridge under railroad). For spring tide and stream flow conditions, the maximum water
velocities flowing out of the daylighted channel were about 2 ft/s for Alternative 1 and
Alternative 4. In both alternatives, the minimum depths were predicted to be 0.4 foot and
water depths were predicted to be less than 0.8 foot about 30% of the time.
Analyzing the depth and velocity guidelines to the model outputs for Alternative 1, during
spring tide habitat conditions, we estimate fish accessibility 60% of the time where water
depths will be greater than 0.8 foot and ebb velocities less than 1.0 ft/s. Performing the same
analysis for Alternative 4 meandering channel, we estimate fish accessibility only 45% of the
time. In this most conservative evaluation of fish passage conditions, Alternative 1 provides
better fish accessibility for small fish such as juvenile Chinook salmon more frequently than
Alternative 4.
A similar difference between alternatives is predicted when evaluating velocities less than
1.3 ft/s and water depths greater than 0.8 foot. Alternative 1 is predicted to meet the
velocity criteria 68% of the time whereas Alternative 4 is predicted to meet the velocity
criteria 54% of the time. The difference between the alternatives is greatly reduced when
running the analysis with thresholds of 2.0 ft/s velocities and 0.8-foot water depths.
Alternative 1 is predicted to provide those conditions during 70% of the time whereas
Alternative 4 is predicted to do so 68% of the time.
Exhibit 6-1: Percent Time Providing Suitable Fish Passage Conditions Met for Flood/Ebb Tides
Depth >0.8 ft, Velocity <1.0 ft/s 60% 45%
Depth >0.8 ft, Velocity <1.3 ft/s 68% 54%
Depth >0.8 ft, Velocity <2.0 ft/s 70% 68%
A portion of the time not meeting the criteria described above is during the incoming (flood)
tide. We assumed that fish passage is provided at all times during a rising tide and when
water depths exceed 0.8 foot and velocities are less than 1.0 ft/s, then Alternative 1 is
predicted to provide suitable conditions during 67% of the time and Alternative 4 during
57% of the time.
Overall, during typical spring conditions, Alternative 1 is predicted to provide fish access
during more of the time than Alternative 4. As noted earlier, both alternatives provide the
opportunity to incorporate into the design instream features (e.g., large wood) that will slow
21-1-12588-050
28
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 57
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
velocities and improve passage conditions. The sinuosity of Alternative 4 provides more
opportunities for such design features; therefore, it is expected that the fish passage
conditions provided by either alternative will be nearly equivalent, especially considering
Modified Daylight Alternatives that have increased channel complexity that will address
low -flow depths and high -velocity conditions.
6.1.2 Instream Habitat
The quantity and quality of aquatic habitat will affect the likelihood of juvenile Chinook
salmon entering the Edmonds Marsh system and potentially remaining in the system
during multiple tidal cycles. The depth and velocity conditions are some of the parameters
affecting the quantity and quality of habitat. These parameters were already summarized
above and provide suitable conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon throughout much of the
tidal cycle; therefore, this evaluation of habitat quantity and quality focuses on other aspects
of instream habitat. At this early design stage of alternative development, indicators of
habitat quantity are more developed than indicators of habitat quality, which are design
features to be added in later design phases.
Habitat quantity can be interpreted based on the estimated channel lengths and inundated
areas provided by the different alternatives. As noted above, the juvenile Chinook salmon
that are expected to use Edmonds Marsh will originate in large rivers and move into the
marsh as they outmigrate along the Puget Sound shoreline. The most likely habitats to be
occupied by juvenile Chinook are in the entrance channel to the marsh. Since Alternative 1
is a straight channel and Alternative 4 is a sinuous channel, Alternative 4 would provide a
longer channel and increased quantity of usable fish habitat.
Both alternatives will provide access to the tidal marsh habitat provided by Edmonds
Marsh. Alternative 4 provides a larger inundation area due to the expanded wetland
restoration area at the upstream end of the entrance channel. The expanded restoration
occurs in the current stormwater pond on the south edge of the marsh and if incorporated
into the Project would provide approximately 2.7 acres more habitat than Alternative 1.
The quality of aquatic habitat in the entrance channel will be strongly influenced by design
elements (e.g., channel shape and size and large wood placement) that will be developed in
subsequent design phases. The sinuosity of Alternative 4 will allow for substantially greater
opportunities to create complex habitat that includes pools that will benefit juvenile
Chinook salmon. Juvenile Chinook are expected to use pools in the Daylight entrance
channel as lower -velocity areas where they do not expend as much energy, to prey upon
food delivered in water exiting the marsh, and to occupy during low -tide periods when
much of the marsh has drained. Alternative 1 can support some of the design elements
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
29
Packet Pg. 58
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
described above but will provide less areas for these opportunity to provide complex habitat
for juvenile Chinook salmon.
6.1.3 Riparian Habitat
The establishment of a vegetated riparian corridor is a significant component of the Project
restoration to provide high -functioning rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. The
functions of a vegetated riparian corridor along the Daylight entrance channel will include
shading of the aquatic areas, input of terrestrial insects and organic matter contributing to
prey base, infiltration of stormwater runoff from surrounding areas, and providing a barrier
between the creek and surrounding areas that can reduce disturbances to fish.
Both alternatives provide beneficial improvements to the riparian corridor that will benefit
juvenile salmon. Both alternatives include a relatively wider riparian buffer along the south
and eastern margin of the Daylight entrance channel that will provide the benefits listed
above. Alternative 4 has a wider average buffer width of 135 feet compared to the
Alternative 1 average buffer width of 97 feet to the south. Alternative 4 has a substantially
wider north (western) average buffer width of 25 feet for compared with a zero -foot average
buffer width for Alternative 1. Alternative 4 provides increased quantity of riparian buffer
and continuity in the buffer on both sides of the Daylight channel.
6.1.4 Water and Sediment Quality
At the time of the review of Alternatives 1 and 4 configurations, water and sediment quality
sampling data were provided by Shannon & Wilson (2019) sampling events from December
2016, March 2017, and June 2017. Basic water quality parameters of fecal coliform,
temperature, and dissolved oxygen and metals from seven sampling stations distributed
around the marsh and contributing creeks. The initial data from these sampling events
allows for some preliminary interpretation of water quality conditions. Additional
sampling events from the full set of water and sediment quality sampling are described
further in Section 6.2.4 below.
The initial water quality data show favorable water quality conditions throughout the
marsh for all parameters with two exceptions: fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen. Fecal
coliform bacteria levels that exceeded water quality criteria at multiple stations during
multiple sampling events.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations were very low (<4 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) at the
station located near the Harbor Square outfall (WC-03) during both the December 2016 and
June 2017 sampling events. Dissolved oxygen concentrations also did not meet water
quality criteria at multiple stations in June 2017.
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
30
Packet Pg. 59
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Sediment quality sampling conducted by Shannon & Wilson in June 2017 provides data on
sediment chemistry at the same stations as were sampled for water quality. The data from
one station located near the Harbor Square outfall (WC-03) had concentrations of numerous
SVOCs that exceeded freshwater sediment standards. Also, at station WC-03, two
petroleum compounds were present in concentrations exceeding freshwater sediment
standards. The SVOCs and petroleum contaminants were also documented at other
sampling stations in the marsh and creeks. At stations located in Shellabarger Creek just
downstream of SR-104 (WC-04) and a central marsh location (WC-05), the concentration of a
subset of the SVOCs exceeded freshwater sediment standards. Multiple metals were
detected at the sampling stations, but only lead was reported in concentrations exceeding
freshwater sediment standards.
The sediment quality conditions have the potential to affect the prey base available to
juvenile Chinook salmon. This includes potential effects to the quantity of prey available
and bioaccumulation of contaminants in juvenile salmon.
The water and sediment quality conditions are the same for both alternatives. For the
proposed restoration of Edmonds Marsh to achieve its goals in providing productive
rearing habitat and forage base for juvenile Chinook, it will be necessary to address and
remediate contaminated sediments in the marsh in the area of WC-03. We recommend
continued data collection for water quality during storm events, especially first -flush
portions of storm events, to better understand contaminant inputs from the contributing
watersheds.
6.1.5 Summary of Fish Passage Evaluation — Alternatives 1 and 4
The daylighting of Willow Creek will provide juvenile Chinook and other fish species
unobstructed access into the Edmonds Marsh system for the first time in many decades. In
doing so, the proposed restoration will provide access and suitable habitat for juvenile
Chinook salmon to support their rearing and growth.
Of the two Initial Alternatives 1 and 4 evaluated, Alternative 4 would provide more and
better habitat conditions than Alternative 1. The sinuosity of Alternative 4 and expanded
riparian buffer and corridor would provide substantially better habitat than Alternative 1
The difference in fish accessibility based on modeled future conditions is expected to be
neutralized through modifications to the Daylight Channel, including the placement of
instream LWD structures and a low -flow channel that will reduce velocities and increase
depths suitable for juvenile Chinook passage with increased frequency. Alternative 4
provides more areas for habitat complexity improvements preferred by juvenile Chinook.
21-1-12588-050
31
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 60
=III SHANNON &WILSON
1.3.a
Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
6.2 Fish Habitat Conditions for the Modified Daylight Alternatives 5, 6,
and 7
Evaluation of the fish habitat conditions provided by Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 for the Willow
Creek Daylighting expands on the analysis described in the previous section, evaluating the
similar characteristics of accessibility, instream habitat, water and sediment quality, and
flood conditions. Riparian habitat was not evaluated for these alternatives, as the riparian
areas and buffer widths do not vary significantly between Alternatives 5, 6, and 7.
6.2.1 Accessibility
We evaluated accessibility for Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 using the methods previously
described that consider velocity and depths for the juvenile Chinook salmon that will enter
the Daylight channel and marsh during their outmigration from the Puget Sound. The
following fish access observations are based on depth and velocity plots for each of the
seven nodes during late spring and late spring with SLR conditions (Figures 46 through 59).
Nodes 2, 3 and 4 represent conditions in the daylighted channel (entrance area) downstream
of the broader marsh area. Model outputs show that with existing sea levels, all three of the
Modified Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 provide sufficient water depths for juvenile Chinook
throughout the entire 14-day period evaluated. Similarly, velocities into and out of the
marsh are predicted to be less than 2 ft/s throughout the entire 14-day period. At node 2 just
upstream of the BNSF bridge, peak velocities are predicted to be less than 1.6 ft/s in
Alternatives 5 and 7 and even lower in Alternative 6. At node 3 near the midpoint of the
daylight channel and node 4 at the upstream end of the daylight channel, the highest water
velocities (between 1.3 and 1.8 ft/s, respectively) are during rising tides, which helps carry
juvenile salmon into the marsh.
The same analysis with SLR modeling results predicts that all three alternatives provide
sufficient water depths for juvenile Chinook throughout the entire 14-day period evaluated.
Water velocities are predicted to be higher than in existing condition scenarios. At node 2
just upstream of the BNSF bridge, for SLR increases, peak velocities increase up to as high as
2.4 ft/s for Alternative 5 and 2.1 ft/s in Alternative 6 and 7.
In Alternative 6, the peak velocities drop more quickly than in either of the other two
alternatives. At node 3 near the midpoint of the daylight channel, peak velocities are
predicted to remain below 2 ft/s and those times with the highest velocities are during rising
tides for which smaller fish would migrate with the tides into the marsh. Node 4 at the
upstream end of the daylight channel, has predicted peak velocities exceeding 2 ft/s during
brief periods associated with rising tides.
21-1-12588-050
32
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 61
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
For all three alternatives, nodes 5, 6, and 7 in the marsh and creek channels are predicted to
provide suitable depth and velocity conditions throughout the 14-day period. In this way,
once juvenile Chinook enter the main portion of the tidal marsh, they will be able to move
among its tidal channels.
Overall, all three alternatives are predicted to provide suitable depth and velocity
conditions for juvenile Chinook in Puget Sound to be able to move into the marsh system.
The brief periods in which outgoing velocities are predicted to exceed 2 ft/s are not that
different from the naturally intermittent suitable velocities in tidal channels. Further,
upcoming design refinements to include habitat complexity features such as pools and large
wood would create lower velocity areas within the channel.
6.2.2 Instream Habitat
The quantity and quality of aquatic habitat will affect the likelihood of juvenile Chinook
salmon entering the Edmonds Marsh system and potentially remaining in the system
throughout multiple tidal cycles. The depth and velocity conditions affect the quantity and
quality of habitat. These parameters, summarized above, indicate the Daylight channel will
provide suitable conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon throughout much of the tidal cycle;
therefore, this evaluation of habitat quantity and quality focuses on other aspects of
instream habitat.
The meandering channel of all three alternatives provides more habitat and better habitat
than a straighter alignment. The quality of aquatic habitat in the entrance channel will be
strongly influenced by design elements (e.g., channel shape and size and large wood
placement) that will be developed in subsequent design phases. The sinuosity of the
alternatives will allow for substantially greater opportunities to create complex habitat that
includes pools that will benefit juvenile Chinook salmon. Juvenile Chinook are expected to
use pools in the entrance channel as lower -velocity areas where they do not need to expend
as much energy, to prey upon food delivered in water exiting the marsh, and to occupy
during low tides when much of the marsh has drained. The habitat in the daylight channel
is especially important, because it is the first area encountered by juvenile Chinook entering
the system and will be used by fish who ultimately do not move all the way into the broader
marsh upstream of the channel.
6.2.3 Water and Sediment Quality
Water and sediment quality sampling results, for existing conditions in the marsh, were
augmented with data from the September 2017 sampling event. The data provide
information regarding basic water quality parameters, fecal coliform, and metals from seven
21-1-12588-050
33
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 62
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
sampling stations distributed around the marsh and contributing creeks. The data from
these sampling events allows for some preliminary interpretation of water quality
conditions.
The data show acceptable water quality conditions throughout the marsh for all parameters
with two exceptions: fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen. Fecal coliform bacteria levels
exceeded water quality criteria at multiple stations during multiple sampling events. In
each of the four sampling events, there was at least one station with fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations more than double the criteria and every station in the marsh exceeded the
criteria at least two out of the four sampling events. In three of the four sampling events,
the highest concentration was at a station (WC-02) in the creek channel near the existing
pipe outlet draining the marsh.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations also did not meet water quality criteria at any of the
stations in September 2017 and at multiple stations in June 2017. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations were very low (<4 mg/L) at the station located near the Harbor Square outfall
(WC-03) during the December, June, and September sampling events. In June and
September, these concentrations were especially low (2.4 to 2.5 mg/1), which would be
problematic for juvenile Chinook in that area. Factors contributing to the low dissolved
oxygen, especially at the Harbor Square outfall, may be required to restore the function of
the marsh as habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. Increased tidal exchange resulting from
the Project Daylight and marsh restoration will improve dissolved oxygen conditions.
Sediment quality was previously discussed in Section 6.1.4, and the results and analysis did
not change with the September 2017 sampling event results.
Macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted in September 2017 at each of the water quality
sampling locations. The sampling laboratory results shows that the macroinvertebrate
community composition is indicative of a site affected by pollution. Of the seven sampling
locations, four were classified as "very poor' and the other three were classified as "poor"
in the Benthic-Index of Biological Integrity (B-IBI). These results indicate that the prey
community that would be available to juvenile Chinook salmon following restoration is not
highly productive. For the proposed restoration to achieve its goals in providing productive
rearing habitat and forage base for juvenile Chinook, it will be necessary to address the
water and sediment quality exceedances in the marsh through stormwater best
management practices, source control, and remediation of contaminated sediments.
21-1-12588-050
34
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 63
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
6.2.4 Flood Conditions
In this evaluation, fish access conditions were evaluated using depth and velocity outputs
from a 2D hydraulic model to characterize fish habitat during different scenarios based on
combinations of peak freshwater and saltwater conditions. The freshwater inputs used in
the scenarios included (1) the 1% AEP (100-year event) based on the City's stormwater
runoff model by SAIC and (2) the December 2007 (AnchorQEA) 1% AEP. The tidal inputs
used in the scenarios included spring (King) tides, tidal storm surge, and SLR.
Figures 24 through 45 show maximum inundation depths, inundation extents, and velocities
for each Alternative 5, 6, and 7. In all scenarios, these three alternatives have large portions
of the marsh providing suitable depths and velocities, thereby providing excellent spring
habitat and flood refugia habitat for juvenile Chinook and other salmonids. Since depth and
velocity conditions were similar across alternatives, the primary factor considered in this
analysis was the extent of inundation. Throughout the scenarios evaluated, Alternative 6
consistently provided less flooding of areas beyond the marsh boundaries (i.e., the
urbanized areas, including roads, parking lots, rail lines, and buildings) compared to
Alternatives 5 and 7. The lesser flooding of these urban areas for Alternative 6 is considered
favorable to juvenile Chinook, because it lessens the possibility of the fish moving into
flooded areas beyond the marsh habitats. Such movements would expose fish to the
possibility of getting stranded and increased exposure to chemical contaminants present in
the flooded areas (e.g., roads and parking lots).
6.2.5 Summary of Fish Habitat Evaluation
The daylighting of Willow Creek will provide juvenile Chinook and other fish species
unobstructed access into the Edmonds Marsh system for the first time in many decades. In
doing so, the proposed Daylight and marsh restoration will provide access and suitable
habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon to support their rearing and growth.
All three of the Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 evaluated will provide suitable depth and velocities
for juvenile Chinook to access the channel and tidal marsh habitats. The main
differentiation among the alternatives is the flooding extents. Alternative 6 is predicted to
result in less flooding of areas beyond the marsh and will therefore have a lower likelihood
of stranding and risk of exposure to chemical contaminants than Alternative 5 or 7.
The water and sediment quality sampling in the marsh indicates some impaired conditions.
Addressing the factors contributing to these conditions, including targeted sediment
remediation, is advised to reduce exposure and bioaccumulation risks to fish and more fully
realize the fish habitat benefits of the proposed restoration. For the proposed restoration to
21-1-12588-050
35
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 64
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
achieve its goals in providing productive rearing habitat and forage base for juvenile
Chinook, it will be necessary to address the sediment quality exceedances in the marsh
through remediation of contaminated materials and source control.
Another item to consider is the lower macroinvertebrate productivity levels in the current
daylight channel. Over time, it is expected that these population numbers and species
composition will adjust with new tidal exchange into the marsh. Recent trends in stream
restoration have included attempts to seed macroinvertebrates in streambed materials with
a goal to accelerate restoration and provide food sources in the daylight channel and marsh
immediately following Project implementation. We recommend consideration of
macroinvertebrate seeding as a potential restoration action in the final design phase of the
Project.
7 COST ESTIMATES
We prepared detailed engineering opinion of cost (cost estimates) for Alternatives 1, 4, 6,
and 7 (Tables 1 through 4). Quantity takeoff estimates for the Project were developed from
the grading plans, cross section and structure details, and dimensional takeoff quantities for
the Project features shown in Figures 3 through 10. The following are key assumptions,
results, and recommendations for the Project cost estimates:
A cost estimate for Alternative 5 was not developed. It is the same as Alternative 4 with
the differences between the alternatives being the performance of extreme tide condition
hydraulic modeling for Alternative 5 and comparison to other Alternatives 6 and 7 for
habitat and flood protection performance.
The unit prices used in the cost estimates were derived from other recent fish habitat
restoration projects, including Fisher Slough estuary restoration (2010 bids), Fir Island
Farm estuary restoration (2016 bids), RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data (2017),
and WSDOT unit pricing bid tabs (2012). We adjusted the unit prices by providing a
10% escalation price adjustment to account for the eight years of data.
■ Taxes are 10.3% on construction price.
■ Bonding and insurance costs are 5% of construction.
■ Construction bid and change contingencies are set at 25% of construction.
■ Engineering and permit costs are estimated at 15% of the construction costs and are in
addition to the construction costs.
■ Construction administration is estimated at 10% of the construction costs and is in
addition to the construction costs.
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
36
Packet Pg. 65
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Costs for Marina Beach Park are for the Daylight Channel grading and restoration areas
only.
Daylight Channel excavation assumes 50% (contingency) of the material would be
contaminated above the site cleanup limit and would require off -site disposal. This is a
conservative estimate being moved forward until additional environmental testing
along the Daylight alignment is complete to confirm soil contamination conditions.
Disposal of clean and hazardous waste costs were developed from WSDOT bid prices
on local projects.
■ Daylight channel restoration assumes an HDPE liner is needed to protect from
contamination. This is a contingency that may be removed once environmental testing
for residual contamination that may remain below the Unocal -agreed cleanup levels.
■ The expanded restoration concepts in this report include earthwork volume
assumptions for disposal of the liner in the Unocal stormwater treatment pond and the
estimated 1 foot of sediment above it. Cost line items have also been added for the
removal and disposal of the liner, sediment, and pumps within the Unocal pond, and
decommissioning of five groundwater wells.
■ One acre of wetland impact and mitigation costs is included along the BNSF Railway for
Alternative 6A flood berm installation.
■ The costs for marsh sediment remediation based on recent sediment contamination
testing results and findings near the WC-03 monitoring site have not been included in
this estimate. Additional sampling around the area is needed to delineate the extents,
area, depth, and volume of contamination and remediation.
