Loading...
2011.06.14 CC Committee Meetings Agenda Packet                 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds ___________________________________________________ JUNE 14, 2011 6:00 p.m. City Council Committee Meetings The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not public hearings. The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated below.                 1.Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting Room:  Council Chambers   A. (10 Minutes)Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding for Interjurisdictional Affordable Housing Program.   B. (10 Minutes)Discussion on establishing interlocal agreements with other agencies for disposal of biosolids from their wastewater treatment plants.   C. (15 Minutes)Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mountlake Terrace to develop capital improvement project descriptions, scope and costs for projects listed in the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Forum Capital Improvement Plan.   D. (5 Minutes)Report on bids opened May 26, 2011 for the 226th St. SW Walkway Project and award a contract in the amount of $73,840.00 to Northend Excavating, Inc.   E. (5 Minutes)Report on bids opened June 7, 2011 for the Lift Station 2 Replacement Project and award a contract in the amount of $552,915.87 to Omega Contractors, Inc.   F. (15 Minutes)Briefing on the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2012-2017).   G. (15 Minutes)Ordinance adding a new Complete Streets section to Edmonds City Code (ECC) 18.80.015.   H. (10 Minutes)Electric vehicle charging station contract.   I. (5 Minutes)Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #9 with KPFF Consulting Engineers for the Interurban Trail Project.   J. (5 Minutes)Report on bids opened June 2, 2011 for the Interurban Trail Project and award of contract to Trimaxx Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,368,721.50.   K. (5 Minutes)Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Perteet Engineering for the Interurban Trail Project. Packet Page 1 of 234   L. (5 Minutes)Authorization for the Mayor to sign PUD documents for the Interurban Trail Project.   M. (15 Minutes)Discussion regarding business in parks.   N. (5 Minutes)Report on the SR 99 International District Enhancements Project.   2.Finance Committee Meeting Room:  Jury Meeting Room   A. (15 Minutes)Park Impact Fee Discussion.   B. (10 Minutes)Authorization for Mayor to sign a Lease Agreement with Pitney Bowes for Postage Meter Equipment.   C. (10 Minutes)General Fund Update - May 2011   D. (10 Minutes)Quarterly Report - 4th 2010 - REVISED   E. (10 Minutes)Update on financial policies and reporting.   F. (10 Minutes)Public comments (3-minute limit per person)   3.Public Safety Committee Meeting Room:  Police Training Room   A. (15 Minutes)Discussion on Marine 16.   B. (5 Minutes)Revisions to open burning requirements.   C. (15 Minutes)Review of Inter-jurisdictional police response activities.   ADJOURN   Packet Page 2 of 234 AM-4000   Item #: 1. A. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding for Interjurisdictional Affordable Housing Program. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward to the full Council with a recommendation to approve the Memorandum of Understanding and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In June, 2009, Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) approved a feasibility study designed to explore options for creating a new program that would allow multiple jurisdictions to work together to expand affordable housing opportunities in the county. Following that effort, a multi-jurisdictional work group began working to develop a mechanism to implement the study's recommendations, with the intent of establishing an interjurisdictional partnership designed to address the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) to provide for existing and future housing needs for all economic segments of the community. The recognition is that no single jurisdiction can address housing challenges, since housing needs and issues are not unique or necessarily isolatable to specific jurisdictions; a multi-jurisdictional approach will have more chance of success. The proposal before the City Council is to sign on to a Memorandum of Understanding (see Exhibit 2) expressing support for the process. Once support is indicated, the working group will proceed to flesh out the program and develop a funding mechanism to support it. Note that while signing the MOU expresses the city's support, this does not constitute a final commitment to sign any resultant Interlocal Agreement establishing the program, nor does it commit the city to participating financially in the program. However, signing the MOU does mean that the city sees potential benefits in participating and is committed to exploring the possibilities. Attachments Exhibit 1: Letter to jurisdictions Exhibit 2: Memorandum of Understanding Exhibit 3: Program Mission and Goals Exhibit 4: 2009 Feasibility Study Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 03:13 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/10/2011 07:45 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/10/2011 07:58 AM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 06/09/2011 02:32 PM Final Approval Date: 06/10/2011  Packet Page 3 of 234 Packet Page 4 of 234 Packet Page 5 of 234            Snohomish County Inter­jurisdictional Housing Committee  Page 1 Memorandum of Understanding    This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is being executed by the undersigned  this _ __ day of ____        _ , 2011 by and between the City of Mukilteo, organized under  the laws of the State of Washington and the other signatories of this MOU for the  purposes of articulating a shared intention to continue and expand an inter‐ jurisdictional partnership to educate staff and electeds, to share staffing resources,  to seek strategies to implement housing policies, and to help address affordable  housing needs in Snohomish County.    1. RECITALS  Section 1.1.  Whereas, the Snohomish County Council and several communities  within the county support the formation of an inter‐jurisdictional group to consider  the housing needs within the county as a whole and within the urban growth areas.  Section 1.2. Whereas, after over a year of exploring options for jurisdictions to  participate in a partnership, it was determined that a model similar to ARCH on the  eastside of King County would be the most appropriate partnership model.   Section 1.3. Whereas, the elected officials of the respective jurisdictions believe it  would be beneficial to join together, on a voluntary basis, to address the issue of  affordability and housing supply, as cities are not responsible for creating housing,  but can work cooperatively to help the private, non‐profit and public sectors that  have traditionally been responsible for production of housing throughout  Snohomish County.   Section 1.4. Whereas, the signers of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) plan  for local housing in their jurisdictions within Snohomish County and they find it in  their mutual interest to address affordable housing issues on a countywide and  regional basis and to cooperatively work, where possible, to increase the supply of  affordable housing, without committing financial resources at this time, but with an  expectation of some staff or in‐kind resources being provided.  Section 1.5. Whereas, in order to further the goals of the program, other non‐profit  housing groups/entities may become a part of this MOU to assist with the program  development.  Section 1.6 Whereas, the communities and entities that have expressed an initial  interest in developing this new concept of cooperation in addressing affordable  housing issues are:   Edmonds   Everett   Lake Stevens   Lynnwood   Marysville   Mill Creek   Mountlake Terrace  Packet Page 6 of 234 Page 3  Mukilteo   Snohomish   Woodway   Snohomish County    Section 1.7. Whereas, the jurisdictions have an interest in working together to  increase the amount of affordable housing units, thus the signers of this MOU desire  to develop an interlocal agreement for consideration.     Now, therefore, the undersigned agree to the following:    2. AGREEMENT  The parties agree to the following terms of this Memorandum of Understanding.    2.1. Purpose.  The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to  acknowledge the commitment on the part of each of the respective parties to  cooperate during 2011 and possibly a subsequent period to:    2.1.1 Identify and create a governance structure for the long‐term cooperative  effort related to affordable housing.    2.1.2. Develop a work plan and yearly program efforts that considers short‐term,  mid‐term and long‐term needs related to affordable housing.    2.1.3. Develop and submit for consideration an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for  2012 and 2013 budget years that funds staffing and administrative expenses to  carryout this cooperative effort related to affordable housing.  However, nothing in  this agreement commits any jurisdiction or entity to enter into an ILA or funding  obligations at any time in the future. The parties also understand that there may be  interim measures necessary to implement all or portions of the program and that no  future obligations to sign an interlocal agreement are implied as part of this MOU.    2.2. Membership under this MOU.    2.2.1 Initial Members. Those entities and others that sign this MOU by November  30, 2011 are the initial members.    2.2.2  New Members. The process for other entities to participate is open. An  additional entity may join upon signature of this MOU while the MOU and specified  actions are active.    2.3. Governance.  The governance will be provided by elected Co‐Chairs that are  chosen at the first official meeting after the MOU takes affect.  All jurisdictions may  participate in meetings without having signed the MOU.  Once the majority of the  jurisdictions have signed the MOU, then those that have not signed will not have a  Packet Page 7 of 234 Page 3 vote on decision action items on the agenda. All other items will be accepted by  consensus of those attending, where possible.    2.4. Future Agreement(s).  The parties, by executing this Memorandum of  Understanding, are committing to develop an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for the  purposes of continuing to cooperatively participate in an inter‐jurisdictional  affordable housing effort for future consideration.  The ILA will identify the  respective rights, obligations and duties of any party that is a signatory to the ILA.  No obligations to enter into an ILA are implied as established in 2.1.3 of this MOU.    2.5. Amendment(s).  This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended at any  time in writing, by mutual agreement of the parties.    2.6. Termination.  This Memorandum of Understanding for any respective  signatory may be terminated by any party by withdrawing from the MOU before an  ILA is signed, by notifying in writing to the Co‐Chairs at least sixty (60) days in  advance of such termination, based upon their respective governing bodies’  approval of termination.      This MOU will be considered terminated in full, if either one of the following two  actions occur:  A. All signatories to the MOU terminate their cooperation.  B. An Interlocal agreement is signed by enough jurisdictions and thereby replaces  this MOU on a permanent basis.    2.7. Severability. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision,  section or portion thereof shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of  this MOU.    2.8. Counterparts. This MOU may be signed in counterparts, and if so signed, shall  be deemed to be one integrated MOU.    2.9. Effective Date.  The effective date shall be the date following the signatures of  the first five jurisdictions.    DATED this ____day of _____, 2011 (when the fifth jurisdiction signed the agreement).    WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the dates set  forth below.      Packet Page 8 of 234 Page __   Signatories:                    DATED this _   __day of June, 2011.    City of Edmonds___   Jurisdiction/Entity    By:  Mike Cooper                    Name    Its:  Mayor, City of Edmonds                               Title        Packet Page 9 of 234 Exhibit 3 March 30, 2011 IHP Committee Interjurisdictional Housing Program Mission and Goals Mission: To help increase the supply of attainable* and sustainable* housing near jobs, transit, and services through an interjurisdictional approach Goals: 1. Create a venue for interjurisdictional cooperation and education to meet housing needs. 2. Provide housing information to assist local elected officials 3. Provide technical assistance among members to develop and implement local housing policies, programs, and regulations 4. Advocate for housing issues and resources, consistent with participating jurisdictions’ objectives 5. Attract additional public resources, private resources, and not-for profit investment into attainable housing (by coordinating, leveraging, or contributing local resources, as appropriate) 6. Facilitate retention of existing sustainable housing. 7. Administer any specific housing programs as approved by the membership. 8. Facilitate the building of attainable housing (without being the builder) * “Attainable housing” refers to housing that is safe and affordable to low- or moderate- income households * “Sustainable housing” refers to housing that meets economic, environmental, and social needs of the community. This includes housing that is energy-efficient, safe, and of appropriate materials and construction to assure the housing’s longevity Packet Page 10 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County Snohomish County Tomorrow As submitted to the Steering Committee June 17, 2009 Final deliverable by the City of Lake Stevens to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development in fulfillment of Contract C08-63200-423. Packet Page 11 of 234 A report of Snohomish County Tomorrow Final deliverable by the City of Lake Stevens to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development in fulfillment of Contract C08-63200-423. Packet Page 12 of 234 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................... 4 Introduction............................................................................................................ 10 Landscape of Affordable Housing in Snohomish County............................................... 13 Housing Needs in Snohomish County..................................................................... 13 Existing Affordable Housing in Snohomish County ................................................... 16 Existing Funding Mechanisms in Snohomish County................................................ 21 Existing Housing Plans and Policies....................................................................... 24 Review of Best Practices.......................................................................................... 29 Overviews of Other Regional/Inter-jurisdictional Affordable Housing Programs............. 32 Critical Success Factors........................................................................................ 40 Stakeholder Advice.................................................................................................. 44 Phase One Stakeholder Interviews......................................................................... 45 Phase Two Stakeholder Interviews......................................................................... 49 Essential Program Outcomes and Program Limitations................................................ 54 Essential Program Outcomes:................................................................................ 55 Program Design Features:..................................................................................... 56 Summary of Findings............................................................................................... 57 Conclusions and Program Proposal ........................................................................... 60 Conditions for Proceeding with New Inter-Jurisdictional Program: ............................. 61 Alternatives Analysis............................................................................................ 62 Program Recommendations.................................................................................. 73 Appendices Appendix 1: Draft Memorandum of Understanding ..................................................... 85 Appendix 2: Logic Model of Proposed Interjurisdictional Housing Program..................... 97 Appendix 3: Affordable Housing 101 Presentation.................................................... 101 Appendix 4: Annotated Bibliography of Relevant Plans, Policies, and Data Reports ...... 109 Appendix 5: List of Stakeholder Interviews............................................................... 115 Appendix 6: List of PAC Housing Subcommittee participants ..................................... 117 Packet Page 13 of 234 “ Most of the smaller jurisdictions are running as fast as they can to keep up with current obligations… Working together allows them to learn about affordable housing strategies at a relatively low cost. An inter-jurisdictional approach would bring together jurisdictions of like minds to work on this issue. --Local stakeholder interviewed for this report ”“ Packet Page 14 of 234 5 Executive Summary The shortage of safe, affordable housing1 affects an increasing number of families throughout each jurisdiction in Snohomish County. Existing private, nonprofit, and public efforts are struggling to keep pace with the growing needs in the community. Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) undertook this feasibility study to explore options for creating a new program that would allow multiple jurisdictions to work together to expand affordable housing opportunities. Through this study, SCT further seeks to fulfill its Countywide Planning Policies, including HO-3: “strengthen inter-jurisdictional cooperative efforts to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to all economic segments of the county.” The feasibility study was led by the Housing Subcommittee of the SCT Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The study included an assessment of all relevant existing local plans; research on the best practices for inter-jurisdictional affordable housing programs across the country; two rounds of interviews with public and private stakeholders in the community; and discussions with the SCT Steering Committee, PAC, and Managers and Administrators Group. This report summarizes the key findings of the study and recommends next steps for moving forward. Key Findings The need for additional affordable housing throughout Snohomish County continues to grow. Snohomish County estimates that 80,000 households lived in unaffordable housing in 2007, or more than 63 percent of the 126,000 households earning less than the median income countywide (up from 53 percent in 2000). Moreover, evidence shows considerable need for affordable housing persists in virtually every community of the county. Private and public stakeholders agree that local governments play an important role in helping to create affordable housing in their communities, and might accomplish more in this regard by collaborating across jurisdictional boundaries. Some elected and appointed officials in Snohomish County believe that a new inter-jurisdictional program focused on creating and preserving affordable housing has potential advantages, but that interest is not uniform across all jurisdictions or even within jurisdictions. 1 The term “affordable housing” is used in different ways and can have different meanings in a variety of settings. For the purposes of this report, housing is considered affordable if a household can live in it without sacrificing essentials such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. Therefore, affordable housing includes not just subsidized or income-restricted housing units, but all private and public housing units that are affordable for low- and moderate-income families. Packet Page 15 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 6 There is general consensus among stakeholders interviewed for this study that jurisdictions should support the creation of new home-ownership opportunities for households earning up to 100 percent of the county’s median income, as well as affordable rental housing targeting those earning up to 50 percent of the county’s median income. Many of those interviewed expressed a preference for creating more home ownership opportunities. Elected officials consulted for this study agree that location is an important factor for new affordable housing and that those needing affordable housing should have adequate access to employment, education, shopping, services, and amenities. Considerable disagreement persists, however, on policy regarding the most feasible and appropriate locations for new affordable housing. Only a handful of successful inter-jurisdictional affordable housing programs exist in the U.S.. Some focus on creating new local capital resources for housing development, while others focus on a combination of incentives, technical assistance, and other planning activities to encourage affordable housing development. A few models use both planning activities and creation of new capital resources. Given current economic conditions, this is not seen as a time when a new local capital funding source can be shifted or created to support development of affordable housing. Instead, those who support the creation of an inter-jurisdictional program believe that a new collaborative program should be focused on a variety of technical assistance, educational, and planning activities. A new program may be eligible for new or existing state and federal funding sources in the future to support capital funding for housing. The research into other models around the country suggests that creation of a new program requires one (or more) champion to play a leadership role in promoting the new program and recruiting others to participate, or providing funding or in-kind services. To date, no jurisdiction or individual in Snohomish County has expressed an interest in stepping forward to champion a new initiative. Other national models have created dedicated staff capacity to support a meaningful multi-jurisdictional collaboration focused on affordable housing. This has required funding resources to support the appropriate level of staffing. Research on other national affordable housing models suggests that new governance structures have been developed to focus on the implementation and management of the inter-jurisdictional program, but existing organizations have been utilized to provide administrative support. Packet Page 16 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 7 Conclusions Given the affordable housing needs within the county, and the level of interest in this idea expressed by those interviewed for the study, this study concludes that a new inter-jurisdictional program with the goal of creating more affordable housing in Snohomish County can be successful if four threshold conditions are met: Condition 1: A “critical mass” of jurisdictions elects to participate as founding members. Condition 2: Sufficient funding is secured to support the program for at least 24 months. Condition 3: A host agency is identified to provide back-office administrative support, such as payroll, accounting, and IT services. Condition 4: The participating jurisdictions reach agreement on certain fundamental questions in an inter-local agreement, including the program’s purpose and governance structure. Recommendations The project team recommends that Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County co-convene an Implementation Task Force that would work to resolve the four conditions described above. The Task Force would include public, private, and nonprofit advocates, actively invited and recruited by the convening agencies. The role of the Task Force would be to determine the most effective way to move this proposal (or an alternative) toward implementation. In particular, the Task Force would need to work with potential member jurisdictions to determine the founding participants and their common goals. In addition, the Task Force would work with potential funders to secure funding support for the program, and have discussions with potential “host” agencies to find an organization willing to provide administrative support. In light of the current economic climate, the Task Force should plan on taking approximately a year to secure the necessary commitments for the new program. The project team suggests that the Implementation Task Force use the following program framework as its starting point. The Task Force and any potential participants in the new initiative would, of course, be free to diverge from any or all parts of the framework. • Participating jurisdictions would establish the program through a formal inter-local agreement (ILA), which defines roles and responsibilities and secures commitments from the jurisdictions, and must be adopted by each local governing body to be valid. Based on stakeholder input, the ILA should provide a means whereby other jurisdictions can join later, at mutually beneficial times. Packet Page 17 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 8 • Membership in the inter-jurisdictional program would be voluntary and open to all county, city and tribal governments in Snohomish County. Because of the different levels of local support for this program concept, membership may be phased in over time. The “critical mass” of jurisdictions needed to initiate the program could be as few as three, but may require four or more, depending on the resources and objectives of the jurisdictions that choose to join. • The primary purpose of the program would be to achieve the housing objectives of the participating jurisdictions. Member jurisdictions may discover that through the collaboration, they can achieve objectives that cross municipal boundaries. The ultimate impact, hopefully, would be that many more Snohomish County households obtain affordable housing; but the program would focus on meeting the needs defined by its members. • Given the consensus among stakeholders regarding program outcomes and parameters, the project team drafted the following outcome policy statements: “The program exists to help participating jurisdictions meet their affordable housing objectives, especially:” o “More affordable housing in all participating communities, especially where the need is greatest and where there is good transportation and access to employment opportunities, amenities, and services.” “More affordable rental housing opportunities for households making up to 50 percent of the county’s median household income, especially seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, families with children, and people who work in our communities (such as service workers and laborers).” “More affordable home ownership opportunities for households making less than the county’s median household income, especially first-time homebuyers and people working in our communities (such as teachers and public safety workers).” o “Neighborhoods with affordable housing supported by the program are safe and have stable property values.” • The program would begin with commitments for at least two years of operating resources, funded by a combination of monetary contributions and in-kind support of participating jurisdictions, grant funds, and other sponsorships. During the current economic climate, local government resources for affordable housing will remain about the same as today, but over the long run, participating jurisdictions would contribute additional resources. Packet Page 18 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 9 • Governance of the new program would be provided by the participating members through a semi-independent board. This board, having representatives appointed by and from among the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions, would set policies for the program supplemental to those of the jurisdictions. The board would also hire its own staff, make decisions regarding budgets and work plans, and take input from the public and advisory boards as they see fit. The board would not, of course, take any statutory powers away from the local governments that they are not authorized to delegate. An outline of an MOU that could be used to establish the governance model is included in the Appendix 1 as a template. Potential Work Plan Activities for Program Staff Unless and until funding for other programming (e.g. a housing trust fund) becomes available, a new inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program should focus on a set of technical assistance, education, and planning activities that would assist member jurisdictions to meet their affordable housing goals. A dedicated staff position (1 FTE) would be able to achieve significant progress for a number of jurisdictions, provided staff has clear direction and an adequate level of back office support. The following list of activities serves as a “menu” of potential work plan items for the new program. Final decisions about the work plan for the new inter-jurisdictional program should be determined in conjunction with members, based on their affordable housing needs. The following list is not in any priority order: • Identify strategies and goals to address identified affordable housing needs that are specific to each participating jurisdiction. • Assist in preparing affordable housing components of comprehensive plans, as required by the State Growth Management Act. • Develop regulatory or incentive strategies to encourage development of affordable housing. • Serve as a liaison with non-profit and for-profit developers of affordable housing. • Write grant applications and other forms of fundraising to support affordable housing. • Develop means of sharing information among jurisdictions. • Conduct educational outreach for elected and appointed officials and the public. • Monitor affordability conditions/restrictions for affordable housing units created through local incentive programs of member jurisdictions. • Explore the feasibility and timing of securing potential resources to create a local housing trust fund, which could be particularly helpful as economic conditions improve. Pursue opportunities as they arise. Packet Page 19 of 234 “ Strengthen inter-jurisdictional cooperative efforts to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to all economic segments of the county. --Countywide Planning Policy HO-2, as adopted by Snohomish County Tomorrow ” Packet Page 20 of 234 11 Introduction In 2007, Snohomish County Tomorrow, an inter-jurisdictional forum consisting of representatives from the County and each of the cities as well as from the Tulalip Tribes, successfully applied for a competitive Growth Management Act (GMA) planning grant from the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. The City of Lake Stevens is the fiscal administrator for the grant, which is managed by Snohomish County Planning and Development Services. The purpose of the study is to analyze the potential to increase the supply of affordable housing in Snohomish County through intergovernmental collaboration. This report summarizes the findings and analysis of the study and proposes a program model that responds to the local conditions and preferences in Snohomish County. Snohomish County Tomorrow members can use this report to make informed decisions on potential inter-jurisdictional programs and opportunities. The feasibility study was motivated by recognition that a shortage of safe, affordable housing affects an increasing number of families throughout each jurisdiction in Snohomish County. Existing private, nonprofit, and public efforts are struggling to keep pace with the growing needs in the community. In particular, SCT jurisdictions want to make better progress toward achieving the Fair Share Housing Allocation objectives they set for themselves in 1995 and again in 2005. Furthermore, SCT seeks to fulfill Countywide Planning Policy HO-3: “Strengthen inter-jurisdictional cooperative efforts to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to all economic segments of the county.” This feasibility study is guided by the Housing Subcommittee of the Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Council (PAC). The Housing Subcommittee includes representatives from the planning departments of several Snohomish cities, one Mayor, County staff, and a representative from the nonprofit Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. The complete subcommittee roster can be found in Appendix 6. In June 2008, the Housing Subcommittee selected the consultant team of Building Changes and Cedar River Group to carry out the feasibility study under its direction, and provide this final report that summarizes the study’s findings and the consultants’ recommendations. The PAC will use the findings in this report to develop recommendations for Snohomish County Tomorrow. This study included a review of relevant regional plans and policies related to housing; two rounds of interviews with key stakeholders in the county; research on best practices for inter-jurisdictional housing programs around the country; and direct feedback from the Snohomish County Tomorrow PAC and Steering Committee. More information on these components of the study follows in the sections below. Packet Page 21 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County Based on the input from stakeholders and Snohomish County Tomorrow members, research on successful inter-jurisdictional collaborations, and local conditions in Snohomish County, the consultants developed a recommended program proposal and an outline of a Memorandum of Understanding that municipalities could use in developing such a collaboration. Packet Page 22 of 234 13 Landscape of Affordable Housing in Snohomish County Housing Needs in Snohomish County The term “affordable housing” is used in different ways and can have different meanings in a variety of settings. For the purposes of this report, housing is considered affordable if a household can live in it without sacrificing essentials such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. Therefore, affordable housing includes not just subsidized or income-restricted housing units, but all private and public housing units that are affordable for low- and moderate-income families. Snohomish County Tomorrow recognizes the national standard for housing affordability as described by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): “The generally accepted definition of housing affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing.”2 Families who earn less than the county median income (approximately $65,000 in 2008 for a family of four) and who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered “cost-burdened” and may have difficulty affording basic necessities. The need for affordable housing is growing rapidly in Snohomish County. In 2000, more than 49,000 households were cost-burdened, which represented more than half (53 percent) of the 93,000 households earning incomes below the county median income. By 2007, 80,000 households were cost-burdened, representing 63% of the 126,000 total households earning less than the median income. There are cost-burdened families in every jurisdiction in Snohomish County.3 2 Snohomish County Tomorrow. “Housing Evaluation Report 2007.” Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Information/Plans/SCT+Reports/HER07.htm (Accessed: February 11, 2009). 3 Snohomish County PDS data presented at SCT Steering Committee on January 28, 2009. Packet Page 23 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 14 Figure 1 shows that over the past several years, an increasing percentage of low- and moderate-income households need affordable housing opportunities. Figure 1: Housing needs are different across a range of incomes. Households earning between 80 and 100 percent of the median income are more likely able to find affordable rental units, but many first-time homebuyers in this income range cannot afford homeownership. Households earning between 30 and 80 percent of the median income are unlikely able to afford home ownership or recently built rental units, but may be able to afford the limited supply of older rental housing stock, which typically has lower rents. At the lowest end of the income spectrum, Snohomish County Tomorrow recently reported that “virtually no market-rate housing is affordable to those making 30 percent of the county’s median household income or less.”4 Although the housing prices in Snohomish County have declined a bit since reaching their peak in late 2007, the need for affordable housing remains very real. The long-term trend continues to show home appreciation rising much faster than incomes, and that disparity between what people earn and what type of home they can afford continues in the current economic climate. In fact, the lack of affordability may be exacerbated by rising 4 Snohomish County Tomorrow. “Housing Evaluation Report 2007.” Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Information/Plans/SCT+Reports/HER07.htm (Accessed: February 11, 2009). Packet Page 24 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 15 unemployment and lower income growth during the current economic conditions. In addition, fallout from the mortgage lending crisis has resulted in credit standards tightening such that only people with unblemished credit histories are able to get home loans. The impacts on the rental market have likewise not improved the affordability of housing. The overwhelming majority of building permits issued in the county during the past decade have been for single family homes, and the small amount of new multifamily rental buildings have primarily focused on luxury apartments. Even though home prices are falling, they remain out of reach for the vast majority of families earning less than the median income, so there has in fact been an increase in demand for rental housing that is not met by the current supply.5 The lack of affordable housing contributes to the challenges facing homeless families and individuals in Snohomish County. The 2009 Snohomish County point-in-time count of homeless persons identified 2,202 homeless people. This total includes a point-in-time count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless people on one night in January 2009, but does not capture the whole population of people who experience homelessness at some point during the year.6 Respondents to a survey of homeless persons in 2007 identified affordable housing as their number-one service need.7 Turn-away data from homeless shelters suggest that more than 70 percent of homeless people are members of homeless families with children.8 5 Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Committee, Real Estate Research Report, Fall 2008, v.59 n.2 p.46-47. 