■ Cost estimates will need to be further adjusted during final design and at the time of bid.
The current estimate is for the current year 2019. We recommend an annual 3%
escalation factor. If the Project is to be bid in 2021, then the Project cost estimates will
increase by 6% over this 2019 cost estimate. We recommend future budgetary planning
forecasts use these annual escalation factors in future grant applications and capital
improvement project funding requests.
Real estate costs are not included in the Project costs. If the City were to purchase
property, rights -of -way, or easements for the Project, these costs would be in addition
to the cost estimates presented in this report.
The Project cost estimates for Alternatives 1, 4, 6, and 7 are summarized in the exhibit
below. Project costs include construction costs, price escalation factors, taxes, bonding and
insurance, construction contingencies, engineering and permitting, and construction
administration. Real estate, rights -of -way, and easement costs are not included. The cost
estimates range from $9M for Alternative 1 to $16.6M for Alternative 6B - Daylight with
Floodwalls. We estimated costs for Alternative 6A (flood berms $13.6M) and 6B (floodwalls
$16.6M). Flood berms may be feasible but may be more difficult to permit as the flood
21-1-12588-050
37
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 66
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
berms will have increased wetland impacts. Depending on wetland permitting regulations,
Project funding sources, and BNSF Railway input, there may be Project regulatory and
landowner drivers that could dictate which of these structures is feasible and acceptable,
regardless of the Project costs.
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The expanded marsh alternatives and hydraulic modeling resulted in several new findings
and recommendations regarding the Project fish habitat benefits, flood risk reductions, cost
estimates, water and sediment quality conditions, and the Project design and construction
considerations.
In developing the alternatives, a straight Daylight Channel (Alternative 1) and
sinuous/meandering Daylight Channel (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) were developed. Based on
feedback from the City and WSDOT Ferries, Alternatives 1 and 4 were analyzed using the
HEC-RAS2D model. At the time of this decision, WSDOT Ferries had/has plans for the
Edmonds Crossing Project, which influences the potential size and configuration of the
Daylight Channel. If the WSDOT Ferries Edmonds Crossing Project continues to move
forward, the Daylight Channel will be constrained between the BNSF Railway and the
WSDOT Ferries Edmonds Crossing projects and their infrastructure. If the WSDOT Ferries
project does not go forward, more space would be available for the Daylight Channel to the
areas south and east of the current proposed alignments. We note that the Daylight channel
grading can be modified in the future based on the plans of the Edmonds Crossing project.
In review of Alternatives 1 and 4, we initially found that Alternative 1 (straight daylight
channel) had more suitable conditions for fish accessibility (depth and velocity and period
of time) based on the results of the preliminary hydraulic model. The results of the initial
modeling analysis indicated that both Alternatives 1 and 4 had fairly frequent shallow
depths and higher velocities that exceeded juvenile fish criteria. Our habitat analysis
included evaluation of the quantity of stream lengths, channel pattern, riparian conditions,
and other factors, and found that a sinuous channel Alternative 4 would provide increased
restoration potential due to stream lengths and areas that could provide variability and
complexity. Alternative 4 was recommended for additional modified alternative hydraulic
modeling analysis. A finding of the initial modeling analysis was to increase complexity
and roughness along the Daylight channel to improve fish habitat conditions, as well as
further analysis of extreme tide events and SLR conditions.
Modified Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 were then developed with a low -flow habitat channel and
LWD structures to improve channel complexity and hydraulic roughness. The result was
21-1-12588-050 June 20, 2019
38
Packet Pg. 67
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
that depth and velocity criteria were met for nearly all flow conditions, and that these
alternatives provide for increases in fish habitat conditions of marsh inundation areas,
accessibility, and instream habitat for all three of the Modified Alternatives 5, 6, and 7.
The differences between Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 was the performance of the necessary flood
protection berms, floodwalls, and tide gate structures for both flood risk reduction and
habitat conditions. We found that without these flood control structures, Alternative 5
experienced increased flooding along the BNSF Railway, Harbor Square, SR-104, and
Dayton Street areas compared to existing conditions, which is an unacceptable outcome for
the project. Flood protection structures are needed for the Project. Our analysis of King
tides, storm surges, and SLR showed increased flooding for both Alternatives 5 and 7
compared to existing conditions, which is unacceptable and not allowed per environmental
and floodplain and drainage regulations. Habitat analyses showed that these Modified
Alternatives provide similar habitat functions, except for how often flooding occurs where
fish might encounter roads, parking areas, and railway areas as a result of flooding.
Alternative 6 outperformed the other alternatives for both habitat and flood risk criteria.
We recommend the City select Alternative 6 — Sinuous Tidal Channel with Flood
Berms/Floodwalls for final design, permitting and construction. Additional discussion is
needed regarding whether or not to use flood berms or floodwalls for Alternative 6, as the
floodwalls are more expensive, and the flood berms have larger environmental and wetland
impacts and potential mitigation requirements and costs. We understand that the City staff
and City Council are interested in expanding the Daylight channel and riparian buffer
footprint to the fullest extent possible. In this study, the Daylight Project footprint is
constrained by the assumption that WSDOT Ferries will use the site for the future Edmonds
Crossing. For grant applications to progress, WSDOT Ferries must sign a Memorandum of
Understanding with the City in order for additional funding to be provided. We
recommend proceeding with the limited footprint shown in this study for Alternative 6. If
the WSDOT Ferries site constraints are later removed, the Daylight Channel alignment can
be modified in final design. The one caution with expanding the Daylight Channel is that
costs will increase due to increases in excavation, fill, and potential treatment and disposal
quantities, as the risks for encountering residual contamination on the site increase with any
additional excavation.
Installation of the flood berm or floodwall along the BNSF Railway will necessitate close
coordination with the railway. Parts of these structures would lie within the BNSF Railway
ROW in order to tie to high ground. BNSF Railway will require right -of -occupancy and
construction general permits to make modifications and perform construction within the
railway ROW. The BNSF Railway will ultimately benefit from the Project through
21-1-12588-050
39
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 68
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
reductions in flood risks and redesign of a segment of the railway along the western margin
of the Edmonds Marsh wetlands where rail maintenance operations currently impact the
marsh's wetlands.
One incidental finding from the study was that future SLR for year 2100 of about 2 feet rise
in sea levels could cause substantial flooding during King tides and storm surges of the Port
of Edmonds and City waterfront areas. The existing seawall does not appear to have
adequate heights to provide flood protection for these areas in the future. We recommend
the City begin study of retrofits for the seawall in response to climate change and current
projections of SLR.
Another finding as a part of this report and study includes finding SVOC and petroleum
contamination in the sediments near the Harbor Square stormwater outfall. The outfall is
owned and operated by the City, providing stormwater drainage from the Harbor Square
buildings and parking areas. Delineation and characterization of the contamination is
needed, with development and implementation of a site remediation plan. We recommend
the City contact the Washington State Department of Ecology regarding the finding of
contaminated sediments in the marsh near the City's Harbor Square stormwater outfall.
Other water and sediment quality monitoring indicates that there are fecal coliform
pollutants entering the marsh and Daylight Channels, periodic low dissolved oxygen
conditions, and other water quality exceedances. The sources of fecal coliform are currently
unknown. We recommend a microbial source tracking analysis to determine if the sources
are natural in origin, domestic pets, or human nature and to inform the best practices for
addressing the source pollution.
Another source of pollution to the marsh is along the Harbor Square and WSDOT's SR-104.
Water quality treatment measures in these areas need review by the City. The section of SR-
104 will be part of the Project for additional flood protection measures. The differences
between Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 was the performance of the necessary flood protection
berms, floodwalls, and tide gate structures for both flood risk reduction and habitat
conditions. Modifications to the SR-104 roadway may require adding water quality
treatment measures. The two existing 72-inch pipe arch culverts beneath SR-104 are in poor
condition and need to be replaced. They are not currently listed on WSDOT's fish passage
program, but this condition could change with the Daylighting and Edmonds Marsh
restoration Project. We recommend the City continue discussions with WSDOT roads staff
to evaluate options to improve fish passage and water quality along SR-104.
The Project cost estimates range between $13.5 and $16.6M. We have not included the
recommended sediment remediation costs, or real estate costs in the cost estimate. We
21-1-12588-050
40
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 69
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
recommend the City use these estimates for planning and grant application purposes. We
also recommend the City undertake design studies to refine the uncertainty and
contingencies in the cost estimate. This includes sediment contamination delineation and
remediation plan for the City's Harbor Square stormwater outfall. Another important step
will be gaining access to the site from WSDOT Ferries for environmental investigations
along Daylight excavation and grading areas. Design negotiations are also needed with the
BNSF Railway for flood protection berms or floodwall features. Similarly, WSDOT roads
design negotiations will need to continue regarding SR-104 flood protection, fish passage,
and water quality treatment needs.
9 LIMITATIONS
Shannon & Wilson prepared this report for the exclusive use of the City and their
representatives for specific application to the Willow Creek Daylight. Our judgments,
conclusions, and interpretations presented in the report should not be construed as a
warranty of existing site conditions or future estimated conditions. It is in no way
guaranteed that any regulatory agency will reach the same conclusions as Shannon &
Wilson.
Our assessment, conclusions, recommendations, etc., are based on the limitations of our
approved scope, schedule, and budget described in our contract dated November 1, 2016.
Stream and wetland systems function as a collection of integrated system components. It is
not practical or possible to completely know all of the geomorphic, hydrologic, and
hydraulic properties of a stream and wetland system. Consequently, uncertainty exists as to
actual stream and wetland behavior, performance, and function. Regular inspections of the
stream and storm drainage systems should be performed. Risks should be managed as
appropriate based on observed conditions, uncertainty, and potential consequences. If
conditions different from those described herein are encountered during later phases of
work on this Project, we should review our description of the stream and wetland
conditions and reconsider our conclusions and recommendations. Potential variation
includes, but is not limited to:
■ The conditions between and beyond study areas may be different.
■ The passage of time or intervening causes (natural and manmade) may result in changes
to site and stream conditions.
■ Changes in land uses in the watershed beyond the site area.
21-1-12588-050
41
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 70
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
We have prepared our recommendations for daylight alignment selection considering the
information available at the time of this report. If additional information becomes available,
the recommendations presented herein may need to be revised. Shannon & Wilson should
be made aware of the revised or additional information so we can evaluate our
recommendations for applicability.
Shannon & Wilson has prepared the enclosed, "Important Information About Your
Geotechnical/ Environmental Report," to assist you and others in understanding the use and
limitations of our reports.
10 REFERENCES
Anchor QEA, LLC, 2013, Tidal marsh hydrodynamics report, Willow Creek daylight early
feasibility study: Report prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC, Seattle, Wash., Project
Number 120017-01.01, for Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., May.
Anchor QEA, LLC, 2015, Beach outlet and hydrodynamic evaluation report, Willow Creek
daylight final feasibility study: Report prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC, Seattle,
Wash., Project Number 140017-01.01, for Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash.,
January.
Barnard, R. J., J. Johnson, P. Brooks, K. M. Bates, B. Heiner, J. P. Klavas, D.C. Ponder, P.D.
Smith, and P.D. Powers (2013), Water Crossings Design Guidelines, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
httl2://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/culverts.htm.
Beamer, E.M., A. McBride, R. Henderson, and K. Wolf. 2003. The importance of non -natal
pocket estuaries in Skagit Bay to wild Chinook salmon: an emerging priority for
restoration. Skagit River System Cooperative, LaConner, WA.
Beamer, E.M., 2006, Habitat and Fish Use of Pocket Estuaries in the Whidbey Basin and
North Skagit County Bays, 2004 and 2005, for the Samish Nation.
Beamer, E.M., W.T. Zackey, D. Marks, D. Teel, D. Kuligowski, and R. Henderson. 2013
Juvenile Chinook salmon rearing in small non -natal streams draining into the
Whidbey Basin. Skagit River System Cooperative, LaConner, WA.
Hirschi, R., T. Doty, A. Keller, and T. Labbe. 2003. Juvenile salmonid use of tidal creek and
independent marsh environments in north Hood Canal: summary of first year
findings. Prepared by Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Natural Resources.
21-1-12588-050
42
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 71
1.3.a
MIII SHANNON &WILSON Willow Creek Daylight Project
REVISED Expanded Marsh Concept Design
and Hydraulic Modeling Report
Powers, P. D., and K. Bates, and others, 1997. Culvert hydraulics related to upstream
juvenile salmon passage. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Land and
Restoration Services Program, Environmental Engineering Services.
SAIC, 2013, Final report, Dayton Street and SR 104 storm drainage alternatives study:
Report prepared by SAIC, Seattle, Wash., Project Number: 001712 1 26512110002
city, state, job number, for the City of Edmonds Stormwater Division, Edmonds,
Wash., July.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2015, Draft Willow Creek Daylighting Final Feasibility Study:
Report prepared by Shannon & Wilson Inc., Seattle, Wash, Project Number 21-1-
12393, for the City of Edmonds, Edmonds, Wash, December.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2019, Water Quality Sampling Results in Support of the Willow
Creek Daylighting / Edmonds Marsh Restoration, Project Number 21-1-12588-033,
for the City of Edmonds, Edmonds, Wash, March.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016a, HEC-RAS,
River analysis system, 2D modeling user's manual (v. 5.0): February, available:
http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/documentation/HEC-
RAS%205.0%202D%20Modeling%20Users%20Manual.pdf.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016b, River
analysis system, HEC-RAS (v. 5.0.3): available:
http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2018.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016, River analysis system,
HEC-RAS (v. 5.0.3): available: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/.
21-1-12588-050
43
June 20, 2019
Packet Pg. 72
I 1.3.b I
U
U
�
I
T
U
N
0
o
m
N
N
s
0
U
m
N
�
N
d
w
00
\
E
LL
W /M
I
PROPOSED ELEVATED SEAWALL
PROPOSED SR-104
FLOOD PROTECTION BERM
� PROPOSED FLOOD PROTECTION --
/ WALL/BERM PROPOSED FLOOD PROTECTION
{WALL/BERM
NORTH BUFFER AVG. 10 FT
AREA = 0.12 ACRES
I
SOUTH BUFFER AVG. 110 FT / I
AREA = 4.16 ACRES �\
STORMWATER POND / WETLAND \\
AREA: 1.31 ACRES \
L DAYLIGHT STREAM
WITH MEANDERING
FISH HABITAT CHANNEL
AND WETLAND BENCH PROPOSED TIDAL CHANNEL
RETAINING WALL AND STREAM CONNECTION EXCAVATIONS
LENGTH: 2,008 FT
AT TOE OF SLOPE
ACRES
BNSF RAILWAY BRIDGE
NOTE
Figure adapted from electronic files,
2004_Willow Cr Survey.dwg,
2008_Marsh_Survey.dwg, 20120049
TOPO.dwg and Basemap.dwg received
08-04-2014. Also aerial.jpg received
08-11-2014.
WSDOT Ferry preferred alternative location
is approximate.
0 250 500
Scale in Feet
f — LEGEND
PROPOSED FLOOD
PROTECTION STRUCTURE
I—_
_ PROPOSED DAYLIGHT
CONTOUR
WETLAND RESTORATION
RIPARIAN BUFFER
— — — SNOHOMISH COUNTY GIS
PARCELS
I
zo
WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT
EXPANDED MARSH CONCEPT DESIGN
AND HYDRAULIC MODELING
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ALTERNATIVE 6
ALIGNMENT
June 2019 21-1-12588-050
C11P FIG.9
Packet Pg. 73
1.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/13/2019
Presentation of Supplemental Agreement with Shannon & Wilson for the Willow Creek Daylight Project
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On March 18, 2014, Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with Shannon & Wilson for
$314,459.
On February 3, 2015, Council authorized Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with Shannon & Wilson for
$38,160.
On October 25, 2016, Council authorized Supplemental Agreement No. 2 with Shannon & Wilson for
$181,706.
Staff Recommendation
Forward this item to the August 20, 2019 consent agenda for approval by full Council.
Narrative
The City had previously contracted with Shannon & Wilson to develop pre -design information for the
Willow Creek Daylighting / Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project. The final reports have been submitted
to staff which marks completion of the previously authorized scope and funding. However, presentation
of the reports to Council is still desired, and the Willow Creek Daylighting / Edmonds Marsh Restoration
Project continues to receive questions from citizens, Council members, and other agencies regarding the
Willow Creek project. Presentation of the report, and some of the question responses, require
additional technical assistance. The Council presentation is planned for the following week at the
August 27th Council Meeting. Additionally, staff continue to seek out applicable funding mechanisms
and grant application opportunities which often require additional data or exhibits for submittal. Each
grant has unique submittal requirements, and this supplement would allow staff to use the consultant's
expertise and knowledge to produce the necessary material for such grant applications. The requested
supplement will be funded by stormwater funds and remains within the available budget per the 2019
Adopted Budget. This supplement contract does not authorize the consultant to begin on design tasks.
Attachments:
Shannon & Wilson Supplement
Packet Pg. 74
Original Contract No.
Supplemental Agreement 3 No.
0 eDVo��
CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING
121 6'" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-6750 MAYOR
Website: www.edmondswa.gov
i
I890
1qq� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Division
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 3 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project
The City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Shannon &
Wilson, Inc, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", collectively referred to as "the parties,",
enter into this Supplemental Agreement 3 To Professional Services Agreement.
WHEREAS, the parties entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and
consulting services with respect to a project known as Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds
Marsh Restoration project, dated March 26, 2014; and twice thereafter supplemented that
agreement by documents executed on February 5, 2015 and November 1, 2016, said
underlying agreement and supplements are collectively referred to as "the Agreement"; and
WHEREAS, the final reports have been completed within budget of the previous
supplement but additional technical support is required for Council presentation of the
reports, responding to technical questions from staff, citizens, or Council, and for assistance
in preparing exhibits and data to be used for grant applications; NOW, THEREFORE,
In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties
thereto as follows:
1. The Agreement is incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth,
and is amended in, but only in, the following respects:
1.1 Scope of Work. The Consultant shall perform the following work:
provide technical assistance as directed by the City This work shall be performed on a time &
materials basis with labor charged per the rates shown in Exhibit A for work as directed by the
City, up to the total not to exceed value.
1.2 The $314,459 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement
and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, and increased by $38,160 by Supplemental
Agreement #1 and again by $181,706 by Supplemental Agreement #2, is hereby amended to
include an additional not to exceed amount of $20,000 for the additional scope of work per
Section 1.1 above. As a result of this Supplemental Agreement 3, the total contract amount is
increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $ 554,325 ($314,459, plus $38,160, plus
$181,706, plus $20,000).
1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost
reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached
Exhibit A to this Supplemental Agreement 3, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein
set forth.
2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties is unchanged
and shall remain in full force and effect.
Packet Pg. 75
1.4.a
DONE this
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
Mayor David O. Earling
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
day of _, 20
SHANNON & WILSON, INC
By:
Title: Dave Cline, Vice President
On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally
appeared , to me known to be the of
the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to
be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the
seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
\\edm w-deptfs\Engineering\Capital\CAPITAL PROJECTS\EAFC Willows Creek Edmonds Marsh\Shannon & Wilson Contract\FINAL_Shannon&Wilson_ Supplemental Agreeme Packet Pg. 76
1.4.a
Exhibit A
2019 FEE SCHEDULE
Fees for Professional Services
OFFICERS/ASSOCIATES
SHANNON 6WILSON, INC.
Senior Vice President.............................................................. $250.00/hr.
Vice President.......................................................................... $250.00/hr.
Senior Associate...................................................................... $210.00/hr.
Associate................................................................................. $185.00/hr.
ENG./GEOL./HYDRO.ENVIRO
Senior Professional III.............................................................. $165.00/hr.
Senior Professional II.............................................................. $150.00/hr.
Senior Professional I................................................................ $135.00/hr.
Professional IV......................................................................... $120.00/hr.
Professional III........................................................................ $110.00/hr.
Professional II......................................................................... $100.00/hr.
Professional I.............................................................................. $90.00/hr.
FIELD & LAB TECH./DRAFTER/TECH. ASST
Regula Overtime
Senior Technical Services (Sr., IV) ......................................... $115.00/hr. $140.00/hr.
Technician Services (III, II, I) .................................................... $70.00/hr. $85.00/hr.
WORD PROC./REPRO./RECORDS/CLERICAL
F=
as
Regular Overtime
a
Senior Office Services Sr. V IV $110.00/hr. $135.00/hr.
Office Services III III
()............................................................ $65.00/hr. $80.00/hr.
y
-W
SPECIAL SERVICES
c
a�
E
as
Computer Analyst.................................................................... $185.00/hr.
a
Information Resources Specialist ............................................. $135.00/hr.
co
Expert Testimony. Hourly rates will be doubled for time spent actually providing expert testimony
0
in court or depositions.
9
Reimbursable Expenses
c
°c
Expenses other than salary costs that are directly attributable to our professional services will be
invoiced at our cost plus 15 percent. Examples include, but are not limited to, expenses for out -of-
v
town travel and living, information processing equipment, instrumentation and field equipment
c
rental, special fees and permits, premiums for additional or special insurance where required,
E
telecommunication charges, local mileage and parking, use of rental vehicles, taxi, reproduction,
local and out-of-town delivery service, express mail, photographs, laboratory equipment fees,
a
shipping charges, and supplies.
Templates/2019/2o19 GH Rates Seattle v2/wp/lkn
Packet Pg. 77
1.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/13/2019
Presentation of Professional Services Agreement with Framework for the 2019 Downtown Parking Study
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On July 9, 2019, staff presented this to the Parks & Public Works Committee.
Staff Recommendation
Forward this item to a future City Council meeting for approval.
Narrative
The last Downtown Parking Study was completed in 2003. Since then, the composition of businesses and
residential development in Downtown have changed and created a more significant destination where
people live, work, shop and eat. Changes have been made to the Downtown parking and zoning
requirements that will impact near and long term parking demands. A greater parking demand will most
likely occur with the up -coming new park at Civic Field, the Waterfront Center, re -development along
Highway 99, and growth and re -development in adjacent jurisdictions. The study will provide
recommendations to accommodate both the current and future Downtown parking demand.
The scope of work included in this Professional Services Agreement includes the following:
Public engagement;
Data collection of existing conditions (including parking inventory, utilization, license plate
readings...);
Evaluation of future parking demand (over next 10 years);
Parking strategies and recommendations (such as enforcement, tick -mark expansion, time limit
limitations, additional private parking lots, parking permit process, parking requirement based
on land use category, roadway re -configurations, bike -share locations, shuttle option, paid
parking options...); and
Implementation plan including timeline, estimates, and monitoring of recommendations.
The Request for Qualifications was advertised on April 20, 2019 and April 27, 2019. Statements of
Qualifications were received from four consultants (Dixon, Walker, Framework, and Transpo Group).
Framewok was selected as the consultant because of their experience on similar studies. This item was
brought up at the July 9, 2019 Committee meeting. The following items have been revised / added to
the initial Scope and Fee:
Forecast parking need / analysis for proposed public facilities (Waterfront Center & Civic Park),
existing Public Facilities (City Park), and coordinate with consultant working on Edmonds Sound
Transit Station (as part of ST-3)
Packet Pg. 78
1.5
Move Public Engagement to Task #2
Additional changes to the Scope and Fee may be forthcoming (if so, updated Scope and Fee to be
provided at next week's Committee meeting) due to the following:
Change of data collection methodology from field data collection / license plate readings to
drone pics
Additional scope / expansion of project limits based on comments from August 8t" Scoping
Meeting
The total fee for this initial contract has been set at a not -to -exceed amount of $93,717 (including
$4,222 in management reserve). A preliminary estimate of staff time to manage this project is $20,000.
In 2019, $40,000 was budgeted for the Downtown Parking Study. Therefore, the funding shortfall is over
$73,000 and staff recommends this amount be funded by the General Fund. The study is scheduled to
be completed by the end of 2019.
Attachments:
DRAFT Scope & Fee
Packet Pg. 79
1.5.a
Edmonds Downtown Parking Study
Scope of Work
Overview
The City of Edmonds is proceeding with the development of a Downtown Parking Study including
data collection, public outreach, parking strategies, and an implementation plan. The scope of work
included below outlines the responsibilities for the consultant team and the City in partnership on
this project. The project includes the following elements:
Existing Conditions and Data Collection
II. Public Engagement
III. Parking Strategies and Recommendations
IV. Implementation Plan
Task 1 - Project Management and Kick-off
1.1 Project Kick-off
A project kick-off meeting will be held with key members of the consultant team and the City to
review the project scope, schedule, project milestones, public outreach, and deliverables. The
meeting will also include a review and discussion of key issues including those identified in the prior
Downtown Parking Study in 2003. Framework will facilitate a discussion at the meeting regarding
parking challenges, opportunities, and how parking can support the goals for Downtown Edmonds.
1.2 Project Management (Ongoing)
This subtask covers ongoing project management including regular project updates to the City,
coordination of tasks for subconsultants, scheduling, and other administrative functions. This task
includes a phot discussion every two -weeks between Framework and the City.
Task 2 - Public Engagement
2.1 Public Engagement Plan
The City of Edmonds will lead public engagement for the project with support from the consultant
team. The City and the consultant team will finalize the public engagement plan including roles and
responsibilities early in the project. As part of the public engagement effort Framework will provide
August 8, 20
Packet Pg. 80
1.5.a
a project roadmap that can be shared with the public throughout the project and a map of the
parking inventory for display in City Hall or other locations and to get input from the public on
parking challenges and opportunities.
Deliverable: Public Engagement Plan
2.2 Public Engagement Meetings
The consultant team will take the lead in preparing meeting materials and meeting facilitation for
four meetings. These meetings may be held with a project advisory committee, conducted as focus
groups or stakeholder interviews, or with specific community organizations or groups in Edmonds.
The meetings will be focused on sharing the results of the data collection and existing conditions
report and to get input on parking challenges, opportunities, and strategies to improve parking
management.
Deliverable: Meeting agendas, materials, and summaries
2.3 Public Meeting (Open House)
The consultant team will lead the planning, design, and meeting facilitation for a public open house
towards the beginning of the project and after data collection results are available. Meeting
materials include project boards with information on existing conditions, management strategies
under consideration, and several opportunities for public input. The consultant team will give a
presentation on the project including an overall project summary, the project scope/schedule,
findings from the existing conditions analysis and data collection, and potential parking
management strategies. The open house may include other opportunities for input such as live
polling, comment cards, and a facilitated Q&A session. A detailed summary of the open house will
be provided by Framework approximately 2 weeks following the meeting including attendance,
input received, and overall takeaways.
Deliverable: Open House agenda, meeting materials, and the open house summary
2.4 Online Survey Support
The City would lead a public online survey with support from the consultant team including the
survey design and key findings. The City will lead the survey analysis and reporting. We have
proposed limited support for the survey to minimize costs to the City which we have successfully
done on other similar projects.
2.5 Staff Team Meetings
The consultant team will participate in up to four staff team meetings during the project including
meeting preparation and summaries. Additional meetings may be added as necessary and as
agreed upon by the City and the Consultant.
Deliverables: Meeting agendas and summaries
August 8, 20
Packet Pg. 81
1.5.a
Task 3 - Existing Conditions
The scope of work and budget include two -full days of data collection (up to 12 hours per day) in
Downtown for both on- and off-street facilities (public and private). The City may provide staffing
to assist in the data collection effort and the project budget would therefore be reduced
accordingly. The City may elect to complete the first day of data collection and results before
deciding on the scope for the second round of data collection. Based on the results of the first
round of collection the next round may include more targeted areas, weekend counts, or a focus
on public parking facilities. One -full day of data collection will be conducted in the late summer or
early fall or at a mutually agreed upon time between Framework and the City for all on- and off-
street facilities in the study area. The final study area will be determined early in the project by the
City and Framework, but it is expected the project area will not differ substantially from the area
studied in 2003. For the first round of data collection the team will collect and analyze one -full day
of data collection on- and off-street on a typical weekday and use the results to develop a plan for
additional data collection.
Assumption: The City is currently collecting parking data via drone and the results are not yet
available. Based on the results of the drone data the City may reduce the scope of data collection.
No data collection will be completed without prior authorization from the City. However, the parking
inventory will need to be completed regardless of the results of the drone data.
3.1 Parking Inventory (In -Field)
The consultant team will develop a new legal inventory of all on- and off-street facilities within the
Downtown study area. The parking inventory will include all on -street facilities and all non-
residential off-street facilities unless access is restricted. Residential properties will not be included
in the parking inventory or data collection unless requested by the City as part of a future phase.
Residential data collection requires permission from the property owner, unit occupancy data, and
field counts must be conducted between 12-5am to capture peak residential parking demand.
Residential data collection may be included in the second phase of data collection at the request
of the City.
3.2 Parking Inventory (Database)
Following the in -field verification the team will compile the updated inventory information in a GIS
database that will be provided to the City. For on -street parking the inventory will be shown by block
face in GIS and the database will include the number stalls, stall types, and any parking restrictions.
The off-street data base will include the type of facility, ownership, land use category, parking
restrictions, and pricing as applicable.
3.3 Parking Utilization Data Collection and Analysis (On- and Off -Street)
The equivalent of two full days of data collection are included in the scope of work for on and off-
street facilities. Based on the 2003 parking study it is estimated there are approximately 1,000 on -
August 8, 20
Packet Pg. 82
1.5.a
street stalls and 2,700 off-street stalls. Parking occupancy and duration will be collected for on -
street facilities with additional analysis to understand turnover and violation rates. Vehicle
movement analysis may be completed if requested by the City. On -street counts will be conducted
every hour for all on -street stalls during data collection periods for a minimum of 10 hours. Data
collection days and specific collection times will be agreed to by the City and consultant team prior
to commencing with data collection.
Off-street data collection will focus on non-residential facilities including all public facilities in the
study area with hourly counts. The consultant team will work with the City to finalize the sites to be
included in the data collection and may include all sites (unless access is restricted) or a valid
sample of sites.
Following field data collection, the results will be analyzed and compiled in GIS and tabular format.
Analysis will include parking occupancy and parking behavior data (turnover, violation rates,
duration) for all on -street facilities. The data analysis results will be summarized in the existing
conditions report. The summary will be in a user-friendly format including maps, charts, and tables
with a summary of key findings to inform the development of parking management strategies. Data
will also be analyzed and represented in reports by the City's Downtown Districts.
The City may elect to provide staffing to support the data collection effort and therefore the scope
of work and budget for the consultant team would be reduced accordingly.
3.4 Audit/Gap Analysis of Existing Policy and Regulation
Framework will review all existing policies and regulations for parking to identify gaps that should
be addressed in the strategy recommendations and implementation plan. Policies and regulations
including off-street parking requirements, parking facility design, and the management of public
facilities. The results of the gap analysis will be summarized in a memo to the City with key findings.
Deliverable: Memo summarizing the results of the audit/gap analysis
3.5 Existing Conditions Report
The existing conditions report will include a detailed summary of the parking inventory, data
collection results, and key findings. Included in the existing conditions summary will be a map folio
with data collection maps for all periods where data was collection for on- and off-street facilities.
The existing conditions report will include an analysis of where vehicles that are observed in the
field (on -street only) are registered using WA Department of Licensing data through a data sharing
agreement with the City. The analysis will include a map identifying the number of vehicles
observed in the field that are registered by census tracts to highlight travel and commute patterns.
The existing conditions report will also address the following topics:
■ Evaluate future parking demand conditions over next 10 years based on growth
■ emerging transportation mode options
■ up -coming projects (Civic Park, Waterfront Center) as well as growth in adjacent jurisdictions
August 8, 20
Packet Pg. 83
1.5.a
■ Impact of Hwy 99 / up -coming light -rail station in Mountlake Terrace
Deliverable: Draft and Final Existing Conditions Report
3.6 Forecast Demand at Public Facilities
Framework will forecast demand at proposed public parking facilities including the Waterfront
Center and Civic Park as well as existing public facilities in Downtown. Framework will also
coordinate with other consultant teams working on the Edmonds Sound Transit Station.
Task 4 - Parking Strategies + Recommendations
4.1 Draft Parking Strategies Report
Based on the data collection results, policy and regulation audit, and public input the consultant
team will develop a draft parking strategies report for review and input from the City and the
stakeholder advisory committee. The draft parking strategies will be connected to the data
collection results and include a mix of short- and long-term strategies to support a more robust
parking management program for the City. The strategies will likely address organizational
development, parking demand management, permit programs, policy and regulations, and the
design of streets and other City parking facilities. The City provide consolidate review comments
to Framework to develop the final parking strategies report. The City has identified the following
initial list of management strategies to be considered in the report. The final list of parking
strategies will be developed during the project in collaboration with the City and based on the
results of the existing conditions report and data collection.
■ Enforcement
■ Tick mark expansion (defining parking stalls)
■ Parking limitation (for different zones)
■ Additional private parking lots (after hours for public use)
■ Time limit modifications (based on different zones)
■ Parking permit process
■ Parking requirement based on land use category
■ Roadway re -configurations (angled parking)
■ Bike share and parking locations
■ Shuttle service
■ ADA Parking
■ Charging stations
■ Paid parking option
August 8, 20
Packet Pg. 84
1.5.a
Deliverable: Draft Parking Strategy Recommendations
4.2 Final Parking Strategies Report
Based on input from the City and the public the consultant team will revise and finalize the parking
strategies developed under subtask 3.1.
Deliverable: Final Parking Strategy Recommendations
Task 5 - Implementation Plan
5.1 Implementation Plan
The implementation plan will address the specifics for implementing the parking strategies
including a prioritization, timeline, the responsible person or department, planning level cost
estimates, and monitoring and metrics.
Deliverable: Draft and Final Implementation Plan
August 8, 20
Packet Pg. 85
1.5.a
Cost Proposal
Framework takes a flexible approach to working with our clients to align the scope and budget to the needs of the project and are willing
to make further adjustments as the request of the City. Data collection tasks may be modified or eliminated by the City prior to proceeding
with work on those tasks. Expenses are primarily for travel related to the data collection as we have subconsultants traveling from out of
state. Other expenses including printing costs for public engagement materials including boards and handouts. The budget includes a
5% management reserve that will only be used if necessary and with prior authorization from the City.
Framework Rick Williams Consulting
r�5 J L� p n
L 11 JLI�J� p
Rick Williams,
William
Connor Williams,
Michael
Total Hours and
Estimated Cost
Jeff Arango, AICP
Daniel Harris,
Parking
Owen Ronchelli, Data Pete Collins,
Reynolds,
Data Specialist,
Vasbinder, Crew
Survey
by Task
Project Manager
Planner
Strategies
Collection Lead Associate
Associate
GIs
Foreman
Crew
$175
$125
$180
$150 $140
$140
$60
$60
$30
Task 1: Project Management
1.1 Project Kickoff
6
0
4
0 0
0
0
0
0
10
l.2 Project Management (Ongoing)
8
0
4
0 0
0
0
0
0
12
Subtotal
14
0
8
0 0
0
0
0
0
22
Task 2: Public Engagement
2.1 Public Engagement Plan
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2.2 Public Engagement Meetings (4)
24
12
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
2.3 Public Meeting (Open House)
16
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
2.4 Online Survey Support
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2.5 Staff Team Meetings (4)
16
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
Subtotal
64
32
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
110
$17,720
Task 3: Existing Conditions + Data Collection
3.1 Parking Inventory (in -field)
0
0
0
12
10
0
ifi
28
0
66
3.2 Parking Inventory -(create data base)
0
0
0
4
4
4
10
10
28
60
3.3 Parking Utilization Data Col laction +Analysis (2 days on and off-street)
0
0
8
40
28
28
37
50
179
370
3.4 Audit/Gap Analysis of Existing Policy and Regulation
8
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
3.5 Existing Conditions Report
14
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
3.6 Forecast Demand at Public Parking Facilities
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
Subtotal
34
28
8
56
42
32
63
88
207
558
Task 4: Parking Strategies + Recommendations
Task 41 Draft Strategies Report
24
20
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
Task 41 Final Strategies Report
12
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
Subtotal
36
28
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
$12,320
Task 5: Implementation Plan
Task 5.11mplementation Plan
20
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
Subtotal
20
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
$5,580
Total Estimated Hours
168
96
50
56
42
32
63
88
207
802
Cost (Hours -Rate) $29,400 $12,000 $9,000 $8,400 $5,880 $4,480 $3,780 $5,280 $6,210 $84,430
Project Cost Subtotal $84,430
Expenses(6% of project costs) $5,066
Estimated Total Costs $89,496
Management Reserve (5%, if needed) $4,222
Total with Management Reserve $93,717
c
Y
a
c
3
0
C
0
0
N
0
4—
Q
LL
06
a)
Q
0
v!
LL
Q
C
d
L
V
R
r.+
August 8, 20
Packet Pg. 86
2.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/13/2019
Deputy City Clerk Position (reclassification)
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The City Clerk's Office has reviewed the existing position Deputy City Clerk and, based on an evaluation
of current market comparator wages, recommends a reclassification of this position from pay grade NE
9 to an NE 11.
The difference in pay grades from this reclassification (within the Edmonds Employee Association-
AFSCME Council 2 union) will result in an approximate $389 per month increase (or approximately
$4,668 for the year) for this position.
Staff Recommendation
Forward to the Council for review and approval at the next available Council meeting.
Narrative
The City Clerk's Office has reviewed the existing position Deputy City Clerk and, based on an evaluation
of current market comparator wages, recommends a reclassification of this position from pay grade NE
9 to an NE 11.
With the recent union ratification the current (2019) costs are as follows:
GRADE
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step
NE-11
5250
5355
5625
5906
6201
6509
NE-10
4964
5068
5324
5587
5865
6159
NE-9
4673
4765
5002
5251
5517
5795
The Deputy City Clerk is currently at NE-9 Step 5. The union requires that employees who are reclassified
move to the step of the new grade that offers at least a 5% increase (12.3). This would place the position
at step 4 on the NE-11 grade. Please note that the wages below do not include any increase in benefits
cost. NE-11 appears to be a more appropriate placement than NE-10 which is still significantly below the
median. NE-11 starts slightly above the median but tops at slightly below, which seems appropriate for
this position and will be helpful in keeping the City's wages competitive.
5% increase = $5,792.85. The closest step to this 5% increase on NE-11 is Step 4.
Packet Pg. 87
2.1
Current Costs NE 9/5
Monthly
$5,517
Annually
$66,204
New Costs NE 11/4
Monthly
$5,906
Annually
$70,872
Difference (increase)
Monthly $389
Annually $4,668
The attached spreadsheet shows the comparable positions and the deviation from the median. The
draft job description, which has been updated, reviewed and approved by the union, is attached.
Attachments:
DCC Reclass
AFSCME 2019
DCC Job Description 2019
Packet Pg. 88
2.1.a
Deputy City Clerk
City
Title
Experience
Records Retention and Archival
Bottom
Top
Notes
EDMONDS
Deputy City Clerk
AA and 4 years exp.
Yes
4,673.00
5,795.00
2019 Pay NE-09
BOTHELL
Deputy City Clerk
AA and 2 years of exp.
Yes
5,400.00
6,866.00
ISSAQUAH
Deputy City Clerk
BA and 5 years experience
Yes
6,061.86
7,734.66
LACEY
Deputy City Clerk
High School diploma & 3 years office exp
Yes
5,123.27
6,087.47
PUYALLUP
Deputy City Clerk
3 years experience
Yes
5,064.00
6,483.00
UNIVERSITY PLACE
Deputy City Clerk
High School diploma & 3 years office exp
Yes
5,174.00
6,716.00
LAKE STEVENS
NO MATCH
BURIEN
NO MATCH
DES MOINES
NO MATCH
LYNNWOOD
NO MATCH
MEDIAN $ 5,148.64 $ 6,599.50
Q
Packet Pg. 89
2.1.a
Wage Comparison: Deputy City Clerk Reclassification
Annual Min
Annual Max
Monthly Min
Monthly Max
Hourly Min
Hourly Max
Current NE-9 2019
$ 56,076.00
$
69,540.00
$ 4,673.00
$
5,795.00
$ 26.96
$ 33.43
Median
$ 61,783.62
$
79,194.00
$ 5,148.64
$
6,599.50
$ 29.70
$ 38.07
Proposed NE-10 2019
$ 59,568.00
$
73,908.00
$ 4,964.00
$
6,159.00
$ 28.64
$ 35.53
Proposed NE-11 2019
$ 63,000.00
$
78,108.00
$ 5,250.00
$
6,509.00
$ 30.29
$ 37.55
Variance From Median
Percent Difference NE-9
-9.24%
-12.19%
(current)
Precent Difference NE-10
-3.59%
-6.67%
Precent Difference NE-11
1.97%
-1.37%
(reclass proposal)
Q
Packet Pg. 90
Edmonds Employee Association (AFSCME Council 2)
2019
Y
-14 6305
rNIE
6431
6754
7092
7449
7820
-13
5947
6069
6367
6687
7016
7372
-12**
5735
5848
6143
6448
6770
7108
NE-12*
5680
5793
6082
6386
6705
7040
NE-12
5570
5678
5963
6260
6573
6901
NE-11*
5459
5570
5849
6143
6449
6769
NE-11
5250
5355
5625
5906
6201
6509
NE-10
4964
5068
5324
5587
5865
6159
NE-9
4673
4765
5002
5251
5517
5795
NE-8
4411
4501
4725
4962
5211
5473
NE-7
4180
4265
4476
4703
4938
5180
NE-6
3925
4006
4203
4414
4636
4867
NE-5
3690
3770
3954
4154
4360
4579
NE-4
3496
3566
3742
3933
4129
4337
NE-3
3311
3380
3546
3724
3913
4108
NE-2
3117
3184
3339
3506
3678
3863
S02
17.98
18.36
19.26
20.23
21.22
22.29
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 91
2.1.c
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Department: City Clerk Pay Grade: NE-0911
Bargaining Unit: S€ LJAFSME FLSA Status: Non Exempt
Revised Date: ^^+^ham ;2012August 2019 Reports To: City Clerk
POSITION PURPOSE: Under administrative direction, performs various administrative duties in support of the
City Clerk; works with detailed, complex and sensitive materials and exercises independent judgment, diplomacy
and human relations skills in accomplishing work; maintains various official records, public records, public hearing
notices and other related legal correspondence and records and monitors, processes and issues various special
licenses for the City.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees
in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may
not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position -specific duties.