6 Snohomish County Executive’s Office. Available online: http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Executive/News/NR_HomelessCount_1.30.09.pdf (Accessed: February 11, 2009). 7 Snohomish County Office of Housing, Homelessness, and Community Development. 2007 Point in Time Count. http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Human_Services/Divisions/OHHCD/ (Accessed: December 21, 2007). 8 Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. “Housing within Reach.” Available online: http://www.housingsnohomish.org/advocacy.html (Accessed: February 11, 2009). Profile: A Typical Family that needs Affordable Housing Sandra is a single mother with three children, and she works as an elementary school teacher in Snohomish County. She earns $41,000 per year, or less than 50 percent of the county median income for a family of four. The average rent in the city where she teaches is $1,395 for a three-bedroom apartment, but the maximum rent she can afford is $1,025. Her family cannot afford to pay rent and utilities, as well as the basic necessities of food, clothing, health care, and school supplies. Sandra and her family must choose between sacrificing the basic necessities, living in unsafe or substandard housing, or commuting great distances between her job and more affordable housing that is available in another part of the county or even outside the county. (Notes: This profile is not an actual family, but is based on many families in need of housing in Snohomish County. Sandra’s income is based on entry-level salaries at Everett Public Schools, and her rent is based on the Fair Market Rents established by HUD for 2009.) Packet Page 25 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 16 Note on the Fair Share Housing Allocation Several discussions during the stakeholder input process—in particular, at the SCT Steering Committee—raised the question of whether the Fair Share Housing Allocation would or should be addressed in an inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program. While both the Fair Share Housing Allocation report and any future inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program address the issue of affordable housing, it is important to realize that these reports/programs are separate and distinct from each other and have different purposes. SCT develops the Fair Share Housing Allocation Report to estimate the affordable housing needs countywide over the next twenty years and each community’s fair share toward meeting that need. The report was last adopted in 2005 and is scheduled to be updated by SCT during the 2013-2015 period. Both the 2005 report and its predecessor (in 1995) urged the county’s jurisdictions to collaborate with resources and other efforts. As noted above, this feasibility study has grown, in part, out of that suggestion, as well as recognition that previous efforts have not achieved sufficient gains toward Fair Share objectives. The inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program discussed in this report may be one means by which participating communities address fair share issues. Choosing to participate (or not) in a multi-jurisdictional program will not affect a jurisdiction’s responsibility for meeting its fair share of affordable housing needs. For this reason, it is not appropriate for this report to serve as the forum for discussing the fair share allocation itself. As described further in the section below on “Existing Housing Plans and Reports,” there are several recent plans and reports that identify housing needs countywide and set targets for meeting an increasing amount of those families in need. For example, the 2008 Housing within Reach plan projected that 73,400 households countywide would be cost-burdened by 2017, and set a goal of increasing the supply of affordable housing opportunities from 14,000 to 32,630 households over the next ten years. The Fair Share Housing Allocation Report also describes the number of cost-burdened households in each jurisdiction, and sets goals for each jurisdiction to meet those growing needs over the next twenty years. Based on interviews and discussions with stakeholders and Snohomish County Tomorrow members, it is clear specific housing targets for a new inter-jurisdictional program should be developed by the jurisdictions that choose to participate in the program. The participating programs may choose to create housing goals that incorporate a portion of the targets set by other plans and reports in the county, and that relate specifically to the activities of the new program. Existing Affordable Housing in Snohomish County Affordable housing comes in a variety of shapes and sizes, from studio rental apartments up to single family homes. Some of these homes are provided through the private market, while others have been created by nonprofit agencies or housing authorities and dedicated for low- and moderate-income families. Housing provided by the private market The private market provides the vast majority of the housing supply, but in Snohomish County, the need for homes that are available at affordable rents or purchase prices greatly outweighs the supply for families below the median income. One of the main reasons that Packet Page 26 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 17 the number of cost-burdened families has increased over the past several years is that the new housing being built in the county is much less affordable than the older, existing housing stock. This can be seen in both the rental and for-sale housing markets. According to data from Dupre+Scott, the average monthly rent for two-bedroom apartments built from 2000 to 2007 was $1,200 in 2007; or more than $300 higher than the average rent for two-bedroom units built before 2000. Families earning less than 50 percent of the median income ($32,000) can afford rents of about $800 per month. While the older housing stock of rental units does provide some affordable opportunities, new private market apartments are not adding a significant number of affordable units to the community, and the older housing stock is decreasing due to condo conversions and unit replacements. Data from the home sales market show an even starker lack of affordable home ownership opportunities in Snohomish County. Of all new homes sold from 2005 to 2006, only 200 homes (just two percent of nearly 10,000 new home sales) were affordable to households earning the median income.9 From 2000 to 2008, the median home price increased by 77 percent in Snohomish County, while the median income increased by only 20 percent. Homeownership is increasingly out of the reach of moderate-income families and first-time homebuyers in Snohomish County.10 11 Housing provided by nonprofit agencies and public housing authorities Nonprofit agencies and public housing authorities provide a range of housing assistance, including rental subsidies, first-time homebuyer assistance, emergency home repair, emergency shelter, weatherization services, and the development and management of new affordable housing units. Housing provided by nonprofits and housing authorities are dedicated for low- and moderate-income families, and frequently have affordability requirements through the sources of funding (particularly federal and state housing funds). The total number of low- and moderate-income households served by nonprofits and housing authorities is 14,000 households countywide. The inventory of existing assisted housing for low-income households includes dedicated housing units (often called “project-based” assistance), and assistance made to households that then must find rental housing in the private market (often called “tenant-based,” or “voucher” programs). Snohomish County Tomorrow estimates that as of February 2008, there are 8,869 units of project-based housing dedicated to people with low incomes (this includes both nonprofit- and housing authority-owned units), and 5,131 tenant-based vouchers. The vouchers principally include the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, a federally-funded 9 Snohomish County Tomorrow. “Housing Evaluation Report 2007.” Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Information/Plans/SCT+Reports/HER07.htm (Accessed: February 11, 2009). 10 Washington Center for Real Estate Research. Available online: http://www.wcrer.wsu.edu/WSHM/WSHM.html (Accessed: February 11, 2009). 11 Office of Financial Management. Available online: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/pugetsound.pdf (Accessed: April 19, 2008). Packet Page 27 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 18 program that is administered in Snohomish County by the two public housing authorities, the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and the Everett Housing Authority (EHA).12 12 Snohomish County Tomorrow. “Housing Evaluation Report 2007.” Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Information/Plans/SCT+Reports/HER07.htm (Accessed: February 11, 2009). Packet Page 28 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 19 Table 1 summarizes the 14,000 dedicated affordable units in the county. The site-specific assisted housing units are listed by jurisdiction and broken down by the type of housing unit. The tenant-based vouchers are available for use throughout the county and can rent a range of unit sizes based on household size and composition. Table 1: Distribution of Dedicated Affordable Units by Jurisdiction and Housing Unit Type, as of February 2008 Jurisdiction Units for Seniors Units for Families Units for Individuals Total Units Arlington 320 180 7 507 Darrington 20 – – 20 Edmonds 178 120 31 329 Everett 744 1,484 437 2,665 Granite Falls 30 – – 30 Lake Stevens 112 55 – 167 Lynnwood 485 753 21 1,259 Marysville 338 470 176 984 Mill Creek 45 277 – 322 Monroe 124 52 3 179 Mountlake Terrace – 113 2 115 Mukilteo – – 61 61 Snohomish City 144 96 14 254 Stanwood 144 46 32 222 Sultan 26 7 7 40 Non-SW Unincorporated UGA – 109 6 115 Rural Unincorporated 68 128 – 196 SW Unincorporated UGA 326 774 27 1,127 Unidentified Location – 257 20 277 Totals for Project-Based Units 3,104 4,921 844 8,869 Countywide Total Number of Tenant-Based Rental Subsidies 5,131 Countywide Total of Project-Based and Tenant-Based Units 14,000 Source: Snohomish County Tomorrow. “2007 Housing Evaluation Report.” Packet Page 29 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 20 Table 2 summarizes the distribution of both project-based assisted housing units and tenant-based vouchers by jurisdiction in Snohomish County, as of February 2008. Since tenant-based vouchers may be used across jurisdictions, this table shows only a point-in-time distribution of the use of these rental vouchers. Table 2: Distribution of Dedicated Affordable Units by Jurisdiction, including Vouchers Jurisdiction Total Units Arlington 625 Bothell (Snohomish Co. portion) 17 Brier 1 Darrington 29 Edmonds 337 Everett 4,291 Gold Bar 5 Granite Falls 61 Index 2 Lake Stevens 267 Lynnwood 1,822 Marysville 1,324 Mill Creek 457 Monroe 236 Mountlake Terrace 236 Mukilteo 121 Snohomish City 334 Stanwood 268 Sultan 69 Woodway 1 Unincorporated County (Urban) 2,718 Unincorporated County (Rural) 871 Unidentified location 492 Total 14,000 Source: Snohomish County PDS data presented at SCT Steering Committee on January 28, 2009. The unmet need for housing assistance can be seen in the high demand for existing resources. HASCO maintains a wait list that includes over 4,000 households, with estimated waits as long as five years, while EHA has closed its wait list and is not currently accepting applications. Packet Page 30 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 21 While there is a network of capable, experienced affordable housing providers in Snohomish County, the production of new affordable housing opportunities has not kept pace with the growing need. Since 2002, nonprofits and housing authorities have added 2,019 affordable housing units in Snohomish County, which is a substantial amount relative to the private market, which produced just 2,023 apartments in same period at all income levels. However, this production cannot keep pace with the more than 4,000 additional households that become cost-burdened each year, according to Snohomish County Tomorrow estimates.13 The Snohomish County Consolidated Plan identifies three main barriers to creating affordable housing in the county: increasing housing demand due to fast population growth, high costs of housing and land, and limited funding for affordable housing.14 The first two barriers apply to the private market as well as to dedicated affordable housing. The third factor, limited funding for affordable housing, is a particularly serious challenge for nonprofits and housing authorities. The creation of new, dedicated affordable housing most often requires a complex financing package that includes many sources of public funding and private investment. Most housing developments require several successful applications through competitive federal, state, and local funding processes, each with compliance requirements lasting as long as 50 years. Existing Funding Mechanisms in Snohomish County The majority of funding for affordable housing in Snohomish County comes from federal, state, and private sources, including federal Section 8 vouchers, the state Housing Trust Fund, and private equity investment in projects receiving federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Local funding for affordable housing in Snohomish County usually provides a modest portion of the overall funding for affordable housing development (less than 10 percent of the total)15, and the primary sources for locally-administered funding are federal and state pass-through funding for housing programs. The principal local funding processes in Snohomish County include the inter-jurisdictional Urban County Consortium, the City of Everett’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME allocation, and the County’s administration of state Homeless Housing Assistance Act funding. Urban County Consortium The Snohomish County Urban County Consortium is a partnership between the County and 19 of the cities and towns within Snohomish County. The Urban County Consortium administers federal and state pass-through funding for housing, support services, and non-housing capital projects. On behalf of the Urban County Consortium, Snohomish County 13 Snohomish County PDS data presented at SCT Steering Committee on January 28, 2009. 14 Snohomish County Office of Housing, Homelessness, and Community Development. Consolidated Plan. Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Human_Services/Divisions/OHHCD/Consolidated_Plan/ (Accessed: March 27, 2008). 15 Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. “Housing within Reach.” Available online: http://www.housingsnohomish.org/advocacy.html (Accessed: February 11, 2009). Packet Page 31 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 22 receives entitlement formula funds from HUD and through the Washington State SHB 2060 document recording fee. The HUD funding sources include the HOME, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) programs. For CDBG and ESG funds, the Consortium includes the unincorporated areas of the county and all the cities and towns except for the City of Bothell (which partners with King County) and the City of Everett (which receives its CDBG directly from HUD and its share of ESG from the balance of state funds administered by the State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED)). For HOME, ADDI, and 2060 funds, the Consortium includes the City of Everett as well as the same 18 cities and towns, and unincorporated areas as for the CDBG and ESG funds. Through the inter-local agreement, Everett receives a 21 percent set-aside of the Consortium’s HOME, ADDI, and 2060 funds, and conducts its own project selection process. Besides the set-asides for Everett, the remaining funds are allocated through the Urban County Consortium’s application processes. Funding applications are reviewed in three stages, first by the Snohomish County Office of Housing, Homelessness, and Community Development (OHHCD), then by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and finally by the Policy Advisory Board (PAB). OHHCD provides staffing for the Urban County Consortium, manages the application processes, and is responsible for contracting with grantees, monitoring funded programs, and compliance and reporting procedures. OHHCD releases the Notice of Funding Availability and reviews applications for consistency with the county’s Consolidated Plan and with the requirements of the grant sources. The TAC is comprised of 29 members, including one representative from each member city and town, two selected by the County Executive, one representative from HASCO, and seven citizens that are selected by the PAB to represent low-income households, including senior citizens, persons with disabilities, minority persons, and homeless or formerly homeless households. The TAC reviews project proposals and makes recommendations on project selection to the PAB. The PAB includes three members of the County Council, a representative of the County Executive, representatives of four of the participating cities, and a ninth member that is selected “at-large” by the other eight members and only votes in cases of ties. The PAB reviews the recommended projects and makes funding recommendations to the County Council, which makes the final approval. Packet Page 32 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 23 Figure 2 shows the sequence of review and approval of funding decisions by participating jurisdictions and citizen members. Figure 2: Urban County Consortium Process for Funding Decisions The Urban County Consortium is expected to award about $6 million of federal and state “pass through” funds for fiscal year 2009, of which about $3 million will be available for affordable housing programs, including housing development, preservation, and support services. From 2000 to 2008, CDBG funding awards were made for public facilities or infrastructure in 14 of the 18 member cities (not including Everett); and housing developments were funded in 12 of the 19 participating cities. Other local funding mechanisms Through inter-local agreement, the City of Everett receives a 21 percent set aside of HOME funds from OHHCD to allocate to eligible housing activities within the city limits. Everett is also a CDBG entitlement community and receives a direct allocation from HUD. Everett allocates funding for housing and public facilities separately from other jurisdictions in the county. In 2005, the Washington State Legislature passed ESSHB 2163, the Homeless and Housing Assistance Act, which established an ongoing funding source collected through a document recording fee (primarily on mortgage documents). Counties are required to use these funds to support activities that prevent and reduce homelessness, as described in each county’s 10-Year Plan to end homelessness. Snohomish County OHHCD administers the 2163 funds through its Ending Homelessness Program, which expects to allocate between $1.5 million and $2 million annually (revenue projections are being revised due to the slow down in the economy and in home sales). OHHCD currently uses this funding source to support operating and services activities, and not new capital housing projects. Packet Page 33 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 24 Existing Housing Plans and Policies This feasibility study seeks to align with existing affordable housing plans and policies in Snohomish County, including reports produced by Snohomish County Tomorrow, the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County, Snohomish County, the Homeless Policy Task Force, and Puget Sound Regional Council. Snohomish County Tomorrow Housing Planning Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) is responsible for developing and updating the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), which provide a guiding framework for the comprehensive plans of the County and cities. CPPs are designed to ensure that city and County comprehensive plans are consistent and fulfill the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The CPPs currently include 21 policies specifically related to housing. Most of these policies would be relevant to the activities and objectives of an inter-jurisdictional housing collaboration, and five policies in particular are essential to the creation and implementation of such a program. These CPPs clearly demonstrate the commitment of cities and the County to seek ways to increase the supply of affordable housing, and to work inter-jurisdictionally on meeting these goals: HO-2: Make adequate provisions for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the county. HO-3: Strengthen inter-jurisdictional cooperative efforts to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to all economic segments of the county. HO-4: Adopt and implement a fair share distribution of low-income and special needs housing so as to prevent further concentration of such housing into only a few areas. HO-5: Each jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan housing element will include strategies to attain the jurisdiction’s fair share housing objectives. HO-6: Production of an adequate supply of low and moderate income housing will be encouraged by exploring the establishment of inter-jurisdictional private/public financing programs which involve local lenders and foster cooperative efforts with non-profit housing developers.16 The intent of the CPPs is that each jurisdiction incorporates these policies into their comprehensive plans. For example, the County Comprehensive Plan includes several strategies related to the provision of affordable housing, including encouraging building the 16 Snohomish County Tomorrow. Countywide Planning Policies. Available online: http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/Council/Agendas/CURRENTCountywidePlanningPolicies.pdf (Accessed: February 12, 2009). Packet Page 34 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 25 capacity of nonprofit housing developers; analyzing alternative funding for low-income housing, such as bond levies and partnerships with housing authorities and providers; and revising density and zoning regulations to increase land capacity. The County Comprehensive Plan also includes the objective to, “Strengthen inter-jurisdictional cooperative efforts to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to all economic segments of the county.” In order to meet this objective, the County recommends this policy: “Snohomish County in cooperation with cities, public housing agencies, and other public, non-profit and private housing developers shall continue to strive to meet its fair-share housing allocations based on recommendations in the most recent Housing Evaluation Report as provided in the 2025 Fair Share Housing Allocation Report and Documentation.”17 An inter-jurisdictional program to increase the provision of affordable housing across a range of income levels is encouraged by the CPPs and therefore should align with the comprehensive plans of participating member jurisdictions. Based on CPP HO-4, SCT is also responsible for developing the Fair Share Housing Allocation report. The object of this report is to inform all jurisdictions of their “fair share” of housing for the number of low- and moderate-income households who are projected to be cost-burdened by 2025. In other words, the model describes the "fair share" of housing need for which each jurisdiction should plan, and includes both existing and projected housing needs.18 SCT also produces the Housing Evaluation Report, which analyzes the efforts made to achieve countywide and local housing goals, as set forth in the Countywide Planning Policies. The 2007 Housing Evaluation Report describes tools and strategies that each jurisdiction has implemented to support affordable housing. However, the report found that: “Our CPPs also call for inter-jurisdictional effort to achieve affordable housing goals and objectives. Unfortunately, little of this nature has occurred. Likewise, little action has been taken on the ‘recommendations for working together’ of the 2002 Housing Evaluation Report.” 19 17 Snohomish County Planning and Development Services. Comprehensive Plan. Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Projects_Programs/Comprehensive_Plan/General_Policy_Plan.htm (Accessed: February 12, 2009). 18 Snohomish County Tomorrow. Fair Share Housing Allocation. http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Information/Plans/SCT+Reports/FSHousing.htm (Accessed: February 13, 2009). 19 Snohomish County Tomorrow. “Housing Evaluation Report 2007.” Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Information/Plans/SCT+Reports/HER07.htm (Accessed: February 11, 2009). Packet Page 35 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 26 Both of these reports would be extremely relevant to a new inter-jurisdictional housing program, which should seek to implement recommendations from both reports when appropriate. Housing within Reach Report In 2008, the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County developed a report that included strategies to more than triple the rate of housing production and double the number of affordable housing opportunities in Snohomish County by 2017. The Housing within Reach plan was sponsored in part by Snohomish County and the City of Everett, and was led by a committee of public, private, and nonprofit leaders. The plan includes several recommendations for ways that jurisdictions could support housing by working together. The following recommendations for action present possible opportunities for collaboration among cities and/or the County: • Urban Mixed-use Demonstration Project: recruit a nonprofit and a for-profit developer to collaborate on a demonstration project that includes both affordable and market-rate housing • Incentive Zoning in Urban Areas: develop incentives to incorporate affordable housing within designated Urban Centers throughout the county • Preservation of Manufactured Housing Communities: explore strategies to preserve manufactured housing that is at risk of closure or sale • Waiver of Construction Sales Tax: advocate the State legislature to waive the State portion of sales tax for affordable housing20 • New Dedicated Local Revenue Sources: create new local funding for affordable housing, such as through a levy, bonds, or combination of public and private sources • Homeless Initiative Partnerships: partner with new and existing State and philanthropic initiatives to end homelessness The Housing within Reach plan estimated that the total costs of meeting its goal of serving over 32,000 households would be about $1.03 billion over ten years, including both existing (55 percent) and new (45 percent) resources. The proposed new resources include new sources of direct public financial assistance; increased leveraging of state, federal, and private loans and investment; and the value of development incentives for new affordable housing. The implementation of a new inter-jurisdictional housing program could potentially overlap with some of the Housing within Reach strategies. The participating jurisdictions can use the financial modeling in the plan to inform the development of the program’s strategies and goals. The Housing within Reach plan specifically includes the following recommendation: 20 Efforts to pass state legislation in 2009 were not successful; there may be efforts to pass similar legislation in future sessions. Packet Page 36 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 27 “Challenge each municipal jurisdiction in Snohomish County to generate a plan that will contribute $5 per capita of new value annually toward affordable housing solutions from fee waivers/discounts, surplus land donations/discounts, cash contributions (levy, bonds, or other new sources), land use designations, and policy changes. One way of implementing this would be for the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee to adopt a list of "ways and means" that would qualify, and later to evaluate and report each jurisdiction’s contributions. In addition, a template and other technical assistance tools for implementing affordable housing production policies should be developed and disseminated. Snohomish County Tomorrow should study this recommendation as part of the current feasibility study of inter-jurisdictional programs to promote affordable housing.” 21 More information on the housing goals and financial estimates from this report is found in the annotated bibliography in Appendix 5, as well as in the Housing within Reach report itself, especially in the sections on “Strategies to Support Housing Stability” and “Funding Projections.” Other Housing and Homelessness Planning in Snohomish County In 2007, the Snohomish County Office of Housing, Homelessness, and Community Development (OHHCD) developed its Affordable Housing Production Plan. That plan set a housing goal of ensuring housing affordability for 6,025 additional households from 2007-2017, through a variety of types of housing assistance, using existing housing resources. The recommendations of the AHPP provided the foundation for the Housing within Reach report. As described in the funding mechanism section, the Snohomish County Consolidated Plan describes the housing conditions in Snohomish County and provides funding priorities for the federal HOME and CDBG funds administered by the Urban County Consortium. If it is decided that a portion the Urban County Consortium funding processes are integrated into a new inter-jurisdictional housing program, the program will incorporate the funding priorities in the Consolidated Plan.22 In Snohomish County and Washington State, the issues of affordable housing and homelessness have significant overlap. In 2006, the Snohomish County Homeless Policy Task Force led the development of Everyone at Home Now, the countywide 10-year plan to end homelessness. That plan focuses on addressing both the housing and services needs for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, with a goal to increase homeless housing by at least 2,500 units over ten years. 21 Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. Housing within Reach. Available online: http://www.housingsnohomish.org/advocacy.html (Accessed: February 11, 2009). 22 Snohomish County Office of Housing, Homelessness, and Community Development. Consolidated Plan. Available online: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Human_Services/Divisions/OHHCD/Consolidated_Plan/ (Accessed: March 27, 2008). Packet Page 37 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 28 In January 2008, Executive Aaron Reardon convened the Housing and Homelessness Policy Oversight Committee to focus on strategies for increasing affordable housing and ending homelessness. The Oversight Committee will review the recommendations and progress on the Housing within Reach plan in spring 2009, and develop recommendations by this summer. In early 2009, a new initiative to improve housing and services for homeless families – tentatively called “Investing in Families” -- will be led by the County, the Workforce Development Council, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Building Changes. These planning efforts may influence an inter-jurisdictional housing program, particularly if the member cities prioritize housing for homeless populations or households earning below 50 percent of the median income. Packet Page 38 of 234 29 Review of Best Practices A central component of the feasibility study of inter-jurisdictional programs for Snohomish County is the identification and analysis of national and local best practices for inter-local collaborations. The consultant team worked with the PAC Housing Subcommittee to identify seven existing inter-jurisdictional programs as promising case studies, and conducted research on the histories of these programs, what they do, how they work, and what have been their outcomes. The seven regional approaches were chosen through the consultants’ review of literature, discussions with leaders in the field, and suggestions from the PAC subcommittee members. It should also be noted that there are a very limited number of examples of multi-jurisdictional efforts focused on affordable housing around the country. The criteria used to select locations to study best practices were: a) inter-jurisdictional programs that resulted in the creation or preservation of additional housing units; b) programs that had longevity and a track record of continued support from local jurisdictions; c) local jurisdictions voluntarily joined the collaboration; and d) at least one example of a program that was not successful. Some programs are focused on pooling capital resources to fund new housing opportunities, some focus on providing planning support to the member jurisdictions, and two programs include both features. It is important to note that for many of these models, the activities evolve over time and the program may take on new functions as it gains experience, visibility, and credibility in the community. Packet Page 39 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 30 The following sections provide an overview of each of the seven programs, followed by a list of success factors that have been identified as best practices for inter-local programs. The seven programs profiled (also mapped in Figure 3) in this review of national best practices include: • HEART: Housing Endowment and Regional Trust, San Mateo County, CA • HTSCC: Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, CA • WAHP: Washington Area Housing Partnership, DC-MD-VA • REACH: Regional Employer-Assisted Collaboration for Housing, which includes suburbs of Chicago, IL • LCA: Livable Communities Act programs in Minneapolis-St. Paul region, MN • ARCH: A Regional Coalition for Housing in East King County, WA • SKC: previous inter-jurisdictional efforts in South King County, WA Figure 3 Geographical Locations of Profiled Programs Packet Page 40 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 31 Table 3 provides a summary of the roles that these programs play in promoting the development of affordable housing opportunities in their communities. Table 3: Activities Performed by Inter-jurisdictional Collaborations Program Capital Funding Planning Activities Other HEART Public-private housing trust fund that provides revolving predevelopment loans for new affordable rental housing; and First-time homeowner downpayment program none Host educational forums for elected officials and general public HTSCC Public-private housing trust fund that provides grants and loans for new affordable rental housing; and First-time homeowner downpayment program none none WAHP none Information clearinghouse of best practices in housing planning and incentives Education and peer learning between cities and elected officials REACH none Joint planning on employer-assisted housing issues between cities Education and peer learning between cities and elected officials LCA Competitive state funding for member jurisdictions to support housing goals Assistance with developing housing goals and strategies for participating jurisdictions none ARCH Housing trust fund that provides loans, grants, and land donations for affordable housing; and First-time homeowner downpayment program Development of land-use incentives for member cities; and GMA planning Housing 101 for elected officials and general public SKC none Planning support (but lacking sufficient development expertise) none Packet Page 41 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 32 Overviews of Other Regional/Inter-jurisdictional Affordable Housing Programs HEART: Housing Endowment and Regional Trust, San Mateo County, CA The Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) brings together the County of San Mateo and every incorporated city and town, as well as private businesses, to address affordable housing. HEART operates two main programs: a revolving loan fund and a homebuyer assistance program. The creation of HEART was a largely grassroots effort that had a broad base of support in the community. Local advocacy led to a working group in 2002 of local public, nonprofit, and business leaders to recommend strategies for improving housing affordability in San Mateo County. In 2003, HEART was established as a new Joint Powers Authority and originally included the County and several cities. Municipalities were especially motivated to join because of state funding that had become available specifically for local housing trust funds. In this case, a combination of broad-based advocacy and state incentives were vital to starting an inter-jurisdictional program. HEART is governed by a 20-member Board of Directors which includes nine municipalities, two County Supervisors, and nine members of the private sector. All budgetary decisions must also be approved by a separate Member Committee that includes all the cities and the County. Since its establishment, HEART has gradually added cities as members until August 2008, when the final remaining city joined. HEART has been able to recruit members by demonstrating that it adds value to member jurisdictions and is responsive to their needs. For example, the homebuyer assistance program was created largely in response to the interests of member cities, and since only member cities could participate in the homebuyer assistance, that incentivized other cities to join and become dues-paying members. The nonprofit Housing Leadership Council serves as the managing agent and provides administrative staffing for HEART, which includes slightly less than 2 FTE through a large portion of the Executive Director’s time and an administrative support specialist dedicated to HEART. The San Mateo County Office of Housing provides program management services, including reviewing funding requests and recommending funding allocations. The County also provides legal services through the Counsel’s Office. These cost-sharing measures keep overhead relatively low for the program. Program expenses were approximately $275,000 per year from 2006 to 2007. From 2003 to 2008, HEART has raised about $10 million from local, state, and private sources. Of that, $3 million was granted by San Mateo County and $3.5 million by the State of California. Over five years, membership dues from the 20 participating jurisdictions have totaled about $900,000. The remainder of the $10 million comes from private fundraising. HEART has leveraged over $22 of external funding for each dollar it has invested. Packet Page 42 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 33 The revolving loan fund provides short-term loans for affordable multi-family housing development. About 400 rental units have been funded through these loans. The homebuyer assistance program provides downpayment assistance and reduced interest rates for households earning less than $150,000, through a partnership with a private lender. In the pilot for the homebuyer assistance program, 100 households received assistance. The units supported by HEART accounted for approximately 11 percent of all housing produced in San Mateo County over the last five years. HEART also works with HLC to provide educational forums for elected officials and the general public on affordable housing needs. HTSCC: Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, CA One of the most prolific inter-jurisdictional collaborations in the country has been the Housing Trust in Santa Clara County, California. The Housing Trust is a partnership between local business and the cities and County, and leverages millions of dollars of private and public money for homeownership programs, new rental housing, and homeless housing. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), a membership organization of nearly 300 companies in the Silicon Valley area, has played a crucial leadership role in establishing and raising funds for the Housing Trust. Without the support of business leaders, the Housing Trust would not have gotten off the ground. During an annual survey of member CEOs, SVLG found that the lack of affordable housing for working families was the number one identified need. In the mid-1990s, SVLG became involved with the Housing Action Coalition and was a vocal advocate for affordable housing, including appearing in support of dozens of proposed new developments at council and planning commission hearings. Between 1999 to 2001, SVLG raised $20 million for a Housing Trust in Santa Clara County, with about two-thirds of the funding from private sources and one-third from the county and 15 cities and towns. The Housing Trust is a 501c(3) nonprofit with a volunteer Board of Directors, which includes two County supervisors, council members and mayors from nine of the 15 cities and towns in the county, and leaders from 13 local businesses. The Board sets funding guidelines and oversees a relatively lean staff of five full-time employees, whose workplans are dedicated to the objectives of the Housing Trust. The governance structure is responsive to the needs of the member jurisdictions and accommodates participation by cities of different sizes. The Housing Trust operates two core programs: homeownership assistance for first time buyers, and loans and grants for affordable rental housing. For first time home buyers in Santa Clara County earning between 60 percent and 120 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), the Housing Trust provides downpayment or mortgage assistance. For developers of multi-family or homeless rental housing, the Housing Trust can provide acquisition financing, gap financing, construction loans, or permanent financing, up to a maximum of $15,000 per affordable unit. All multi-family rental units must be affordable to 80 percent of AMI, with a portion reserved for families earning below 30 percent of AMI. Packet Page 43 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 34 As of 2008, the Housing Trust had received a total of $37 million in contributions, granted $29 million, and leveraged $1.3 billion in outside investment, to create over 7,000 housing opportunities. The Housing Trust benefited from a state matching incentive, which provided $2 million for the fund. WAHP: Washington Area Housing Partnership, DC-MD-VA The Washington Area Housing Partnership is a regional public-private partnership affiliated with, and located within, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). The mission of WAHP is to expand affordable housing opportunities within the metropolitan Washington region. The Partnership serves as an information clearinghouse, developing reports on various aspects of the region’s housing market and developing ways for member jurisdictions to share information on housing policies and programs. The Partnership functions as a semi-independent unit within the administrative framework of the COG. Partnership members pay dues separately from the COG, and may include private as well as public members. The Partnership is governed by a Board of Directors that is separate from the COG. The Partnership Board develops its workplan annually, and works with the COG to dedicate a portion of staffing time from COG planning staff. COG staff support the Partnership through the development and publication of a Toolkit of policies and programs that are best practices in the region and nation, and also the Annual Regional Housing Report, an assessment of the region’s rental housing stock. Elected and appointed officials from the Partnership members play an active role in publicizing the tools that are available and sharing information with peer councils and officials. The active participation of elected officials has been key to creating and sustaining the Partnership, which does not benefit from external incentives or funding, such as state or philanthropic grants, beyond modest contributions for operations. REACH: Regional Employer-Assisted Collaboration for Housing, IL Two groups of communities in Illinois are currently working to develop inter-jurisdictional programs to promote affordable housing. These collaborations are using employer-assisted housing (EAH) as a starting point for cooperation. A regional nonprofit, the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC), plays a lead role with both groups as facilitator and technical advisor. The history for these inter-jurisdictional efforts begins with leadership by the State of Illinois to create incentives for EAH. The Regional Employer-Assisted Collaboration for Housing (REACH) was established in 2000 as a pilot project that linked a suburban employer with a local housing provider and MPC. The employer provided downpayment assistance and paid for pre-purchase counseling to employees, provided by the nonprofit housing provider. The design and facilitation of the partnership by MPC was funded through foundation support. Building on the success of the REACH pilot, Illinois enacted a tax credit for businesses participating in EAH programs in 2002. Since then, the REACH program has broadened to include more than a dozen housing providers, which work with the MPC to support Packet Page 44 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 35 businesses engaged in EAH. With the help of REACH partners, over 1,300 employees statewide have purchased homes through EAH programs. MPC’s funding for these coordinative efforts comes from local foundations, banks, the State development authority, and the City of Chicago Department of Housing. Currently, there are two groups of five suburban cities that are independently developing inter-jurisdictional agreements. One is in the northern suburbs of Chicago, and includes adjacent jurisdictions from two counties with populations ranging from about 5,000 to about 35,000. The second group consists of five adjacent suburbs in northwest Cook County with populations between 25,000 and 80,000. All ten communities are considered relatively prosperous, yet they employ tens of thousands of workers who are unable to afford the median home price. MPC began working with these groups in 2007. Some of the jurisdictions had already implemented proactive housing policies, such as incentive zoning programs and housing trust funds, but it was clear that were real limits to the impact that a small- or medium-sized city could have in these expensive housing markets. Previously, most of the cities had not worked well together, but they seemed to see the value in combining their efforts to get a group of employers in the same room, talking about housing. They saw value in pooling their efforts to make the case to area employers that making it affordable for employees to buy a home close to where they work would be a win for everyone. These ten municipalities see EAH programs as an easy first step to greater collaboration, both because it builds on an existing statewide framework of technical assistance and tax incentives, and because it requires no initial direct outlays by the cities. The cities are currently developing the organizational structure for their collaborations, with longer-term goals of using the collaboration to coordinate public resources, technical expertise, and data. The five cities in the northern suburbs have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that states: “Looking forward, we intend to join together to create an inter-jurisdictional housing organization, which will pool resources (financial, administrative and land-based) to create and preserve workforce housing opportunities in our sub-region, defined as the incorporated land of Deerfield, Highland Park, Highwood, Lake Forest, and Northbrook.” Collaboration on EAH is seen as the first step towards deepening the commitment to affordable housing by local governments. As Robin Snyderman, the MPC lead for REACH, explains, “In Illinois, employer-assisted housing has catalyzed a broader dialogue about the links between housing and economic development, which has led to public policy change.” The REACH program envisions a gradual, phased approach for their collaborations. The recent announcement of the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) has also created incentives for inter-jurisdictional collaboration in Illinois, which has indicated that there will be a funding preference for multi-jurisdictional proposals. An additional group of Packet Page 45 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 36 cities in suburban Chicago has issued a hiring announcement for an inter-jurisdictional staff position that will coordinate the five cities’ NSP participation and provide other planning functions across the jurisdictions. LCA: Livable Communities Act programs in Minneapolis-St. Paul region, MN The Livable Communities Act (LCA) offers a voluntary, incentive-based approach that encourages jurisdictions in the Twin Cities area to develop and implement affordable housing plans. LCA programs are administered by the Metropolitan Council, a multi-jurisdictional collaboration serving communities in the greater Twin Cities area. Over 100 jurisdictions participate in LCA programs through the Metropolitan Council. In 1995, the Minnesota legislature passed the LCA, which created incentives for communities in the seven-county Twin Cities area to plan for affordable housing. Communities that wanted to participate in the incentive programs were given six months to negotiate their housing goals with the Metropolitan Council, and 95 municipalities signed up right away. Before the creation of LCA, the Metropolitan Council already had deep ties and credibility in the region, which was an important reason why communities were comfortable working with the Council on the new LCA programs. The Council already included several other areas of inter-jurisdictional collaboration including transportation, long-range planning, and environmental activities. It is governed by a 17-member board representing geographic districts in the seven-county area, and it includes the Metro Housing and Redevelopment Authority, which administers over 6,000 Section 8 vouchers over four counties. Any municipality in the seven-county area is eligible to engage in the LCA programs, after they complete the participation requirements. The first requirement is that the city must work with the Metropolitan Council to negotiate acceptable affordable and life-cycle housing goals; the original goals were over fifteen years, and cities will be required to update their goals in 2010. Then, the city must prepare a Housing Action Plan to identify how it will address its established goals. After this plan is approved by the Metropolitan Council, the city is finally required to make a minimum annual investment of local discretionary expenditures or contributions to assist the development or preservation of affordable housing. This minimum amount for each city is determined by a formula and includes ownership opportunities that are affordable to households earning below 80 percent of AMI, as well as rental housing that is affordable to households earning below 50 percent of AMI. As long as the city is current on its required contributions, it is eligible to apply for funding from three competitive LCA programs. The Livable Communities Demonstration Account currently provides up to $8 million annually for innovative development projects that demonstrate efficient use of land and infrastructure, and prioritize mixed-use, transit-oriented development. Funding may be used for public infrastructure, land acquisition, and site Packet Page 46 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 37 preparation. The Tax Base Revitalization Account currently provides about $5 million annually for communities to clean up polluted land for redevelopment, which may include affordable housing. Both these LCA programs are funded through a levy on the seven counties that was created by the state legislature. The source of funding for the third program, the Local Housing Incentives Account, is through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). MHFA reserves $1.5 million of its available funding specifically for LCA-participating cities. These funds may be used toward the preservation or development of affordable housing in LCA-participating cities. In the case of LCA, relatively modest state investment (on a per capita basis) has been a critical factor in incentivizing the large majority of municipalities in the region to create housing goals and strategies to meet those goals. Over the first eight years of LCA, the state awarded $127 million in grants, which leveraged over $6 billion in private and public funding to create 25,000 housing units. ARCH: A Regional Coalition for Housing in East King County, WA ARCH is an inter-jurisdictional agency that brings together 15 East King County cities and King County to help preserve and develop affordable housing opportunities. ARCH plays several roles by helping its member jurisdictions to pool funding and resources for housing developments; to develop incentives for the creation of affordable housing; and to provide information, research, and education to officials and the broader community. Three Eastside cities and King County created ARCH in 1992 through an inter-local agreement, funded through contributions by the four members, with substantial start-up funding provided by the City of Bellevue. The support and leadership of Bellevue as a champion city was an important factor in the establishment and growth of ARCH. The founding program director for ARCH remains a City of Bellevue employee who dedicates his complete work plan to ARCH and the member jurisdictions. Since its inception, ARCH has grown to include 15 cities and the County. ARCH is governed by an Executive Board, which consists of either a City Manager or Mayor from each jurisdiction. The Executive Board submits the work programs, budgets, and funding recommendations to the individual City Councils for their final approval and action. ARCH also receives advice on its work program activities and funding recommendations through a Citizen Advisory Board. ARCH is currently served by five FTE staff that report directly to the Executive Board. ARCH staff are dedicated to the program, which has allowed them to respond to the needs of the member jurisdictions. Member cities cite this as very important to the value they receive from participating in ARCH. In addition, the City of Bellevue provides some staff capacity on loan for administrative purposes, including website development, human resources, and finance and accounting. Packet Page 47 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 38 This in-kind support has helped keep ARCH’s costs low, which is important to keeping member dues reasonably low. ARCH staff administer funding through the housing trust fund, work with communities to develop policies and incentives to enable the development of affordable housing, provide education and information, and provide monitoring and research on affordable housing issues and trends in the region. The ARCH housing trust fund brings together funding from all the members to pool resources and provide affordable housing that is distributed across the region. From 1993 to 2007, members contributed a total of $22.5 million through the housing trust fund, leading to the creation of over 2,600 units. Housing trust fund projects include rental housing, homeownership assistance programs, and manufactured housing communities. ARCH also partners with the Washington State Housing Finance Commission to provide down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers with incomes below 80 percent of AMI. This program, called House Key Plus ARCH, provides up to $30,000 in a down payment assistance loan at a below-market interest rate. These loans do not have to be repaid until the home is sold or refinanced. In addition to direct financial assistance, ARCH helps jurisdictions to provide land use incentives to developers of low-income housing, such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and density bonuses. ARCH also helps cities to develop the land use and housing elements of Comprehensive Plans. Between 1993 and 2005, over 800 units of affordable housing were created in ARCH jurisdictions because of land use incentives. Virtually all of these served households with incomes up to 80 percent of AMI, with only one unit being affordable to households below 50 percent of AMI. One example of the land-use incentives developed with help from ARCH is the Mercer Island ADU program. ARCH worked with the City to create a program allowing homeowners to develop a second housing unit on their property that fit the City’s regulations. Between 1995 and 2002, the ADU program created 167 ADUs on Mercer Island. In comparison, 56 units were created on Mercer Island through direct financial assistance from 1993 to 2005, and only 10 affordable units were created by the private market. Packet Page 48 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 39 Table 4 summarizes the number of affordable housing units created through direct financial assistance through the ARCH housing trust fund or land donations, the number of units created by land use incentives by ARCH members, and the number of affordable units created by the private market. Table 4: Units of Affordable Housing Created in East King County, 1993-2005 Income Target Direct Financial Assistance Land Use Incentives Market Subtotal for Income Target Up to 50% AMI 1,576 1 51 1,628 50 to 80% AMI 1,051 824 1,963 3,838 TOTALS 2,627 825 2,014 5,466 In addition to the trust fund and land use incentives, ARCH provides information and education regarding housing for the general public and for city leaders. In 2007, ARCH developed a Housing 101 curriculum that provides background on who is eligible for affordable housing, how housing is created in East King County, and what each city in East King County has done to help produce housing over the past 15 years. ARCH provides both general education and specific briefings to elected officials. SKC: previous efforts in South King County, WA During the 1990s, several cities in the South King County area attempted to create an inter-jurisdictional housing program, inspired by ARCH in East King County. The Housing Development Consortium of King County played an instrumental role in bringing cities together in what was called the South King County housing forum, which focused on developing awareness of affordable housing issues in the region. From that forum developed a short-lived attempt to create a new inter-jurisdictional program. Only two cities signed on initially for the program and their financial contributions could not afford the level of staffing required to add value to the cities and encourage other jurisdictions to join. The proposed collaboration folded after about a year because of two main factors: the lack of a clear mandate and workplan for the staff position, and the lack of expertise that position could provide. The program did not have a broad base of support, external support such as state incentives, or a workplan that added value for cities in the region. Recently in 2008, several communities have resumed discussions about creating an inter-local program for affordable housing. There is substantial political will to create a program among elected and appointed officials, but there are two barriers that need to be addressed. The first challenge is finding funding in the current economic climate. The second challenge is developing a structure that functions effectively for the diversity of cities in the region, including those with strong Mayors and those with City Council and City Manager structures. Packet Page 49 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 40 Critical Success Factors Based on the review of seven programs that were jointly identified as promising by the PAC Housing Subcommittee and the consultant team, there are several important success factors that are shared by many or all of the collaborations. The following success factors have been identified as best practices for inter-local programs. A. The collaboration is led by an enthusiastic champion, especially in the early stages of design and implementation • HTSCC: the Executive Director of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group was a very vocal and well-connected advocate for the housing trust fund, and led both private and public fundraising efforts • REACH: the owner of a manufacturing business worked closely with a suburban mayor to implement a pilot program for his employees, and then promoted the effort aggressively to other CEOs and mayors; also early buy-in from City of Chicago and key nonprofits and foundations • ARCH: City of Bellevue played a key role in founding and supporting ARCH • SKC: original efforts (1990s) lacked a key champion that could influence other cities to participate, which was a contributing factor to the program’s failure B. Counties (or the State) are invested in the program and are active participants • (this is the case in all collaborations studied) • HEART: counties provide staff and administrative support • HTSCC and HEART: counties made a substantial investment of resources • LCA: state authorized program and provided source of revenue C. The support of elected officials and/or key business leaders is instrumental in developing and sustaining credibility for the collaboration • ARCH: elected officials serve on the ARCH Executive Board and have direct involvement in creation of staff workplan and funding decisions • REACH: the sub-regional collaborations between suburban cities have been spearheaded by mayors that meet together, and with businesses in their communities; participating businesses have been vocal spokespeople • WAHP: elected officials play a key role in educating peer councils on the strategies used by local jurisdictions • HTSCC: deep support from Silicon Valley Leadership Group members Packet Page 50 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 41 D. In the absence of “top-down” incentives from the State, a broad base of support is critical • HEART: major impetus was a housing forum of 200 advocates for affordable housing that wanted to see greater regional investment in housing • ARCH: major impetus for creation was based on citizen’s task force that identified affordable housing needs in Bellevue and East King County • REACH: early pilots were the results of collaboration between advocates, businesses, local elected officials, and foundations E. In the absence of widespread political will, momentum, and resources, a gradual and phased approach to collaboration can be successful • ARCH: only four initial member jurisdictions, but gradually grew to 16 • HEART: started with about half the cities, but has grown to include all 20 • REACH: two parallel sub-regional efforts underway with five cities each F. In the absence of external funding resources, an initial modest workplan can successfully evolve and add roles and activities over time • REACH: member jurisdictions have vision of deep collaboration across multiple activities, but are starting with employer-assisted housing as the “low-hanging fruit” for collaboration • ARCH: workplan has grown as more cities are added and members commit increasing resources G. In the absence of substantial funding sources, member communities play a larger role in supporting the collaboration through peer and public education, and developing incentives for housing development • ARCH: staff pursue strategies that help member cities support housing in non-monetary ways, such as ADUs, density bonuses, and public land • WAHP: limited funding for staff time, so elected and appointed officials play a larger role in peer and public education and information regarding incentive programs H. Staff are dedicated to the collaboration, so that their workplans and goals are based on the objectives of the collaboration and directly serve the members • All collaborations dedicate specific full-time staff to initiatives • ARCH: several full-time staff, including director, are solely dedicated to ARCH • HEART: Executive Director of HEART also serves as E.D. of local nonprofit agency, and supervises full-time staff dedicated solely to HEART Packet Page 51 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 42 I. The collaboration minimizes overhead and administrative costs given local circumstances, often by co-locating at an existing agency; this “host” agency provides infrastructure support (such as accounting, office space, human resources) but does not govern or supervise collaboration staff • HEART: co-located with existing nonprofit dedicated to public education and advocacy for affordable housing • ARCH: City of Bellevue provides administrative support for HR, website, finance, and accounting, but not programmatic dependence • LCA: staffed by existing Metropolitan Council, the seven-county regional planning body • WAHP: staffed by council of governments J. The administrative “host” agency for the collaboration is trusted in the community and has experience and expertise in housing planning • LCA: Metropolitan Council has extensive planning experience across the seven-county region and was well-known by member cities • HEART: local nonprofit was well-known for its housing leadership and advocacy, and utilizes County staffing expertise • ARCH: The City of Bellevue provides administrative support but does not play a disproportionate role in development of policies or priorities • SKC: staff position was not sufficiently funded to provide expertise of value to jurisdictions K. The collaboration creates a separate governance structure so that member jurisdictions have control over decisions regarding staff work plans and the use of any resources dedicated to the program • HTSCC: volunteer Board of Directors includes two County supervisors, council members and mayors from nine of the 15 cities and towns in the county, and leaders from 13 local businesses; the Board sets funding guidelines and oversees a staff of five full-time employees • ARCH: Executive Board, which includes either a City Manager or Mayor from each jurisdiction, submits the work programs, budgets, and funding recommendations to the individual City Councils for their final approval; ARCH also receives guidance on its work plan and funding via a Citizen Advisory Board L. The collaboration’s structure involves shared decision-making responsibilities and allows for participation of cities of different sizes • ARCH: the Executive Board includes every member city, and decisions are sent to each city council for approval Packet Page 52 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 43 • HEART: all cities and the County serve on Member Committee, and several cities of different sizes and the County are on the Board of Directors • LCA: cities of varying sizes negotiate housing targets with Metropolitan Council that fit their circumstances M. The collaboration is responsive to member jurisdictions • ARCH: ARCH staff serve as affordable housing staff support for each of the member jurisdictions, including assisting in the development of both policies and regulations, and providing education and information for member city councils • HEART: designed a homeownership program that has been of sufficient value to cities that a substantial number have become members to have access to the homeownership program The following matrix summarizes the degree to which the case study programs have demonstrated success with these 13 success factors. A full-shaded box indicates a high level of success, a partially shaded box shows a moderate degree of success, and a blank box indicates that the program does not include or has had no success with that success factor. Inter-jurisdictional Collaborations Critical Success Factors HEART HTSCC WAHP REACH LCA ARCH SKC A. Led by Champion B. County/State Participation C. Elected/Business Support D. Broad-Based Support E. Phased Approach F. Incremental Work Program G. Education/Incentives H. Staffing I. Minimized Overhead J. Trust in Host Agency K. Governance Structure L. Shared Decision Making M. Responsive to Members Packet Page 53 of 234 “ Any city doing an objective and comprehensive job of planning will play a role in meeting housing needs --Local stakeholder interviewed for this report ” Packet Page 54 of 234 45 Stakeholder Advice Phase One Stakeholder Interviews In order to evaluate the feasibility of inter-jurisdictional collaboration in Snohomish County to assess the climate for housing in the region, this study included two phases of stakeholder interviews. For the first phase, the PAC Housing Subcommittee identified a list of key stakeholders that were knowledgeable and interested in affordable housing and local government issues in Snohomish County. The goal for these interviews was to better understand the needs for housing, the roles that local governments play, the prospects for greater collaboration, and the potential leaders for such collaboration in the county. The consultants interviewed 23 individuals between August and December 2008, including two County Councilmembers, two members of the County Executive’s staff, seven city elected officials and three city administrative staff (Bothell, Everett, Gold Bar, Lynnwood, Marysville, Monroe, Mountlake Terrace, Stanwood, Sultan), a representative of Tulalip Tribes, two nonprofit developers, two housing authorities, the executive director of the Puget Sound Regional Council, and three representatives from the private sector. Each interviewee received a short background document and guiding questions in advance. Summary of Phase One Interview Responses 1. How serious is the affordable housing need in your community? What populations, if any, are having difficulty finding affordable housing and need additional assistance? • Most described the needs for affordable housing as serious. • At least four local elected and appointed officials said the need in their communities was not serious because there was ample supply of a range of housing types, but the need countywide was serious. • Many felt the needs were most acute for lower incomes (less than 30% and less than 60% of area median income), but that households up to 120% were experiencing affordability challenges. • The specific populations mentioned most frequently were those on fixed incomes (seniors, disabled, veterans), first time home buyers (young parents), single-parent households, and mobile home park residents. 2. Do you think that cities and the county should play a role in addressing affordable housing issues? If so, what roles should they play? What roles should local jurisdictions not play? • Almost everyone interviewed believes that local government should play an important role. Packet Page 55 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 46 • Creating development incentives and appropriate zoning regulations for higher densities were often mentioned, including tools that allow municipalities to meet GMA targets. • The housing developers felt strongly that governments must become partners – some good examples, but more needed. • Cities and county should work with developers to avoid over-concentration of affordable housing. • Most believe that local jurisdictions should not develop or manage housing. • Most said local funding was not likely. 3. If you think that local municipalities should play a role in supporting affordable housing, what types of housing should be prioritized? Should your community focus on more attainable homeownership opportunities, or on affordable rental units? • Most felt there is a need for both more ownership and more rental housing opportunities. • The elected officials tended to place a greater focus on ownership; private developers are also more interested in ownership in general, with a range of densities. • “Cities are generally interested in affordability for the next generation.” 4. How does your jurisdiction currently support affordable housing, if applicable? • Several cities said they have or are working on incentive programs, and either creating more higher density or mixed use zoning where affordable housing could be located. • Several said they work closely with HASCO and non-profit developers. • Few city officials know what other cities are doing with respect to affordable housing. • Several elected officials observed that although they are interested, affordable housing is not a priority for their council. • Several rural cities said that their housing stock was already more affordable relative to most of the county. 5. Are you familiar with effective examples of jurisdictions working together to address important public policy issues, either in Snohomish County, regionally, or nationwide? What are the characteristics that have made that collaboration successful? • There was no single example that was mentioned often by participants. Those examples cited included Sound Transit, PSRC, Sno-Isle Library system, and the Evergreen Crescent (an economic development collaboration between Snohomish Valley cities). • Several mentioned Snohomish County Tomorrow as a model, and one suggested that SCT should develop an affordable housing program. However, another participant cautioned, “SCT is a good place to have a discussion, but not to get things done.” • Most felt that a successful collaboration would have to have several components: 1) some type of sub-regional element so that cities in close proximity could work together, 2) decision making should be done in a fair manner, and 3) the county should be a Packet Page 56 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 47 participant but not in control of the effort. “There is a lot of contention in county government right now.” • Some believed that leadership from an energetic advocate would be critical to getting a program started. • Several cities mentioned their participation in the Urban County Consortium process for allocating federal and state pass-through money, through the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Board (PAB). While some felt that the TAC and PAB provided a good means of getting input on specific projects, cities said that there was a need for a more general forum for municipalities to come together and talk about housing issues and priorities, including “equitable distribution” of affordable housing. 6. What is your assessment of the prospects for establishing a program in which multiple jurisdictions pool resources to address affordable housing in Snohomish County? What are the potential challenges that a new program may have to overcome in order to be effective? • A majority felt the prospects are good. “The prospects are good if the county can commit some funding to empower cities.” “Elected officials are getting it more.” • Several said they weren’t certain if the political will exists to create such a collaboration. “I have not seen the critical mass of elected officials that have an interest in this issue.” • Challenges included the following: overcoming concerns about over-concentration of affordable housing, creating affordable housing that has high quality design, and securing funding to support such an initiative. “It’s hard to get elected officials to think beyond their immediate boundaries.” 7. What would interest your government or organization in participating in such a program? • Education of city officials and citizens was mentioned by many participants. • Staffing, technical assistance, and research to help cities work on incentive programs, zoning for higher densities, design regulations, meeting the housing requirements within GMA, and credit enhancements. • Most of the city officials and non-profit developers interviewed said they would like to be involved. • The nonprofit developers said they have the expertise to form partnerships with cities. • Both nonprofit and for-profit developers are interested in municipalities making development easier, such as expediting applications for permits or waiving fees. • The program would need to be flexible to tailor ideas to specific needs of each city; present a “menu” of options for cities to implement. • Several cities were interested in establishing a forum for talking about housing policies and priorities, including learning what other cities are doing and evaluating existing affordable and market-rate housing stock in each city. Packet Page 57 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 48 8. Under what circumstances, if any, would new local funding resources be desirable? Under what circumstances, if any, should voluntary incentives for developers be used across multiple jurisdictions to encourage new affordable housing? • Creating a new local funding source at this time was not seen as likely/possible. • Most participants felt incentives are an important tool for creating affordable housing. • Several suggested that cities and county should work together to lobby for additional federal and state funding. • Interest from developers in linking new infrastructure funding with housing. 