• Performs various administrative duties in support of the City Clerk.
• Works with detailed, complex and sensitive materials and exercises independent judgment, diplomacy
and human relations skills in accomplishing work.
• Maintains City Clerk's Office official records according to established procedures and oversees City
archive facilities and arranges for storage and destruction.
to appropriate depai4meRtG f9F GOMPletiOn �.A.dthin a five day time ficame; ME)RitGF6 status ef Assist
as needed in processing public records requests.
• Provides for review of records or copies to the public.
• Provides information to elected officials and City staff as requested within scope of knowledge or authority
or refers to appropriate person or agency.
• Records documents with Snohomish County as needed and maintains associated files.
• MORit„rS P and ,ss, a Assist as needed in processing various special licenses for tsty.
• Performs notary services on documents related to citywide business.
• Prepares and processes official public hearing notices, publications and postings in accordance with state
laws and procedures and updates City website as needed.
• Prepares and submits agenda memos as needed and copies finalized City Council packets and distributes
appropriately.
• Prepares City Council chambers for meetings.
• Prepares and processes Claims for Damages and associated legal correspondence.
Gity c
• Serves as City Clerk in their absence and serves as backup for clerical staff in various functions as
needed.
Deputy City Clerk ^^`ebe4 ^"August 2019
Packet Pg. 92
2.1.c
JOB DESCRIPTION
Deputy City Clerk
Required Knowledge of:
• Functions, activities and responsibilities of the City Clerk's Office.
• State and local laws and regulations regarding public records, public meetings, legal notices, licenses and
other assigned functions.
• City Council policies and procedures regarding records retention, preparation of minutes and assembly
of packets.
• Records management systems, techniques and technology.
• Record -keeping techniques.
• City organization, operations, policies and objectives.
• Interpersonal skills using tact, patience and courtesy.
• Structure, organization and inter -relationships of city departments, agencies, and related governmental
agencies and offices affecting assigned functions.
• Effective oral and written communication principles and practices to include public relations and public
speaking.
• Research methods and report preparation and presentation.
• Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers, computer applications such as
word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases.
• English usage, spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
• Principles of business letter writing.
Required Skill in:
• Performing various administrative duties in support of the City Clerk.
• Working with detailed, complex and sensitive materials and exercise independent judgment, diplomacy
and human relations skills.
• Monitoring processes and issuing various special licenses for the City.
• Performing the duties of the City Clerk in the absence of the City Clerk.
• Maintaining official City records.
• Maintaining confidentiality of politically sensitive materials and information.
• Preparing and maintaining a variety of reports and files related to assigned activities.
• Meeting schedules and legal time lines.
• Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work and
in compiling and preparing spreadsheets.
• Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside
agencies, community groups and the general public.
• Interpreting and administering policies and procedures sufficient to administer, discuss, resolve, and
explain them.
• Maintaining confidentiality and communicating with tact and diplomacy.
• Communicating effectively verbally and in writing, including public relations and public speaking.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
Associates Degree in Business Administration, Office Management or related field and four years of increasingly
responsible office technical or clerical experience that involves heavy customer service and work with records
management, Council/Mayoral or other executive level support; preferably within a public agency; OR an
equivalent combination of education, training and experience.
Deputy City Clerk nct ber 201
Packet Pg. 93
2.1.c
JOB DESCRIPTION
Deputy City Clerk
Required Licenses or Certifications:
May be required to obtain Certified Municipal Clerk designation within a specified period of time after hire.
May be required to obtain a Records Management Certification within a specified period of time after hire.
Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Environment:
• Office environment
• Constant interruptions
Physical Abilities:
• Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone.
• Reading and understanding a variety of materials
• Operating a computer keyboard or other office equipment.
• Sitting, standing or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time.
• Bending at the waist, kneeling, crouching, reaching above shoulders and horizontally or otherwise
positioning oneself to accomplish tasks.
• Lifting/carrying or otherwise moving or transporting up to 20 lbs.
Hazards:
• Contact with dissatisfied or abusive individuals.
Incumbent Signature: Date:
Department Head: Date:
Deputy City Clerk nct ber on,
Packet Pg. 94
2.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/13/2019
June 2019 Quarterly Financial Report
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Sarah Mager
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and move to full council for presentation
Narrative
June 2019 Quarterly Financial Report
Attachments:
June 2019 Quarterly Financial Report
Jan -June P&L
Packet Pg. 95
I 2.2.a I
OF
EDP
� d
lac. 1 $9v
CITY OF EDMONDS
QUARTERLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
JUNE 2019
Packet Pg. 96 1
I 2.2.a I
Page 1 of 1
C ITY O F IDMO NDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund
2019 Amended
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
Amount
No.
Title
Budget
Revenues
Revenues
Remaining
%Receives
001
GENERAL FUND
$ 40,866,194
$21,117,777
$ 21,254,387
$19,611,807
52
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
437,980
141,712
212,500
225,480
49
011
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
28,210
11,202
-
28,210
0
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND
018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND
019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
111 STREET FUND
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 1
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 EXCISE TAX 2 2
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAXI, PARKS ACQ FUND 2
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
136 PARKSTRUST FUND
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION
140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
211 L.LD. FUND CONTROL
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 3
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 4
424 BOND RESERVE FUND
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
182,400 67,481 - 182,400 0
5,230 2,595 2,500 2,730 48
556,800
306,850
280,187
276,613
50
-
250,000
-
-
0
O
Q
-
250,000
-
-
0
d
165,430
41,906
6,565
158,865
4
v
1,859,270
781,003
915,431
943,839
49
R
7,139,933
2,082,928
1,029,949
6,109,984
14
LL
150,910
28,480
33,549
117,361
22
2%
580
224
321
259
55
L
94,730
34,991
41,318
53,412
44
a7
26,170
11,343
11,899
14,271
45
CD
1,680
279
248
1,432
15
N
31,250
17,527
13,327
17,923
43
d
C
1,597,600
939,668
684,983
912,617
43
1,604,020
945,289
692,113
911,907
43
O
88,100
49,923
89,086
(986)
101
0
182,560
103,946
106,412
76,148
58
4,870
1,935
2,688
2,182
55
c�
44,500
20,571
26,026
18,474
58
c�C
C
10,240
5,099
6,146
4,094
60
IL
-
55,226
55,330
(55,330)
0
12,400
-
18,882
(6,482)
152
O
716,420
59,284
53,388
663,032
7
C'1
2,885,649
624,956
571,231
2,314,418
20
-
72,418
71,548
(71,548)
0
N
10,473,626
4,132,832
4,424,375
6,049,251
42
C
7
5,461,148
2,373,882
2,733,283
2,727,865
50
14,386,296
5,628,391
6,601,109
7,785,187
46
Cl)
1,995,280
640,746
625,599
1,369,681
31
E
t
1,763,760
862,260
926,862
836,898
53
1,101,798
636,386
552,522
549,276
50
r
.r
Q
72,040
48,386
51,708
20,332
72
$ 93,947,074 $ 42,347,497 $ 42,095,471 $ 51,851,603 45'
9 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
Packet Pg. 97 1
I 2.2.a I
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund 2019 Amended
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
Amount
No. Title Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
001 GENERAL FUND $ 45,296,523
$ 20,515,429
$ 21,172,989
$ 24,123,534
470/
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 466,920
199,251
223,053
243,867
480/
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND
019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
111 STREET FUND
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND
127 GIFT S CATALOG FUND
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
136 PARKS TRUST FUND
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION
140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 5
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND
421 WATER UTILITY FUND
422 STORM UTILITY FUND
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
424 BOND RESERVE FUND
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
- 49,584 - - 00/
5,400 - 5,533 (133) 1020/
- 1,862 (1,862) 00/
200,000 100,000 100,000 50°1
45,800
52,464
-
45,800
00/
Q.
2,252,028
896,261
1,015,201
1,236,827
450/
d
6,892,395
1,649,707
483,345
6,409,050
70/
.50
v
181,880
18,575
12,502
169,378
7'/
R
100,400
24,735
36,521
63,879
360/
C
li
26,880
-
-
26,880
0°/
L
3,000
969
1,752
1,248
580/
d
ca
32,000
6,659
7,659
24,341
240/
3,373,286
464,693
510,795
2,862,491
1501
CD
3,872,301
292,722
505,942
3,366,359
130/
N
99,754
13,664
39,882
59,872
400/
C
7
194,707
100,526
95,383
99,324
490/
v
5,000
-
4,935
65
990/
10,500
385
3,318
7,182
320/
d
w
-
44,330
34,040
(34,040)
00/
-3
12,400
-
-
12,400
00/
_
716,410
59,284
53,388
663,022
70/
_
3,997,428
258,884
29,543
3,967,885
10/
L+
12,938,995
4,725,391
4,613,073
8,325,922
360/
10,018,035
1,768,441
2,062,033
7,956,002
210/
3
17,721,484
4,354,491
4,636,355
13,085,129
260/
Cy
1,991,210
640,742
625,592
1,365,618
310/
c
2,933,431
648,514
851,714
2,081,717
290/
04
1,179,911
615,817
468,592
711,319
400/
C
7
78,627
38,821
97,548
(18,921)
1240/
y ;
C
$ 114,646,705
$ 37,440,338
$ 37,692,549
$ 76,954,156
330/
'D
.r
Q
5 Business Improvement District is not included in the City Budget; activity is here for reporting purposes only.
2
Packet Pg. 98 1
2.2.a
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2019 Amended 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 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
37 WA ASSOC OF SHERIFF'S TRAFFIC GRANT
38 TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT
39 HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT
40 STATE GRANTS- BUDGET ONLY
41 PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX
42 DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE
43 WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT
44 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DOE
45 MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION
46 TRIAL COURT IMPROVEMENT
47 CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS
48 MARIJUANA EXCISE TAX DISTRIBUTION
49 DUI - CITIES
50 LIQUOR EXCISE TAX
51 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS
52 INTERLOCAL GRANTS
53 VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS
54 FIRST RESPONDERS FLEX FUND
55 DISCOVERY PROGRAMS TECHNOLOGY ACQ.
$ 10,548,203
$ 5,595,442
$ 5,634,666
$ 4,913,537
5301(
4,044,220
2,144,467
2,178,500
1,865,721
540/(
500
3,703
119
381
240/(
7,825,000
3,866,411
4,072,013
3,752,987
520/(
8,100
2,134
6,468
1,632
800/(
779,500
367,269
385,060
394,440
490/(
1,691,300
989,943
983,768
707,532
580/(
626,600
415,620
383,777
242,823
610/(
350,900
178,118
175,304
175,596
5001(
1,211,800
526,247
516,780
695,020
430/(
840,900
382,182
416,459
424,441
5001(
446,300
200,031
220,604
225,696
490/(
862,100
408,137
397,588
464,512
460/(
967,200
512,099
424,559
542,641
440/(
53,500
26,597
30,413
23,087
570/(
40
-
-
40
0°/
251,900
135,493
139,010
112,890
5501(
30,508,063
15,753,895
15,965,086
14,542,977
520/,
250
155
60
190
240/(
450
480
310
140
690/(
6,330
5,950
4,675
1,655
740/(
50,000
2,027
12,478
37,522
250/(
713,500
345,926
336,861
376,639
470/(
41,200
20,904
20,798
20,402
500/(
106,900
54,471
49,632
57,268
460/(
14,000
7,220
-
14,000
00/(
325,100
165,070
77,912
247,188
240/(
122,200
72,910
69,030
53,170
560/(
63,400
41,205
34,640
28,760
5501(
75,900
41,800
38,100
37,800
5001(
15,000
50,816
13,460
1,540
900/(
703,600
351,317
270,359
433,241
380/(
27,500
10,297
7,770
19,730
280/(
50,000
30,121
23,830
26,170
480/(
18,500
11,064
10,965
7,535
590/(
2,333,830
1,211,733
970,879
1,362,951
420/(
6,006
-
3,470
2,536
580/(
14,616
-
-
14,616
00/(
2,285
-
2,285
-
1000/(
4,000
1,760
1,852
2,148
46°/
7,100
4,050
-
7,100
00/(
18,000
-
-
18,000
0°/
199,500
-
-
199,500
00/(
-
1,455
2,805
(2,805)
00/(
-
3,623
-
-
00/(
-
-
6,453
(6,453)
00/c
13,800
5,847
6,100
7,700
440/(
16,716
8,974
8,594
8,122
5101(
45,600
21,184
22,004
23,596
480/(
45,000
44,380
30,096
14,904
670/(
6,000
3,050
3,041
2,959
5101(
215,000
104,405
114,594
100,406
530/(
342,000
170,954
170,475
171,525
500/c
-
25,000
-
-
00/(
-
5,810
2,000
(2,000)
00/(
-
524
705
(705)
00/(
-
2,190
-
-
00/(
935,623
403,206
374,473
561,150
400%
Q
6 2019 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax revenues are $205,602 higher than 2018 revenues. Please also seepages pages 18 & 19.
3
Packet Pg. 99 1
2.2.a
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2019 Amended
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Revenues
Revenues
Remaining
%Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
1 RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMENTS
3,000
3,015
1,452
1,548
480/(
2 ATM SURCHARGE FEES
400
170
218
183
540/(
3 CREDIT CARD FEES
10,000
6,715
7,246
2,754
720/(
4 COURT RECORD SERVICES
-
69
74
(74)
0°/
5 D/M COURT REC SER
300
104
37
263
120/(
6 WARRANT PREPARATION FEE
5,500
2,778
5,936
(436)
1080/(
7 IT TIME PAY FEE
1,000
557
733
267
730/(
8 MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN
100
49
158
(58)
1580/(
9 SALE MAPS & BOOKS
100
14
32
68
320/(
10 CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKINGPERMITS
25,100
-
-
25,100
0°/
11 BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT
600
-
-
600
00/(
12 PHOTOCOPIES
1,000
322
471
529
470
13 POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS
500
69
-
500
00/c
14 ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES
200,000
82,733
86,372
113,628
430
15 ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES
-
1,486
-
-
00/c
16 SNO-ISLE
78,000
47,454
47,079
30,921
600/(
17 P ASSP ORT S AND NAT URALIZAT ION FEES
21,000
12,155
13,120
7,880
620/(
18 POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS
30,000
8,890
5,444
24,556
180/(
19 CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.
125,550
2,608
39,524
86,026
310/(
20 WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION
193,067
24,488
115,333
77,734
600/(
21 MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES
1,500
-
2
1,498
00/(
22 FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS
50,000
30,336
30,727
19,273
610/(
23 LEGAL SERVICES
-
546
1,049
(1,049)
00/(
24 FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FOR DUI
-
-
117
(117)
00/(
25 ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE
54,000
27,126
22,585
31,415
420/(
26 ELECTRONIC MONITORING
-
100
-
-
0°/
27 BOOKINGFEES
400
731
1,722
(1,322)
4300/(
28 FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES
12,560
8,215
9,100
3,460
720/(
29 EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES
3,000
1,490
3,525
(525)
1180/(
30 EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE
852,100
503,256
534,096
318,004
630/(
31 FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS
2,500
1,421
629
1,871
250/(
32 ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER
50
15
100
(50)
2000/(
33 ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE
102,300
95,022
54,685
47,615
530/(
34 PLAN CHECKING FEES
425,900
183,048
311,975
113,925
730/(
35 FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES
6,500
4,715
5,295
1,205
810/(
36 PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE
1,000
420
-
1,000
00/(
37 S.E.P.A. REVIEW
5,000
5,360
3,850
1,150
770/(
38 CRITICAL AREA STUDY
14,000
10,150
8,975
5,025
640/(
39 DV COORDINATOR SERVICES
2,046
6,168
4,707
(2,661)
2300/(
40 GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES
13,000
7,236
6,143
6,857
470/(
41 PROGRAM FEES
910,740
516,264
503,818
406,922
5501(
42 TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES
1,300
264
552
748
42°/
43 WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES
5,000
-
1,100
3,900
220/(
44 BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES
1,000
-
-
1,000
0°/
45 INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS
2,624,792
1,252,683
1,442,329
1,182,463
5501(
5,783,905
2,848,238
3,270,311
2,513,594
577%
O
N
C
R
C
LL
N
cc
3
O
N
d
C
7
O
CL
O
R
v
c
cc
C
iL
L
7
CY
0
N
a�
C
7
C
O
E
t
U
O
r
.r
Q
4
Packet Pg. 100
2.2.a
Page 3 of 3
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2019 Amended 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 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-TRAF 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 CONV. 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 SiRESTITUTION
43 CASHIERS OVERAGES/SHORTAGES
44 OTHER MISC REVENUES
45 SMALL OVERPAYMENT
46 NSF FEES - PARKS & REC
47 NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT
48 NSF FEES -POLICE
49 US BANK REBATE
TRANSFERS -IN:
50 TRANSFER FROM FUND 127
51 INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM FUND 012
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE
7,500
3,920
1,941
5,559
260/c
290,000
144,956
120,697
169,303
420/(
31,000
15,620
9,992
21,008
320/(
38,000
19,034
9,132
28,868
240/c
1,000
3,400
1,371
(371)
1370/(
800
398
1,022
(222)
1280/(
159,000
79,902
73,334
85,666
460/(
800
418
1,358
(558)
1700/(
6,000
3,607
4,439
1,561
740/(
1,000
468
266
734
270/(
200
76
45
155
230/(
1,500
804
1,063
437
710/(
135
96
-
135
0°/
30,000
14,909
17,524
12,476
580/(
3,600
1,853
1,516
2,084
420/(
1,000
483
384
616
380/(
100
29
(2,792)
2,892
-27920/t
13,000
6,832
6,699
6,301
520/(
600
351
140
460
230/(
1,600
847
573
1,027
360/(
500
238
219
281
440/(
18,500
10,098
7,197
11,303
390/(
12,000
5,952
7,284
4,716
610/(
7,000
3,693
2,486
4,514
360/(
10,000
10,110
5,150
4,850
520/(
300
-
1,208
(908)
4030/(
635,135
328,093
272,250
362,885
43°7,
248,160
72,950
180,170
67,990
730/(
9,210
9,401
15,918
(6,708)
1730/(
3,000
4,382
4,661
(1,661)
15501(
4,062
-
-
0°/
153,000
64,611
58,641
94,359
380/(
5,000
1,300
1,210
3,790
240/(
185,000
94,599
100,882
84,118
5501(
7,000
1,281
3,473
3,527
500/(
4,350
3,130
350
4,000
80/(
1,500
1,340
820
680
5501(
9,768
-
7,618
2,150
780/(
300
58
68
232
230/(
3,000
1,613
1,392
1,608
460/(
2,000
-
-
2,000
0°/
2,000
-
3
1,997
0°/
200
50
389
(189)
1950/(
-
(61)
(162)
162
00/(
2,000
245,328
7,310
(5,310)
3650/(
30
42
40
(10)
13501(
20
-
-
20
00/c
300
176
108
192
360/(
-
30
-
-
00/(
7,500
5,585
5,348
2,152
710/(
643,338
509,877
388,238
255,100
60°/
26,300 13,150 13,150 13,150 5001(
- 49,584 - - 00/c
26,300 62,734 13,150 13,150 500/(
$ 40,866,194 $ 21,117,777 $ 21,254,387 $ 19,611,807 520%
Q
5
Packet Pg. 101
2.2.a
Page 1 of 6
C ITY O F EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Amended
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining %Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
1 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 16,416,248
$ 7,236,479
$ 7,789,352
$ 8,626,896
470/
2 OVERTIME
488,380
322,117
412,940
75,440
850/
3 HOLIDAY BUY BACK
250,491
4,268
7,053
243,438
30r
4 BENEFITS
6,106,801
2,819,923
3,060,818
3,045,983
5001
5 UNIFORMS
90,475
45,390
56,064
34,411
620/
6 SUPPLIES
376,780
187,019
246,679
130,101
650/
7 SMALL EQUIPMENT
219,379
39,681
95,121
124,258
430i
8 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7
14,984,721
1,164,021
6,573,386
8,411,335
440/
9 COMMUNICATIONS
157,435
63,195
65,693
91,742
420i
10 TRAVEL
66,280
22,506
41,570
24,710
630r
11 EXCISE TAXES
6,500
1,503
1,481
5,019
230i
12 RENTAL/LEASE
1,842,569
980,951
926,590
915,979
5001
13INSURANCE
431,095
437,253
436,448
(5,353)
1010/
14 UTILITIES
460,625
216,452
235,466
225,159
5101
15 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE
584,030
139,552
282,324
301,706
480/
16 MISCELLANEOUS
561,304
205,298
234,402
326,902
420i
17 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 7
-
5,365,981
-
-
00/
18 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS
75,000
393,623
75,000
-
1000i
19 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
1,953,108
779,625
625,579
1,327,529
320/
20 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
27,042
80,016
-
27,042
00i
21 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL
183,710
-
-
183,710
00i
22 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
500
-
-
500
00i
23 INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT
14,050
10,576
7,023
7,027
5001
45,296,523
20,515,429
21,172,989
24,123,534
47°r
LEO FF-MEDIC AL INS. RES ERVE (009)
24 BENEFITS
25 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
26 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
27 MISCELLANEOUS
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND (012)
28 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
$ 206,650 $
90,062 $
83,875 $
122,775
410/
252,990
105,189
138,543
114,447
5501
7,000
3,600
180
6,820
30r
280
400
455
(175)
1630i
466,920
199,251
223,053
243,867
489
$ - $ 49,584 $ - $ 00/
- 49,584 - 00r
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014)
29 SUPPLIES $
100 $
$ - $
100
00/
30 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200
-
200
00/
31 MISCELLANEOUS
5,100
5,533
(433)
1080r
5,400
5,533
(133)
102°r
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSEFUND (018)
32 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $
$
$ 1,862 $
(1,862)
00/
$
1,862
(1,862)
0OX
EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSEFUND (019)
33 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
$ 200,000 $
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
5001
200,000 $
100,000 100,000
5001
DRUG INFO RCEMFNTFUND (104)