9. If a multi-jurisdictional program were implemented using a phased approach, what might be some initial steps for implementation and developing momentum? • Several participants suggested the first phase should be an analysis to find out what cities need, and then set measurable, concrete goals for a work plan. • Several said that education for elected officials and the public is needed to show the importance of housing, how affordable housing works, and whom it serves in the community. • Several suggested creating a structure with a sub-regional component so neighboring cities can work together. • Several participants had specific suggestions for the types of technical assistance that would be useful, including: study use of city and county surplus property; implement a transfer of development rights (TDR) program in mixed use zones; focus on zoning for lands just outside city boundaries; and analyze the relationship between job creation and the need for affordable housing. • Several suggested that the county could create an incentive for sub-regional cooperation on affordable housing by letting local jurisdictions make decisions about the using of federal and state housing funds (CDBG, HOME, and 2060). “If the county is really interested in this approach they will have to allocate resources.” 10. Are there specific jurisdictions in Snohomish County that you believe would be particularly interested in participating in a multi-city affordable housing program? Are there cities that may be leaders on this subject in the county? • The cities mentioned most frequently were Everett, Monroe, Marysville, Arlington, Stanwood, and Lynnwood. One elected official cautioned, “The issue isn’t on the radar of most cities.” 11. Who are the likely advocates and leaders in the community, including elected and appointed officials, business leaders, and other community members? • Individuals mentioned by several participants included: Ed Petersen (E.D. Housing Hope), Tony Balk (Monroe Council Member), Lyle Ryan (Frontier Bank and Board Packet Page 58 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 49 member of Everett Housing Authority), Dennis Kendall (Marysville Mayor), Mark Smith (Lynnwood City Council), and Carl Zapora (President of United Way). • Several mentioned the importance of leadership coming from the private sector. Phase Two Stakeholder Interviews For the second phase, the list of key stakeholders included some individuals who were interviewed in the first round, and others who were not. The list of interviewees was determined by the input from the first round of interviews, and feedback from the Housing Subcommittee. The goal for the Phase Two interviews was to test the essential program outcomes and program design features, discuss the interest of local governments in participating in a potential program, and solicit ideas for next steps in developing such a collaboration. The consultants interviewed 18 individuals between February and April 2009, including five elected officials from cities, a County Councilmember, two state representatives, five city management and planning staff, a representative from County Executive’s office, the directors of Snohomish County Human Services and Planning and Development Services, the director of the Economic Development Council, and one representative from a nonprofit housing agency. Each interviewee received a short background document and guiding questions in advance. Phase One interviewees were also given the opportunity to respond to the interview questions from Phase Two using an online survey, and seven individuals completed the online survey, including three representatives from cities, one from a nonprofit housing agency, one from a housing authority, and two from the private sector. The summary below of the Phase Two interviews includes both the 18 in-person interviews and the seven online survey responses. Summary of Phase Two Interview Responses 1. Do the “Essential Program Outcomes” (listed on pages 1 & 2) correspond to the affordable housing goals in your community and countywide? • In general there was support for the proposed program outcomes. “We should want to create a ladder of housing opportunities.” • There is support for locating affordable housing where it is accessible to employment, services, amenities, and transportation. Some reacted positively to language stating that affordable housing should be located where there is the greatest lack of housing. Others felt the statement should emphasize the location of housing where there is the greatest need. • Several jurisdictions felt they have more than their fair share of affordable housing. Packet Page 59 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 50 • “It’s important to spread housing around. A program should be geared toward distribution of affordable housing.” • “With regard to the desire to avoid over concentration of affordable housing, no city is meeting all the affordable housing needs of their citizens. Some cities are doing better than others and they don’t think it is fair that some cities don’t provide enough affordable housing.” • Several cited concerns in their community regarding affordable housing locations being perceived as high crime areas – particularly privately owned and managed rental housing. “What comes along with affordable housing is more crime.” 2. What outcomes in particular interest you? What outcomes offer little or no value to your community? Would you add or modify any outcomes to benefit your community or the county at large? • There was a mixture of reactions about priorities. Some would prefer a focus on rental housing for low income, others would prefer a focus on home ownership opportunities, others see need for both. • In general, there was more support for creating new home ownership opportunities. “Home ownership is where we need to be. There are enough non-profits focused on creating more rental housing.” • There was some interest in a broader continuum of housing choices – up to 120 % of median income. “We would like housing opportunities for home ownership for teachers, fire fighters, and others who may be above 100% of area median income. Maybe we need to raise the income level to 120% of median income.” 3. Do the “Program Design Features” (listed on pages 2 & 3) provide sufficient direction and limitations on the activities of an inter-jurisdictional program that are realistic for Snohomish County? Would you add or modify any of these elements? • Most said the minimum number of jurisdictions needed to initiate the program depends on which jurisdictions they are. Many felt the County needs to be a participant • There was support for the idea that decision making should not be controlled by the County or any one city • Educational efforts are important – both for the public and elected officials • The program should be voluntary, but not so easy to withdraw that jurisdictions can come and go with every new election • The private sector needs to be encouraged. The solutions to affordable housing issues will not be found solely through government actions. • A distinction was made between creating a new organizational structure to govern a new program, and creating a bureaucracy to administer a new program • The selection of staff will be key to the success of a new program Packet Page 60 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 51 • If a new program is created housing developers should participate in some fashion • Several suggested that local governments should not be prohibited from owning or managing affordable housing units if they felt it was in their best interest to do so. 4. Do local governments have a responsibility to create and preserve affordable housing? If so, what is the role of local governments? (This question was asked in the first round of interviews, so it was not included for those individuals interviewed earlier.) • All agreed that local governments play several roles in creating and preserving affordable housing, including creating zoning regulations, housing and building codes, and facilitating the use of public and private resources. “Local government’s role and duty is to create opportunities for affordable housing.” • Many said that Growth Management Act (GMA) requires local governments to include a housing element in their Comprehensive Plans. “Any city doing an objective and comprehensive job of planning will play a role in meeting housing needs.” • However, at least one said the housing elements of most Plans are weak, and used to avoid doing any substantive work on affordable housing issues. 5. Is a local government’s role in creating or preserving affordable housing enhanced by collaborating with multiple jurisdictions? Why, or why not? • Most of those interviewed said that the region’s ability to create more affordable housing would be enhanced through an inter-jurisdictional collaboration. • “Absolutely. It’s good to know what others are doing and good for them to know what we’re doing.” • “Increasingly, finding solutions to issues related to jobs, housing and transportation cross boundaries.” • “Most of the smaller jurisdictions are running as fast as they can to keep up with current obligations. They don’t have time or resources to work on affordable housing. Working together allows them to learn about affordable housing strategies at a relatively low cost. An inter-jurisdictional approach would bring together jurisdictions of like minds to work on this issue.” 6. Would your jurisdiction be interested in collaborating with other jurisdictions to achieve the outcomes described? If so, what do you think could be accomplished? If not, why not? • Most of those interviewed expressed interest in participating, although they made it clear that they could not commit on behalf of their councils, and several said that funding a new program would be a substantial challenge. • “We are interested in collaboration, but not if we have to make a financial contribution at this time.” Packet Page 61 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 52 • Affordable housing is not a “top tier” issue for the Snohomish County business community, although some realize that county needs broad spectrum of housing options to support a healthy economy. 7. Would your jurisdiction be interested in participating in the program outlined in the “Initial Program Ideas” (listed on pages 3 & 4)? Which program elements would you or your jurisdiction find most useful, and which might dissuade you from participation? • There was support for the list of eight potential work plan elements. “This looks like what we need to do.” • Several interviewees said that most small to mid-sized communities do not have expertise on affordable housing issues. It was suggested that a new program could be useful in providing technical assistance to those jurisdictions. • The education of local officials and the public about affordable housing issues was mentioned by many as a useful potential work plan element. “Neither electeds nor planners have a real good understanding of affordable housing issues or the resources available for affordable housing.” • At least one participant said they would strongly favor creation of a new local trust fund to build new units of affordable housing. • Several of those interviewed questioned whether any additional planning work needs to be accomplished. They stated a preference for providing technical assistance to jurisdictions on housing and zoning proposals. 8. For those portions of the Initial Program Ideas that suggest options (H. Supporting organizations and J. Funding) do you have a preferred approach? Why? Would you suggest other options? • Everyone interviewed acknowledged that finding funding for this program will be a challenge. However, many suggested that it will likely be easier to secure CDBG funds for the program than local government general funds. Several mentioned the potential use of new CDBG funds included in the stimulus package, although it was also noted that competition for new CDBG funds will be intense. • There was no consensus about which organization should serve as the “host” to provide administrative support for the program. Several mentioned that neither the County nor SCT would be preferable because the program should not be perceived as being controlled by the County. Several suggested that the Snohomish County Economic Development Council (EDC) or one of the two housing authorities might serve as hosts. 9. If you support the program outcomes, but have concerns about the initial program ideas, are there suggestions for structuring a program that could make meaningful progress toward the outcomes? Packet Page 62 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 53 • Several of those interviewed suggested that members of the Snohomish County building and development community should be involved in the new structure in some way. “What’s really missing is a focus on the private sector.” 10. Can you think of potential leaders or “champions” that may be willing to play a leadership role in creating such a program? • There was general agreement that no one individual or organization is currently playing a leadership role to promote this idea. “No one has stepped forward to propose this idea.” • A number of individuals and organizations were mentioned as having potential to play a leadership role in creating an inter-jurisdictional collaboration. Those included the following: Bob Drewel (*), Marysville Mayor Kendall (*), Gary Weikel, Sam Anderson and/or Greg Tisdale (from the Master Builders), Gail Larsen (former CEO of Providence Medical Center), Anne Steves (Edmonds resident and owner of transitional housing units), Gary Oakley (CEO Boeing Employee Credit Union), John Caulfield (* City Administrator for Mountlake Terrace), The Housing Consortium (*), County Executive Aaron Reardon, the County Council, Everett Councilmember Brenda Stonecipher, Stanwood Mayor Diane White, Monroe Mayor Donnetta Waker , Sultan Mayor Carolyn Eslick (*), Bob Davis (HASCO Executive Director), Bud Alkire (Everett Housing Authority Executive Director), Lynnwood Councilmember Mark Smith, Lynnwood Councilmember Stephanie Wright. (*) Mentioned by more than one individual 11. What do you see as possible next steps for bringing jurisdictions together on affordable housing issues? • Many interviewees supported the creation of an implementation group to pursue the creation of an inter-jurisdictional program during the coming year. Several said they would be willing to participate. • “It will be important to keep the dialogue going and create a more visible forum.” • “A steering committee is a good next step.” • One participant suggested that a focus group of supporters should be organized, and the group should be asked, “How can this idea best be moved forward?” • “The only way cities and the County will get more involved in this issue is through political pressure. The Housing Consortium is key to that effort.” • It was suggested that it may be possible to work with the legislature next year (a supplemental budget year) to secure some funding support for a pilot project. Packet Page 63 of 234 “ There will be a measurable increase in the number of affordable housing units throughout Snohomish County available for lower income households. --Program goal ” Packet Page 64 of 234 55 Essential Program Outcomes and Program Limitations Based on the consultants’ research on national and regional best practices, and the feedback from the stakeholder interviews and the PAC Housing Subcommittee, a proposed set of principles was developed to guide future collaborations on affordable housing. The Essential Program Outcomes describe the core long-term goals of a potential inter-jurisdictional collaboration, and the Program Design Features reflect both desired elements of a potential new program and elements that would not be acceptable for a new inter-jurisdictional program focused on affordable housing. Essential Program Outcomes: I. There will be a measurable increase in the number of affordable housing units23 throughout Snohomish County available for lower income households. IA. More affordable rental housing opportunities for low-income households (those making up to 50% of county median income), especially for seniors, those with disabilities, veterans, families with children, and those working in the service industry and as laborers. IB. More affordable home sales opportunities for moderate-income home buyers (those making less than county median income), especially first-time homebuyers and people who work in our communities, such as teachers and public safety workers. II. More affordable housing (both rental and ownership opportunities) in all participating communities, especially where there is the greatest need for and/or lack of affordable housing, and where there is good transportation and access to employment opportunities, amenities, and services. III. Over the long run, in order to have the greatest impact on the creation of new affordable units, local governments should contribute additional resources toward meeting affordable housing needs in Snohomish County. Resources may include direct financial contributions, fee waivers, donations of land, in-kind contributions, or other forms of support. During the current economic conditions, however, local government resources used for affordable housing purposes will remain about the same. 23 Affordable housing is not necessarily subsidized housing, but includes all types of housing that can be rented or owned by families at a range of income levels without paying more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing. Packet Page 65 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 56 Program Design Features: 1. In difficult economic times, the program does not place undo financial burden on participating jurisdictions. 2. The initial collaboration will involve at least three jurisdictions. 3. It should not be difficult for other jurisdictions to join later (i.e. the program could begin with several jurisdictions, with others joining over time). 4. The program does not preclude sub-regional activities and can grow to a countywide or regional program, if desired over time. 5. Activities do not contribute to a disproportionate concentration of affordable housing in a given area. 6. The activities of the program do not duplicate or compete with private or non-profit agencies in managing or developing housing 7. Decision-making is shared by member jurisdictions and is not controlled by the County or any single city. 8. The program must be able to withstand changes in administrative, political, or economic conditions over time. 9. The program should not create a new bureaucracy for administrative and back-office support, but instead should use an existing agency. 10. The program operates with an annual work plan with measurable objectives based on a sound needs analysis. The work plan must meet the needs of member jurisdictions. 11. The program does not allow housing providers to profit disproportionately to the housing benefits gained in the community. 12. The activities must show progress toward achieving goals within two years. Packet Page 66 of 234 57 Summary of Findings There are a number of important implications that can be drawn from the two rounds of interviews, the research on other national models, and the discussions with the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee, Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), and the PAC Housing Sub-Committee. These “findings” are described below. What the Study Found A. The need for additional affordable housing throughout Snohomish County has been well documented. In 2005, Snohomish County Tomorrow estimated that 55,000 lower-income households lived in unaffordable housing in 2000, and that this number would increase to 83,000 by 2025. By 2007, however, the figure had already reached 80,000 households. B. The adopted Countywide Planning Policies call upon Snohomish County local governments to strengthen their collaborations to ensure adequate supplies of affordable housing for all economic segments of the population. SCT’s recent Housing Evaluation Report noted that few cases of this kind of collaboration have occurred in Snohomish County. C. There appears to be a wide range of knowledge and understanding about affordable housing needs, issues, and terminology among government officials and community leaders. A number of those interviewed suggested that increasing the depth of knowledge about affordable housing among elected and appointed officials, and the public would be very useful. D. Several interviewees described a perceived strong correlation between high-crime locations in their community and affordable housing sites, particularly in properties owned and managed privately rather than by non-profit agencies or public housing authorities. E. Some representatives of jurisdictions believe there is a geographic imbalance in the supply of affordable housing. They believe that their cities are providing a disproportionate share of affordable housing (both private and public) compared to other jurisdictions. F. Some members of the business community understand the need to maintain a balanced mix of housing choices for Snohomish County’s work force. However, affordable housing does not appear to be a high priority concern for the Snohomish County business community at this time. G. Some elected and appointed officials in Snohomish County have interest in creating a new inter-jurisdictional program focused on creating and preserving affordable housing. However, that interest is not uniform across all jurisdictions or even within jurisdictions. Packet Page 67 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 58 H. All those interviewed for this study believe that local governments play an important role in helping to create affordable housing in their communities. Some see government’s role as providing a zoning and regulatory framework that encourages development of affordable housing by private and non-profit developers. Others see local government’s role as providing education for their residents about the affordable housing needs in their communities and setting goals for meeting those needs. I. Among those interviewed, support exists for certain “Essential Program Outcomes” described in the previous chapter. However, there appears to be a broader level of support for the creation of new home-ownership opportunities for households earning up to 100 percent of the county’s median income, than there is for the creation of rental housing targeting those earning 50 percent of the county’s median income or less. J. Among those interviewed, support exists for the draft “Program Design Features”, described in the preceding chapter. These elements provide useful parameters for a program recommendation. K. Those supportive of creating an inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program cited several potential functions they believe would be valuable. They suggest that a new program could: 1) Provide a vehicle for cities and the County to focus attention on affordable housing issues; 2) Enable participating jurisdictions to share information about successful policies and programs that help create affordable housing; 3) Provide the staff expertise in affordable housing planning, design and implementation that most small and mid-sized jurisdictions do not have; 4) Educate local elected officials, government staff, and the public about affordable housing issues; and 5) Help to identify and secure additional federal, state, local and private resources for affordable housing development. L. Only a handful of successful inter-jurisdictional affordable housing programs exist in the U.S. Some focus on creating new local capital resources for housing development, while others focus on a combination of regulations, incentives, and other planning activities to promote, encourage, or require affordable housing development. A few engage in both planning activities and the creation of new capital resources. M. Given current economic conditions, this is not seen by most interviewees as a time when a new local capital funding source can be shifted or created to support development of affordable housing. Instead, those who support the creation of an inter-jurisdictional program believe that a new collaborative program should be focused on a variety of technical assistance, educational, and planning activities. A new program may be eligible for new or existing state and federal funding sources, but considerable Packet Page 68 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 59 competition for these dollars suggests that there is no easy answer regarding the potential source of funds for new staff, capital improvements, or other expenditures. N. Research into other models around the country suggests that the creation of a new program requires at least one champion to play a leadership role. That leadership could take the form of promoting the new program and recruiting others to participate, or providing funding or in-kind services. To date, no jurisdiction or individual has expressed an interest in stepping forward to champion a new initiative. O. If an inter-jurisdictional structure is created, both the research on other national models and the reactions from those interviewed suggest that for-profit and non-profit housing developers should be involved in the new program in some fashion. P. Other national models have created dedicated staff capacity to support a meaningful multi-jurisdictional collaboration focused on affordable housing. This has required funding resources to support the appropriate level of staffing and some administrative services, if those services are not provided in-kind by an existing organization. Q. Research on other national affordable housing models suggests that new governance structures have been developed to focus on the implementation and management of the program, but existing organizations have been utilized to provide administrative support. Packet Page 69 of 234 “ A new inter-jurisdictional program with the goal of creating more affordable housing in Snohomish County can be successful if four threshold conditions are met. --Report conclusion ” Packet Page 70 of 234 61 Conclusions and Program Proposal Conditions for Proceeding with New Inter-Jurisdictional Program: Threshold Recommendation Mindful of the findings that were based on the stakeholder interviews, research on other regional programs, and existing plans and policies, the project team concludes that creation of a new voluntary inter-jurisdictional program to build or create more affordable housing in Snohomish County is feasible and could be an effective tool for jurisdictions looking for new strategies to meet their affordable housing goals. It is recommended that a new inter-jurisdictional program should be created once four threshold conditions are met: Condition 1: A “critical mass” of jurisdictions elects to participate as founding members. Condition 2: Sufficient funding is secured to support the program for at least 24 months. Condition 3: A host agency is identified to provide back-office administrative support, such as payroll, accounting, and IT services. Condition 4: The participating jurisdictions have reached agreement on who the program will serve and how it will be governed. Packet Page 71 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 62 Alternatives Analysis A number of alternatives were considered for organizational models (or governance structure), staffing, funding, and administrative support, prior to developing more detailed program recommendations. These alternatives were identified based on research of other national models and reactions to the “Initial Program Ideas” that were tested in the second round of interviews with local officials and community leaders. The following provides a brief description of some of the key alternatives, and a listing of the relative pros and cons. Organizational Model (or Governance) Alternatives Several different organizational structures were considered as ways to enable multiple jurisdictions to work together to create additional affordable housing in Snohomish County. The following alternatives consider utilizing existing structures already in place, and the potential creation of a new structure, as ways in which jurisdictions could govern a new program. Based on the research of other national programs, the success of a particular organizational model depends on the strength of support for that structure from participating jurisdictions, whether the jurisdictions feel that they have sufficient control over the decisions made about the direction of the program and the use of resources, and the level of resources (for staffing and/or capital funding) devoted to support the organizational structure. No one organizational model appears to determine success. (It is important to note that the governance structure does not necessarily have to be the same as the structure used for administrative support – see below.) Interested Jurisdictions Agree to Work Together Informally – Any Snohomish County jurisdiction (individual cities, the County, and tribes) could agree to collaborate with one another to share information about affordable housing strategies, pool resources to pay for staff or consultant services, or develop joint plans. This collaboration could be accomplished without any formal agreement. Member jurisdictions could agree to meet regularly to review progress on the work plan. Pros o Like-minded jurisdictions would be motivated to pursue additional planning activities together to create affordable housing o Would not require creation of a new structure o Cost would be minimal; pooling of staff or funding could stretch limited resources further Cons o Difficult to maintain an informal collaboration over time; turnover among elected officials and staff could affect strength of collaboration o Most small and mid-sized jurisdictions do not currently have sufficient resources to devote to affordable housing issues o Opportunity exists now for this type of collaboration and it has not occurred Utilize an Existing Inter-Jurisdictional Forum Provided by Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) – Representatives from all jurisdictions within Snohomish County meet monthly at SCT Packet Page 72 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 63 meetings. SCT’s mission is to “adopt a publicly shared vision, including goals and policies, to guide effective growth management”. Their primary function is to oversee the Countywide Planning Policies, of which affordable housing is one component. The forum serves as an opportunity for participating jurisdictions to share information. There are separate meetings for elected officials (the Steering Committee), city managers (the City Managers Group), and planning staff (the Planning Advisory Committee) from member jurisdictions. Pros o SCT provides an existing forum for elected officials and planning staff to discuss issues of common interest and concern; all jurisdictions would be familiar with this organizational model o Affordable housing issues have been discussed at the SCT forums for elected officials and planning staff o County provides administrative support for SCT Cons o SCT meeting agendas include a wide variety of topics; it could be difficult to provide a consistent focus on affordable housing issues o SCT membership includes all cities, the County, and local tribes; based on this study’s Findings not all Snohomish County jurisdictions will want to participate in an affordable housing collaboration o A focus on one topic (affordable housing), just for member jurisdictions (assuming that not all jurisdictions would join) would be a departure for their current role. o SCT is not a decision-making forum; the organizational model must allow for a governance structure that can make decisions about the direction of the collaboration o May not be perceived as a “neutral” forum by participants because it is staffed by the County Utilize an Existing Non-Profit Structure, such as the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County – The mission of the Consortium is to “provide strategic leadership in crafting policy and program solutions to affordable housing challenges in Snohomish County.” The organization serves as an association for its members: non-profit developers and housing service providers. It also has non-voting associate members who represent businesses and organizations concerned about affordable housing. And there are four non-voting governmental members. Pros o The mission and goals of the Consortium are consistent with the purpose of creating an inter-jurisdictional collaboration around affordable housing o It serves as a forum where two cities, the County, and tribes can interact with housing developers and other advocates of affordable housing o It is a trusted non-profit organization; seen as a leader advocating for affordable housing issues o Utilization of a private non-profit structure would allow the program to be eligible for private foundation grants Cons o The Consortium’s primary focus is on the interests of their non-profit members Packet Page 73 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 64 o Few cities are members of the Consortium, and government entities are non-voting members of the organization o The Consortium is an advocacy group; this would require a major shift in the work of the Consortium Create a New Organizational Structure Focused on Affordable Housing – This model would establish a new organizational structure for the sole purpose of allowing multiple jurisdictions to collaborate on the creation of more affordable housing. It would be established by creating a formal inter-local agreement, or memorandum of understanding, to define roles, responsibilities, and secure commitments from the volunteer participants. State law (RCW Chapter 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act) authorizes such agreements and describes the terms that must be included in the agreement. Each participating jurisdiction would need to secure legislative approval before signing the agreement. Pros o Single-purpose nature of this model would provide a strong focus on affordable housing o Only jurisdictions wanting to collaborate would participate; all participants would be motivated to succeed Cons o Will take significant time and energy to create a new organizational structure o Could be some confusion about relationship with Snohomish County Tomorrow, the Housing Consortium and other regional forums o Not clear if there is sufficient interest on the part of Snohomish County jurisdictions to take the steps necessary to create a new structure Program Staffing Alternatives If an inter-jurisdictional collaboration is created that focuses on planning activities, staff resources will be required to carry out that work. There are several approaches that can be considered for establishing the initial staff capacity to implement the new program. The selection of the preferred staffing model will be influenced by the agreed upon work plan for the program. Loaned Executive – Some organizations are able to negotiate agreements with private companies or large government agencies, to utilize the services of a “loaned” executive to provide staff support for a project. Typically, the company or agency loaning the executive pays all, or a portion, of the cost of the salary and benefits for the employee. These arrangements usually last for one or two years. For example, the Boeing Company has a long history of offering loaned executives for different types of community service activities. Pros o A loaned executive should have the skill set and expertise to work well with local government officials and community leaders o A short-term staffing arrangement may allow the program to develop over one or two years, at which point there will be better information or more stable funding for creating a permanent staffing plan Packet Page 74 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 65 o If the loaned executive’s sole responsibility is the inter-jurisdictional program they will be able to focus all of their attention on the affordable housing work plan o If a donation of a staff resource can be secured it would significantly reduce the start-up cost for a new program Cons o May be difficult to find a candidate with experience and expertise in affordable housing planning and development o Could result in turn over of key staff at critical time in the development of the new program; would not provide a stable funding base for continuation of the program o In this economic climate it may be difficult to find a private company or public agency that would loan staff for an extended period of time, and pay for all, or a portion of, the costs. o There are no obvious organizational candidates for this approach Utilize Existing Staff – Staff already working on affordable housing issues for municipal, county, or non-profit agencies could be asked to accept additional responsibilities to conduct planning activities for members of a new inter-jurisdictional program. Pros o Would employ the talents and experience of staff who are currently working on similar issues in Snohomish County jurisdictions o May be a cost-savings by using existing staff capacity rather than hiring new staff Cons o Would be difficult for staff to manage existing duties and provide quality staff support to multiple jurisdictions o Recent budget constraints, and staff reductions, have severely limited the capacity of existing staff to take on new responsibilities o It is likely that only a larger government entity could potentially offer existing staff resources o May be difficult for staff in one jurisdiction to provide much support to other jurisdictions o Would not provide stable funding base for continuation of program o There are no obvious organizational candidates for this approach Create a New Dedicated Staff Position(s) – One or more new positions could be created to provide the staff support needed to conduct a variety of planning activities for those jurisdictions that join an inter-jurisdictional collaboration. The staff would have lead responsibility on affordable housing issues for all member jurisdictions, working closely with the Councils and planning staffs of all members. Pros o Allows staff to be focused solely on the affordable housing work plan for the inter-jurisdictional program o Should be able to hire staff with strong expertise in affordable housing issues o Staff should have a high level of responsiveness to requests for assistance from participating jurisdictions, since they will not have competing work requirements Packet Page 75 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 66 o Would be beneficial for those jurisdictions that do not currently have staff to work on affordable housing issues o This could free up the time of some existing city or county planning staff currently working on affordable housing issues Cons o Will require funding to create new dedicated staff capacity; the current economic climate creates challenges for finding available funds o There could be overlap with the work of existing planning staff among cities or the county working on affordable housing issues; avoiding that overlap would require coordination of work plans o Staff member with strong understanding of housing issues may not have understanding of local conditions among all member communities Hire Consultant(s) – Staff support would be provided by one or more consultants with experience in affordable housing planning and development. This could be structured as a fee-for-service arrangement, with the consultant paid for services rendered to participating jurisdictions, or as a flat rate, with the consultant team available for a certain number of hours per month/week to work on the program. Pros o Allows the program to hire specific expertise related to the work plan priorities identified by member jurisdictions o Consultants would be focused solely on the affordable housing work plan for the inter-jurisdictional program o Consultants may be well suited for helping to design and implement the program, and then transition it over to dedicated full-time staff o Would be beneficial for those jurisdictions that do not currently have staff to work on affordable housing issues o This could free up the time of some existing city or county planning staff currently working on affordable housing issues Cons o If focus of consultant work is to help design and implement program then more permanent staff capacity will be needed after program is up and running; it may be difficult to create program continuity with staff changes during first several years o Will require funding to support this alternative; the current economic climate creates challenges for finding available funds o May be difficult to find consultant that could devote sufficient time to meet the needs of all member jurisdictions Administrative Support Alternatives In addition to the governance structure and staff support needed to carry out the work plan for an inter-jurisdictional program, there will be a need for administrative support for a new program. The administrative support could include use of an administrative assistant’s time, IT and technical support, use of space and equipment, human resource services, contracting, and accounting and payroll services. An entity that provides these administrative support Packet Page 76 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 67 services could be considered the “host agency”. Several of the national inter-jurisdictional models have used existing organizations as the host agency, rather than creating new entities. The administrative support services could either be paid for by member jurisdictions, or provided as an in-kind contribution (at least in the initial years) by the host agency. (It is important to note that the administrative support structure does not necessarily have to be the same as the governance structure.) None of the seven options for potential host agency have been approached specifically about their willingness to provide administrative support services on either an in-kind or fee for service basis. Those discussions will be an important part of the implementation of an inter-jurisdictional program (see section below on implementation). Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) – Administrative support for SCT is provided by Snohomish County, with dues paid by all member jurisdictions. The dues are assessed on a per-capita basis, based on the population of each participating jurisdiction. Pros o Already provides administrative support to the various SCT forums; it is a model that jurisdictions are familiar with o There is a dues payment structure in place, although it would have to be modified if some jurisdictions participated in the new program (and others did not), and payments were made to the County to support administrative services (as opposed to those services being provided on an in-kind basis) Cons o Could place a burden on existing staff support services o If payment were required for services, it would be challenging to raise dues in the current economic climate to increase the level of SCT administrative support for a new program o SCT is perceived by some cities as being controlled by the County because it is staffed by the County and recommendations from the SCT Steering Committee are made to the County Council Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) – The Housing Authority owns and manages more than 2000 subsidized affordable housing units throughout Snohomish County. They are well regarded by those interviewed for this study. HASCO has a staff of sixty-four individuals. Pros o Trusted partner that was frequently mentioned by cities in the stakeholder interviews as having good relationships with cities and the County o Has full range of administrative support services, and has excellent knowledge of affordable housing issues county-wide o Could be perceived as “neutral” entity Cons o Mission focused on housing development and management, as opposed to creation of regulatory and/or zoning recommendations o Could place a burden on existing staff support Packet Page 77 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 68 Everett Housing Authority (EHA) – The Housing Authority owns and manages subsidized affordable housing units in the City of Everett. The EHA has been in existence for more than sixty years. It has a staff of approximately sixty individuals. Pros o Has a long and successful track record as an organization that provides affordable housing opportunities for the citizens of Everett o Has full range of administrative support services, and has excellent knowledge of affordable housing issues county-wide Cons o Mission focused on housing development and management, as opposed to creation of regulatory and/or zoning recommendations o Their work is primarily within the City of Everett; most other jurisdictions do not have a working relationship with the Everett Housing Authority; may not be perceived as “neutral” o Could place a burden on existing staff support Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County – Serves as the supporting organization for a coalition of non-profit housing developers and service providers, and others concerned about affordable housing. Has been in existence for seven years. The Housing Consortium has a small staff of two full-time employees. Pros o Excellent knowledge of affordable housing issues county-wide o It is a trusted non-profit organization; seen as a leader advocating for affordable housing issues o Utilization of a private non-profit structure would allow the program to be eligible for private foundation grants Cons o Would be a departure from their current role o Very limited staff capacity currently o Could place a burden on existing staff support Snohomish County Economic Development Council (EDC) – The EDC “is a private, nonprofit organization that collaborates with businesses, citizens, and government to support and develop the County as a strong and vibrant economic force.” They currently have ten staff members. A precedent for this type of connection between housing and economic development was established recently when the Snohomish County Work Force Development Council agreed to serve as the host agency to support the development of a family homelessness business plan for the county. Pros o Excellent knowledge of all of the jurisdictions within the county o It is a trusted non-profit organization; seen as a leader advocating for the interests of Snohomish County o Utilization of a private non-profit structure would allow the program to be eligible for private foundation grants Packet Page 78 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 69 o A recent precedent was established for this type of role with the Work Force Development Council providing administrative support for the county family homelessness initiative Cons o Would be a departure from their current role; they have limited knowledge of affordable housing issues, and housing is not a primary focus of the organization o Limited staff capacity currently o Could place a burden on existing staff support Snohomish County – County government is a large, general purpose government. It provides a variety of administrative support services for county programs. Pros o The County currently works with cities throughout the county o The County’s Office of Housing, Homelessness, and Community Development (OHHCD) already administers inter-jurisdictional housing program through the Urban County Consortium o The scale of county government could provide an opportunity to utilize existing staff to provide administrative support for a new program o The County may have a stronger commitment to the program goals if they serve as the host agency Cons o Recent reductions in county staff could make it challenging for staff to take on additional responsibilities; could place a burden on existing staff support o County provision of support services could create perception that County would control program decision-making A large or mid-sized city – A city with a sizeable general purpose government could provide the administrative support services for a new program. The larger the city, the greater the likelihood that they would have sufficient staff resources. Pros o Larger cities have a full range of administrative support services o Other participating cities may have more trust in a city as a host agency o There may be stronger commitment to the program goals from the host agency Cons o Recent reductions in municipal staffs could make it challenging for cities to take on additional responsibilities; could place a burden on existing staff support o One municipality serving as a host agency could be perceived as having control over the program Funding Alternatives If new staff capacity is created to support the work plan for an inter-jurisdictional program, and if payment is required to a host agency to provide administrative staff support, a source of funds will be required to pay for those services. In the current economic climate it will be a challenge to find new fund sources for this purpose. Packet Page 79 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 70 General Fund Contributions from Participating Jurisdictions – Members of the new inter-jurisdictional program could contribute general fund dollars. This source of funds from participating jurisdictions (cities and the county) could support a portion or all of the program costs. Although local general funds do not traditionally support housing programs, there is precedence for this type of expenditure. Some cities currently contribute general fund resources to support social service programs (which are typically funded by state and federal programs). Pros o Would serve as an indication of the level of commitment and buy-in from participating jurisdictions o Does not take resources directly away from other housing programs o Even small contributions establish a precedent that can be built on in better economic conditions o Funds can be used for supporting staff and administrative expenses of a new program Cons o During the current economic conditions, general fund resources are very scarce for the majority of cities and the county; most jurisdictions have had to make significant reductions in general fund expenses o Many cities in Snohomish County have modest commercial or industrial development, and therefore limited tax bases; this limits some cities ability to contribute general fund resources o General fund contributions may vary over time as they are subject to fluctuations in tax revenues Grant Funding from Private or State Sources – Grant funds could be used to start a new program. Typically, grant funds are not available for ongoing administrative or staff support. However, they are available for program start-up, and as a match for other funding sources. If a portion of the housing to be created were prioritized for households experiencing or imminently at risk of homelessness, it might be possible to secure education, advocacy, planning and/or operating funds from philanthropic and business leaders who are committed to ending homelessness. Pros o Can be very attractive for jurisdictions to join a program that brings outside money to the table o There could be some attraction to help start a program that could be replicated in other parts of the state or region o Funds are generally more flexible than other local government sources Cons o The challenging economic climate is affecting State government and private philanthropies in the same way it is affecting local government revenues; there is generally a scarcity of private and state funding for new housing programs o A one-time grant will not sustain the program over time; an ongoing source of funds will be necessary to implement the program Packet Page 80 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 71 o Snohomish County does not have the same scale of private business-driven philanthropy as some communities that have created similar programs (i.e. Silicon Valley or suburban Chicago area); affordable housing issues do not currently appear to be a high priority for the Snohomish County business community o Typically private foundations will not fund local government initiatives, they provide grants to private non-profit organizations. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – Both Snohomish County and the City of Everett receive federal CDBG funds. Typically CDBG funds are used for affordable housing capital projects and programs, public facilities and infrastructure, and public services. The City of Everett allocates approximately $900,000 in CDBG funds annually, while Snohomish County allocates approximately $3 million each year. Both Snohomish County and Everett will receive some additional CDBG funds as part of the federal stimulus package. Snohomish County will receive approximately $825,000 and Everett will receive approximately $250,000. Allocation decisions for Snohomish County CDBG funds are made through the Urban County Consortium, which involves the cities in Snohomish County. Use of CDBG funds are divided into two broad categories: program and administrative expenses. Jurisdictions that administer CDBG funds are allowed a modest percentage of their total allocation for administrative expenses. Additional research will be required to determine if the funding for a new inter-jurisdictional program would be considered a program or administrative expense. If CDBG funds are used to support the program, officials for the two jurisdictions that receive these federal funds will need to determine if funds should be allocated from the program or administrative categories. In previous years, members of the ARCH program in East King County have used CDBG funds for program expenses to make their member contributions to that program. Pros o Local jurisdictions collectively have control over this source of funding and it is reasonably predictable over time o CDBG funds are meant to be used for affordable housing purposes o Potential to use creative funding allocation process, such as stipulation that a percentage of increases in CDBG funding over current levels can be dedicated for inter-jurisdictional program costs o County and cities have existing inter-local agreement for CDBG funding that could be modified o Additional funds will be available through the federal stimulus package Cons o There have been recent funding reductions in the federal CDBG program (prior to approval of the federal stimulus package) o Although additional CDBG funds will be available through the federal stimulus package, there will be greater demand for CDBG funds because of reductions in other revenue sources o Using CDBG funds for program activities (i.e. to support planning activities to increase affordable housing) would reduce the available funds for affordable housing capital projects Packet Page 81 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 72 o Using CDBG administrative funds would reduce the funds available to support staff that administer the CDBG program o Jurisdictions not interested in participating in the program start-up may not support use of CDBG funds for this new program Other Governmental Housing Funds – The Snohomish County Urban Consortium administers affordable housing funds from other sources that may be eligible for an inter-jurisdictional program. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (a federal pass-through program), the Snohomish County Affordable Housing Trust Fund (which takes its revenue from recording fees), and “2163” funds (another recording fee, for housing the homeless and homelessness prevention). Of these, only 2163 funds would be eligible for operating expenses, and only to the extent that the program addresses homelessness. The others could only be used to pay for new housing or housing maintenance. Washington State has a Housing Trust Fund that, like HOME funds, could provide funds for capital investment. Finally, new funding sources related to federal economic stimulus programs may also apply, but detailed information was not available to the project team in time for this report, and in any case, may expire before an inter-jurisdictional program is ready to launch. Pros o Finding other fund sources will ensure that no one fund source bears the burden of creating the new program o To the extent the program work plan is focused on activities that address the reduction of homelessness, some of the funds known as 2163 funds could be used to support the operations of the new program o The County and cities have an existing inter-local agreement and process for making funding decisions that could be utilized Cons o Most government housing fund sources are for capital projects and do not provide flexibility for funding program staff with a focus on planning, technical assistance, and education, as recommended for the new program. o Using government housing funds for program activities would reduce the availability of funds for affordable housing capital projects o Jurisdictions not interested in participating in the program start-up may not support use of housing funds for this new program Packet Page 82 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 73 Program Recommendations There is a significant need for new affordable housing opportunities in Snohomish County. In 2007, as described in the Landscape section, more than sixty percent of all households earning less than the county median income were considered “cost burdened” because they were spending a high percentage of their income on housing expenses. When the regional economy slows, as it has in the past year, families spending too much for housing may not be able to afford other basic necessities, like food or health care. The difference between a stable family living situation and an unstable one can be very fragile for cost-burdened households. This study was designed to explore the potential creation of a new program that would allow multiple jurisdictions in Snohomish County to work together to create more affordable housing opportunities throughout the county. Given the affordable housing needs within the county, and the level of interest in this idea expressed by those interviewed for the study, it is recommended that interested jurisdictions work together to create a new inter-jurisdictional program with the goal of creating more affordable housing in Snohomish County. As mentioned in the Threshold Recommendation section above, four conditions must be met before a new program can be formed. Achieving a “critical mass” of jurisdictions to become the initial members will create the political support and funding resources needed to sustain a new program for at least two years. It is understood that funding commitments from local governments can only be made on an annual budget cycle, but founding member jurisdictions should agree to participate for at least two years. Before the new program can be created there must be agreement among the founding members about who the program will serve. Every city will have different affordable housing goals, but there should be unanimous agreement that the program will develop strategies to meet the affordable housing objectives for each participating jurisdiction. In addition to the four threshold conditions, there are several other principles drawn from the interviews and analysis of other national models that shape the program recommendations that follow: • The governance and administrative structure for the new program must be streamlined and efficient. This is particularly important in light of the need to create dedicated staff capacity for the program and stakeholders’ strong desire to not create a new bureaucracy. The governance structure should be created in a manner that does not increase decision-making difficulty and delay. • Given the uneven levels of knowledge and understanding about affordable housing needs, issues, and terminology, an important objective should be to increase the depth of knowledge about these matters. • Fear of crime and declining property values cannot be adequately addressed through education alone. An inter-jurisdictional program should ensure that any housing, or the Packet Page 83 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 74 households it supports, raises the quality of life for all residents, including low-income households and existing neighbors. • An interim strategy will be required to take the initial program concept to implementation. That strategy is described in the “Implementation” section below. Expected Program Outcomes During the second phase of the study’s community outreach, all stakeholders interviewed were asked about their reactions to the draft “essential program outcomes. The outcomes are meant to provide general direction for a potential program, and establish expectations for what the program would seek to accomplish. The draft outcomes were developed based on the conclusions of previous planning documents that assessed the affordable housing needs in Snohomish County, the first round of interviews for this study, and discussions with members of the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee, Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), and the PAC Housing Sub-Committee. There was wide-spread support for the following statements that described the desired outcomes for a new program: • There will be a measurable increase in the number of affordable units throughout Snohomish County, including: More affordable rental housing opportunities for households making up to 50% of county median income, especially for seniors, those with disabilities, veterans, families with children, and those working in the service industry and as laborers More affordable home sales opportunities for home buyers making less than the county median income, especially first-time home buyers and those working in Snohomish County communities who cannot afford to buy a home (e.g. teachers and public safety workers) • More affordable housing (both rental and ownership opportunities) in all participating communities, especially where there is a need for more housing and a lack of affordable housing. Affordable housing should be located where there is good transportation and access to employment opportunities, amenities, and services. • Over the long run local governments should contribute additional resources toward meeting affordable housing needs in Snohomish County. Resources may include direct financial contributions, fee waivers, donations of land, in-kind contributions, or other forms of support. During the current economic climate, however, local government resources used for affordable housing will remain about the same.24 While these program outcomes provide broad guidance for a new program, more specific targets and strategies will be identified by the participating members of the new program. The lessons learned from other national programs suggest that it is important for a new structure to be responsive to the needs and goals of its members. 24 For further description of current local contributions to affordable housing, see sections above on housing need and funding mechanisms. Packet Page 84 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 75 More on Grant Writing Dedicated inter-jurisdictional staff would be available to respond to opportunities for affordable housing funding as they become available, such as through new federal, state, or philanthropic sources. These funding announcements usually require timely responses and are difficult to coordinate across multiple jurisdictions in time frames as short as just two months. In the past several months, for example, the federal government has announced new funding opportunities for the Second Chance Act Reentry Demonstration Project Grants for local or state governments; capital grants for new transitional housing for homeless veterans; the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; the Neighborhood Stabilization Program; and supportive housing grants through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Most of these funding opportunities are competitive, or require jurisdictions to develop allocation and administration plans with short timelines. Inter-jurisdictional staff can be available to identify and assess appropriate funding opportunities and work with member communities to pursue these grants. Initial Program Focus and Work Plan Activities Those who support the creation of a new inter-jurisdictional affordable housing program believe the new program should be focused on a set of technical assistance, education and planning activities that would assist member jurisdictions better meet their affordable housing goals. The program’s work plan must be perceived as adding value to the public policy decisions made by local governments, or jurisdictions will not participate. Other national inter-jurisdictional programs have created local housing trust funds by securing contributions from State fund sources, local governments, and/or private sector contributions. As mentioned above, one of the anticipated outcomes for a Snohomish County program would be to create such a local fund. Member jurisdictions will need to determine when and how they would attempt to raise new local capital funds for housing development. This study tested a number of work plan ideas during the stakeholder interviews to determine the value of different technical assistance and planning activities to potential member jurisdictions. These ideas are consistent with the work conducted by other regional models that support the creation of affordable housing. Based on the discussions with key stakeholders, the following list of activities serves as a “menu” of potential work plan items for the new program. The following list is not in any priority order: • Identify strategies and goals to address identified affordable housing needs that are specific to each participating jurisdiction • Assist in preparing affordable housing components of comprehensive plans, as required by the State Growth Management Act Packet Page 85 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 76 More on Regulatory and Incentive Strategies Dedicated inter-jurisdictional staff would assist the planning staff of member jurisdictions to develop or modify policies, regulations and planning guidelines that encourage the creation of affordable housing. These regulatory and incentive strategies could include density bonuses, fee waivers, expedited permitting, accessory dwelling units, use of public lands for housing development, modifications to design or zoning guidelines, mixed-use development, or cottage housing. According to the Housing Evaluation Report produced by SCT, nearly every jurisdiction includes some of these strategies, but the majority of the incentives are not utilized by developers. During the stakeholder interviews several officials expressed interest in learning from other cities experiences and having greater staff capacity to pursue these strategies. Inter-jurisdictional staff would assist the cities in making existing regulations more effective, drafting new regulatory measures, sharing what works between communities, and using their expertise to help develop new tools to support affordable housing goals. • Develop regulatory or incentive strategies to encourage development of affordable housing (see sidebar) • Liaison with non-profit and for-profit developers of affordable housing • Write grant applications and other forms of fundraising to support affordable housing (see sidebar) • Develop means of sharing information among jurisdictions about effective affordable housing strategies, as well as potential pitfalls in designing or implementing strategies • Conduct research on regional and national best practices • Conduct educational outreach on affordable housing needs and solutions for elected and appointed officials and the public • Monitor affordability conditions/restrictions for affordable housing units created through local incentive programs of member jurisdictions • Explore the feasibility and timing of securing potential resources (from local, state, federal and private sources) to create a local housing trust fund, which could be particularly helpful as economic conditions improve; pursue opportunities as they arise As with the “Expected Program Outcomes” above, final decisions about the work plan for the new inter-jurisdictional program should be determined by members, based on their affordable housing needs and resources. It is anticipated that each member jurisdiction will identify their priority activities. The Governing Board will then make decisions about the work plans for the program staff, with some activities likely to benefit multiple jurisdictions, and other activities benefiting only a single member jurisdiction. Packet Page 86 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 77 Governance and Membership Governance of the new program should be provided by the participating members through the creation of a Governing Board representing all member jurisdictions. One of the critical success factors of other national models is that effective collaborations have created shared decision making regarding the direction of the program and use of resources. The Governing Board should make decisions regarding annual work plans and use of staff resources dedicated to the program. This is particularly important in the early stages of the program when jurisdictions want to be sure that funding resources are used wisely and that the program is meeting their unique needs. Program staff would be accountable to the board. During the course of the stakeholder interviews and the discussions with the SCT Steering Committee, many of those who participated in the study said they did not want to see a new bureaucracy created. They wanted to avoid creating a costly administrative structure, and they did not want to create a cumbersome decision-making process that might further complicate decisions regarding the use of current housing resources. Minimizing the cost of the administrative structure is discussed below. With regard to the governance structure, it is envisioned that the governing board would operate efficiently, focused primarily on setting policy direction, monitoring the progress of staff in achieving program goals, and setting clear expectations for the board’s relationship with staff. The Housing Subcommittee of the Planning Advisory Council discussed alternative approaches to establishing a governance model and reviewed a draft Policy Manual that outlines one method of defining the relationship between the board and staff. That material will be provided as background information to this report under separate cover. Because it is anticipated that a relatively small number of jurisdictions will join initially, it is recommended that a governance structure separate from existing inter-jurisdictional forums be created. Other Forums, such as Snohomish County Tomorrow, include all jurisdictions within the county. The governance structure should be designed to meet the intent of one of the initial Program Design Features – that decision making is not controlled by the County or any single city. This is particularly important for the small and mid-sized cities, which may be concerned that the work planning and resource decisions may be controlled by the larger jurisdictions. It is suggested that each participating member have one seat on the Governing Board. A jurisdiction’s representative should be selected by the Council for that member jurisdiction. A memorandum of understanding (MOU), or inter-local agreement, should be created to describe the roles, responsibilities and rules for each jurisdiction’s participation in the new governance structure. An outline of an MOU that could be used to establish the governance model is included in Appendix 1. Two types of membership were considered: those who should participate in a governance structure and those who may participate in an advisory capacity. Packet Page 87 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 78 Membership in a governance structure would be open to all county, city and tribal governments in Snohomish County that choose to join the new program. Because of the different levels of local support for this program concept, membership should be voluntary and phased in over time. Based on stakeholder responses, and the experience of other national models, it should be expected that initial membership may start with as few as three jurisdictions. It is well documented among other national models that initial membership often starts with a handful of jurisdictions participating, and as the program achieves success other jurisdictions join in later years. The legal structure of the new program should easily allow for additional jurisdictions to join over time. The number of jurisdictions needed to initiate the program could be as few as three, but may require four or more, depending on which jurisdictions choose to join. During the stakeholder interviews, a number of individuals felt that the minimum number of jurisdictions needed to initiate the program will depend on which jurisdictions choose to participate. For example, if two mid-sized or larger cities joined with the County to create the proposed program there may be sufficient critical mass to secure funding support and the administrative resources needed for program startup. However, if three small cities were the initial members, they may not be able to secure sufficient resources for start-up. Some of the smaller and mid-sized jurisdictions feel that it would be more useful to them if similar-sized municipalities participated. For several reasons, it may be advantageous for the County to participate as one of the initial members: 1) As the biggest local government their participation will serve as a signal of the importance of this work; 2) There is a great deal of land in unincorporated Snohomish County, within the urban growth boundary, where affordable housing could be developed and which may be part of future annexations; and 3) As the largest jurisdiction they have access to resources that smaller jurisdictions do not. The initial member jurisdictions should be asked to make a two–year commitment to participate in the program. This will provide enough time for the program to demonstrate its value. In addition, it is recommended that the program create an Advisory Board that includes representatives involved in the affordable housing field – developers, lenders, philanthropy, affordable housing advocates, state or federal officials, etc. During the stakeholder interviews it was suggested that representatives from both private and non-profit housing developers should be included in this new program. In addition, local government jurisdictions that do not join the program as members may choose to participate on the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board would serve as a meaningful way to involve the development community. It would be a valuable sounding board on a variety of policy and programmatic issues. It would likely meet less often than the governance committees, perhaps quarterly. Advisory Board members should be appointed by the Governing Board members. Packet Page 88 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 79 Program Resources A variety of resources will be required to initiate a new program. The following provides recommendations on three types of resources: staffing, administrative support, and funding. Alternatives for each were examined earlier in this chapter. Staffing – Each of the national models researched for this study included dedicated staff capacity for the affordable housing program. Based on an assumption that the program will begin with a small number of initial members (i.e. three to five), it is recommended that a new staff position should be created to conduct the work described above. This is a challenging time to create new staff positions, as many jurisdictions are reducing staff capacity. However, a dedicated staff position with affordable housing expertise is needed to create a focus on affordable housing issues, and to provide support to multiple jurisdictions. Initially the program should create one FTE to serve as the lead staff on affordable housing issues for all participating jurisdictions. The program staff would function like city or county staff, but would split time providing staff support for multiple jurisdictions. The staff would meet with city councils, planning staffs, and commissions on a variety of affordable housing topics. The program staff member would work closely with the planning or housing staff of member jurisdictions. In some cases they would support the work of municipal or county staff, and in other cases they may take the lead in providing recommendations to appointed and elected officials regarding affordable housing issues. If the program grows over time and additional jurisdictions join, additional program staff will be required to remain responsive to all participating members. Selection of the program staff will go a long way in determining the success of the program in the initial years. The individual should possess several qualities to enhance the chances for success: • Extensive knowledge about affordable housing development, programs, and issues • Experience with and knowledge about local government, and skills in working collaboratively with city, county, and tribal planning staff • Experience working with elected officials and community groups • Grant-writing expertise Administrative Support – Based on comments from stakeholders and members of Snohomish County Tomorrow, one of the initial “program design features” was that the new program should not create a new bureaucracy. There was considerable support for this suggestion. As mentioned earlier in this report, a new program will need a variety of administrative supports, including access to administrative assistant time, IT and technical support, use of space and equipment, human resource services, contracting, and accounting and payroll services. Packet Page 89 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 80 To accomplish this desired program feature, an existing organization could serve as a “host” for the program, providing administrative support, space, and generally reducing overhead costs for the program. The alternatives analysis earlier in the chapter identified seven potential options including: Snohomish County Tomorrow, the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County, a housing authority (Everett or Snohomish County), the Snohomish County Economic Development Council, a large or mid-sized city, or the County. The organization will need to be large enough to have the kind of administrative support services needed by the new program. At this time it is unclear which of these organizations, if any, would be willing to provide administrative support. It is also unclear whether any of the organizations would be willing to provide support services on an in-kind or fee-for-service basis. The Implementation Task Force described below in the Implementation section should pursue discussions with several of the organizations mentioned in the alternatives section to determine which would provide the administrative services, and at what cost. Funding – Funding resources will be required to support the new staff position recommended for this work. As mentioned throughout this report, this is a challenging time to find resources to create a new program. Review of national models suggests that there are a variety of fund sources used to support this kind of work. The project team’s analysis identified several potential local options, including: general fund contributions from participating jurisdictions, federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), other governmental housing funds, or grant funding from private or state sources. A modest initial investment to support one FTE, and associated administrative support services, is recommended. In this economic climate there is no easily identifiable source of funds. The most likely funding package will draw from multiple sources. It is suggested that all four sources identified in the alternatives analysis could be used. Although competition for CDBG funds will be intense in 2009 and 2010, the County and the City of Everett are receiving additional CDBG funds as part of the federal stimulus package. With the recent changes in the national and regional economy, charitable contributions from corporations and private philanthropies are down. At present, few local philanthropies have prioritized the creation of affordable housing in their investing strategies. However, to the extent that a portion of the housing to be created is prioritized for households experiencing or imminently at risk of homelessness, it might be possible to secure education, advocacy, planning and/or operating funds from philanthropic and business leaders who are committed to ending homelessness. It is also suggested that one of the requirements of membership be that local jurisdictions make very modest contributions to the new program as an indication of local commitment to the program. Lastly, during the interviews conducted for the study, a local legislator expressed a willingness to work with local leaders prior to next year’s legislative session to try and secure some state funding to support the implementation of a new program in Snohomish County as a pilot project. Packet Page 90 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 81 The Implementation Task Force should work with local leaders to attempt to put together a funding package that would support the first two years of operation. Implementation – Recommendations for Moving Forward It is recommended that an Implementation Task Force be created to address - and resolve - the four conditions described in the Threshold Recommendation section above. During the course of the stakeholder interview process several individuals expressed an interest in supporting the creation of an inter-jurisdictional program to work on affordable housing issues. There seems to be sufficient support for the idea that those most interested should be invited to join an Implementation Task Force. The Task Force would meet regularly until the four conditions are met, and the founding jurisdictions enact the MOU or inter-local agreement establishing the new program. Implementation Task Force – The Implementation Task Force should include public, private, and nonprofit advocates for the creation of an inter-jurisdictional program, and Task Force members should be actively invited and recruited by the convening agencies. The role of the Task Force would be to determine the most effective way to move this proposal toward implementation. In particular, the Task Force would need to work with potential member jurisdictions to determine who the initial participants would be. In addition, the Task Force would need to have discussions with potential funders to secure funding support for the program. And the Task Force would need to have discussions with potential “host” agencies to find an organization that would be willing to provide the types and level of administrative support needed. It is recommended that Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) and the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County serve as co-conveners of the Implementation Task Force. The co-conveners are well positioned to perform this role. SCT provides a forum for all cities, tribes, and the county to discuss their potential interest in the inter-jurisdictional program. The Housing Consortium is a well respected advocate for affordable housing. They also provide a forum for non-profit housing developers and managers to discuss issues related to affordable housing with governmental representatives. The role of the conveners would be to invite and recruit interested parties to meet on a regular basis during the next year to plan for the creation of a new program. The Chairs of the two convening organizations should seek to create a Task Force that is strongly committed to creating this new program. However, all members of SCT and the Consortium can be invited to participate. Other individuals or organizations, such as the Master Builders Association, or a supportive elected official, could also play a leadership role in helping to convene the Task Force. Staff support for the Implementation Task Force could be provided by the Housing Consortium, the County, or Snohomish County Tomorrow. However, successful implementation of a new program will require members of the Implementation Task Force to take a leadership role to secure the necessary commitments from the initial members, funders, and a “host” agency. Packet Page 91 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 82 In light of the current economic climate, the Implementation Task Force should plan on taking approximately one year to secure the necessary commitments for the new program. After the four threshold conditions have been met, the founding member jurisdictions will need to develop an MOU or inter-local agreement that will presumably build on the outline MOU in Appendix 1. Once the initial members have been identified and Council actions are taken to join the new program, the Implementation Task Force will have completed its work and will sunset. Some jurisdictions represented on the Task Force may choose to become initial members, but others may not. As mentioned above, the participating jurisdictions will each identify their representatives on the Governing Board that will oversee program staff and work plan. The diagram on the following page displays the two phases of implementation: the work of the Implementation Task Force to meet the four threshold conditions, and the establishment of the working program by the founding jurisdictions. After the first two years of operation, the inter-jurisdictional program should report back to the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee and the Housing Consortium Board of Directors on the progress of the new program. The report should include a summary of all work conducted with and for participating jurisdictions, the number of affordable housing units constructed or planned as a result of the work of the new program, a list of any additional jurisdictions that have expressed interest in joining, and recommended plans for the future of the program. Packet Page 92 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 83 Recommendations’ Consistency with Critical Success Factors from National Research Table 5: Consistency with Critical Success Factors Critical Success Factor Consistency of Recommendation A. The program is led by an enthusiastic champion Create an Implementation Task Force to provide leadership B. Counties (or State) are invested in the program and active participants Advantageous for the County to be an initial member if possible; work with area legislators to attempt to secure State funding C. The support of elected officials and/or key business leaders is instrumental in developing and sustaining the collaboration Some elected officials have expressed interest; to date the local business community has not been engaged D. The collaboration minimizes overhead and administrative costs Find a “host” agency that can provide administrative support services E. In the absence of “top down” incentives from the State, a broad base of support is critical An Implementation Task Force, with support from the Housing Consortium could help create a broad base of support F. In the absence of widespread political will, a gradual and phased approach to collaboration can be successful A phased approach is recommended, with a minimum threshold of three jurisdictions suggested G. In the absence of external funding resources, an initial modest work plan can successfully evolve and add roles and activities over time Program to begin with one FTE, and could be expanded over time; program outcomes state that long term goal is to develop new local capital resources for development of housing H. The collaboration is responsive to member jurisdictions An initial work plan is suggested, but member jurisdictions will make decisions about work plan and use of resources I. In the absence of substantial funding sources, member communities play a larger role in supporting the collaboration through peer and public education, and developing incentives for housing development Initial suggested work plan includes creation of public education activities and regulatory and zoning strategies, such as incentives to encourage development of affordable housing J. The administrative agency for the collaboration is trusted in the community and has experience and expertise in housing planning Several administrative host agencies are suggested. Several, but not all, have housing expertise K. Staff are dedicated to the collaboration, so that their work plans and goals are based on the objectives of the collaboration and directly serve the members Creation of a new staff position dedicated to the program is recommended L. The collaboration structure involves shared decision-making responsibilities and allows for participation of cities of different sizes All members of the new program (small or large jurisdictions) participate in the governance structure (with representatives from private and non-profit sectors) Packet Page 93 of 234 Feasibility Study of Inter-jurisdictional Housing Programs for Snohomish County 84 Recommendations’ Consistency with Initial Program Features Table 6: Consistency with Initial Program Features Program Design Features Consistency of Recommendation 1. In difficult economic times, the program does not place undo financial burden on participating jurisdictions Primary sources of funding to implement program should be CDBG and State or private grant, with only modest local funding contributions suggested 2. The initial collaboration will involve at least three jurisdictions No fewer than three jurisdictions recommended, but may require more depending on initial membership 3. It should not be difficult for other jurisdictions to join later Phased program membership is anticipated, with more jurisdictions joining as program achieves success 4. The program does not preclude sub-regional activities, and can grow to a countywide or regional program if desired over time Initial program membership may be too small for sub-regional planning activities, but could be accommodated if several cities from one sub-region join 5. Activities do not contribute to a disproportionate concentration of affordable housing Addressed in suggested program outcome 6. Does not include local government management or development of housing (not including housing authorities) Program focused on planning for affordable housing 7. Decision-making is not controlled by the County or any single jurisdiction Creation of a governance structure that precludes control by any single jurisdiction 8. The program must be able to withstand changes in administrative, political, or economic conditions over time MOU will attempt to secure multi-year (two-year) commitments from participating members 9. Does not create a new administrative bureaucracy Utilize an existing “host” agency to provide administrative support services 10. Does not operate without a work plan with measurable objectives based on sound needs analysis; the work plan must meet the needs of member jurisdictions An initial work plan is suggested, but the annual work plan must be approved by the members 11. The program does not allow housing providers to profit disproportionately to the housing benefits gained in the community If development incentives were drafted by program staff, they would have to be approved by each local jurisdiction 12. The activities must show progress toward achieving goals within two years May be a challenge within current economic climate, but member jurisdictions must perceive that services provided by the new program add value to their communities Packet Page 94 of 234 AM-3967   Item #: 1. B. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Steve Koho Department:Wastewater Treatment Plant Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion on establishing interlocal agreements with other agencies for disposal of biosolids from their wastewater treatment plants. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Recommend Council Committee place approval of interlocal agreements with the City of Lynnwood and the Alderwood Water District on the consent agenda for full Council. Previous Council Action City  Council authorized interlocal agreements with the City of North Bend for biosolids disposal in 1998, 2000, and 2007. City Council authorized an interlocal agreement with the City of Sumner for biosolids disposal in 1999. City Council authorized an interlocal agreement with the Alderwood Water District for biosolids disposal in 1997. Narrative The City of Edmonds has historically accepted biosolids from wastewater treatment plants from surrounding agencies for disposal.  In some cases it was done to help an agency out during an emergency, and in other cases it was done until the plant could install equipment to process and dispose of their biosolids themselves.  The agreements have worked well since Edmonds has received revenue to offset expenses and to build the capital replacement fund, and other agencies have been able to find a disposal option during a time of need. The Alderwood Water District recently was unexpectedly turned away from their sole disposal facility, and needs assistance until a long-term disposal site can be found.  The City of Lynnwood needs to dispose of sludge for a two-week period during an up-coming maintenance shutdown planned this summer. Staff recommends that we enter into an agreement with both agencies to assist them and to bring additional revenue into the utility fund.  Deliveries will be routed down SR104 with other truck traffic.  There have not been odor issues in the past with receiving biosolids deliveries. Attachments Lynnwood Interlocal Alderwood Interlocal Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 06/03/2011 09:59 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/07/2011 08:50 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/07/2011 01:55 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/08/2011 04:43 PM Form Started By: Steve Koho Started On: 05/25/2011 09:18 AM Final Approval Date: 06/08/2011  Packet Page 95 of 234 - 1 - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR DISPOSAL OF BIOSOLIDS BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD THIS AGREEMENT, is made this ___ day of ___________, 2011, by and between the City of Edmonds (hereinafter "Edmonds"), and the City of Lynnwood (hereinafter "Lynnwood"); and WHEREAS, Edmonds has the facilities and expertise to treat and dispose of biosolid waste; and WHEREAS, Lynnwood is in need of such facilities and expertise; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: T E R M S 1. Description of Program. Edmonds agrees to handle the disposal and treatment of biosolids delivered by Lynnwood in accordance with the terms and conditions attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. The City of Edmonds, as operator of the plant, specifically reserves as set forth below the right to terminate this Agreement at any time and the City of Edmonds will terminate this Agreement, when, in its sole discretion, it determines that the disposal of solids hereunder would interfere with the smooth, efficient and cost effective operation of the secondary sewage treatment plant. 2. Payment. A. When charges are pending, Edmonds shall submit a monthly payment invoice to Lynnwood for services to date, and Lynnwood shall make payments within thirty (30) days after the submittal of the invoice. B. If Lynnwood objects to all or any portion of any invoice, it shall so notify Edmonds within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt and shall pay the portion of the invoice not in dispute. The parties shall immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion. If they are unable to resolve their dispute, the parties agree to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure to resolve their differences. C. The prices to be paid are set forth in the attached Exhibit A which has been incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. The charge for disposal of biosolids set forth in such Exhibit may be amended by the provision of thirty (30) days prior written notice from Edmonds to Lynnwood. Upon receipt of such notice, Lynnwood may terminate this agreement or, by continuing to ship biosolids for disposal, agree to the amendment of this agreement to incorporate such new and higher charge. In such event, Exhibit A shall be deemed amended to incorporate such new charge. Packet Page 96 of 234 - 2 - 3. Duration. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution and shall remain in effect for an initial term until December 31, 2011. Unless terminated as provided below, the Agreement may continue in effect at the mutual agreement of the parties for up to two additional two-year terms to expire December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2015. 4. Termination. Either party may terminate this contract at any time upon sixty (60) days written notice. Edmonds reserves the right to refuse or suspend any biosolid delivery from Lynnwood at any time and for any length of time in accordance with plant operational needs. Paragraphs 2 and 5 shall survive termination of this Agreement. 5. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this Agreement. Each party hereto agrees to be responsible and assumes liability for its own negligent acts or omissions, and those of its officers, agents or employees, while performing work pursuant to this Agreement, to the fullest extent required by law, and agrees to save, indemnify, defend, and hold the other party harmless from any such liability. In the case of negligence of multiple parties, any damages allowed shall be assessed in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to each party, and each party shall have the right to seek contribution from the other party in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to the other party. 6. Miscellaneous Disclosures as Required by RCW 39.34.030. No separate legal entity shall be created by this Agreement, and each party hereto shall be responsible for its own budgeting of funds transferred under this Agreement. No property shall transfer ownership or be jointly owned as a result of this Agreement. Edmonds shall serve as the administrator of this Agreement. 7. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together with all Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the parties, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of, or altering in any manner whatsoever, this Agreement. 8 Modification. No waiver, alteration or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of Edmonds and Lynnwood. 9. Waiver. Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of such right or power at any time be taken to be a waiver of any other breach. 10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any suit brought by either party arising out of this Agreement shall only be maintained in a court of competent jurisdiction Packet Page 97 of 234 - 3 - in Snohomish County, Washington. 11. Filing. This Agreement shall be filed with the Snohomish County Auditor as required by RCW 39.34.040. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year above written. CITY OF EDMONDS By: _______________________________ Mayor Mike Cooper ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ___________________________________ SANDRA S. CHASE, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ City Attorney CITY OF LYNNWOOD By:__________________________________ ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ____________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ Lynnwood Attorney Packet Page 98 of 234 - 4 - EXHIBIT A The City of Edmonds agrees to assist the City of Lynnwood with its biosolids disposal needs. Our approval is based upon the following conditions: • Shipments will be received at a time agreed to by both agencies at least 24 hours in advance. • The delivery route to the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) will be from SR 104 west, right on Dayton Street, right on Second Avenue South. • Lynnwood will be charged $0.25 per dry pound. • Test results performed at Edmonds WWTP will be used for billing. The method for calculating the quantity received will be as follows: Lynnwood will split a sample taken during each tanker loading destined for the Edmonds WWTP. The biosolids hauler will deliver a sample to the Edmonds WWTP for solids concentration analysis. Quantity of liquid biosolids received will be measured using the flowmeter at the plant. Edmonds WWTP personnel will log all deliveries and pounds received each day. • Edmonds WWTP will be responsible for unloading deliveries. • If the solids concentration generated from Lynnwood changes significantly, Edmonds WWTP will be notified in advance. • The City of Edmonds reserves the right to refuse deliveries if plant storage tank capacity is threatened. Packet Page 99 of 234 - 1 - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR DISPOSAL OF BIOSOLIDS BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT THIS AGREEMENT, is made this ___ day of ___________, 2011, by and between the City of Edmonds (hereinafter "Edmonds"), and the Alderwood Water District (hereinafter "Alderwood Water District"); and WHEREAS, Edmonds has the facilities and expertise to treat and dispose of biosolid waste; and WHEREAS, the Alderwood Water District is in need of such facilities and expertise; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: T E R M S 1. Description of Program . Edmonds agrees to handle the disposal and treatment of biosolids delivered by Alderwood Water District in accordance with the terms and conditions attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. The City of Edmonds, as operator of the plant, specifically reserves as set forth below the right to terminate this Agreement at any time and the City of Edmonds will terminate this Agreement, when, in its sole discretion, it determines that the disposal of solids hereunder would interfere with the smooth, efficient and cost effective operation of the secondary sewage treatment plant. 2. Payment . A. When charges are pending, Edmonds shall submit a monthly payment invoice to Alderwood Water District for services to date, and Alderwood Water District shall make payments within thirty (30) days after the submittal of the invoice. B. If Alderwood Water District objects to all or any portion of any invoice, it shall so notify Edmonds within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt and shall pay the portion of the invoice not in dispute. The parties shall immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion. If they are unable to resolve their dispute, the parties agree to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure to resolve their differences. C. The prices to be paid are set forth in the attached Exhibit A which has been incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. The charge for disposal of biosolids set forth in such Exhibit may be amended by the provision of thirty (30) days prior written notice from Edmonds to Alderwood Water District. Upon receipt of such notice, Alderwood Water District may terminate this agreement or, by continuing to ship biosolids for disposal, agree to the amendment of this agreement to incorporate such Packet Page 100 of 234 - 2 - new and higher charge. In such event, Exhibit A shall be deemed amended to incorporate such new charge. 3. Duration . This Agreement shall become effective upon execution and shall remain in effect for an initial term until December 31, 2011. Unless terminated as provided below, the Agreement may continue in effect at the mutual agreement of the parties for up to two additional two-year terms to expire December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2015. 4. Termination . Either party may terminate this contract at any time upon sixty (60) days written notice. Edmonds reserves the right to refuse or suspend any biosolid delivery from Alderwood Water District at any time and for any length of time in accordance with plant operational needs. Paragraphs 2 and 5 shall survive termination of this Agreement. 5. Indemnification and Hold Harmless . It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this Agreement. Each party hereto agrees to be responsible and assumes liability for its own negligent acts or omissions, and those of its officers, agents or employees, while performing work pursuant to this Agreement, to the fullest extent required by law, and agrees to save, indemnify, defend, and hold the other party harmless from any such liability. In the case of negligence of multiple parties, any damages allowed shall be assessed in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to each party, and each party shall have the right to seek contribution from the other party in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to the other party. 6. Miscellaneous Disclosures as Required by RCW 39.34.030 . No separate legal entity shall be created by this Agreement, and each party hereto shall be responsible for its own budgeting of funds transferred under this Agreement. No property shall transfer ownership or be jointly owned as a result of this Agreement. Edmonds shall serve as the administrator of this Agreement. 7. Entire Agreement . The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together with all Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the parties, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of, or altering in any manner whatsoever, this Agreement. 8 Modification . No waiver, alteration or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of Edmonds and Alderwood Water District. 9. Waiver. Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of such, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of such right or power at any time be taken to be a waiver of any other breach. Packet Page 101 of 234 - 3 - 10. Governing Law . This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any suit brought by either party arising out of this Agreement shall only be maintained in a court of competent jurisdiction in Snohomish County, Washington. 11. Filing . This Agreement shall be filed with the Snohomish County Auditor as required by RCW 39.34.040. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year above written. CITY OF EDMONDS By: _______________________________ Mayor Mike Cooper ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ___________________________________ SANDRA S. CHASE, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ City Attorney ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT By:__________________________________ ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ____________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ District Attorney Packet Page 102 of 234 - 4 - EXHIBIT A The City of Edmonds agrees to assist Alderwood Water District with its biosolids disposal needs. Our approval is based upon the following conditions: • Shipments will be received at a time agreed to by both agencies at least 24 hours in advance. • The delivery route to the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) will be from SR 104 west, right on Dayton Street, right on Second Avenue South. • Alderwood Water District will be charged $0.25 per dry pound. • Test results performed at Edmonds WWTP will be used for billing. The method for calculating the quantity received will be as follows: Alderwood Water District will split a sample taken during each tanker loading destined for the Edmonds WWTP. The biosolids hauler will deliver a sample to the Edmonds WWTP for solids concentration analysis. Quantity of liquid biosolids received will be measured using the flowmeter at the plant. Edmonds WWTP personnel will log all deliveries and pounds received each day. • Edmonds WWTP will be responsible for unloading deliveries. • If the solids concentration generated from Alderwood Water District changes significantly, Edmonds WWTP will be notified in advance. • The City of Edmonds reserves the right to refuse deliveries if plant storage tank capacity is threatened. Packet Page 103 of 234 AM-3909   Item #: 1. C. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mountlake Terrace to develop capital improvement project descriptions, scope and costs for projects listed in the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Forum Capital Improvement Plan. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the June 21, 2011 Council Meeting and authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement. Previous Council Action On September 7, 2010, Council approved an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) and appointed a City representative to the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum. That ILA included development of a capital improvement plan (CIP). This ILA begins implementation of that CIP. Narrative Lake Ballinger has experienced periodic high lake levels as a result of flooding events a number of times dating back to the mid 1940’s. Recent storm events in 1997, 2003, and 2007 caused flooding of yards, docks, and houses surrounding the lake. To address these flooding problems, the Cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline along with Snohomish County formed the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum to develop a Strategic Action Plan to address flooding, water quality and habitat preservation issues.  The infrastructure that currently exists to manage the lake level is located entirely in Mountlake Terrace. The vast majority of the residents that have experience flooded property, however, live in Edmonds. This ILA is vital to ensure that Mountlake Terrace works cooperatively towards reducing the flood frequency of properties in Edmonds. The Strategic Action Plan was approved by the Forum and by all member jurisdictions in 2009. A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was developed and approved in January 2010 (Exhibit 1 of the ILA). The CIP listed thirteen separate projects with lead agencies for each project. In the Lake Ballinger portion of the list, there are six specific projects that involve both Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace.  The highest ranked actions in the approved CIP that involve both cities include projects to more efficiently manage the level of Lake Ballinger. The Forum has had extensive discussions regarding the specific direction of the CIP projects and additional work has been undertaken to address high water levels at Lake Ballinger, two issues have come to light regarding lake level: 1. The existing culverts on Nile Temple golf course property, negatively affect the flow of water through McAleer Creek at high lake stage.  2. The existing weir outlet to Lake Ballinger controls the level of Lake Ballinger according to the adjudicated Superior Court Order during the months of June through October. From November to May, the influence of vegetation in the creek below the weir and the influence of the first culvert downstream of the weir appear to be controlling the level of Lake Ballinger to a greater degree than the weir itself. It is anticipated by making improvements to the creek bed and to the existing culverts in McAleer Creek between the weir and the I-5 culvert; a reduction in the frequency and severity of flooding will be realized. Once these improvements are made, an updated FEMA flood plain mapping project would occur to revise existing flood plain maps to accurately reflect existing conditions. This ILA contains six tasks towards the goal of completing these priority projects within current budget constraints (see Scope of Work, Exhibit 2 of the ILA). The target date for completing the culvert replacement on the Nile Golf Course property is October 2012. Work towards this goal will begin immediately after the execution of the interlocal agreement and will aim to Packet Page 104 of 234 October 2012. Work towards this goal will begin immediately after the execution of the interlocal agreement and will aim to have Phase I and Phase II completed by October 1, 2012. Meeting this goal is contingent on the Councils of both jurisdictions allocating the necessary funds in 2012, staff availability, and the ability to acquire the necessary permits from the City of Mountlake Terrace, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington Department of Ecology, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The main objective of this work is to address the issue of flooding of living spaces on residential properties at the south end of the lake and adjacent areas caused by high lake levels. To this end, the attached scope of work describes the following actions:  1. Further refine the existing flow model in the upper watershed to provide a better tool for accomplishing items 2 though 5 below and to develop an updated operations plan for the level of the lake.  2. Determine the best approach to replace or remove one or more of the culverts within McAleer Creek on Nile Temple property to meet the overall goal of the highest priority CIP projects to reduce the frequency and extent of flooding events. This will include an analysis of options to maximize the effectiveness of the existing McAleer Creek weir for both flow control and for water quality issues related to the hypolimnetic withdrawal system (existing water quality improvement system). 3. Develop plans, specifications and cost estimate for a recommended project. 4. Develop a design and environmental permit application package that can be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for review (including but not limited to; the City of Mountlake Terrace Planning Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department of Ecology). 5. Replace the culverts on the Nile Golf Course property such that they are not a barrier to flow leaving the lake. 6. Develop a flood plain map for Lake Ballinger and Hall Creek. Specifically, the map would show 100 year flood elevations and those properties most at risk by high water levels at Lake Ballinger and on Hall Creek. Fiscal Impact: As written, this ILA commits the City of Edmonds to pay for 50 percent of the project costs in 2011, not to exceed $35,000. The funding would come from the stormwater utility capital fund that has $100,000 budgeted for “Lake Ballinger Associated Projects.” As of April 30, 2011, less than $13,000 had been spent from this budget item. The ILA also states that for calendar years 2012 and 2013, the City of Edmonds would pay $45,000 each year towards this scope of work, but only if City Council appropriates such funds in the approved budgets for those years. Due to the magnitude and range of cost for the culvert replacement (total cost estimated at $250,000 to $350,000), a separate funding agreement will be initiated between the Cities should the respective City Councils allocate sufficient funding to complete this task by the target date (October 2012). It is assumed that Edmonds’ portion of this funding (split to be negotiated) would also come from the stormwater utility capital fund. Attachments Exhibit 1-Interlocal Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/07/2011 06:53 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/09/2011 08:41 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 03:15 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/10/2011 07:45 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/10/2011 07:58 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 04/27/2011 01:47 PM Final Approval Date: 06/10/2011  Packet Page 105 of 234 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 6 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 7 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 8 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 9 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 0 o f 2 3 4 Packet Page 111 of 234 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 2 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 3 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 4 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 5 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 6 o f 2 3 4 AM-3988   Item #: 1. D. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Jaime Hawkins Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Report on bids opened May 26, 2011 for the 226th St. SW Walkway Project and award a contract in the amount of $73,840.00 to Northend Excavating, Inc. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward item to the consent agenda for approval at the June 21, 2001 Council meeting. Previous Council Action On February 23, 2010 Council authorized Staff to advertise for bids for the 226th St. SW Walkway Project. Narrative On May 26, 2011, the City received five bids for the 226th St. SW Walkway Project. The bids ranged from a low of $73,840.00 to a high of $116,808.50. The bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit 1. Northend Excavating submitted the low bid in the amount of $73,840.00. The engineer’s estimate was $100,869.00. Staff is completing a review of the bid documents and will provide a final recommendation to award at the Committee meeting. Below is a summary of the estimated construction budget:    CONSTRUCTION BUDGET Construction Contract  $73,840 Construction Management & Inspection $49,000 Testing Lab Services       $4,200 Contingency (Approximately 25%)    $18,500 Miscellaneous $3,500 TOTAL $149,040 The construction costs will be paid by a 2009 federal grant from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (138,516), 412 Stormwater Utility Fund and the 112 Street Fund.    Attachments Exhibit 1 - Bid Tab Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/09/2011 11:52 AM Public Works Phil Williams 06/09/2011 03:13 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 03:14 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/10/2011 07:45 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/10/2011 07:58 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 06/07/2011 04:41 PM Final Approval Date: 06/10/2011  Packet Page 117 of 234 Packet Page 118 of 234 City of Edmonds 226TH ST SW Walkway Project Federal Aid No. HSIP-2501(003) 1 Roadway Surveying 1-05.4 SP 1 LS 1,000.00 $1,000.00 1,300.00 $1,300.00 1,750.00 $1,750.00 1,400.00 $1,400.00 3,000.00 $3,000.00 5,000.00 $5,000.00 2 SPCC Plan 1-07.15(1)1 LS 500.00 $500.00 500.00 $500.00 250.00 $250.00 600.00 $600.00 700.00 $700.00 500.00 $500.00 3 Mobilization 1-09 1 LS 12,000.00 $12,000.00 4,700.00 $4,700.00 5,985.00 $5,985.00 8,665.00 $8,665.00 13,500.00 $13,500.00 12,000.00 $12,000.00 4 Minor Changes 1-04 1 CALC. 2,000.00 $2,000.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 5 Edmonds Off-Duty Officer 1-10 SP 16 HR 45.00 $720.00 50.00 $800.00 75.00 $1,200.00 85.00 $1,360.00 50.00 $800.00 100.00 $1,600.00 6 Project Temporary Traffic Control 1-10 SP 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000.00 4,000.00 $4,000.00 2,500.00 $2,500.00 9,400.00 $9,400.00 19,000.00 $19,000.00 20,000.00 $20,000.00 7 Clearing and Grubbing 2-01 SP 1 LS 400.00 $400.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 1,500.00 $1,500.00 1,500.00 $1,500.00 4,000.00 $4,000.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 8 Fir – Tree Removal 2-01 SP 2 EA 400.00 $800.00 400.00 $800.00 750.00 $1,500.00 450.00 $900.00 700.00 $1,400.00 2,000.00 $4,000.00 9 Hemlock – Tree Removal 2-01 SP 1 EA 300.00 $300.00 400.00 $400.00 1,500.00 $1,500.00 500.00 $500.00 700.00 $700.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 10 Laurel – Tree Removal 2-01 SP 5 EA 150.00 $750.00 75.00 $375.00 500.00 $2,500.00 400.00 $2,000.00 180.00 $900.00 200.00 $1,000.00 11 Removal of Structure and Obstructions 2-02 SP 1 LS 500.00 $500.00 2,250.00 $2,250.00 750.00 $750.00 6,800.00 $6,800.00 6,000.00 $6,000.00 10,000.00 $10,000.00 12 Crushed Surfacing Top Course 4-04 SP 45 TON 40.00 $1,800.00 35.00 $1,575.00 32.00 $1,440.00 35.00 $1,575.00 36.00 $1,620.00 35.00 $1,575.00 13 HMA CL ½” PG 64-22 5-04 SP 30 TON 180.00 $5,400.00 150.00 $4,500.00 175.00 $5,250.00 160.00 $4,800.00 200.00 $6,000.00 250.00 $7,500.00 14 Temporary HMA CL ½” PG 64-22 5-04 SP 10 TON 180.00 $1,800.00 100.00 $1,000.00 175.00 $1,750.00 160.00 $1,600.00 1.00 $10.00 200.00 $2,000.00 15 Vertical Wall 6.02 SP 70 LF 175.00 $12,250.00 5.00 $350.00 75.00 $5,250.00 75.00 $5,250.00 32.00 $2,240.00 150.00 $10,500.00 16 Storm Drain Pipe, 12-inch Diameter 7-04 SP 45 LF 45.00 $2,025.00 22.00 $990.00 22.00 $990.00 52.00 $2,340.00 37.00 $1,665.00 100.00 $4,500.00 17 Frame and ADA Grate Retrofit 7-05 SP 9-05 SP 1 EA 400.00 $400.00 500.00 $500.00 750.00 $750.00 410.00 $410.00 500.00 $500.00 450.00 $450.00 18 Adjust Existing Catch Basin Frame and Grate 7-05 SP 9-05 SP 2 EA 600.00 $1,200.00 200.00 $400.00 150.00 $300.00 310.00 $620.00 200.00 $400.00 350.00 $700.00 19 Catch Basin Type 1L 7-05 SP 2 EA 1,200.00 $2,400.00 900.00 $1,800.00 940.00 $1,880.00 1,100.00 $2,200.00 1,400.00 $2,800.00 1,500.00 $3,000.00 20 Catch Basin Type 2 48"7-05 SP 1 EA 2,000.00 $2,000.00 2,800.00 $2,800.00 2,900.00 $2,900.00 3,170.00 $3,170.00 1,900.00 $1,900.00 3,000.00 $3,000.00 21 Stormwater Infiltration Trench 7-05 SP 1 LS 4,700.00 $4,700.00 7,000.00 $7,000.00 3,850.00 $3,850.00 7,110.00 $7,110.00 7,200.00 $7,200.00 10,000.00 $10,000.00 22 Install MH Frame and Grate 7-05 SP 1 EA 500.00 $500.00 500.00 $500.00 650.00 $650.00 410.00 $410.00 600.00 $600.00 450.00 $450.00 23 Adjust Existing Water Valve Box 7-12 SP 8 EA 300.00 $2,400.00 50.00 $400.00 350.00 $2,800.00 85.00 $680.00 200.00 $1,600.00 200.00 $1,600.00 24 Adjust PRV Access MH Lid 7-05 SP 1 EA 400.00 $400.00 300.00 $300.00 500.00 $500.00 480.00 $480.00 360.00 $360.00 300.00 $300.00 25 Adjust Gas Valve Lid 7-12 SP 1 EA 200.00 $200.00 50.00 $50.00 100.00 $100.00 100.00 $100.00 200.00 $200.00 200.00 $200.00 26 Adjust Water Meter 7-15 SP 1 EA 200.00 $200.00 50.00 $50.00 150.00 $150.00 100.00 $100.00 200.00 $200.00 150.00 $150.00 27 Temporary Erosion/Water Pollution Control 8-01 SP 1 EST. 1,000.00 $1,000.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 28 Inlet Protection 8-01 10 EA 90.00 $900.00 25.00 $250.00 85.00 $850.00 70.00 $700.00 70.00 $700.00 75.00 $750.00 29 Street Cleaning 8-01 16 HR 110.00 $1,760.00 40.00 $640.00 135.00 $2,160.00 85.00 $1,360.00 1.00 $16.00 150.00 $2,400.00 30 Silt Fence 8-01 175 LF 10.00 $1,750.00 2.00 $350.00 4.00 $700.00 6.50 $1,137.50 4.00 $700.00 5.00 $875.00 Total Price SCHEDULE A – BASE BID Engineers Estimate Northend Excavating, Inc Builders Supply NPM Consctruction Co.Trimaxx Construction Co.Pro Grade Enterprises Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Approx. QtyBid Item Item Description Spec.Unit Packet Page 119 of 234 City of Edmonds 226TH ST SW Walkway Project Federal Aid No. HSIP-2501(003) Total Price SCHEDULE A – BASE BID Engineers Estimate Northend Excavating, Inc Builders Supply NPM Consctruction Co.Trimaxx Construction Co.Pro Grade Enterprises Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Approx. QtyBid Item Item Description Spec.Unit 31 Plant Selection Fir (Min. 6’)8-02 SP 4 EA 200.00 $800.00 30.00 $120.00 250.00 $1,000.00 325.00 $1,300.00 140.00 $560.00 115.00 $460.00 32 Plant Selection Hemlock (Min 6’)8-02 SP 2 EA 200.00 $400.00 30.00 $60.00 250.00 $500.00 325.00 $650.00 125.00 $250.00 55.00 $110.00 33 Plant Selection Pyramidalis (6’ tall)8-02 SP 15 EA 100.00 $1,500.00 30.00 $450.00 150.00 $2,250.00 300.00 $4,500.00 140.00 $2,100.00 75.00 $1,125.00 34 Plant Selection Symphoricarpos Albus (1 Gal.)8-02 SP 5 EA 25.00 $125.00 15.00 $75.00 25.00 $125.00 21.00 $105.00 34.00 $170.00 15.00 $75.00 35 Edge Restoration 8-02 SP 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000.00 200.00 $200.00 1,200.00 $1,200.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 36 Root Barrier 8-02 SP 282 LF 12.00 $3,384.00 12.00 $3,384.00 2.55 $719.10 12.50 $3,525.00 8.00 $2,256.00 6.75 $1,903.50 37 Standard Type “A” Curb and Gutter 8-04 SP 300 LF 20.00 $6,000.00 19.00 $5,700.00 24.00 $7,200.00 20.00 $6,000.00 23.00 $6,900.00 30.00 $9,000.00 38 48-Inch Chain Link Fence 8-05 SP 70 LF 20.00 $1,400.00 25.00 $1,750.00 18.00 $1,260.00 42.50 $2,975.00 25.00 $1,750.00 50.00 $3,500.00 39 Cement Concrete Driveway Entrance 8-06 SP 1 LS 3,200.00 $3,200.00 700.00 $700.00 3,775.00 $3,775.00 2,410.00 $2,410.00 2,800.00 $2,800.00 4,000.00 $4,000.00 40 Dual-Sloped Mountable Traffic Curb 8-07 SP 25 LF 50.00 $1,250.00 40.00 $1,000.00 34.50 $862.50 39.50 $987.50 45.00 $1,125.00 50.00 $1,250.00 41 Cement Parallel Concrete Curb Ramp 8-14 SP 32 SY 83.75 $2,680.00 62.00 $1,984.00 65.00 $2,080.00 132.00 $4,224.00 155.00 $4,960.00 150.00 $4,800.00 42 Cement Single Direction Concrete Curb Ramp 8-14 SP 26 SY 83.75 $2,177.50 62.00 $1,612.00 65.00 $1,690.00 132.00 $3,432.00 155.00 $4,030.00 200.00 $5,200.00 43 Cement Perpendicular Concrete Curb Ramp 8-14 SP 20 SY 83.75 $1,675.00 62.00 $1,240.00 65.00 $1,300.00 132.00 $2,640.00 155.00 $3,100.00 150.00 $3,000.00 44 Diagonally-Oriented Parallel Concrete Curb Ramp 8-14 SP 15 SY 84.50 $1,267.50 95.00 $1,425.00 65.00 $975.00 132.00 $1,980.00 155.00 $2,325.00 300.00 $4,500.00 45 Curb Ramp Detectable Warning Surface Retrofit 8-14 SP 20 SF 30.00 $600.00 54.00 $1,080.00 76.00 $1,520.00 60.00 $1,200.00 38.00 $760.00 70.00 $1,400.00 46 Relocate Pedestrian Push Button 8-20 SP 1 EA 300.00 $300.00 1,600.00 $1,600.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 300.00 $300.00 675.00 $675.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 47 Pedestrian Push Button Post 8-20 SP 1 EA 500.00 $500.00 1,800.00 $1,800.00 750.00 $750.00 900.00 $900.00 600.00 $600.00 3,100.00 $3,100.00 48 Pedestrian Push Button with Extension 8-20 SP 1 EA 400.00 $400.00 2,400.00 $2,400.00 1,200.00 $1,200.00 650.00 $650.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 1,300.00 $1,300.00 49 Relocate Pedestrian Head 8-20 SP 1 EA 300.00 $300.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 1,000.00 $1,000.00 350.00 $350.00 1,500.00 $1,500.00 1,150.00 $1,150.00 50 Relocate Electrical Box 8-20 SP 1 EA 200.00 $200.00 250.00 $250.00 1,300.00 $1,300.00 2,710.00 $2,710.00 2,000.00 $2,000.00 1,500.00 $1,500.00 51 Adjust Electrical Box with slip-resistant lid 8-20 SP 2 EA 200.00 $400.00 150.00 $300.00 375.00 $750.00 650.00 $1,300.00 1,200.00 $2,400.00 1,450.00 $2,900.00 52 Remove Pedestrian Control Post 8-20 SP 1 EA 200.00 $200.00 100.00 $100.00 250.06 $250.06 400.00 $400.00 800.00 $800.00 650.00 $650.00 53 Plastic Crosswalk Line 8-22 260 SF 5.00 $1,300.00 3.25 $845.00 11.25 $2,925.00 3.75 $975.00 3.50 $910.00 5.00 $1,300.00 54 Plastic Stop Line 8-22 62 LF 20.00 $1,240.00 5.00 $310.00 13.75 $852.50 7.00 $434.00 4.00 $248.00 5.00 $310.00 55 Removing Stop Line 8-22 50 LF 1.00 $50.00 2.50 $125.00 4.00 $200.00 2.50 $125.00 3.00 $150.00 3.50 $175.00 56 Removing Painted Crosswalk Line 8-22 300 SF 0.50 $150.00 2.50 $750.00 4.00 $1,200.00 2.50 $750.00 3.00 $900.00 3.50 $1,050.00 $97,554.00 $73,840.00 $92,589.16 $116,990.00 $127,980.00 $166,808.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $97,554.00 $73,840.00 $92,589.16 $116,990.00 $127,980.00 $166,808.50 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE A (BASE BID) WSST @ 9.5% TOTAL SCHEDULE A (BASE BID) Packet Page 120 of 234 AM-3994   Item #: 1. E. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Pam Lemcke Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Report on bids opened June 7, 2011 for the Lift Station 2 Replacement Project and award a contract in the amount of $552,915.87 to Omega Contractors, Inc. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the June 21, 2011 Council meeting. Previous Council Action On October 23, 2007, Council authorized staff to advertise for construction bids. On April 19, 2011, Council authorized the Mayor to sign utility easement agreements. Narrative On June 7, 2011 the City received six bids for the Lift Station 2 Replacement Project. The bids ranged in price from $552,916 (low) to $788,192 (high) and a bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit 1. The design consultant's engineers estimate is $648,833.21. Omega Contractors, Inc. submitted the low bid in the amount of $552,915.87 including sales tax. Staff is completing a review of the bid documents and will provide a final recommendation to award at the Committee meeting. Lift Station 2 is located on private property adjacent to Shell Creek between Cary Road and Melody Lane. The lift station has been in operation for over 40 years and has exceeded its expected useful life since replacement parts are difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. The City will build a new station and will relocate the facility away from the creek to improve maintenance access and reduce the risk of a sewer overflow to Shell Creek. The City will also construct a new waterline within the same area to provide a looped water system and improve water service. New permanent utility easements and temporary construction easements have been secured from the current property owner, Mr. Rex Thomas Strickland, to construct the project. Time sensitive permits have been secured which will allow, the in water construction phase to take place from July 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011. Attached is a summary of the estimated construction budget. The construction costs will be paid by the 412 Utility Fund. The 2011 project budget in the 412 Utility Fund is $1,178,000 ($899,000 in the 412.300 Sewer and $279,000 in the 412.100 Water). Attachments Construction Budget Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/09/2011 10:37 AM Public Works Phil Williams 06/09/2011 03:13 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 03:14 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/10/2011 07:45 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/10/2011 07:58 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 06/08/2011 03:30 PM Final Approval Date: 06/10/2011  Packet Page 121 of 234 CONSTRUCTION BUDGET Contract Award $552,916 Engineering & Construction Management $80,000 Testing Lab Services $15,000 Contingency $60,000 TOTAL $707,916 Packet Page 122 of 234 AM-3983   Item #: 1. F. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Briefing on the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2012-2017). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Review the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program and schedule a public hearing for the item. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a transportation planning document that identifies funded, partially funded, and unfunded projects that are planned or needed over the next six calendar years. The TIP also identifies the expenditures and secured or reasonably expected revenues for each of the projects included in the TIP. The City practice in preparing the TIP each year has been to keep it financially constrained the first 3 years (2012-2014), but not the last 3 years (2015-2017). RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city update and adopt their TIP prior to adoption of the budget. A copy of the adopted TIP will be submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council, Washington State Department of Transportation, and adjacent jurisdictions.  Some of the projects in the TIP are shown as funded through secured or unsecured Federal / State grants, as well as from the local funds. Due to a shortfall in transportation funding, a number of unsecured State and Federal transportation grants have been programmed to fund projects beginning in 2015. Most transportation grants are competitive, and the success of how many grants are secured in the future will depend on other transportation needs and funding requests in the region. Projects not identified in this document may not be eligible for Federal / State funding. This overview serves as an introduction to the 2012-2017 TIP and a Public Hearing will need to be scheduled for the next available City Council meeting.  Attachments Attachment 1 - 6 Year TIP Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/09/2011 11:58 AM Public Works Phil Williams 06/09/2011 03:13 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 03:14 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/10/2011 07:45 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/10/2011 07:58 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 06/02/2011 04:14 PM Final Approval Date: 06/10/2011  Packet Page 123 of 234 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Si x Y e a r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 7 ) Gr a n t O p p o r t u n i t y P r o j e c t (2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 7 ) Pr o j e c t N a m e Pu r p o s e Gr a n t / D a t e Ph a s e To t a l C o s t So u r c e 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 2015 2016 2017 Pr e s e r v a t i o n / M a i n t e n a n c e P r o j e c t s : An n u a l S t r e e t O v e r l a y s Po s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 1 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $400,000 $ 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 Gr i n d p a v e m e n t a n d o v e r l a y & & $ 0 (S t a t e ) Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $100,000 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y W i d e Pa v e m e n t m a i n t e n a n c e t o En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) St r e e t i m p r o v e m e n t s Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) in c r e a s e r o a d w a y l i f e Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 2 2 , 5 0 0 (L o c a l ) $7,500 $ 7 , 5 0 0 $ 7 , 5 0 0 Ci t y w i d e Up g r a d e e x i s t i n g s i g n a l s , f o r $0 (F e d e r a l ) Si g n a l I m p r o v e m e n t s ma i n t e n a n c e & t e c h n o l o g y , u p d a t e e x i s t i n g t r a f f i c s i g n a l L o c a l F u n d s O n l y C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (S t a t e ) ca b i n e t e l e m e n t s f o r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y $3 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $10,000 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 Si g n a l - C a b i n e t I m p r o v e m e n t s $0 (F e d e r a l ) Up g r a d e c a b i n e t s c i t y w i d e - c o n f l i c t m o n i t o r s , c o n t r o l l e r s L o c a l F u n d s O n l y C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (S t a t e ) $3 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $10,000 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 23 8 t h @ 1 0 0 t h A v . S i g n a l U p g r a d e s Re b u i l d s i g n a l s y s t e m En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Po s s i b l e G r a n t & $5 0 8 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $508,000 an d i n s t a l l v i d e o d e t e c t i o n , p r o t e c t e d - p e r m i s s i v e Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (L o c a l ) 23 8 t h @ 1 0 0 t h A v . S i g n a l U p g r a d e s Ad d p r o t e c t e d - p e r m i s s i v e p h a s i n g f o r N B L T $0 (F e d e r a l ) (I n t e r i m ) Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (S t a t e ) on 1 0 0 t h A v . W $5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $5 , 0 0 0 10 0 t h @ 2 3 2 n d S t . S W S i g n a l U p g r a d e s C o m p l e t e c a b i n e t u p g r a d e s , i n c l u d i n g n e w c o n t r o l l e r a n d En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) se n s o r Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $15,000 Sa f e t y / C a p a c i t y A n a l y s i s : 21 2 t h / 8 4 t h ( 5 C o r n e r s ) De s i g n i n t e r s e c t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t Se c u r e d g r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 1 4 7 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , s e c u r e d ) $ 1 0 4 , 0 0 0 $ 4 3 , 0 0 0 In t e r s e c t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s $0 (S t a t e ) & $3 9 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l , T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e s ) $ 3 2 , 0 0 0 $ 7 , 0 0 0 RO W a c q u i s i t i o n RO W $ 1 7 3 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , s e c u r e d ) $ 4 3 , 0 0 0 $ 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 $0 (S t a t e ) Lo c a l F u n d s $2 7 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l , T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e s l ) $ 7 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 Co n s t r u c t i n t e r s e c t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t s Po s s i b l e G r a n t C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 , 7 3 0 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $1,730,000 & $2 0 2 , 5 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $202,500 Lo c a l F u n d s $6 7 , 5 0 0 (L o c a l ) $67,500 SR 5 2 4 ( 1 9 6 t h S t . S W ) / De s i g n i n t e r s e c t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t Po s s i b l e g r a n t De s i g n $0 (F e d e r a l ) 88 t h A v e W . I n t e r s e c t i o n $5 0 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $50,000 Im p r o v e m e n t s & $5 0 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l , t r a f f i c i m p a c t f e e s ) $50,000 RO W a c q u i s i t i o n RO W $0 (F e d e r a l ) Lo c a l F u n d s $8 1 , 5 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $81,500 $8 1 , 5 0 0 (L o c a l ) $81,500 Co n s t r u c t i n t e r s e c t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t s Po s s i b l e G r a n t C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 5 3 3 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $533,000 & $0 (S t a t e ) Lo c a l F u n d s $8 3 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $83,000 Ma i n S t . @ 3 r d S i g n a l U p g r a d e Po s s i b l e g r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 1 3 2 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $132,000 Up g r a d e t r a f f i c s i g n a l & & $0 (S t a t e ) Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 2 1 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $21,000 Pu g e t D r . @ O V D S i g n a l U p g r a d e s Po s s i b l e g r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $20,000 $ 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 Up g r a d e t r a f f i c s i g n a l & & $0 (S t a t e ) Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 2 8 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $20,000 $ 1 0 8 , 0 0 0 Ma i n S t . @ 9 t h A v . S Re s t r i p i n g o f 9 t h A v . S t o ( 2 ) n o r t h b o u n d En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) (I n t e r i m S o l u t i o n ) an d s o u t h b o u n d l a n e s ( e x c o n d i t i o n s : 1 l a n e Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) pe r a p p r o a c h ) Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l f u n d s ) $1 0 , 0 0 0 Wa l n u t S t . @ 9 t h A v . S Re s t r i p i n g o f 9 t h A v . S t o ( 2 ) n o r t h b o u n d En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) (I n t e r i m S o l u t i o n ) an d s o u t h b o u n d l a n e s ( e x c o n d i t i o n s : 1 l a n e Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) pe r a p p r o a c h ) Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l f u n d s ) $1 0 , 0 0 0 76 t h A v . W @ 2 1 2 t h S t . S W I n t e r s e c t i o n Re - d e s i g n i n t e r s e c t i o n t o m a k e t r a f f i c s i g n a l w o r k $2 9 5 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $2 9 5 , 0 0 0 Im p r o v e m e n t s mo r e e f f i c i e n t l y a n d i m p r o v e t h e c a p a c i t y / l e v e l En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (S t a t e ) of s e r v i c e o f t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n . Po s s i b l e g r a n t $4 6 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l , T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e s ) $4 6 , 0 0 0 RO W a c q u i s i t i o n $8 4 4 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $844,000 & RO W $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $100,000 $3 2 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $32,000 Pa g e 1 Pa c k e t Pa g e 12 4 of 23 4 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Si x Y e a r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 7 ) Gr a n t O p p o r t u n i t y P r o j e c t (2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 7 ) Pr o j e c t N a m e Pu r p o s e Gr a n t / D a t e Ph a s e To t a l C o s t So u r c e 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 2015 2016 2017 Co n s t r u c t i n t e r s e c t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t s Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 , 4 5 3 , 2 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $1,453,200 $1 7 0 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $170,000 $5 7 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $57,000 22 0 t h S t . S W @ 7 6 t h A v . W Re c o n f i g u r e e a s t b o u n d l a n e s t o a l e f t t u r n l a n e a n d a P o s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 1 4 9 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $149,000 In t e r s e c t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t s th r o u g h l a n e . C h a n g e E B a n d W B p h a s e s t o p r o v i d e & & $0 (S t a t e ) pr o t e c t e d / p e r m i s s i v e L T a n d R i g h t t u r n o v e r l a p f o r W B . L o c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 2 4 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $24,000 Se c u r e d G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 1 3 4 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , s e c u r e d ) $ 1 3 4 , 0 0 0 22 8 t h S t . S W . C o r r i d o r S a f e t y Re a l i g n h i g h l y s k e w e d i n t e r s e c t i o n $0 (S t a t e ) to a d d r e s s s a f e t y a n d i m p r o v e o p e r a t i o n s ; & $2 1 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $2 1 , 0 0 0 in c l u d e s n e w s i g n a l @ S R 9 9 / 2 2 8 t h RO W $ 2 2 9 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , s e c u r e d ) $ 8 6 , 0 0 0 $ 1 4 3 , 0 0 0 Lo c a l F u n d s $3 6 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $1 4 , 0 0 0 $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 Im p r o v e m e n t s Po s s i b l e G r a n t C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 3 , 0 6 1 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $3 , 0 6 1 , 0 0 0 & $2 5 6 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $2 5 6 , 0 0 0 Lo c a l F u n d s $8 5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $8 5 , 0 0 0 Ar t e r i a l S t r e e t S i g n a l C o o r d i n a t i o n Co o r d i n a t e t h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l s w i t h i n 1 / 2 m i l e o f e a c h o t h e r En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Im p r o v e m e n t s al o n g 7 6 t h A v . W , 2 1 2 t h S t . S W , a n d 2 2 0 t h S t . S W L o c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $50,000 No n - m o t o r i z e d P e d e s t r i a n / B i c y c l e P r o j e c t s : $1 4 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , s e c u r e d ) $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (S t a t e ) Ma i n S t . P e d e s t r i a n L i g h t i n g f r o m 5 t h A v . I m p r o v e s t r e e t l i g h t i n g f o r p e d e s t r i a n s a f e t y a n d 2 " o v e r l a y S e c u r e d g r a n t $0 (L o c a l ) to 6 t h A v . on M a i n S t . b e t w e e n 5 t h A v . a n d 6 t h A v . & $5 9 6 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , s e c u r e d ) $ 5 9 6 , 0 0 0 Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (S t a t e ) $4 9 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l , F u n d 4 1 2 ) $ 4 9 , 0 0 0 Su n s e t A v . f r o m B e l l S t . t o C a s p e r s S t . Pr o v i d e s i d e w a l k o n w e s t s i d e o f S u n s e t A v . Po s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $77,000 $ 6 7 3 , 0 0 0 & & $0 (S t a t e ) Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 1 7 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $11,000 $ 1 0 6 , 0 0 0 80 t h A v . W f r o m 1 8 8 t h S t . S W t o Pr o v i d e s a f e a n d d e s i r a b l e r o u t e t o En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Ol y m p i c V i e w D r . W a l k w a y Po s s i b l e G r a n t & $7 7 7 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $30,000 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 4 7 , 0 0 0 Se a v i e w E l e m e n t a r y a n d p a r k s . Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (L o c a l ) Ma d r o n a E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l W a l k w a y Im p r o v e p e d e s t r i a n s a f e t y w i t h i n s t a l l a t i o n o f n e w Po s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) & & $ 1 , 8 9 5 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $220,000 $ 1 , 6 7 5 , 0 0 0 cr o s s w a l k s t o g a i n e a s y a c c e s s t o s c h o o l . Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 2 2 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $220,000 2n d A v . S f r o m J a m e s S t . t o M a i n S t . En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Wa l k w a y Pr o v i d e s a f e s i d e w a l k a l o n g s h o r t m i s s i n g l i n k Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 3 2 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $32,000 Sh e l l V a l l e y E m e r g e n c y A c c e s s Pr o v i d e e m e r g e n c y a c c e s s t o S h e l l V a l l e y , En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) co m i n g f r o m M a i n S t . Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 7 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l , F u n d 4 1 2 ) $7 , 0 0 0 AD A C u r b R a m p s I m p r o v . Co n s t r u c t A D A c o m p l i a n t c u r b r a m p s w h e r e Po s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Ci t y w i d e ( T r a n s i t i o n P l a n ) & & $3 7 5 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $125,000 $ 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 fa c i l i t i e s d o n ' t e x i s t n o r m e e t c u r r e n t s t a n d a r d s Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $25,000 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 Bi c y c l e R o u t e S i g n i n g In s t a l l s i g n a t e i n d i c a t e ( 3 ) d i f f e r e n t b i k e C i t y l o o p s . Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y $0 (S t a t e ) $3 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $10,000 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 Ma p l e w o o d f r o m M a i n S t . t o Pr o v i d e s a f e s i d e w a l k , c o n n e c t i n g t o e x . s i d e w a l k o n 2 0 0 t h P o s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) 20 0 t h S t . S W W a l k w a y & & $5 0 7 , 5 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $95,000 $ 4 1 2 , 5 0 0 St . S W l i n k i n g t o M a p l e w o o d E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l . Lo c a l F u n d s Co n s t r u c t i o n $1 6 9 , 5 0 0 (L o c a l ) $32,000 $137,500 Me a d o w d a l e B e a c h R d W a l k w a y $0 ( F e d e r a l ) Pr o v i d e s a f e s i d e w a l k a l o n g m i s s i n g l i n k b e t w e e n L o c a l F u n d s O n l y E n g i n e e r i n g $ 1 4 2 , 5 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $142,500 76 t h A v . W a n d O l y m p i c V i e w D r . $4 7 , 5 0 0 ( L o c a l ) $47,500 Wa n u t S t . f r o m 3 r d A v . t o 4 t h A v . Po s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Wa l k w a y Pr o v i d e s a f e s i d e w a l k a l o n g s h o r t m i s s i n g l i n k & & $2 2 0 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $220,000 Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (L o c a l ) Wa l n u t S t . f r o m 6 t h A v . t o 7 t h A v . Po s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Wa l k w a y Pr o v i d e s a f e s i d e w a l k a l o n g s h o r t m i s s i n g l i n k & & $5 5 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $55,000 Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 5 5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $55,000 Pa g e 2 Pa c k e t Pa g e 12 5 of 23 4 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Si x Y e a r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( 2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 7 ) Gr a n t O p p o r t u n i t y P r o j e c t (2 0 1 2 - 2 0 1 7 ) Pr o j e c t N a m e Pu r p o s e Gr a n t / D a t e Ph a s e To t a l C o s t So u r c e 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 2015 2016 2017 4t h A v . C o r r i d o r E n h a n c e m e n t Po s s i b l e G r a n t E n g i n e e r i n g $ 1 , 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , u n s e c u r e d ) $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 $100,000 $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Wa l k w a y Cr e a t e m o r e a t t r a c t i v e a n d s a f e r c o r r i d o r a l o n g 4 t h A v . & & $0 (S t a t e ) Lo c a l F u n d s C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 ( L o c a l , F u n d 1 2 5 ) $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 $100,000 Hw y . 9 9 E n h a n c e m e n t p r o j e c t In s t a l l a t i o n o f n e w l u m i n a i r e s a n d p e d e s t r i a n l i g h t s En g i n e e r i n g $ 2 3 1 , 0 0 0 ( F e d e r a l , s e c u r e d ) $ 2 3 1 , 0 0 0 al o n g S R - 9 9 . R e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t r a f f i c i s l a n d o n w e s t s i d e S e c u r e d g r a n t & $0 (S t a t e ) of S R - 9 9 , n e a r 7 6 t h A v . W . Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 0 (L o c a l ) SR - 1 0 4 P e d e s t r i a n In s t a l l m i d - b l o c k c r o s s i n g a l o n g S R - 1 0 4 , a l l o w i n g Lo c a l F u n d s E n g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Mi d b l o c k c r o s s i n g pe d e s t r i a n s c o m i n g f r o m P i n e S t t o s a f e l y c r o s s & & $2 5 , 0 0 0 ( S t a t e , u n s e c u r e d ) $25,000 SR - 1 0 4 , t o a c c e s s C i t y P a r k . Po s s i b l e G r a n t C o n s t r u c t i o n $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $25,000 Tr a f f i c C a l m i n g P r o j e c t s : Re s i d e n t i a l N e i g h b o r h o o d Tr a f f i c c i r c l e s , s p e e d c u s h i o n s , De s i g n $ 0 ( F e d e r a l ) Tr a f f i c C a l m i n g "Y o u r S p e e d " s i g n s , e t c . Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) Co n s t r u c t i o n $ 1 0 5 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 Tr a f f i c P l a n n i n g P r o j e c t s : Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e En g i n e e r i n g $ 0 (F e d e r a l ) Up d a t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n Lo c a l F u n d s O n l y & $0 (S t a t e ) Pl a n n i n g $ 2 2 0 , 0 0 0 (L o c a l ) $2 0 , 0 0 0 $200,000 To t a l $2 0 , 8 6 3 , 7 0 0 $1 , 4 4 8 , 0 0 0 $ 3 9 5 , 0 0 0 $ 3 , 7 5 3 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 3 0 2 , 5 0 0 $ 5 , 0 4 1 , 7 0 0 $ 4 , 9 2 3 , 5 0 0 To t a l F e d e r a l ( S e c u r e d ) $1 , 2 0 8 , 0 0 0 $ 3 1 6 , 0 0 0 $ 0 $0 $0 $0 To t a l F e d e r a l ( U n s e c u r e d ) $2 5 , 0 0 0 $0 $ 3 , 3 5 6 , 0 0 0 $ 3 , 2 0 6 , 0 0 0 $ 2 , 8 7 3 , 2 0 0 $ 1 , 1 9 2 , 0 0 0 To t a l S t a t e ( U n s e c u r e d ) $0 $0 $ 2 5 6 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 1 6 0 , 5 0 0 $ 7 9 1 , 5 0 0 $ 3 , 0 5 7 , 0 0 0 To t a l L o c a l F u n d $2 1 5 , 0 0 0 $7 9 , 0 0 0 $1 4 1 , 0 0 0 $759,000 $704,000 $674,500 To t a l L o c a l ( F u n d 1 1 2 ) $1 1 9 , 0 0 0 $ 5 2 , 0 0 0 $ 9 5 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 9 , 0 0 0 $ 7 0 4 , 0 0 0 $ 6 7 4 , 5 0 0 To t a l L o c a l ( F u n d 1 2 5 ) $5 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 0 $0 To t a l F u n d ( F u n d 4 1 2 ) $7 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 To t a l L o c a l ( T r a f f i c I m p a c t F e e s ) $3 9 , 0 0 0 $ 2 7 , 0 0 0 $ 4 6 , 0 0 0 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 Pa g e 3 Pa c k e t Pa g e 12 6 of 23 4 AM-3984   Item #: 1. G. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Ordinance adding a new Complete Streets section to Edmonds City Code (ECC) 18.80.015. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward the item to the June 21, 2011 Council Meeting for approval. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Streets without a safe place to walk, cross, bike or catch a bus can be dangerous for non-motorized transportation users, particularly children, older adults, and people with disabilities. Public right-of-ways should be designed to safely accommodate all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities.  There is growing recognition that City streets have an important impact on the livability of our communities. Street designs in the past have typically focused on the movement of vehicles as a priority over other users and alternate modes of travel. A national “Complete Streets” movement began several years ago to place more emphasis on the complete assessment of all needs when designing streets. The movement has gained regional attention through the efforts of advocacy groups such as the Cascade Land Conservancy, Cascade Bicycle Club, Feet First and Transportation Choices Coalition. Several cities including Kirkland, Seattle, Renton, Tacoma and others have adopted Complete Streets Ordinances that reflect a commitment to consider all users and alternate modes of transportation as part of the street design process.   