34 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$ 45,000 $
$ - $ 45,000
00r
35 REPAIR/MAINT
800
- 800
00i
36 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
52,464 - -
00i
45,800
52,464 - 45,800
09
.r
Q
7 The difference for "intergovernmental services" and "professional services" is due to a change in BARS coding.
6
Packet Pg. 102
I 2.2.a I
Page 2 of 6
CITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Amended
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
STREEI'FUND (111)
1 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 795,977
$ 245,758
$ 274,983
$ 520,994
350
2 OVERTIME
35,900
12,653
31,514
4,386
880
3 BENEFITS
264,125
124,406
129,336
134,789
490
4 UNIFORMS
6,000
3,136
3,278
2,722
550
5 SUPPLIES
335,000
117,849
136,340
198,660
410
6 SMALL EQUIPMENT
20,000
375
1,008
18,992
50
7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
26,140
8,023
6,101
20,039
230
8 COMMUNICATIONS
4,500
3,257
3,161
1,339
700
9 TRAVEL
1,000
-
-
1,000
04
10 RENTAL/LEASE
268,280
92,801
133,324
134,956
500
11 INSURANCE
153,881
156,645
156,514
(2,633)
1020
12 UTILITIES
276,605
118,792
122,419
154,186
440
13 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
52,000
11,270
15,272
36,728
290
14 MISCELLANEOUS
8,000
829
1,662
6,338
210
15 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
144
-
-
04
16 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL
4,040
-
-
4,040
00
17 INTEREST
580
322
289
291
500
COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112)
18 SALARIES AND WAGES
19 BENEFIT S
20 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
21 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
22 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
23 LAND
24 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
25 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
26 INTEREST
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117)
27 SUPPLIES
28 SMALL EQUIPMENT
29 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
30 TRAVEL
31 RENTAL/LEASE
32 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
33 MISCELLANEOUS
HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120)
34 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
35 MISCELLANEOUS
36 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
EMPLO YEE PARIGNG PERMIT FUND (121)
37 SUPPLIES
38 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122)
39 MISCELLANEOUS
TO URISM PRO MO TIO NAL FUND/ARTS (123)
40 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
41 MISCELLANEOUS
$ 2,252,028 $ 896,261 $ 1,015,201 $ 1,236,827 450
$ - $
6,815 $
$ -
04
961
5,345
961
04
3,893,563
181,909
189,340
3,704,223
54
1,138,238
-
6,405
1,131,833
10
47,710
40,515
40,318
7,392
850
38,500
-
-
38,500
04
1,698,873
1,340,248
172,767
1,526,106
100
72,220
72,201
72,201
19
1000
2,330
2,674
2,313
17
990
$ 6,892,395 $
1,649,707 $
483,345
$ 6,409,050
74
$ 4,700 $
102 $
521 $
4,179
110
1,700
-
-
1,700
00
166,500
15,884
9,284
157,216
60
80
9
6
74
84
2,000
-
-
2,000
04
300
-
-
300
04
6,600
2,580
2,691
3,909
410
$ 181,880 $
18,575 $
12,502 $
169,378
70
$ 95,400 $ 22,735 $ 33,938 $ 61,462 360
1,000 - 583 417 580
4,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 500
$ 100,400 $ 24,735 $ 36,521 $ 63,879 365
$ 1,790 $ $ $ 1,790 04
25,090 25,090 04
$ 26,880 $ $ $ 26,880 09
$ 3,000 $ 969 $ 1,752 $ 1,248 584
$ 3,000 $ 969 $ 1,752 $ 1,248 580
$ 28,500 $ 5,195 $ 5,915 $ 22,585 210
3,500 1,464 1,744 1,756 500
$ 32,000 $ 6,659 $ 7,659 $ 24,341 240
ly
Q
7
Packet Pg. 103
I 2.2.a I
Page 3 of 6
CITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Amended 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (125)
1 SUPPLIES
$ 21,000
$ 29,777
$ 37,843
$ (16,843)
1800
2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
586,505
38,014
100,082
486,423
170
3 RENTAL/LEASE
-
-
381
(381)
00
4 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
591,156
38,843
552,313
74
5 LAND
100,000
-
-
100,000
04
6 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
2,074,625
396,902
333,646
1,740,979
160
$ 3,373,286
$ 464,693
$ 510,795
$ 2,862,491
150
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS AC Q (126)
7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
9 MISCELLANEOUS
10 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
11 LAND
12 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
13 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
14 INTEREST
GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127)
15 SUPPLIES
16 SMALL EQUIPMENT
17 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
18 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
19 MISCELLANEOUS
20 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
CY EIII2YMAINTINANCFAMPROVEMENT(130)
21 SALARIES AND WAGES
22 OVERTIME
23 BENEFIT S
24 UNIFORMS
25 SUPPLIES
26 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
27 SMALL EQUIPMENT
28 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
29 COMMUNICATIONS
30 TRAVEL
31 RENTAL/LEASE
32 UTILITIES
33 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
34 MISCELLANEOUS
PARKS TRUSTFUND (136)
35 SMALL EQUIPMENT
36 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138)
37 SUPPLIES
38 TRAVEL
39 MISCELLANEOUS
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENTDISTRICTFUND (140)
40 SUPPLIES
41 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
42 MISCELLANEOUS
LID FUND C O NTRO L (211)
43 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231)
44 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
45 INTEREST
$ 204,650 $
54,697 $
63,679
140,971
310
658,879
-
23,409
635,470
49
-
216,720
-
-
04
133,030
15,063
14,013
119,018
110
100,000
-
-
100,000
00
2,748,902
4,369
403,161
2,345,741
150
23,480
-
-
23,480
00
3,360
1,873
1,680
1,680
500
$ 3,872,301 $
292,722 $
505,942 $
3,366,359
130
$ 39,779 $
360 $
24,301 $
15,478
610
15,325
-
574
14,751
40
6,500
-
6,500
04
11,250
-
1,858
9,392
170
600
154
-
600
04
26,300
13,150
13,150
13,150
500
$ 99,754 $
13,664 $
39,882 $
59,872
400
$ 93,593 $
41,148 $
45,255 $
48,338
480
3,500
1,907
2,816
684
800
38,909
17,755
20,855
18,054
540
1,000
-
225
775
230
7,000
14,975
697
6,303
100
20,000
13,295
8,771
11,229
440
-
-
1,246
(1,246)
09
4,200
1,152
866
3,334
210
1,410
780
929
481
660
500
-
-
500
04
6,260
5,820
3,130
3,130
500
3,835
2,044
1,815
2,020
470
500
-
-
500
04
14,000
1,649
8,777
5,223
630
$ 194,707 $
100,526 $
95,383 $
99,324
499
$ 5,000 $ $ 4,935 $ 65 990
- - - 04
$ 5,000 $ $ 4,935 $ 65 990
$ 1,500 $ 27 $ 68 $ 1,432 50
4,500 - 2,705 1,795 600
4,500 357 544 3,956 120
$ 10,500 $ 385 $ 3,318 $ 7,182 320
$ $ 6,892 $ 4,760 $ (4,760) W
33,422 28,331 (28,331) 04
4,016 950 (950) 0°
44,330 34,040 (34,040) 0°
$ 12,400 $ $ - $ 12,400 00
$ 12,400 $ $ - $ 12,400 09
$ 609,630 $ - $ - $ 609,630 04
106,780 59,284 53,388 53,392 500
$ 716,410 $ 59,284 $ 53,388 $ 663,022 70
O
d
2
C
eo
C
IL
i
d
ca
7
C'J
w
0
N
d
C
O
O
M
tY
20 U
C
O
C
iL
d
t
ev
3
C'1
CD
0
N
a�
C
7
C
d
t
c�
O
r
Q
8
Packet Pg. 104
2.2.a
Page 4 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Amended
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining %Spent
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (332)
1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$ 4,760
$ 7,576
$
12,915
$
(8,155)
2710
2 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
-
200,000
-
-
04
3 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
3,992,668
51,308
16,627
3,976,041
04
$ 3,997,428
$ 258,884
$
29,543
$
3,967,885
10
WATER FUND (421)
4 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 845,003
$ 360,755
$
390,865
$
454,138
460
5 OVERTIME
24,000
10,114
11,987
12,013
500
6 BENEFITS
371,025
173,555
181,401
189,624
490
7 UNIFORMS
4,000
2,703
2,029
1,971
510
8 SUPPLIES
150,000
58,171
32,658
117,342
220
9 FUEL CONSUMED
-
70
-
-
04
10 WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE
1,950,000
738,717
770,160
1,179,840
390
11 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
170,000
41,905
32,277
137,723
190
12 SMALL EQUIPMENT
11,000
2,094
4,856
6,144
440
13 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
878,372
351,972
424,355
454,017
480
14 COMMUNICATIONS
30,000
12,621
12,628
17,372
420
15 TRAVEL
200
-
-
200
00
16 EXCISE TAXES 8
1,649,700
202,222
728,049
921,651
440
17 RENTAL/LEASE
155,532
71,481
76,514
79,018
490
18 INSURANCE
54,423
56,738
55,096
(673)
1010
19 UTILITIES
35,310
12,822
14,170
21,140
400
20 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
1,603,100
14,723
15,511
1,587,589
14
21 MISCELLANEOUS
121,400
56,295
62,471
58,929
510
22 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
14,922
-
-
09
23 INTERFUND TAXES 8
-
526,247
-
-
04
24 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
646,370
211,087
206,313
440,057
320
25 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
15,000
-
-
15,000
04
26 CONSTRUCT ION PROJECTS
3,614,690
1,661,843
1,452,719
2,161,971
400
27 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
2,710
-
-
2,710
00
28 REVENUE BONDS
355,740
-
-
355,740
04
29 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
25,840
25,839
25,839
1
1000
30 INTEREST
225,580
118,495
113,174
112,406
500
$ 12,938,995
$ 4,725,391
$
4,613,073
$
8,325,922
360
S TO RM FUND (422)
31 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 702,584
$ 323,647
$
344,031
$
358,553
490
32 OVERTIME
29,000
5,134
27,971
1,029
960
33 BENEFITS
360,829
164,925
178,099
182,730
490
34 UNIFORMS
6,500
4,629
4,872
1,628
750
35 SUPPLIES
46,000
15,108
17,193
28,807
370
36 SMALL EQUIPMENT
4,000
74
3,653
347
910
37 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,711,075
335,403
560,718
1,150,357
330
38 COMMUNICATIONS
3,200
2,083
2,347
853
730
39 TRAVEL
4,300
840
-
4,300
04
40 EXCISE TAXES 8
470,100
32,664
256,430
213,670
550
41 RENTAL/LEASE
246,404
123,003
122,014
124,390
500
42 INSURANCE
125,390
178,798
127,548
(2,158)
1020
43 UTILITES
10,710
5,008
5,698
5,012
530
44 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
439,568
9,703
10,053
429,515
24
45 MISCELLANEOUS
113,100
50,283
82,141
30,959
730
46 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
68,906
-
-
00
47 INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 8
-
200,031
-
-
04
48 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
297,750
82,537
80,083
217,667
270
49 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
4,987,891
68,142
145,156
4,842,735
34
50 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
98,900
-
-
98,900
04
51 REVENUE BONDS
173,940
-
-
173,940
09
52 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
55,639
32,063
32,063
23,577
580
53 INTEREST
131,155
65,463
61,964
69,191
470
$ 10,018,035
$ 1,768,441
$
2,062,033
$
7,956,002
210
Q
8 The difference for "interfund taxes" and )xcise taxes" is due to a change in BARS coding.
I Packet Pg. 105 1
I 2.2.a I
Page 5 of 6
CITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Amended
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
SEWER FUND (423)
1 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 1,850,763
$ 827,818
$ 881,373
$ 969,390
480
2 OVERTIME
95,000
43,324
48,806
46,194
510
3 BENEFITS
815,177
374,807
379,540
435,637
470
4 UNIFORMS
9,500
5,402
5,085
4,415
540
5 SUPPLIES
417,200
137,582
129,464
287,736
310
6 FUEL CONSUMED
80,000
30,648
16,382
63,618
200
7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE
4,000
-
-
4,000
04
8 SMALL EQUIPMENT
50,000
20,717
8,005
41,995
160
9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,599,670
508,828
579,843
1,019,827
360
10 COMMUNICATIONS
43,000
19,863
18,492
24,508
430
11 TRAVEL
5,000
2,122
32
4,968
10
12 EXCISE TAXES 9
973,000
113,290
532,529
440,471
550
13 RENTAL/LEASE
313,469
154,440
181,606
131,863
580
14 INSURANCE
184,261
117,717
184,604
(343)
1000
15 UTILITIES
1,231,310
501,136
609,856
621,454
500
16 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
695,000
163,835
183,319
511,681
260
17 MISCELLANEOUS
125,650
48,235
48,500
77,150
390
18 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
45,153
-
-
00
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
-
382,182
-
-
04
2,420,671
347,117
339,196
2,081,475
140
30,000
79,862
-
30,000
00
6,300,393
229,479
291,951
6,008,442
54
150,050
-
-
150,050
04
80,340
-
-
80,340
00
172,540
157,665
157,991
14,549
920
75,490
40,585
37,239
38,251
490
-
2,683
2,543
(2,543)
04
$ 17,721,484 $
4,354,491
$ 4,636,355
$ 13,085,129
265
$ 740,010 $ - $ - $ 740,010 00
1,251,200 640,742 625,592 625,608 500
$ 1,991,210 $ 640,742 $ 625,592 $ 1,365,618 315
Q
9 The difference for "interfund taxes" and "excise taxes" is due to a change in BARS coding.
10
Packet Pg. 106
I 2.2.a I
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2019 Amended
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
EQ UIPMEIVT RENTAL FUND (511)
1 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 259,309
$ 127,136
$ 130,303
$ 129,006
500
2 OVERTIME
2,000
-
8,081
(6,081)
4040
3 BENEFITS
113,207
54,182
56,904
56,303
500
4 UNIFORMS
1,000
787
1,060
(60)
1060
5 SUPPLIES
110,000
37,607
61,065
48,935
560
6 FUEL CONSUMED
1,000
-
-
1,000
04
7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
273,000
68,780
71,135
201,865
260
8 SMALL EQUIPMENT
58,000
2,502
1,689
56,311
34
9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
46,580
2,450
701
45,879
24
10 COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
1,062
1,098
1,902
370
11 TRAVEL
1,000
233
255
745
250
12 RENTAL/LEASE
14,120
4,705
6,862
7,258
490
13 INSURANCE
32,015
29,464
30,167
1,848
940
14 UTILITIES
14,200
7,105
7,920
6,280
560
15 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
60,000
18,905
10,471
49,529
170
16 MISCELLANEOUS
12,000
7,445
7,902
4,098
660
17 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
250
-
-
00
18 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
1,933,000
285,902
456,103
1,476,897
240
$ 2,933,431
$ 648,514
$ 851,714
$ 2,081,717
290
TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND (512)
19 SALARIES AND WAGES
$
292,502
$
139,639
$
141,592
$
150,910
480
20 OVERTIME
2,000
1,148
60
1,940
39
21 BENEFITS
97,499
46,632
48,438
49,061
500
22 SUPPLIES
5,000
2,807
1,738
3,262
350
23 SMALL EQUIPMENT
38,000
88,128
28,851
9,149
760
24 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
210,000
158,890
6,551
203,449
39
25 COMMUNICATIONS
58,770
20,604
31,450
27,320
540
26 TRAVEL
1,500
412
353
1,147
240
27 RENTAL/LEASE
7,200
2,224
2,419
4,781
340
28 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
387,690
121,706
148,442
239,248
380
29 MISCELLANEOUS
5,000
8,597
1,124
3,876
220
30 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
74,750
25,030
57,571
17,179
770
$
1,179,911
$
615,817
$
468,592
$
711,319
400
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
31 BENEFITS
$
23,000
$
12,291
$
9,933
$
13,067
430
32 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
54,427
25,990
87,615
(33,188)
1610
33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,200
540
-
1,200
04
$
78,627
$
38,821
$
97,548
$
(18,921)
1240
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS
$
114,646,705
$
37,440,338
$ 37,692,549
$
76,954,156
330
O
d
C
R
C
LL
i
d
co
3
CY
0
0
N
d
C
7
O
0.
d
C
O
iLC
L
d
ev
3
CI
0
0
N
d
C
7
C
O
E
t
C�
O
r
Q
11
Packet Pg. 107
2.2.a
Page 1 of 1
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
2019 Amended 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 Amount
Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent
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
Title
$ 602,387
$ 211,018 $
206,635
$ 395,752
34%
296,155
144,437
146,522
149,633
49%
590,331
205,285
289,770
300,561
49%
1,143,210
492,913
481,931
661,279
42%
685,420
329,209
343,911
341,509
50%
1,244,805
552,805
612,381
632,424
49%
0
889,560
411,032
415,167
474,393
47%
N
13,556,979
7,214,671
6,729,909
6,827,070
C
11,728,919
5,475,264
5,802,457
5,926,462
49%
618,232
269,991
270,544
347,688
44%
LL
3,426,322
1,273,975
1,357,577
2,068,745
40%
L
4)
4,303,374
1,773,743
1,882,379
2,420,995
44%
3
3,296,100
1,331,268
1,547,622
1,748,478
47%
2,914,729
829,817
1,086,185
1,828,544
37%
N
$ 45,296,523
$ 20,515,429 $
21,172,989
$ 24,123,534
47%
a)
7
O
O
CITY OF EDMO NDS
v
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY-
BY FUND IN
SUMMARY
C
2019 Amended
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
Amount
LL
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
WATER UTILITY FUND $ 12,938,995 $
4,725,391 $
4,613,073 $
8,325,922
36%
STORM UTILITY FUND 10,018,035
1,768,441
2,062,033
7,956,002
21%
ca
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 17,721,484
4,354,491
4,636,355
13,085,129
p
26%
BOND RESERVE FUND 1,991,210
640,742
625,592
1,365,618
31%
N
C
$ 42,669,724 $
11,489,066 $
11,937,053 $
30,732,671
28%
C
O
t
c�
r
.r
Q
12
Packet Pg. 108
Page 1 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DEr'AIL
Title
2019 Amended
Budget
6/30/2018
Expenditures
6/30/2019
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
%Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES
$
171,950
$
79,414
$
88,782
$
83,168
52%
OVERTIME
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
BENEFITS
92,751
45,974
48,514
44,237
52%
SUPPLIES
2,000
765
760
1,240
38%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
-
15,089
342
(342)
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
194,160
55,836
52,576
141,585
27%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
1,501
2,764
236
92%
TRAVEL
6,700
738
1,918
4,782
29%
RENTAL/LEASE
11,586
8,170
6,096
5,490
53%
REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE
500
-
121
379
24%
MISCELLANEOUS
118,740
3,532
4,762
113,978
4%
$
602,387
$
211,018
$
206,635
$
395,752
34%
OFFICEOFMAYOR
SALARIES
$
215,076
$
104,823
$
107,883
$
107,193
50%
BENEFITS
53,257
24,975
26,742
26,515
50%
SUPPLIES
1,500
181
367
1,133
24%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,000
1,726
1,600
1,400
53%
COMMUNICATION
1,400
936
491
909
35%
TRAVEL
3,000
280
1,964
1,036
65%
RENTAL/LEASE
13,472
10,478
6,278
7,194
47%
MISCELLANEOUS
5,450
1,038
1,197
4,253
22%
$
296,155
$
144,437
$
146,522
$
149,633
49%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES
$
327,939
$
114,734
$
176,956
$
150,983
54%
OVERTIME
-
-
118
(118)
0%
BENEFITS
118,229
43,624
50,064
68,165
42%
SUPPLIES
12,300
845
2,136
10,164
17%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
300
-
-
300
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
81,886
21,410
30,023
51,863
37%
COMMUNICATIONS
700
511
507
193
72%
TRAVEL
1,000
899
309
691
31%
RENTAL/LEASE
22,947
13,511
12,399
10,548
54%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
7,850
7,326
7,571
279
96%
MISCELLANEOUS
17.180
2A26
9,686
7,494
56%
$
590,331
$
205,285
$
289,770
$
300,561
49%
MUNIC IPAL C O URT
SALARIES
$
628,961
$
284,806
$
291,352
$
337,609
46%
OVERTIME
800
-
367
433
46%
BENEFITS
244,601
111,773
98,805
145,796
40%
SUPPLIES
10,600
5,320
1,471
9,129
14%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,000
-
5,155
(4,155)
515%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
124,925
37,169
36,792
88,133
29%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,550
1,173
1,195
2,355
34%
TRAVEL
6,500
2,176
1,432
5,068
22%
RENTAL/LEASE
65,251
36,170
32,027
33,224
49%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
4,880
-
277
4,603
6%
MISCELLANEOUS
25,100
14,326
13,057
12,043
52%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
27,042
-
-
27,042
0%
$
1,143,210
$
492,913
$
481,931
$
661,279
42%
.r
Q
13
Packet Pg. 109 1
I 2.2.a I
Page 2 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2019 Amended
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
CITY C LERK
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 358,349
$ 170,488
$ 175,343
$ 183,006
49%
BENEFITS
151,468
75,338
77,214
74,254
51%
SUPPLIES
10,240
1,975
1,106
9,134
11%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
32,310
11,413
10,931
21,379
34%
COMMUNICATIONS
40,000
12,409
15,824
24,176
40%
TRAVEL
2,000
437
465
1,535
23%
RENTAL/LEASE
50,973
30,653
24,414
26,559
48%
REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE
32,080
22,298
33,184
(1,104)
103%
MISCELLANEOUS
8,000
4,199
5,430
2,570
68%
$ 685,420
$ 329,209
$ 343,911
$ 341,509
50%
FINANCE
SALARIES
$
844,384
$
360,675
$
400,451
$
443,933
47%
OVERTIME
4,500
146
-
4,500
0%
BENEFITS
268,345
115,708
135,482
132,863
50%
SUPPLIES
7,350
1,473
2,912
4,438
40%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
5,400
3,831
579
4,821
11%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
14,650
89
349
14,301
2%
COMMUNICATIONS
2,000
561
557
1,443
28%
TRAVEL
3,100
2,490
2,055
1,045
66%
RENTAL/LEASE
48,226
24,517
24,727
23,499
51%
REPAIRIMAINTENANCE
38,500
41,121
42,499
(3,999)
110%
MISCELLANEOUS
8,350
2,192
2,770
5,580
33%
$
1,244,805
$
552,805
$
612,381
$
632,424
49%
CITY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
889,560
$
411,032
$
415,167
$
474,393
47%
$
889,560
$
411,032
$
415,167
$
474,393
47%
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES
$
101,750
$
-
$
-
$
101,750
0%
BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT
40,000
8,709
22,812
17,188
57%
SUPPLIES
5,000
712
2,371
2,629
47%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10,666,114
206,326
5,503,208
5,162,906
52%
EXCISE TAXES
6,500
1,503
1,481
5,019
23%
RENTAL/LEASE
10,538
5,626
6,393
4,145
61%
INSURANCE
431,095
437,253
436,448
(5,353)
101%
MISCELLANEOUS
69,614
48,610
49,596
20,018
71%
INTERGOVT SERVICES
-
5,322,109
-
-
0%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT
75,000
393,623
75,000
-
100%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
1,953,108
779,625
625,579
1,327,529
32%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
183,710
-
-
183,710
0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT
14,050
10,576
7,023
7,027
50%
FISCAL AGENT FEES
500
500
0%
$
13,556,979
$
7,214,671
$
6,729,909
$
6,827,070
50%
.r
Q
14
Packet Pg. 110
Page 3 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2019 Amended
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
PO LIC E S ERVIC FS
SALARIES
$ 6,916,238
$ 3,161,254
$ 3,295,695
$ 3,620,543
48%
OVERTIME
454,780
298,783
387,284
67,496
85%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK
250,491
4,268
7,053
243,438
3%
BENEFITS
2,549,180
1,235,875
1,309,612
1,239,568
51%
UNIFORMS
80,250
39,584
47,774
32,476
60%
SUPPLIES
86,500
41,249
61,406
25,094
71%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
191,079
13,531
82,267
108,812
43%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
141,770
57,825
81,328
60,442
57%
COMMUNICATIONS
32,000
17,177
18,782
13,218
59%
TRAVEL
29,310
11,599
20,206
9,104
69%
RENTAL/LEASE
920,851
490,506
458,318
462,533
50%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
15,120
5,407
3,828
11,292
25%
MISCELLANEOUS
61,350
38,922
28,905
32,445
47%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
59,284
0%
$ 11,728,919
$ 5,475,264
$ 5,802,457
$ 5,926,462
49%
COMMUNITY S ERVIC ES /EC 0 N DEV.
SALARIES
$
245,505
$
117,921
$
125,715
$
119,790
51%
BENEFITS
76,033
37,093
39,392
36,641
52%
SUPPLIES
7,000
6,015
5,886
1,114
84%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
800
-
-
800
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
262,400
98,144
89,416
172,984
34%
COMMUNICATIONS
1,490
527
655
835
44%
TRAVEL
2,000
746
-
2,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
13,004
6,107
5,715
7,289
44%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
500
-
-
500
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
9,500
3,438
3,763
5,737
40%
$
618,232
$
269,991
S
270,544
$
347,688
44%
DEVELO PMIIVT SERVIC ES/PLANNING
SALARIES
$
1,665,849
$
736,271
$
782,900
$
882,949
47%
OVERTIME
1,300
11,308
5,457
(4,157)
420%
BENEFITS
609,831
277,702
302,131
307,700
50%
UNIFORMS
500
-
-
500
0%
SUPPLIES
17,100
5,120
5,039
12,061
29%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
6,100
2,158
624
5,476
10%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
907,046
142,656
158,197
748,849
17%
COMMUNICATIONS
9,000
3,555
3,888
5,112
43%
TRAVEL
5,500
2,561
7,834
(2,334)
142%
RENTAL/LEASE
143,236
78,230
71,397
71,839
50%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
6,800
-
596
6,204
9%
MISCELLANEOUS
54,060
14,416
19,513
34,547
36%
$
3,426,322
$
1,273,975
$
1,357,577
$
2,068,745
40%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES
$
1,720,176
$
680,711
$
836,096
$
884,080
49%
OVERTIME
8,300
3,872
2,550
5,750
31%
BENEFITS
678,356
282,793
347,879
330,477
51%
UNIFORMS
450
-
-
450
0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
2,200
2,253
-
2,200
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
53,840
12,830
1,104
52,736
2%
COMMUNICATIONS
16,625
5,691
6,850
9,775
41%
TRAVEL
600
89
585
15
98%
RENTAL/LEASE
123,023
59,475
60,838
62,185
49%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
2,600
-
-
2,600
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
79,450
31,626
43,770
35,680
55%
$
2,685,620
$
1,079,339
$
1,299,672
$
1,385,948
48%
.r
Q
15
Packet Pg. 111
Page 4 of 4
C TIY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2019 Amended
6/30/2018
6/30/2019
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
% Spent
PARKS & REC REATIO N
SALARIES
$ 2,096,118
$ 923,882
$ 982,976
$ 1,113,142
47%
OVERTIME
10,000
5,008
12,158
(2,158)
122%
BENEFITS
785,394
356,904
380,954
404,440
49%
UNIFORMS
6,275
1,984
4,468
1,807
71%
SUPPLIES
121,590
67,745
68,975
52,615
57%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
8,500
1,569
2,639
5,861
31%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
671,920
104,910
130,205
541,715
19%
COMMUNICATIONS
30,320
10,501
3,971
26,349
13%
TRAVEL
5,070
493
3,410
1,660
67%
RENTAL/LEASE
268,539
124,464
145,638
122,901
54%
PUBLIC UTILITY
175,338
70,273
80,714
94,624
46%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
29,700
882
17,525
12,175
59%
MISCELLANEOUS
94,610
40,523
48,747
45,863
52%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
43,872
-
-
0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
20,732
0%
$ 4,303,374
$ 1,773,743
$ 1,882,379
$ 2,420,995 $
7
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES
$
369,334
$
137,957
$
143,484
$
225,850
39%
OVERTIME
200
-
144
56
72%
BENEFITS
129,196
50,363
51,511
77,685
40%
SUPPLIES
8,600
1,351
3,203
5,397
37%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,000
-
857
143
86%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200
47
42
158
21%
COMMUNICATIONS
1,350
314
341
1,009
25%
TRAVEL
500
-
1,383
(883)
277%
RENTAL/LEASE
91,193
60,562
44,985
46,208
49%
PUBLIC UTILITY
3,007
1,318
1,500
1,507
50%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
4,900
17
500
4,400
10%
$
610,480
$
251,929
$
247,950
$
362,530
41%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES
754,619
363,544
381,720
372,899
51%
OVERTIME
7,500
3,000
4,862
2,638
65%
BENEFITS
310,160
153,092
169,707
140,453
55%
UNIFORMS
3,000
3,821
3,823
(823)
127%
SUPPLIES
87,000
54,267
91,048
(4,048)
105%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
3,000
1,249
2,658
342
89%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
940,940
2,608
62,447
878,493
7%
COMMUNICATIONS
16,000
8,340
9,868
6,132
62%
TRAVEL
1,000
-
6
994
1%
RENTAL/LEASE
59,730
32,483
27,365
32,365
46%
PUBLIC UTILITY
282,280
144,862
153,253
129,027
54%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
444,500
62,518
176,723
267,777
40%
MISCELLANEOUS
5,000
34
2,706
2,294
54%
$
2,914,729
$
829,817
$
1,086,185
$
1,828,544
37%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
$
45,296,523
$
20,515,429
$
219172,989
$
24,123,534
47%
O
Q
d
Q-'
C
eo
C
LL
i
d
co
3
CY
CD
T-
O
N
d
C
7
O
Q
d
<0
C
R
C
iL
L
d
ev
7
CI
O
N
C
7
C
O
E
t
c�
O
r
.r
Q
16
Packet Pg. 112
I 2.2.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
18,888,974
1.37%
June
20,936,841
2,303,847
21,254,387
1.52%
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
997,047
-10.85%
June
1,392,391
274,025
1,295,229
-6.98%
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. 113
SALES TAX SUMMARY
I 2.2.a I
Sales Tax Analysis By Category
Current Period: June 2019
Year -to -Date
Total $4,072,013
Automotive Repair,
Health &Personal Care, $97,381
$141,667 Amusement &
Construction Trade, Recreation, $44,387
$705,727 Business Services,
Accommodation,
$18,184
Clothing and
Accessories, $134,312
Communications,
$112,047
Wholesale Trade,
$103,339
Misc Retail, $635,1K
$386,351
Gasoline, $16,802
Retail Food Stores,
$150,023
L Retail Automotive,
$914,552
Manufacturing, $45,572
Others, $68,707 Eating & Drinking,
$497,779
Annual Sales Tax Revenue
10,000,000 �
$8,406,296
8,000,000 7 395 114
$5,840,764 $6,741,838 $6,905,122
6,000,000
$4,072,013
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 YTD 2019
Packet Pg. 114 1
I 2.2.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
3,384,424
9.62%
June
3,695,140
607,628
4,072,013
10.20%
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 of'Edmonds, 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
350,940
-10.44%
June
429,417
37,564
383,777
-10.63%
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
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
Q
19
Packet Pg. 115
I 2.2.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
358,213
-15.85%
June
504,828
79,155
424,559
-15.90%
July
580,361
75,533
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 Year 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
864,392
0.07%
June
985,603
121,781
983,768
-0.19%
July
1,101,208
115,604
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
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.
20
Packet Pg. 116
I 2.2.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales
2019
Meter Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
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
3,109,907
-2.91%
June
3,766,233
562,971
3,678,133
-2.34%
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
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales
2019
Storm Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
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
1,923,272
0.07%
June
2,231,420
285,862
2,204,539
-0.19%
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
14,500,000
13,500,000
12,500,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
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
Q
d
C
R
C
LL
L
L
/may
V
r
CD
CV
d
C
O
rL
O
R
U
C
C
LL
L
fC
7
O
CV
d
C
7
7
C
CD
E
t
C�
r
Q
ZZ
Packet Pg. 117
I 2.2.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
3,534,965
0.13%
June
4,158,923
628,711
4,166,664
0.19%
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
Unmeter 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
ir
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.
22
Packet Pg. 118
I 2.2.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
17,357,697
-6.12%
June
22,666,736
4,178,126
21,172,989
-6.59%
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
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental
2019
Non -Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
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
5,383,743
-9.32%
June
7,529,862
1,593,020
6,729,909
-10.62%
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
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
23
Packet Pg. 119
I 2.2.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
158,489
-30.56%
June
295,688
67,436
206,635
-30.12%
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
123,018
0.15%
June
146,929
24,099
146,522
-0.28%
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
Current Year Budget - -PriorYear
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q
d
C
R
C
LL
L
d
3
CD
CV
d
C
O
iz
U
C
c
LL
21
L
fC
7
O
CV
d
C
7
7
C
CD
E
t
t)
r
Q
24
Packet Pg. 120
I 2.2.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
194,001
-17.87%
June
282,909
46,697
289,770
2.42%
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 MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
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
410,401
-11.87%
June
556,434
90,771
481,931
-13.39%
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
-0---CurrentYeaz Budget �PriorYear
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
Q
25
Packet Pg. 121
I 2.2.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
232,851
-0.12%
June
277,966
44,839
270,544
-2.67%
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 -d-- 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
291,090
0.46%
June
341,414
51,664
343,911
0.73%
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.
O
Q
d
C
R
C
LL
L
d
3
CA
O
CV
d
C
O
rL
U
C
c
LL
21
L
7
C�
O
tV
d
C
7
7
C
1=
t
t)
r
Q
26
Packet Pg. 122
I 2.2.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
415,102
-11.12%
June
544,834
77,821
468,592
-13.99%
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 Year 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
515,266
-2.09%
June
622,509
96,231
612,381
-1.63%
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 � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q
d
t4
C
t4
C
LL
L
L
/may
V
r
0
CV
d
C
O
rL
O
R
U
C
t4
c
LL
L
fC
7
O
tV
d
C
7
C
CD
E
t
C�
r
Q
27
Packet Pg. 123
I 2.2.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
366,531
-1.11%
June
444,780
74,130
415,167
-6.66%
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 Yeaz 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
4,729,460
1.53%
June
5,621,223
962,868
5,802,457
3.22%
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 Yeaz Budget Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
O
Q
d
C
R
C
LL
L
L
/may
V
r
A
CV
d
C
3
O
rL
O
R
U
C
C
LL
L
fC
7
C�
O
tV
d
C
7
C
O
E
t
t)
r
Q
Z$
Packet Pg. 124
I 2.2.a I
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
1,154,831
-12.72%
June
1,594,826
271,617
1,357,577
-14.88%
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
--*-- Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
City of'Edmonds, 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
1,554,647
-1.55%
June
1,921,011
341,920
1,882,379
-2.01%
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 -000000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
Q
29
Packet Pg. 125
I 2.2.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
S1,889
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
203,614
-20.20%
June
306,227
51,057
247,950
-19.03%
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
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 -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
954,705
-18.11%
June
1,378,275
212,372
1,086,185
-21.19%
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.
O
Q
d
C
R
C
LL
L
L
/may
V
r
CD
CV
d
C
O
rL
O
R
U
C
O
C
LL
L
fC
7
O
CV
d
C
7
7
C
CD
E
t
C�
r
Q
30
Packet Pg. 126
I 2.2.a I
City of Edmonds, 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
1,085,050
2.99%
June
1,284,814
231,308
1,299,672
1.16%
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
Engine a ring
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 Year Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
31
Packet Pg. 127
I 2.2.a I
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail
As of June 30, 2019
Years
Agency/ Investment Purchase to Par Market Maturity Coupon
Issuer Type Price Maturity Value Value Date Rate
FNMA
Bonds
988,720
0.24
1,000,000
998,169
09/27/19
1.50%
FHLMC
Bonds
995,970
0.26
1,000,000
997,501
10/02/19
1.25%
FNMA
Bonds
1,994,310
0.33
2,000,000
1,994,794
10/28/19
1.35%
FNMA
Bonds
997,300
0.75
1,000,000
994,379
03/30/20
1.38%
FHLB
Bonds
2,003,780
0.75
2,000,000
1,990,300
03/30/20
1.45%
FNMA
Bonds
2,000,000
0.75
2,000,000
1,994,242
03/30/20
1.65%
FHLMC
Bonds
2,003,868
0.83
2,000,000
1,989,396
04/28/20
1.35%
FNMA
Bonds
1,000,000
1.00
1,000,000
995,099
06/30/20
1.38%
FNMA
Bonds
1,000,000
1.00
1,000,000
995,099
06/30/20
1.38%
FHLB
Bonds
3,000,000
1.04
3,000,000
2,977,812
07/13/20
1.20%
RFCS
Bonds
1,999,698
1.04
2,120,000
2,075,137
07/15/20
1.60%
FHLB
Bonds
2,000,000
1.08
2,000,000
1,996,598
07/30/20
1.75%
FNMA
Bonds
1,000,000
1.16
1,000,000
993,977
08/28/20
1.40%
FNMA
Bonds
1,000,000
1.16
1,000,000
993,977
08/28/20
1.40%
FHLMC
Bonds
999,500
1.50
1,000,000
994,575
12/30/20
1.75%
FNMA
Bonds
2,005,474
1.56
2,000,000
1,990,602
01/19/21
1.50%
FM
Bonds
2,000,000
1.76
2,000,000
1,999,998
04/01/21
1.87%
First Financial
CD
3,000,000
1.78
3,000,000
3,000,000
04/10/21
2.86%
FHLB
Bonds
2,000,000
1.98
2,000,000
2,000,064
06/22/21
2.18%
FFCB
Bonds
968,940
2.21
1,000,000
998,125
09/13/21
1.73%
FHLMC
Bonds
2,000,000
2.41
2,000,000
2,000,638
11/26/21
2.13%
FHLMC
Bonds
999,400
2.50
1,000,000
1,000,312
12/30/21
2.00%
FHLMC
Bonds
1,000,000
2.66
1,000,000
1,000,411
02/25/22
2.15%
FFCB
Bonds
1,998,548
2.96
2,000,000
2,001,888
06/14/22
1.88%
FHLB
Bonds
1,999,652
3.27
2,000,000
1,998,328
10/04/22
2.26%
First Financial
CD
2,803,516
4.38
2,803,516
2,803,516
11/15/23
2.10%
TOTAL SECURITIES
43,758,677
1.55
43,923,516
43,774,937
Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool
TOTAL PORTFOLIO
Issuer Diversification First
Financial -
CD, 13%
FNMA, 27% RFCS, 5%
FM, 5%-/
FHLB, 25%
21,459,972 21,459,972
$ 65,383,488 $ 65,234,908
Demand 2.51 %
Cash and Investment Balances
(in $ Millions)
Checking,
$0.8 , 1 %
State LGIP,
Bonds,
$21.5, 35%
$34.1, 55%
CD's, $5.8,
9%
32
Packet Pg. 128 1
I 2.2.a I
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Annual Interest Income
$1,000, 000
917,754
$800,000
$653,690 $629,238
$600,000
$423,816
$400,000 335 926
$200,000 163 214
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 %
July September November January March May
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
$- 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
Q
33
Packet Pg. 129
2.2.a
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
GENERAL FUND
& SUBFUNDS
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2018 3/31 /2019
6/30/2019
O2
YTD
001-General Fund '
$ 11,233,279 $ 7,364,212 $
11,314,677
$ 81,398
$ 81,397
c
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
333,446 214,379
322,893
(10,553)
(10,55,
011-Risk Management Fund
929,909 926,477
929,909
-
-
012-ContingencyReserve Fund
5,564,259 5,466,190
5,564,259
-
-
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund
12,607 7,055
9,574
(3,033)
(3,03.
c
016-Building Maintenance
210,221 210,221
210,221
-
-
L
017 - Marsh Restoration & Preservation
309,179 310,623
589,366
280,187
280,18-1
`m
018 -Edmonds Homelessness Response
225,443 223,581
223,581
(1,862)
(1,86,
019 - Edmonds Opioid Response
250,000 250,000
150,000
(100,000)
(100,00(
CY
rn
Total General Fund & Subfunds
$ 19,068,343 $ 14,972,738 $
19,314,480
$ 246,137
$ 246,13'
o
N
d
C
3
*$2,000,000 of the General Fund Balance has been assigned by management for the development of Civic Field.
0
Q.
m
U
c
0
General Fund & Subfunds
E
ii
21
2'
L
18
15
■ General Fund
CY
& Subfunds
CD
c
12
0 $ 17.07
0
$17.31
■ Civic Field
N
a)
9
$12.97
0
6
.r
c
3 LAE
$2.00
Dec 2018
March 2019
June 2019
Q
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur
within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
34
Packet Pg. 130
2.2.a
GOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS OVERVIEW
CHANGE IN FUND
FUND BALANCES
BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
FUNDS
12/31 /2018
3/31 /2019
6/30/2019
Q2 YTD
General Fund & Subfunds
$ 19,068,343
$ 14,972,738 $
19,314,480
$
246,137 $
246,131
Special Revenue
9,524,488
10,905,058
10,488,603
964,115
964,11� .-.
Debt Service
12
4,481
18,894
18,882
18,8K a
Capital Projects
2,209,542
2,232,147
2,751,230
541,688
541,68E
Total Governmental Funds
$ 30,802,385
$ 28,114,424 $
32,573,207
$
1,770,822 $ 1,770,82,
•�
c
c
U.
L
L
/may
V
Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group
Governmental
Fund Balances -
o
21
$19.07
18
15
12
0
9
9.52
6
3
Combined
N
m
c
35
$32.57
$19.31
O
Q-
30.80
d
30
General
$28.11
Fund &
R
v
Subfunds
25
c
tSpecial
jy
Revenue
c 20
>+
L
$10.49
Debt
15
3
Service
CI
10
0
-f— Ca pita I
N
Projects
N
C
5
3
X
y $2.75
.
N
$0.00 $0.00 $0.02 E
Dec 2018 March 2019 June 2019
Dec 2018 March 2019 June 2019 v
ca
Q
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
35
Packet Pg. 131 1
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
I 2.2.a I
FUND
BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL
---- ACTUAL ----
SPECIAL REVENUE
12/31 /2018
3/31 /2019
6/30/2019
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund
$ -
$ (9,725) $
6,565
111 - Street Fund
1,343,330
1,132,176
1,243,561
112 - Combined Street Const/Im prove
859,216
2,016,382
1,405,820
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
570,633
576,596
591,680
118 - Memorial Street Tree
18,900
18,972
19,221
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
89,939
90,261
94,736
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund
77,046
86,178
88,945
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund
15,029
13,845
13,525
123 -Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
70,585
76,640
76,252
125 - Real Estate Tax 2 *
2,230,820
2,326,915
2,405,008
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1
2,562,524
2,814,360
2,748,695
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund
295,225
352,436
344,428
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
212,776
208,783
223,805
136 - Parks Trust Fund
160,607
158,756
158,360
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
985,657
993,557
1,011,683
138 - Sister City Commission
8,102
7,779
10,930
140 -Business Improvement Disrict
24,099
41,149
45,389
Total Special Revenue
$ 9,524,488
$ 10,905,058 $
10,488,603
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE;
ACTUAL
6,565 $
(99,769)
546,604
21,047
321
4,797
11,899
(1,504)
5,667
174,188
186,171
49,203
11,029
(2,247)
26,026
2,828
21,290
$ 964,115 $
*$200,000 of the fund balance in Fund 125 has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding
Special Revenue Funds
12
10
8
H
0 6 ■ Special
$9 52 $10.91 $10.49 Revenue
4
2
Dec 2018 March 2019 June 2019
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
6,56!
(99,764
546,60,
21,04-
32' c
4,79"
11,895 W
(1,50, 1
v
5,66"
174,18!
186,17, LL
49,20:
11,025
(2,24 O
26,02E
2,82t o
N
21,29( m
964,11 !
1`
0
Q.
m
rr
U
c
0
c
ii
L
L
CY
r
0
N
N
c
0
c
a�
E
t
v
c2
Q
36
Packet Pg. 132
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
I 2.2.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 ----
12/31 /2018 3/31 /2019 6/30/2019
$ 21,205,815 $ 17,473,798 $ 21,017,117 $
11,913,623 11,829,589 12,584,873
45,890,098 45,779,494 47,854,852
843,961 843,971 843,968
- 187,019 71,548
$ 79,853,497 $ 76,113,870 $ 82,372,358 $
CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL ----
ON
(188,698) $
671,250
1,964,754
7
71,548
2,518,861 $
*$250,000 of the Storm Utility Fund Balance has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding
50,000,000
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
Enterprise and Agency Fund Balances as of June 30, 2019
$47,854�52
Combined Utility Water Storm Sewer/WWFP
(188,69('
671,25(
1,964,75,
0
71,54!
2,518,86W
.v
c
0
c
ii
L
L
/may
V
r
N
d
C
3
7
1`
0
d
c
c
li
L
fC
CI
— as
0
N
$171,858 N
c
Bond Reserve Firemen's Pension
Fund
c
a�
E
t
ca
Q
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
37
Packet Pg. 133
2.2.a
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
CITY-WIDE
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2018 3/31 /2019 6/30/2019
Q2 YTD
Governmental Funds
$ 30,802,385 $ 28,114,424 $ 32,573,207
$ 1,770,822 $ 1,770,82,-
Enterprise Funds
79,853,497 76,113,870 82,372,358
2,518,861 2,518,86'
Internal Services Fund
10,175,943 9,993,633 10,335,021
159,078 159,07E
Agency Funds
217,698 198,816 171,858
(45,840) (45,84(
Q.
Total City-wide Total
$121,049,523 $114,420,743 $125,452,444
$ 4,402,921 $ 4,402,92'
W
.v
c
c
ii
Governmental Fund
Balances (Excluding General Fund) as of June 30, 2019
L
Drug Enforcement Fund
$6,565
Street Fund
$1,2 3,561
c
Combined Street Const/Improve Fund
51,405,820
N
m
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
$591,68 D3
C
Memorial Street Fund
$19,221
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
N $94,736
C
Employee Parking Permit Fund
0 $88,945
Youth Scholarship Fund
$13,525
U
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
$76,252
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
2,405,008
C
ILL
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
1 $2, 48,695
2'
L
Gifts Catalog Fund
$ 44,428
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
$22 ,805
3
C'!
Parks Trust Fund
$158, 60
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
$1,011 68
N
Sister City Commission
$10,930
7
Business Improvement District
$45,389
L.I.D. Fund Control
$18,894
Parks Capital Construction Fund
$2, 51,230
t
$-
$500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000
c�
Q
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
38
Packet Pg. 134
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
I 2.2.a I
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
1511 - Equipment Rental Fund
512 -Technology Rental Fund
Total Internal Service Funds
12,000,000
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2018 3/31 /2019 6/30/2019
$ 9,552,485 $ 9,699,333 $ 9,627,633 $
623,458 294,300 707,388
$ 10,175,943 $ 9,993,633 $ 10,335,021 1 $
Internal Service Fund Balances
10,000,000 I $9,552,485 $9,699,333
8,000, 000
6,000, 000
4,000, 000
2,000, 000
Dec 2018
March 2019
$9,627,633
$707,388
June 2019
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
Q2 YTD a
m
75,148 $ 75,14! W
c�
83,930 83,93(
159,078 $ 159,077 LL
L
L
/may
V
r
N
d
c
0
m
v
c
0
c
■ 511-Equipment Rental Fund u_
21
■ 512- Tech nology Rental Fund
0
CI
CD
0
N
N
C
0
c
a�
E
t
v
c�
Q
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
39
Packet Pg. 135
2.2.b
GENERAL FUND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
2015
2016
2017
2018*
2018 (Jan -
June)
2019 (Jan -
June)
Beginning Fund Balance
6,446,380
9,359,435
9,841,718
10,273,343
10,273,343
11,233,278
Revenue
Taxes
28,714,539
29,403,794
29,572,203
30,755,578
15,753,895
15,965,086
Licenses and permits
2,132,897
2,269,313
2,506,800
2,401,855
1,211,733
970,879
Intergovernmental
977,585
1,261,998
890,572
1,014,434
403,206
374,473
Charges for services
5,150,816
5,403,786
5,463,913
5,810,961
2,848,238
3,270,311
Fines and forfeitures
535,078
522,051
459,929
616,783
328,093
272,250
Investment earnings
70,045
(26,712)
154,739
273,226
86,733
200,748
Miscellaneous
435,414
441,432
471,675
931,495
423,144
187,490
Transfers in
822,175
82,695
26,300
75,884
62,734
13,150
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
21,117,777
21,254,387
Expenditures
General government
8,836,333
9,969,187
9,714,867
10,288,694
5,178,893
5,827,484
Public safety
19,371,912
20,128,896
22,228,871
22,585,212
11,543,987
11,935,501
Transportation
3,600
3,600
3,600
4,779
2,273
2,924
Economic environment
1,353,548
1,313,430
1,551,152
1,460,763
712,650
742,029
Mental and physical health
69,762
70,814
126,791
178,859
60,751
75,044
Culture and recreation
3,591,029
3,773,633
3,959,731
4,331,806
2,146,660
1,957,406
c
Debt service
272,793
196,663
198,361
197,694
10,576
7,023
0.
a)Capital
outlay
92,202
56,662
90,573
93,105
80,016
-
w
Transfers out
2,334,315
3,414,141
1,247,703
1,800,212
779,625
625,579
c°
Debt refunding
-
556,593
-
-
-
r-
Total Expenditures
35,925,494
39,483,619
39,121,649
40,941,124
20,515,429
21,172,989
r-
ii
Prior Period Adjustments
-
-
-
-
�+
Change in position
0
2,913,055
482,283
431,625
959,934
602,348
81,398
Ending Fund Balance
R
0
9,359,435
9,841,718
10,273,343
11,233,278
10,875,691
11,314,676
*Preliminary
T
0
N
N
C
7
71
\\edmsvr-deptfs\finance\Finance Committee\2019\Jan-June P&L 7/31/2019 Packet Pg. 136
2.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/13/2019
Annual Fund Balance Report
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Scott James
Background/History
In July of 2019, Council adopted the Fund Balance Reserve Policy. The overall objectives of Policy is to
define portions of fund balance that is unavailable to support the current budget and to guide prudent
use of resources to provide for the much needed services to taxpayers and to maintain sound
management policies. Specifically, the policy establishes reserve fund balance accounts that will provide
funding for emergencies, economic uncertainties and for unanticipated operating expenses or revenue
shortfalls.
To meet these objectives, the Policy requires:
1) The City to establish and maintain a General Fund Operating Reserve, within the General Fund,
in an amount equal to or greater than 16% of the General Fund's Adopted Annual Operating
Expenditure Budget.
2) The City to establish and maintain a Contingent Reserve Fund, in an amount equal to a
maximum of $0.375 per $1,000 of assessed valuation or when combined with the General Fund
Operating Reserve, the two fund balance reserves shall not exceed 20% of the General Fund's
Adopted Annual Operating Expenditure Budget. In other words, if the General Fund Operating
Reserve balance equals 16% of operating budget, then the Contingent Reserve Fund balance
cannot exceed 4% of the operating budget.
The Policy also includes the following fund balance reporting requirements:
Once a year, in August, the City Finance Director shall present to the Council Finance Committee a
comprehensive report on the City's fund balance reserve types as of June 30th. The report shall
include an updated fund balance reserve level for each fund balance type. This report shall include
the following funds:
1. General Fund Operating Reserve balance;
2. Contingency Reserve Fund balance.
Staff Recommendation
Review Fund Reserves
Narrative
Staff will share Fund Balance Reserve levels for the General Fund and the Contingency Reserve Fund
with the Council Finance Committee.
Attachments:
Packet Pg. 137
2.3
Reserve Fund Balances
Packet Pg. 138
2.3.a
GENERAL FUND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
2018 (Jan - 2019 (Jan -
2015 2016 2017 2018* June) June)
Beginning Fund Balance 6,446,380 9,359,435 9,841,718 10,273,343 10,273,343 11,233,278
Revenue
Taxes
Licenses and permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for services
Fines and forfeitures
Investment earnings
Miscellaneous
Transfers in
Debt proceeds
Sale of capital assets
Insurance recoveries
Total Revenue
Expenditures
General government
Public safety
Transportation
Economic environment
Mental and physical health
Culture and recreation
Debt service
Capital outlay
Transfers out
Debt refunding
Total Expenditures
28,714,539
29,403,794
29,572,203
30,755,578
15,753,895
15,965,086
2,132,897
2,269,313
2,506,800
2,401,855
1,211,733
970,879
977,585
1,261,998
890,572
1,014,434
403,206
374,473
5,150,816
5,403,786
5,463,913
5,810,961
2,848,238
3,270,311
535,078
522,051
459,929
616,783
328,093
272,250
70,045
(26,712)
154,739
273,226
86,733
200,748
435,414
441,432
471,675
931,495
423,144
187,490
822,175
82,695
26,300
75,884
62,734
13,150
-
549,095
-
-
-
-
-
58,451
7,143
5,273
-
-
-
-
-
15,570
-
-
38,838,549
39,965,902
39,553,274
41,901,058
21,117,777
21,254,387
8,836,333
9,969,187
9,714,867
10,288,694
5,178,893
5,827,484
19,371,912
20,128,896
22,228,871
22,585,212
11,543,987
11,935,501
3,600
3,600
3,600
4,779
2,273
2,924
1,353,548
1,313,430
1,551,152
1,460,763
712,650
742,029
69,762
70,814
126,791
178,859
60,751
75,044
3,591,029
3,773,633
3,959,731
4,331,806
2,146,660
1,957,406
272,793
196,663
198,361
197,694
10,576
7,023
92,202
56,662
90,573
93,105
80,016
-
2,334,315
3,414,141
1,247,703
1,800,212
779,625
625,579
-
556,593
-
-
-
35,925,494
39,483,619
39,121,649
40,941,124
20,515,429
21,172,989
Change in position 2,913,055 482,283 431,625 959,934 602,348 81,398
Ending FundBalance 9,359,435 9,841,718 10,273,343 11,233,278 10,875,691 11,314,676
FundBalance as a 24.3%
percent of General Fund
Operating Budget
*Prelirrinary
24.8% 25.8% 26.1% 25.2% 25.5%
Packet Pg. 139
2.3.a
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
Beginning Fund Balance
Revenue
Investment earnings
Transfers in
Total Revenue
EMenditures
Transfers out
Total Expenditures
Change in position
Ending Fund Balance
Fund Balance as a
percent of General Fund
Operating Budget
*Preliminary
2018 (Jan - 2019 (Jan -
2015
2016
2017
2018*
June) June)
5,445,336
4,677,030
5,367,841
5,447,144
5,447,144 5,564,259
31,694
(4,224)
62,853
162,899
67,481 -
-
695,035
16,450
3,800
-
31,694
690,811
79,303
166,699
67,481 -
800,000 - 49,584 49,584 -
800,000 - - 49,584 49,584 -
(768,306) 690,811 79,303 117,115 17,897 -
4,677,030 5,367,841 5,447,144 5,564,259 5,465,041 5,564,259
12.1% 13.5% 13.7% 12.9% 12.7% 12.5%
Packet Pg. 140
2.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/13/2019
HB 1406 Implementation
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Preparer: Shane Hope
Background/History
House Bill 1406 was passed into law during the 2019 legislative session. It authorizes cities and counties
to receive a small portion of the existing state sales to use for housing purposes, either by a single
jurisdiction or by a combination of jursidictions pooling their funds.
Staff Recommendation
For the Finance Committee to forward to the full City Council the proposal for adopting a resolution and
ordinance implementing HB 1406.
Narrative
HB 1406 was supported by the Association of Washington Cities as a way to help address affordable
housing. It was passed by the Legislature and has now been incorporated into Chapter 82.14 RCW.
Implementation of HB 1406 does not raise any taxes or fees. It simply authorizes a participating city or
county to receive a small portion (0.0073%) of the state's current sales tax revenue for certain housing
purposes. Edmonds may become a participating city by taking two steps:
(1) Adopting a resolution of intent to adopt an ordinance that authorizes using the state sales tax credit;
and
(2) Adopting an ordinance to authorize using the state sales tax credit.
Based on 2018 sales tax revenues in Edmonds, our city would receive about $71,000 annually in revenue
for each of 20 years. (Actual amounts will vary, depending on inflation and sales activity in any given
year.)
Note: Snohomish County has signaled it will also be implementing HB 1406 to receive a similar share of
the state sales tax. This will not affect the portion our city would receive. The County Executive is also
encouraging cities to take advantage of this funding.
State law allows the sales tax credit to be used for: acquiring, rehabilitating, or constructing affordable
housing; operations and maintenance of new affordable or supportive housing facilities; and rental
housing assistance. (In this case, housing funds must be limited to serve persons whose income is at or
below sixty percent of the area median income.) It may also be pooled with similar funds from other
jurisdictions. For example, Edmonds could use its share as a partner with the multi -jurisdictional
Alliance for Housing Affordability or with another combination of nearby cities.
Packet Pg. 141
2.4
The resolution of intent must be adopted by January 31, 2020 and the actual ordinance by July 27,
2020. However, the sooner a city acts, the sooner it will qualify and be able to start receiving funds.
Taking action in 2019 is recommended for both steps.
A draft resolution is attached. It would be scheduled for Council consideration, probably on August 20.
Specific language to implement HB 1406 and the City's resolution will also be developed and brought to
the City Council in as timely a manner as possible.
Attachments:
Resolution-for-1-113.1406
Packet Pg. 142
2.4.a
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING TO ADOPT
LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAXIMUM CAPACITY
OF THE TAX AUTHORIZED IN CHAPTER 82.14 RCW
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature passed Substitute House Bill (SHB) 1406 and
c
the Governor signed, thus enacting into public law, Chapter 338 Laws of 2019; and
E
WHEREAS, a new Section is added to Chapter 82.14 Revised Code of Washington (RCW),
e.
E
local Retail Sales and Use Taxes to encourage investments in affordable and supportive housing; and
Q
WHEREAS, SHB 1406 authorizes the governing body of a city or county to impose a local
=
sales and use tax for the acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing or facilities
providing supportive housing, and for the operations and maintenance costs of affordable or
supportive housing; and
WHEREAS, the imposed sale tax is a credit against the state sales tax collected or paid to the
Washington State Department of Revenue from within in the jurisdiction and will not result in higher
sales and use taxes within the County and will represent an additional source of funding to address
housing needs in Snohomish County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds recognizes the need for affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, in order for a city or county to impose the tax, within six months of the effective
date of SHB 1406, or January 27, 2020, the governing body must adopt a resolution of intent to
authorize the maximum capacity of the tax, and within twelve months of the effective date of SHB
1406, or July 27, 2020, must adopt legislation to authorize the maximum capacity of the tax; and
WHEREAS, this resolution constitutes the resolution of intent required by SHB 1406; and
-1-
Packet Pg. 143
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Edmonds hereby declares its
intent to adopt legislation to authorize the maximum capacity of the sales and use tax authorized by
SHB 1406 as soon as reasonably possible prior to July 27, 2020.
RESOLVED this day of 92018.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVE O. EARLING
-2-
Packet Pg. 144
3.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/13/2019
Water/Sewer Maintenance Worker Minimum Qualifications Change
Staff Lead: Emily Wagener
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: Emily Wagener
Background/History
The Water and Sewer Maintenance worker positions have had a significant amount of difficulty finding
quality candidates. The current minimum qualifications requires 2 years experience specific to Water or
Sewer work. The division manager has indicated that the department is willing to train new employees
who come in with less specific experience as long as they have basic technical skills.
The Street and Storm division revised their Maintenance Worker minimum qualifications in January of
2019. Those revisions are very similar to what is being proposed tonight for the Water and Sewer
positions.
Staff Recommendation
Lower the minimum qualifications for the Water and Sewer Maintenance Worker positions to 6 months.
Re -word the requirements to include more generalized construction experience and include preferred
(but not required) experience factors directly related to water and sewer work.
Other minor changes are for clarification.
Narrative
With the current job market, finding qualified candidates has become more and more difficult. The City's
Water Maintenance Worker positions are not receiving enough qualified applicants with how to the
current Minimum Qualifications are written. These divisions have several openings that need to be
filled.
For the Water Maintenance Worker 19-010 position, only 17 applications of 81 received passed the
minimum qualifications. A pass percentage of 21%
For the Sewer Maintenance Worker 19-002 position, only 10 applications of 69 received passed the
minimum qualifications. A pass percentage of 14%
No suitable candidate was hired for either position.
Attachments:
Sewer Maintenance Worker DRAFT 2019-08
Water Maintenance Worker DRAFT 2019-08
Packet Pg. 145
3.1.a
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
SEWER MAINTENANCE WORKER
Department:
Public Works — Water/Sewer
Pay Grade:
G
Bargaining Unit:
Teamsters
FLSA Status:
Non -Exempt'
Revised Date:
August 2019
Reports To:
Water/Sewer Manager
POSITION PURPOSE: Under close supervision and the direction and guidance of more experienced staff and
management performs skilled work in the installation, maintenance and repair of the City's sewer system
equipment and facilities; operates a variety of vehicles, specialized equipment and hand and power tools.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all
employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities.
Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional,
position -specific duties.
• Performs skilled duties in the installation, maintenance and repair of the City's sewer systems
equipment and facilities; operates, inspects and maintains lift stations and assists with minor repairs.
• Operates a variety of vehicles, specialized equipment and hand and power tools including: a dump
truck, vactor truck, backhoe, loader, tractor, air compressor, jackhammer, pipe cutter and other
equipment; assists in the operation of a TV sewer truck and cleaner.
• Assists with installing, raising and repair of manholes and replaces metal rings and covers as
necessary.
• Inspects, operates and maintains lift stations, repairs pumps, floats and controls as necessary; cleans
and paints pipes, fittings and related items; removes and replaces pipes as necessary.
• Mows and trims grass; removes debris; prunes shrubs around lift stations and manholes and performs
smoke and dye tests to lines according to established procedures.
• Performs excavation and repairs; utilizes appropriate shoring and safety equipment; assists in the
installation, repair and maintenance of sewer lines.
• Flushes and removes debris and roots from sewer and drain lines; assists other divisions with projects
as necessary including: snow and ice removal, street patching and other projects; utilizes appropriate
shoring and safety equipment.
• Maintains routine records and reports of work performed including: equipment usage, preventive
maintenance and needed repairs.
• Ensures availability for 24-hour emergency call -out to perform water watch duties when called upon.
Required Knowledge of:
• Operations, services, and activities of a City Public Works Department.
• Standards and techniques used in the operation and maintenance of sewer facilities and related
equipment.
• Basic sewer system equipment, maintenance and repair.
• Operation and maintenance of hand and power tools and specialized equipment used in sewer
maintenance and repair.
Sewer Maintenance Worker Packet Pg. 146
3.1.a
JOB DESCRIPTION
Sewer Maintenance Worker
• Health and safety regulations and procedures.
• City maps and locations of various water and sewer lines.
• Technical aspects of field of specialty.
• Effective oral and written communication principles and practices to include customer service.
• Record keeping and report preparation.
• Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and computer applications
sufficient to accomplish work assignments.
• English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation.
• Training principles, methods and techniques.
Required Skill in:
• Performing a variety of maintenance and repair services of City sewer facilities and systems.
• Operating specialized tools and equipment used in sewer division to perform maintenance and repair.
• Performing appropriate techniques in cleaning, maintaining, repairing, and installing sewer mains and
laterals.
• Locating sewer and other associated utility lines and equipment associated with work assignment.
• Observing health and safety regulations.
• Meeting schedules and time lines.
• Understanding and working within the scope of authority.
• Tracking, maintaining, and preparing a variety of records, files and reports.
• Performing heavy physical labor.
• Communicating effectively both verbally and in writing, including customer service.
• Working courteously and tactfully with customers and employees.
• Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
High School Diploma/GED Certificate required and
Six months two gears of experience is required in a construction, maintenance, mechanical, underground,
pluming or similar position where hand and power tools such as saws, wrenches, shovels, drills, jackhammers,
etc. have been used. .
OR an equivalent combination of education, training and experience.
Experience operating heavy equipment such as loaders, backhoes, dump trucks, and/or vactor trucks is
preferred.
Experience repairing, installing, and maintaining sewer systems is preferred.
Required Licenses or Certifications:
• Valid Driver's license required at time of hire. State of Washington Driver's License required within 30
days from date of hire.
• "Class A" CDL with air brake and tanker endorsements within one year from date of hire.
Valid State of Washington Driver's License (at time of hire) and Class A CDL with alF brake and ta
endorsements within one year of date of hire.
• Wastewater Collection Specialist Certification within 2 years of employmentfrom date of hire.
• CPR, First Aid, AED, and Bloodborne Pathogen Cards within 2 years from date of hire.
Sewer Maintenance Worker Juae-2�
Packet Pg. 147
3.1.a
JOB DESCRIPTION
Sewer Maintenance Worker
• Flagger Certification within 3 years from date of hire.
• Other specialty certifications/licenses as required by state and federal law and/or OSHA and WAC
regulations may be required within a specified period of time after hire.
• Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check.
• This position is subject to drug and alcohol testing in accordance with USDOT requirements.
Mandatery drug test sL bjent to GGRd'tienol job effer.
vaela111►Eel Eels] ►Io]I1[91►&-;
Environment:
• Indoor and outdoor work environment.
• Driving a vehicle to conduct work.
Physical Abilities:
• Walking or otherwise moving over rough terrain.
• Sitting, standing or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time.
• Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone.
• Operating various equipment and tools.
• Reaching overhead, above the shoulders and horizontally, bending at the waist, gripping, kneeling or
crouching, stooping, crouching, reaching, pushing, pulling and twisting or otherwise positioning oneself
to accomplish tasks.
• Ascending/descending, ladders and inclines.
• Working at heights, working on a high ladder and working in a confined space.
• Working over water, working alone and working in remote locations.
• Working in a noisy work area, working in direct sunlight, working in outside temperature extremes and
working in dampness.
• Heavy physical labor including lifting/carrying or otherwise moving or transporting 50-100 pounds.
• Operating a passenger vehicle, heavy truck, and heavv equipment and rotating machinery.
• Reading and understanding printed and electronic messages and related materials.
• Hearing voice conversation and hearing alarms.
• Possessing close vision, far vision, side vision, depth perception, night vision and color vision.
• Ability to wear appropriate personal protective equipment based on required City Policy.
Hazards:
• Working around and with machinery having moving parts.
• Working in and around moving traffic.
• Adverse weather conditions.
• Exposure to smoke, noxious odors, toxic fumes and chemicals, epoxy chemicals, poison oak or ivy, dust
or pollen, insect stings solvents, oil and ink.
• Working in a cramped or restrictive work chamber.
Sewer Maintenance Worker Juae-2�
Packet Pg. 148
3.1.a
JOB DESCRIPTION
Sewer Maintenance Worker
Incumbent Signature:
Department Head:
Date:
Date:
a
Sewer Maintenance Worker
Packet Pg. 149
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
WATER MAINTENANCE WORKER
Department:
Public Works — Water/Sewer
Pay Grade:
G
Bargaining Unit:
Teamsters
FLSA Status:
Non -Exempt
Revised Date:
August 2019
Reports To:
Water/Sewer Manager
POSITION PURPOSE: Under general supervision, installs, maintains repairs and upgrades the City water
distribution system and related facilities.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all
employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities.
Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional,
position -specific duties.
• Performs specialized work in the installation, repair and maintenance of the City water and related
systems including: City water mains, fire hydrants, valves, meters and others.
• Maintains City grounds including: mowing and trimming grass, pruning shrubs and removing debris
when necessary; repairs sidewalks, streets and lawns as necessary following water system work;
prepares asphalt for repair work.
• Operates a variety of equipment including: a forklift, vactor truck, dump truck and trailer, loader,
backhoe, pipe threading device, jackhammer, air compressor and hand and small power tools in
accomplishing work assignments.
• Installs repairs and maintains PRV stations as required.
• Installs new mains, services hydrants and valves as necessary.
• Assists other department personnel with cross connection testing of backflow assembly devices.
• Assists Sewer division with routine or emergency work as necessary; shuts down valves and reroutes
water flows as necessary.
• Tests water samples and chlorine samples for water clarity; locates, dispatches and assists street;
department with routine and emergency situations.
• Assists with the installation of valves, meters, hydrants and related items; removes, installs and z
maintains pipes, flushes water mains and cleans reservoir as necessary and utilizes appropriate storing U
and safety equipment. a
• Reads maps, plans, specifications and other drawings as required.
• Loads and unloads materials onto trucks; cleans trucks and tools; performs flagging and traffic control
on projects as required.
• Communicates with other City departments regarding repairs and maintenance issues.
• Records and logs new information and prepares and maintains a variety of records and reports
including GPS water components and mapping.
• Conduct fire line detection checks as required.
• Responds to emergency call -out and performs water watch duties as necessary or directed.
• Maintains a variety of records and reports
Water Maintenance Worker Packet Pg. 150
JOB DESCRIPTION
Water Maintenance Worker
• Reads water meters.
• Performs related duties as assigned.
Required Knowledge of:
• Operations, services and activities of a City Public Works Department.
• Standards and techniques used in the operation and maintenance of water systems and related
equipment.
• Basic water distribution maintenance and repair.
• Health and safety regulations and procedures.
• Technical aspects of field of specialty.
• Effective oral and written communication principles and practices to include customer service.
• Record keeping and report preparation.
• Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and computer applications
sufficient to accomplish work assignments.
• English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation.
Required Skill in:
• Installing, maintaining, preparing and upgrading the water distribution system and related facilities.
• Operating hand and power tools and other equipment used in grounds maintenance.
• Install and replace existing and new meters
• Learning City organization, operations, policies and objectives.
• Observing health and safety regulations and practicing safe work practices.
• Working cooperatively with others and meeting schedules and time lines.
• Reading meters.
• Communicating effectively verbally and in writing including customer service.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
High School Diploma/GED Certificate required and
Six Monthstwo gears of experience is required in water distribu a construction, maintenance, mechanical,
L
underground, pluming or similar position where hand and power tools such as saws, wrenches, shovels, drills,
jackhammers, etc. have been used. and rn '„tenanGe of water or related s ,stems and Gernponents �
OR an equivalent combination of education, training and experience.
Experience operating heavy equipment such as loaders, backhoes, dump trucks, and/or vactor trucks is
preferred.
Experience repairing, installing and maintaining water systems is preferred. f°
r
Q
Required Licenses or Certifications:
• Valid Driver's license required at time of hire. State of Washington Driver's License required within 30
days from date of hire.
• "Class A" CDL with air brake and tanker endorsements within one year from date of hire.
• Certification by the State of Washington as a Water Distribution Specialist within 2 years from date of
hire.
Water Maintenance Worker
Packet Pg. 151
JOB DESCRIPTION
Water Maintenance Worker
• CPR, First Aid, AED, and Bloodborne Pathogen Cards within 2 years from date of hire.
• Flagger Certification within 3 years from date of hire.
• Other specialty certifications/licenses as required by state and federal law and/or OSHA and WAC
regulations may be required within a specified period of time after hire.
• Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check.
• This position is subject to drug and alcohol testing in accordance with USDOT requirements.T#s
PE)SitiGR is subjeGt te drug and alGehel testing on aGGGrdanGe with D—T requirements.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Environment:
• Indoor and outdoor work environment.
• Driving a vehicle to conduct work.
Physical Abilities:
• Walking or otherwise moving over rough terrain.
• Sifting, standing or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time.
• Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone.
• Operating various equipment and tools.
• Reaching overhead, above the shoulders and horizontally, bending at the waist, gripping, kneeling or
crouching, stooping, crouching, reaching, pushing, pulling and twisting or otherwise positioning oneself
to accomplish tasks.
• Ascending/descending, ladders and inclines.
• Working at heights, working on a high ladder and working in a confined space.
• Working over water, working alone and working in remote locations.
• Working in a noisy work area, working in direct sunlight, working in outside temperature extremes and
working in dampness.
• Heavy physical labor including lifting/carrying or otherwise moving or transporting 50-100 pounds.
• Operating a passenger vehicle, heavy truck, and heavy equipment and rotating machinery.
• Reading and understanding printed and electronic messages and related materials.
• Hearing voice conversation and hearing alarms.?
c�
• Possessing close vision, far vision, side vision, depth perception, night vision and color vision.
• Ability to wear appropriate personal protective equipment based on required City Policy. c
a�
E
z
Hazards: U
r
• Working around and with machinery having moving parts. Q
• Adverse weather conditions.
• Working in and around moving traffic.
• Exposure to smoke, noxious odors, toxic fumes and chemicals, epoxy chemicals, poison oak or ivy, dust
or pollen, insect stings, solvents, oil and ink.
• Working in a cramped or restrictive work chamber.
Water Maintenance Worker Juae-2�
Packet Pg. 152
JOB DESCRIPTION
Water Maintenance Worker
Incumbent Signature:
Department Head:
Date:
Date:
a�
a�
c
z
U
c
O
r
M
U
3
Cl
E
7
E
0
CD
0
N
H
LL
Q
C�
L
L
O
U
r-
r
.C�
G
L
E
t
U
2
Q
Water Maintenance Worker
Packet Pg. 153
3.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/13/2019
Deputy City Clerk Position (reclassification)
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The City Clerk's Office has reviewed the existing position Deputy City Clerk and, based on an evaluation
of current market comparator wages, recommends a reclassification of this position from pay grade NE
9 to an NE 11.
The difference in pay grades from this reclassification (within the Edmonds Employee Association-
AFSCME Council 2 union) will result in an approximate $389 per month increase (or approximately
$4,668 for the year) for this position.
Staff Recommendation
Forward to the Council for review and approval at the next available Council meeting.
Narrative
The City Clerk's Office has reviewed the existing position Deputy City Clerk and, based on an evaluation
of current market comparator wages, recommends a reclassification of this position from pay grade NE
9 to an NE 11.
With the recent union ratification the current (2019) costs are as follows:
GRADE
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step
NE-11
5250
5355
5625
5906
6201
6509
NE-10
4964
5068
5324
5587
5865
6159
NE-9
4673
4765
5002
5251
5517
5795
The Deputy City Clerk is currently at NE-9 Step 5. The union requires that employees who are reclassified
move to the step of the new grade that offers at least a 5% increase (12.3). This would place the position
at step 4 on the NE-11 grade. Please note that the wages below do not include any increase in benefits
cost. NE-11 appears to be a more appropriate placement than NE-10 which is still significantly below the
median. NE-11 starts slightly above the median but tops at slightly below, which seems appropriate for
this position and will be helpful in keeping the City's wages competitive.
5% increase = $5,792.85. The closest step to this 5% increase on NE-11 is Step 4.
Packet Pg. 154
3.2
Current Costs NE 9/5
Monthly
$5,517
Annually
$66,204
New Costs NE 11/4
Monthly
$5,906
Annually
$70,872
Difference (increase)
Monthly $389
Annually $4,668
The attached spreadsheet shows the comparable positions and the deviation from the median. The
draft job description, which has been updated, reviewed and approved by the union, is attached.
Attachments:
DCC Reclass
AFSCME 2019
DCC Job Description 2019
Packet Pg. 155
3.2.a
Deputy City Clerk
City
Title
Experience
Records Retention and Archival
Bottom
Top
Notes
EDMONDS
Deputy City Clerk
AA and 4 years exp.
Yes
4,673.00
5,795.00
2019 Pay NE-09
BOTHELL
Deputy City Clerk
AA and 2 years of exp.
Yes
5,400.00
6,866.00
ISSAQUAH
Deputy City Clerk
BA and 5 years experience
Yes
6,061.86
7,734.66
LACEY
Deputy City Clerk
High School diploma & 3 years office exp
Yes
5,123.27
6,087.47
PUYALLUP
Deputy City Clerk
3 years experience
Yes
5,064.00
6,483.00
UNIVERSITY PLACE
Deputy City Clerk
High School diploma & 3 years office exp
Yes
5,174.00
6,716.00
LAKE STEVENS
NO MATCH
BURIEN
NO MATCH
DES MOINES
NO MATCH
LYNNWOOD
NO MATCH
MEDIAN $ 5,148.64 $ 6,599.50
Q
Packet Pg. 156
3.2.a
Wage Comparison: Deputy City Clerk Reclassification
Annual Min
Annual Max
Monthly Min
Monthly Max
Hourly Min
Hourly Max
Current NE-9 2019
$ 56,076.00
$
69,540.00
$ 4,673.00
$
5,795.00
$ 26.96
$ 33.43
Median
$ 61,783.62
$
79,194.00
$ 5,148.64
$
6,599.50
$ 29.70
$ 38.07
Proposed NE-10 2019
$ 59,568.00
$
73,908.00
$ 4,964.00
$
6,159.00
$ 28.64
$ 35.53
Proposed NE-11 2019
$ 63,000.00
$
78,108.00
$ 5,250.00
$
6,509.00
$ 30.29
$ 37.55
Variance From Median
Percent Difference NE-9
-9.24%
-12.19%
(current)
Precent Difference NE-10
-3.59%
-6.67%
Precent Difference NE-11
1.97%
-1.37%
(reclass proposal)
Q
Packet Pg. 157
Edmonds Employee Association (AFSCME Council 2)
2019
Y
-14 6305
rNIE
6431
6754
7092
7449
7820
-13
5947
6069
6367
6687
7016
7372
-12**
5735
5848
6143
6448
6770
7108
NE-12*
5680
5793
6082
6386
6705
7040
NE-12
5570
5678
5963
6260
6573
6901
NE-11*
5459
5570
5849
6143
6449
6769
NE-11
5250
5355
5625
5906
6201
6509
NE-10
4964
5068
5324
5587
5865
6159
NE-9
4673
4765
5002
5251
5517
5795
NE-8
4411
4501
4725
4962
5211
5473
NE-7
4180
4265
4476
4703
4938
5180
NE-6
3925
4006
4203
4414
4636
4867
NE-5
3690
3770
3954
4154
4360
4579
NE-4
3496
3566
3742
3933
4129
4337
NE-3
3311
3380
3546
3724
3913
4108
NE-2
3117
3184
3339
3506
3678
3863
S02
17.98
18.36
19.26
20.23
21.22
22.29
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 158
3.2.c
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Department: City Clerk Pay Grade: NE-0911
Bargaining Unit: S€ LJAFSME FLSA Status: Non Exempt
Revised Date: ^^+^ham ;2012August 2019 Reports To: City Clerk
POSITION PURPOSE: Under administrative direction, performs various administrative duties in support of the
City Clerk; works with detailed, complex and sensitive materials and exercises independent judgment, diplomacy
and human relations skills in accomplishing work; maintains various official records, public records, public hearing
notices and other related legal correspondence and records and monitors, processes and issues various special
licenses for the City.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees
in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may
not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position -specific duties.
• Performs various administrative duties in support of the City Clerk.
• Works with detailed, complex and sensitive materials and exercises independent judgment, diplomacy
and human relations skills in accomplishing work.
• Maintains City Clerk's Office official records according to established procedures and oversees City
archive facilities and arranges for storage and destruction.
to appropriate depai4meRtG f9F GOMPletiOn �.A.dthin a five day time ficame; ME)RitGF6 status ef Assist
as needed in processing public records requests.
• Provides for review of records or copies to the public.
• Provides information to elected officials and City staff as requested within scope of knowledge or authority
or refers to appropriate person or agency.
• Records documents with Snohomish County as needed and maintains associated files.
• MORit„rS P and ,ss, a Assist as needed in processing various special licenses for tsty.
• Performs notary services on documents related to citywide business.
• Prepares and processes official public hearing notices, publications and postings in accordance with state
laws and procedures and updates City website as needed.
• Prepares and submits agenda memos as needed and copies finalized City Council packets and distributes
appropriately.
• Prepares City Council chambers for meetings.
• Prepares and processes Claims for Damages and associated legal correspondence.
Gity c
• Serves as City Clerk in their absence and serves as backup for clerical staff in various functions as
needed.
Deputy City Clerk ^^`ebe4 ^"August 2019
Packet Pg. 159
3.2.c
JOB DESCRIPTION
Deputy City Clerk
Required Knowledge of:
• Functions, activities and responsibilities of the City Clerk's Office.
• State and local laws and regulations regarding public records, public meetings, legal notices, licenses and
other assigned functions.
• City Council policies and procedures regarding records retention, preparation of minutes and assembly
of packets.
• Records management systems, techniques and technology.
• Record -keeping techniques.
• City organization, operations, policies and objectives.
• Interpersonal skills using tact, patience and courtesy.
• Structure, organization and inter -relationships of city departments, agencies, and related governmental
agencies and offices affecting assigned functions.
• Effective oral and written communication principles and practices to include public relations and public
speaking.
• Research methods and report preparation and presentation.
• Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers, computer applications such as
word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases.
• English usage, spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
• Principles of business letter writing.
Required Skill in:
• Performing various administrative duties in support of the City Clerk.
• Working with detailed, complex and sensitive materials and exercise independent judgment, diplomacy
and human relations skills.
• Monitoring processes and issuing various special licenses for the City.
• Performing the duties of the City Clerk in the absence of the City Clerk.
• Maintaining official City records.
• Maintaining confidentiality of politically sensitive materials and information.
• Preparing and maintaining a variety of reports and files related to assigned activities.
• Meeting schedules and legal time lines.
• Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work and
in compiling and preparing spreadsheets.
• Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside
agencies, community groups and the general public.
• Interpreting and administering policies and procedures sufficient to administer, discuss, resolve, and
explain them.
• Maintaining confidentiality and communicating with tact and diplomacy.
• Communicating effectively verbally and in writing, including public relations and public speaking.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
Associates Degree in Business Administration, Office Management or related field and four years of increasingly
responsible office technical or clerical experience that involves heavy customer service and work with records
management, Council/Mayoral or other executive level support; preferably within a public agency; OR an
equivalent combination of education, training and experience.
Deputy City Clerk nct ber 201
Packet Pg. 160
3.2.c
JOB DESCRIPTION
Deputy City Clerk
Required Licenses or Certifications:
May be required to obtain Certified Municipal Clerk designation within a specified period of time after hire.
May be required to obtain a Records Management Certification within a specified period of time after hire.
Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Environment:
• Office environment
• Constant interruptions
Physical Abilities:
• Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone.
• Reading and understanding a variety of materials
• Operating a computer keyboard or other office equipment.
• Sitting, standing or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time.
• Bending at the waist, kneeling, crouching, reaching above shoulders and horizontally or otherwise
positioning oneself to accomplish tasks.
• Lifting/carrying or otherwise moving or transporting up to 20 lbs.
Hazards:
• Contact with dissatisfied or abusive individuals.
Incumbent Signature: Date:
Department Head: Date:
Deputy City Clerk nct ber 201
Packet Pg. 161