The City of Edmonds 2009 Transportation Plan and the Sustainability Element in the Comprehensive Plan have goals that encourage the city to plan and design facilities for all users. A Complete Streets Ordinance will codify regulations to implement the policies already adopted and used by the City of Edmonds. Attachments Attachment 1-Proposed Ordinance Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/08/2011 02:56 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/09/2011 08:42 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 09:14 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/09/2011 09:16 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 09:20 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 06/02/2011 04:53 PM Final Approval Date: 06/09/2011  Packet Page 127 of 234 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, ADDING SECTION 18.80.015 TO ECC, MAKING COMPLETE STREET PRACTICES A ROUTINE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE PUBLIC STREETS FOR PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLISTS, AND TRANSIT USERS REGARDLESS OF AGE OR ABILITY WHEREAS, the term "Complete Streets" describes a comprehensive, integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient travel for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicle drivers, public transportation riders and drivers, and people of all ages and abilities, including children, youth, families, older adults, and individuals with disabilities; WHEREAS, more than 110,000 pedestrians and bicyclists are injured each year on roads in the United States with children and older adults at greatest risk and disproportionately affected; and WHEREAS the occurrence and severity of pedestrian and bicyclist injuries could readily be decreased by implementing Complete Streets practices; and WHEREAS, the one-third of Americans that do not drive, disproportionately represented by older adults, low-income people, people of color, people with disabilities, and children would greatly benefit from the equitable distribution of safe, alternative means of travel that will result from Complete Streets practices; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has been a leader in implementing policies that recognize the importance of addressing the transportation needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation riders, such as in the Edmonds Transportation Plan, Bicycle Plan, and the Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan states that arterial and collector streets should be complete streets, that serve automobile, transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel and in the Comprehensive Plan Community Sustainability Element identifies complete streets as a policy that improves sustainability; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has enacted resolutions that promote reduced energy consumption (including Resolution No. 1129 and No.1168), and Complete Streets policies promote multimodal transportation which reduce carbon emissions; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council intends to improve the safety of city streets, enhance the quality of life of residents, encourage active living, and reduce traffic congestion and fossil fuel use by providing safe, convenient, and comfortable routes for walking, bicycling, and public transportation. Packet Page 128 of 234 NOW THEREFORE, the City Council does ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 18.80, Streets and Sidewalks, of the ECC is hereby amended to include new section 18.80.015 that reads as follows: 18.80.015 - Complete Streets. 1) City of Edmonds will plan for, design and construct all new transportation projects to provide appropriate accommodation for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and persons of all abilities. Complete Streets principals will be incorporated into City plans, rules, regulations and programs as appropriate. 2) Exceptions. Facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and/or people of all abilities are not required to be provided: a) Where their establishment would be contrary to public health and safety; b) Where there is no identified need (as established in City Plans and future travel demand models); c) For ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition (e.g., striping, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair and surface treatments such as preservation paving); d) Where the cost would be disproportionate to the current need or probable future uses; e) In instances where a documented exception is granted by the Public Works Director; or f) Where implementing Complete Streets Principals in a small project would create a very short section of improvements with problematic transitions on either end or that are unlikely to be followed by similar improvements at either end resulting in little progress on implementing Complete Streets Principals. Packet Page 129 of 234 Section 2. Severability Section 3. . If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Effective Date . This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE COOPER ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFFREY B. TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 130 of 234 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, ADDING SECTION 18.80.015 TO ECC, MAKING COMPLETE STREET PRACTICES A ROUTINE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE PUBLIC STREETS FOR PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLISTS, AND TRANSIT USERS REGARDLESS OF AGE OR ABILITY The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2011. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 131 of 234 AM-3987   Item #: 1. H. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Jim Stevens Department:Public Works Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Electric vehicle charging station contract. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve this contract for next week's full City Council meeting as a consent agenda item. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Coloumb Technologies (CT) is a company with an EECBG award from the federal government for charging stations dedicated to electric vehicle infrastructure.  City staff has made application to CT for six such stations, two in the Public Safety parking lot, two for the parking between 5th and 6th on Main St., one for the City-owned parking lot immdiately south of City Hall, and one in the parking area at City Park, and these six have been approved as Level II installations.  The stations are free to the City, per the terms of the grant.  The City must bear the cost of installation, including programming for each station, and this work must be completed by November. The stations are all connected wirelessly into the ChargePoint America network, and participating entities are allowed to set the rate charged for connecting vehicles to the chargers.  The attachment to this agenda item answers a number of excellent questions about how the system works and who bears the associated costs. City staff members have researched the costs of installation for these six stations and determined this will amount in total to an estimated $25,000, including the cost of installing new service where required, new conduit and wiring, etc. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:Revenue:Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: The charging stations themselves come at no cost to the City as long as they are operational by November of this year.  The expenditure estimated here is necessary to cost of new electric services as required, and all costs associated with conduit, wiring, permitting, and installation of the six proposed stations.  In the case of the pair located on Main St., provision will be made to install a service adequate also to power the new street lighting proposed for the street project coming to this block.  Initially, stations are not expected to generate appreciable revenue, but as electric vehicle ownership and useage rises over the coming years, these stations will return money to the City from the fees associated with their use. In order to minimize costs of installation, staff from Facilities Maintenance and the Streets Division of Public Works will perform all work associated with this project.   Fiscal Year:2011 Revenue:Expenditure:$25,000 Fiscal Impact: Attachments ChargePoint FAQ Form Review Packet Page 132 of 234 Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 06/09/2011 08:45 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 09:14 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/09/2011 09:16 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 09:20 AM Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 06/07/2011 06:26 AM Final Approval Date: 06/09/2011  Packet Page 133 of 234 FAQ for Station Owners Who is Coulomb Technologies, Inc.? Coulomb Technologies is the leader in electric vehicle charging station infrastructure with networked charging stations installed in municipalities and organizations worldwide. We provide a vehicle-charging infrastructure, with an open system driver network: the ChargePoint Network provides multiple web-based portals for Hosts, Fleet managers, Drivers, and Utilities, and ChargePoint Networked Charging Stations ranging in capability from 120 Volt to 240 Volt AC charging and up to 500 Volt DC charging. We are based in Campbell, CA and have distribution partners located across the United States and globally. Why would someone want to own charging stations now? Ten major automobile manufacturers have announced their plans to start shipping electric vehicles in 2010 and 2011. Electric cars allow us to have a cleaner environment, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and operate vehicles at a lower cost than current gas-powered vehicles. Many people purchasing an electric vehicle will arrange to have a charging station installed at their homes. Those who do not have a garage or dedicated parking space will need public charging infrastructure to charge their vehicle. Also, a major concern for the adoption of 100% electric vehicles is a concept called “range anxiety”: the fear that your vehicle will not have enough electricity to make it home for charging. Drivers need charging stations in public garages, workplaces, sports venues, hospital parking lots, retail stores, restaurants, cultural or recreation centers, and any other location where they will park their cars for long periods of time. The ChargePoint America program gives you, the potential station owner, the opportunity to own charging stations at no cost and to be part of the leading EV charging infrastructure: the ChargePoint Network. You now have the opportunity to start offering EV charging access to your employees, customers, community, etc. You will be viewed as a leader in this EV revolution and further differentiate yourself from your competition. What are Level I, Level II, and Level III charging? The level of the charging refers to the voltage used by the charging station. In the US, standard outlets are at 110 – 120 volts. All Level I charging is done at this voltage. Depending on the car and the level of charge on the battery, Level I charging can take as much as 8 – 16 hours to fully charge. Most people consider that a charge time of 4 – 6 hours would be optimal for overnight or long-length charging. This is possible with Level II (220 – 240 volts) charging. The ChargePoint America Program is offering Level II charging stations only. Level III charging uses 440 volts and will be reserved primarily for highway charging. Today’s Level III can provide 80% of a full charge in fewer than 30 minutes. Level III chargers are very expensive and require significant facilities and training. Initially, only trained specialists will be able to operate Level III chargers. Additionally battery and charging station technology will continue to evolve and improve the charging times at all levels. Why networked charging stations? Networked charging stations provide many attractive capabilities to drivers of electric vehicles as well as owners of charging stations. The networking allows a driver to identify where charging stations are located and even which charging stations are currently being used. Any charging station attached to a network can transmit information about the charging session including: start time, time of completion, ground fault interruption, or even a disruption in service from vandalism or utility demand response. Networked charging stations have the ability to email or send SMS messages to a driver alerting him or her about their charging session status. For station owners, networked charging is very valuable; for example if you have charging stations at multiple locations, you can see charging status, station utilization, energy delivered, and many more parameters across your inventory of charging stations. You can quickly identify and resolve charging station issues, and all networked charging stations can be remotely accessed by the owner or by support staff at Coulomb Technologies to resolve issues avoiding costly trips to the site. Do the ChargePoint Networked Charging Stations work with any electric vehicle? The ChargePoint Networked Charging Stations will work with any electric vehicle on the market. There is an industry standard for Level II charging: the SAE J1772™ connector that all new electric vehicles on the market will use. Even for older electric vehicles, charging at ChargePoint stations is still possible. So, whether your customers have one of the ChargePoint America program vehicles (the Chevrolet Volt, the Ford Transit Connect Electric and Ford Focus Electric, and the smart fortwo electric drive) or another electric vehicle, they will be able to charge at ChargePoint stations and utilize all the functions of the network. What criteria will you use to determine who receives free charging stations? We are expecting a significant demand in every region. The first criterion is whether we believe the charging station will be used in the desired location. We are expected to provide the DOE with extensive usage data on every charging station in the program. The second criterion will be proximity around the specific region. We want charging station installations spread out throughout the entire metropolitan region. The third criterion is when the station owners are able to take delivery and install their station(s). Examples of good locations: large parking garages in centrally located areas, office parks with many employees, some of whom would potentially purchase an electric vehicle, airports or train stations with a lot of traffic, shopping malls or restaurants, high profile places like sporting venues, monuments or recreation areas (golf courses, marinas). The objective is to get highly visible, publically accessible, geographically dispersed locations from which we can provide the DOE and our automobile partners a lot of data on the usage of these charging stations. Packet Page 134 of 234 How were the nine program regions selected? There were a number of factors that went into the decision of which regions would take part in this program. First, each region had to be on at least one of the participating automakers list of target regions where their vehicles will be for sale during the program period. Second, the regions themselves had to write a letter to support the grant proposal. Third, major metropolitan areas that were geographically dispersed were considered. How large are the program regions? The regions were selected around major metropolitan areas across the United States. Each region is defined within one of these metro/city areas: Austin, Los Angeles, New York, Orlando, Sacramento, San Jose/San Francisco Bay Area, Bellevue/Redmond, Washington DC, Southern Michigan from Grand Rapids to Lansing to Ann Arbor to Detroit, but this depends on the region. The ChargePoint America team will, at its discretion, determine the range for each specific region. Who pays for installation of the charging stations? Charging station installation, in most regions, will be paid for by the station owner or the individual. Are there special facilities requirements for installing a charging station? Yes. Prior to accepting your application for charging stations, we will arrange to send someone to your facility to perform a site survey. This will give you enough information to determine how much an installation would cost and whether your location is suitable. Who provides maintenance for the charging station? The local Coulomb Technologies participating distribution partner is responsible for maintenance of the charging station. This includes being available to provide on-site assistance to resolve critical issues. Who pays shipping expenses for the charging station? Coulomb Technologies will cover the cost of shipping charging stations under the ChargePoint America program. The charging stations will be shipped at the most economical rate. If expedited shipment is required, the station owner will pay for shipping. Who owns the charging station at the end of the program? Ownership of the charging stations belongs to the property owners where the charging stations are installed. It is expected that these owners will continue to provide charging services after the program is completed. What is the warranty on the charging stations offered through this program? Standard warranty of 1-year parts and labor applies. Coulomb Technologies will provide an additional parts warranty at no charge throughout the program period (through December 2013). The labor warranty will be one year. If customers need on-site support beyond the labor warranty period, they will be encouraged to purchase extended warranty support from our distribution partners who are involved in the fulfillment of the charging stations. Can charging station owners require drivers to pay for using their charging stations under the ChargePoint America program? Absolutely. While it is expected that some owners will provide free charging under the program, we expect the majority of owners to charge fees to use their charging stations. While it is not allowed for owners to charge per kWH, they can set a fixed fee, a time per hour fee, a monthly all-inclusive fee, or a number of other fee structures. We expect owners to generate their own business cases to determine the fee level that makes financial sense to them. Will charging station owners be required to pay any service, network or transaction fees through the ChargePoint America program? There are two types of fees associated with running a public electric charging infrastructure. The Network Standard Service Fee is the monthly fee for any charging station connected to the ChargePoint Network. Being connected to the ChargePoint Network is important so the station owner has visibility to all of his/her charging stations whether they are in one location or multiple locations. In addition, you (or we) can troubleshoot your charging station from a distance and rectify problems without needing to be onsite. Through the ChargePoint Network portals you have access to significant statistics of your charging stations for utilization, energy usage, etc. Transaction fees are charged to the owner when the station is used to generate revenue for the station owner. These are costs associated with billing, credit card validation and processing, and other administrative costs. Up until December 2013, Coulomb Technologies will pay the Network Standard Service Fee for all participating owners from program funds. This applies as long as the owner meets the contractual commitments, including meeting the installation date and providing the data required by the DOE. Transaction fees will be applied during the entire program. Transaction fees are only charged to owners who require drivers to pay for station use, as there are costs to Coulomb Technologies for these transactions and the station owner is presumably making a profit on the use. What kind of charging station data is required from owners as part of the program? While charging station data requirements are not completely defined, most, if not all data will be obtained directly from the ChargePoint Network. The DOE is interested in station utilization: amount of energy used, when the stations Packet Page 135 of 234 are being used, etc. An owner will need to authorize Coulomb Technologies to collect anonymous data from their charging stations for use in analyzing the program. What agreement does a charging station owner need to sign? There is a standard ChargePoint America agreement that needs to be signed by any owner receiving charging stations. This agreement will list the terms and conditions of the acquisition and will need to be signed prior to final application acceptance. In addition, the owner will need to sign Coulomb Technologies’ standard Master Services Subscription Agreement. What is the charging station application process? Simply fill out the required Apply for a Charging Station form on the ChargePoint America website to begin the application process. An important part of the application request will be to submit a prioritized list of charging station locations. We want to understand why the locations you suggest should be accepted into the program. If your application is approved, a ChargePoint America team member will contact you to arrange a site survey. Please understand that all charging stations under the program will need to be installed by October of 2011. How many charging stations can I request on my application? There is no limit to the number of charging stations that you can request through the program. Please understand that we want an even distribution across key sites in a metropolitan area. We want to make sure that there is a fair distribution of charging stations among requesting parties. We certainly cannot guarantee any specific number of stations awarded to a single entity; this will depend on the overall demand. Also, the primary objective of the program is to create as large of an electric vehicle-charging infrastructure as possible. If you already have plans to purchase charging stations or are thinking about a purchase, the program will be an effective way to increase your number of stations. OK. What is the catch? There is no catch. The Federal government through the DOE wants to create an electric vehicle-charging infrastructure so that people will feel comfortable with acquiring electric cars. Electric cars are good for the environment, as they emit no harmful greenhouse or noxious gases. They reduce the country’s reliance on foreign oil, and they cost less to operate than gas powered vehicles. The new electric cars coming at the end of this year are robust, family size vehicles that should be very popular. You, the potential station owner can lead the way to a cleaner, healthier tomorrow. Packet Page 136 of 234 AM-3986   Item #: 1. I. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #9 with KPFF Consulting Engineers for the Interurban Trail Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward the item to the consent agenda or approval at the June 21, 2011 Council meeting. Previous Council Action On July 7, 2009, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplement Agreement #5 with KPFF Consulting Engineers.  On February 23, 2010, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplement Agreement #6 with KPFF Consulting Engineers. On November 16, 2010, Council authorized staff to advertise for construction bids for the Interurban Trail.  Narrative The Interurban Trail Project will complete the missing link of the regional trail thru Edmonds. The trail will head north on 76th Avenue West from the new section in Shoreline at SR104, continue to the old rail corridor at McAleer Way and follow the corridor to 228th Street SW, where it will connect with the new southern terminus of the Mountlake Terrace trail. The trail project includes a .47 mile 12-foot wide paved path, landscaping, benches, signage, a bicycle rack, a shelter and an information kiosk. Bike lanes will be added to 76th Avenue West and sharrows will be added to residential 74th Avenue West to complete the 1.37 mile section.  The consultant, KPFF Consulting Engineers, was hired in 2004 to complete the preliminary engineering phase of the project. The initial contract amount of $129,841 has been modified with five supplements covering additional design work, as well as three supplements for extension of the contract completion date. The current contract amount is $498,760. Supplemental Agreement #9 includes additional design work and engineering support services for construction. However, there is a balance of $27,383 in the current contract of unused sub-consultant design costs to offset the additional cost. The additional work items are: - Additional temporary construction easement work. - Catch basin frame and grate replacement along 76th Ave W and 228th St. SW, within parking lanes. - Detention system redesign (item partially funded by Fund 412) from pipe system to vault system. - Roadway redesign of the southern end of 74th Ave W. - PUD coordination regarding pole relocations. - Addition of porous pavement. - Bid proposal modifications due to different funding sources (Federal/State). - Bid support services from KPFF and sub-consultant (Hough Beck & Baird) - Construction support services from KPFF and sub-consultant (Hough Beck & Baird), such as submittal reviews and Request for Information (RFI). In 2009, the City was successful in securing a grant in the amount of $577,000 from the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), along with a federal grant in the amount of $500,000 from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program. These are in addition to the $250,000 federal grant awarded in June 2002. The total grant funding for the project is $1,327,000.  The costs for this project are being paid by the grants and the Parks Construction Fund (Fund 132).  Attachments Attachment 1-KPFF Supplement 9 Packet Page 137 of 234 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/09/2011 12:29 PM Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 06/10/2011 08:42 AM Public Works Phil Williams 06/10/2011 09:37 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/10/2011 09:42 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/10/2011 11:15 AM Final Approval Linda Hynd 06/10/2011 01:26 PM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 06/03/2011 03:33 PM Final Approval Date: 06/10/2011  Packet Page 138 of 234 P a c k e t P a g e 1 3 9 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 0 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 1 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 2 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 3 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 4 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 5 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 6 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 7 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 4 8 o f 2 3 4 AM-3990   Item #: 1. J. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Jaime Hawkins Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Report on bids opened June 2, 2011 for the Interurban Trail Project and award of contract to Trimaxx Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,368,721.50. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward item to the consent agenda for approval at the June 21, 2011 Council meeting. Previous Council Action On November 16, 2010, Council authorized staff to advertise for bids for the Interurban Trail Project. Narrative On June 2, 2011, the City received four bids for the Interurban Trail Project. The Base bids ranged from a low of $1,368,722 to a high of $2,162,163. The bid tabulation summary is attached as Exhibit 1. Trimaxx Construction, Inc submitted the low Base bid in the amount of $1,368,722. The design consultant's engineer’s estimate for the Base Bid was $1,363,071. A review of the low bidder’s record was positive. The City must submit the bid results to WSDOT for review and approval before a final recommendation is made to Council. The majority of the construcion costs are being funded by a federal grant from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) and a state grant from the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). Refer to Exhibit 2.  In addition, the Sewer and Storm Water Utility Funds are funding those project components that are related to utility services. The remaining balance will be paid by the REET 125 Fund.  Staff is recommending Council reallocate $227,000 in REET funding to construct the project.  Attachments Exhibit 1-Bid Tabs Exhibit 2 - Construction Cost & Funding  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/09/2011 03:57 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/10/2011 07:18 AM Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 06/10/2011 08:41 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/10/2011 08:44 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/10/2011 11:15 AM Final Approval Linda Hynd 06/10/2011 01:26 PM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 06/08/2011 08:36 AM Final Approval Date: 06/10/2011  Packet Page 149 of 234 Federal Aid No. CM-0365 (009) CITY PROJECT No. E2DB/C146 BID SCHEDULE Edmonds Interurban Trail Schedule A – Trail Construction and 76th Ave Modifications Approx. Qty. 1 MOBILIZATION 1-09.7 1 LS $80,200.00 $80,200.00 $120,000.00 $120,000.00 $70,509.00 $70,509.00 $124,000.00 $124,000.00 $190,000.00 $190,000.00 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 2-01 SP 2.85 AC $10,000.00 $28,500.00 $7,500.00 $21,375.00 $46,360.00 $132,126.00 $5,000.00 $14,250.00 $4,000.00 $11,400.00 3 TREE TRIMMING 2-01.3 SP 1 EST $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 4 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE AND OBSTRUCTION 2-02 SP 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 5 REMOVING FENCE 2-02 SP 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 6 REMOVING PAINT LINE 8-22 10800 LF $2.00 $21,600.00 $0.30 $3,240.00 $0.25 $2,700.00 $0.40 $4,320.00 $0.30 $3,240.00 7 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL 2-03 1770 CY $20.00 $35,400.00 $27.00 $47,790.00 $24.50 $43,365.00 $20.00 $35,400.00 $75.00 $132,750.00 8 UNSUITABLE FOUNDATION EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL 2-03 100 CY $20.00 $2,000.00 $27.00 $2,700.00 $46.00 $4,600.00 $25.00 $2,500.00 $45.00 $4,500.00 9 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL 2-03 1295 TON $20.00 $25,900.00 $19.00 $24,605.00 $33.00 $42,735.00 $20.00 $25,900.00 $20.00 $25,900.00 10 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL FOR UNSUITABLE EXCAVATION 2-03 200 TON $20.00 $4,000.00 $19.00 $3,800.00 $33.00 $6,600.00 $30.00 $6,000.00 $20.00 $4,000.00 11 UNDERDRAIN PIPE 6 IN. DIAM.7-01 SP 510 LF $12.00 $6,120.00 $18.00 $9,180.00 $20.50 $10,455.00 $35.00 $17,850.00 $10.00 $5,100.00 12 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 7-05 SP 8 EA $1,500.00 $12,000.00 $1,000.00 $8,000.00 $1,098.00 $8,784.00 $2,000.00 $16,000.00 $1,100.00 $8,800.00 13 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 48 IN. DIAM.7-05 SP 1 EA $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 14 SD PIPE 8 IN. DIAM.7-04 SP 145 LF $30.00 $4,350.00 $50.00 $7,250.00 $22.50 $3,262.50 $28.00 $4,060.00 $80.00 $11,600.00 15 SCHEDULE A STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM.7-04 SP 450 LF $95.50 $42,975.00 $43.00 $19,350.00 $30.00 $13,500.00 $35.00 $15,750.00 $85.00 $38,250.00 16 SCHEDULE A STORM SEWER PIPE 18 IN. DIAM.7-04 SP 20 LF $130.00 $2,600.00 $65.00 $1,300.00 $58.00 $1,160.00 $38.00 $760.00 $95.00 $1,900.00 17 DETENTION VAULT 7-05 SP 1 LS $160,000.00 $160,000.00 $135,000.00 $135,000.00 $115,900.00 $115,900.00 $160,000.00 $160,000.00 $340,000.00 $340,000.00 18 SERVICE CONNECTION 1 IN. DIAM.7-15 SP 1 EA $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $4,636.00 $4,636.00 $400.00 $400.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 19 GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR WALL 8-24 SP 60 CY $35.00 $2,100.00 $19.00 $1,140.00 $35.00 $2,100.00 $30.00 $1,800.00 $40.00 $2,400.00 20 PERMEABLE BALLAST 4-04 1930 TON $35.00 $67,550.00 $24.00 $46,320.00 $36.00 $69,480.00 $25.00 $48,250.00 $20.00 $38,600.00 21 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE 4-04 515 TON $30.00 $15,450.00 $28.00 $14,420.00 $34.00 $17,510.00 $20.00 $10,300.00 $18.00 $9,270.00 22 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 4-04 SP 520 TON $30.00 $15,600.00 $28.00 $14,560.00 $25.00 $13,000.00 $20.00 $10,400.00 $18.00 $9,360.00 23 HMA CL. 1/2 IN. PG 64-22 5-04 SP 1170 TON $70.00 $81,900.00 $83.00 $97,110.00 $78.00 $91,260.00 $85.00 $99,450.00 $100.00 $117,000.00 24 COMMERCIAL HMA 5-04 SP 145 TON $120.00 $17,400.00 $121.00 $17,545.00 $113.00 $16,385.00 $110.00 $15,950.00 $125.00 $18,125.00 25 PERVIOUS HMA 5-04 SP 420 TON $80.00 $33,600.00 $127.00 $53,340.00 $119.00 $49,980.00 $150.00 $63,000.00 $200.00 $84,000.00 26 TEMPORARY HMA PATCH 5-04 SP 100 SY $30.00 $3,000.00 $85.00 $8,500.00 $24.00 $2,400.00 $27.00 $2,700.00 $8.00 $800.00 27 SWPPP PREPARATION AND MAINTENANCE 8-01 SP 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 28 EROSION/WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 8-01 SP 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $15,500.00 $15,500.00 $29,000.00 $29,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 29 FINE COMPOST 8-02 14 CY $55.00 $770.00 $43.00 $602.00 $59.00 $826.00 $45.00 $630.00 $50.00 $700.00 30 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 8-01 360 SY $15.00 $5,400.00 $15.00 $5,400.00 $15.00 $5,400.00 $18.00 $6,480.00 $35.00 $12,600.00 31 INLET PROTECTION 8-01 15 EA $100.00 $1,500.00 $70.00 $1,050.00 $92.00 $1,380.00 $88.00 $1,320.00 $100.00 $1,500.00 32 SILT FENCE 8-01 1800 LF $4.00 $7,200.00 $3.90 $7,020.00 $3.70 $6,660.00 $5.50 $9,900.00 $10.00 $18,000.00 33 SEEDING, FERTILIZING, AND MULCHING 8-01 SP 1.35 AC $2,500.00 $3,375.00 $2,700.00 $3,645.00 $5,200.00 $7,020.00 $4,500.00 $6,075.00 $3,000.00 $4,050.00 34 TOPSOIL TYPE A 8-02 SP 41 CY $50.00 $2,050.00 $32.00 $1,312.00 $40.00 $1,640.00 $38.00 $1,558.00 $40.00 $1,640.00 35 BARK OR WOOD CHIP MULCH 8-02 SP 7 CY $45.00 $315.00 $54.00 $378.00 $79.00 $553.00 $45.00 $315.00 $50.00 $350.00 36 PSIPE ARISTOCRAT PEAR / PYRUS CALLERYANA 'ARISTOCRAT' (2 1/2" CAL.)8-02 1 EA $460.00 $460.00 $380.00 $380.00 $342.00 $342.00 $325.00 $325.00 $400.00 $400.00 37 HT.)8-02 5 EA $275.00 $1,375.00 $100.00 $500.00 $225.00 $1,125.00 $45.00 $225.00 $250.00 $1,250.00 38 PSIPE CASCARA / RHAMNUS PURSHIANA (2" CAL.)8-02 3 EA $400.00 $1,200.00 $300.00 $900.00 $360.00 $1,080.00 $325.00 $975.00 $400.00 $1,200.00 39 PSIPE EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY / VACCINIUM OVATUM (5 GAL. CONT.)8-02 12 EA $42.00 $504.00 $33.00 $396.00 $35.00 $420.00 $25.00 $300.00 $60.00 $720.00 Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Illiad, Inc A-1 Landscaping & Cosntructin, Inc Westwater Construction Company Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Engineer's Estimate Trimaxx Construction, Inc Total PriceUnit Cost Bid Item Item Description Spec.Unit Packet Page 150 of 234 40 PSIPE KEN JANECK RHODODENDRON / RHODODENDRON YAKUSHIMANUM 'KEN JANECK (21"-24" SPREAD)8-02 8 EA $40.00 $320.00 $38.00 $304.00 $43.00 $344.00 $35.00 $280.00 $25.00 $200.00 41 PSIPE SWORD FERN / POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM (2 GAL. CONT.)8-02 39 EA $24.00 $936.00 $17.00 $663.00 $18.00 $702.00 $16.00 $624.00 $20.00 $780.00 42 PSIPE SULPUREUM BARRENTWORT/EMPIMEDIUM VERSICOLOR "SULPHUREUM" (1 GAL. CONT.)8-02 237 EA $10.00 $2,370.00 $9.00 $2,133.00 $15.00 $3,555.00 $14.00 $3,318.00 $10.00 $2,370.00 43 PSIPE WOODS COMPACT JADE KINNIKINNICK / ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI 'WOODS COMPACT' (1 GAL.CONT.)8-02 67 EA $10.00 $670.00 $9.00 $603.00 $15.00 $1,005.00 $12.00 $804.00 $10.00 $670.00 44 PSIPE KELSEYI DOGWOOD / CORNUS STOLONIFERA 'KELSEYI' (1 GAL. CONT.)8-02 22 EA $10.00 $220.00 $8.50 $187.00 $15.00 $330.00 $12.00 $264.00 $10.00 $220.00 45 PSIPE LINGONBERRY / VACCINIUM VITIS-IDAEA (1 GAL. CONT.)8-02 60 EA $10.00 $600.00 $9.00 $540.00 $14.00 $840.00 $14.00 $840.00 $10.00 $600.00 46 PSIPE COMPACT OREGON GRAPE / MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' (1 GAL. CONT.)8-02 68 EA $28.00 $1,904.00 $9.00 $612.00 $14.00 $952.00 $16.00 $1,088.00 $10.00 $680.00 47 PSIPE INGWERSEN'S CRANESBILL / GERANIUM MACRORHIZUM 'INGWERSEN'S VARIETY' (1 GAL. CONT.)8-02 183 EA $10.00 $1,830.00 $10.00 $1,830.00 $14.00 $2,562.00 $16.00 $2,928.00 $10.00 $1,830.00 48 ROOT PATHS 8-02 SP 104 LF $20.00 $2,080.00 $25.00 $2,600.00 $122.00 $12,688.00 $25.00 $2,600.00 $10.00 $1,040.00 49 ROOT BARRIER 8-02 SP 47 LF $10.00 $470.00 $10.00 $470.00 $190.00 $8,930.00 $16.00 $752.00 $8.00 $376.00 50 SOD INSTALLATION 8-02 50 SY $15.00 $750.00 $8.00 $400.00 $6.00 $300.00 $27.00 $1,350.00 $12.00 $600.00 51 SEEDED LAWN INSTALLATION 8-02 25 SY $8.00 $200.00 $5.00 $125.00 $1.80 $45.00 $18.00 $450.00 $4.00 $100.00 52 SOIL AMENDMENT 8-02 SP 1 EST $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 53 BACKFILL FOR SAND DRAINS 8-02 4 CY $60.00 $240.00 $60.00 $240.00 $185.00 $740.00 $60.00 $240.00 $100.00 $400.00 54 PROPERTY RESTORATION 1-07 1 EST $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 55 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER 8-04 SP 240 LF $25.00 $6,000.00 $20.00 $4,800.00 $23.00 $5,520.00 $25.00 $6,000.00 $60.00 $14,400.00 56 PAINT LINE 8-22 7405 LF $0.25 $1,851.25 $0.13 $962.65 $0.12 $888.60 $0.40 $2,962.00 $0.15 $1,110.75 57 PAINTED WIDE LINE 8-22 19500 LF $0.40 $7,800.00 $0.16 $3,120.00 $0.15 $2,925.00 $0.40 $7,800.00 $0.15 $2,925.00 58 PLASTIC WIDE LINE 8-22 SP 3600 LF $0.50 $1,800.00 $1.24 $4,464.00 $1.15 $4,140.00 $1.50 $5,400.00 $1.30 $4,680.00 59 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 8-22 430 SF $6.00 $2,580.00 $2.40 $1,032.00 $2.25 $967.50 $3.50 $1,505.00 $3.00 $1,290.00 60 PLASTIC STOP LINE 8-22 205 LF $4.00 $820.00 $3.50 $717.50 $2.95 $604.75 $5.50 $1,127.50 $4.00 $820.00 61 PLASTIC BICYCLE LANE SYMBOL 8-22 SP 63 EA $100.00 $6,300.00 $300.00 $18,900.00 $285.00 $17,955.00 $250.00 $15,750.00 $300.00 $18,900.00 62 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKING 8-23 SP 6000 LF $0.50 $3,000.00 $0.50 $3,000.00 $0.25 $1,500.00 $0.30 $1,800.00 $0.25 $1,500.00 63 PERMANENT SIGNING 8-21 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $15,100.00 $15,100.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 64 PEDESTRIAN CONTROL AND PROTECTION 1-07 SP 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $100,400.00 $100,400.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 65 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1-10 SP 1 LS $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $58,000.00 $58,000.00 $30,600.00 $30,600.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 66 PEDESTRIAN FLASHING BEACON 8-20 SP 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $18,400.00 $18,400.00 $23,000.00 $23,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 67 SHORING OR EXTRA EXCAVATION CLASS B 2-09 5780 SF $3.00 $17,340.00 $4.00 $23,120.00 $4.00 $23,120.00 $5.00 $28,900.00 $0.50 $2,890.00 68 ROADWAY SURVEYING 1-05 SP 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,300.00 $9,300.00 $16,400.00 $16,400.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 69 ADJUST JUNCTION BOX 7-15 SP 1 EA $375.00 $375.00 $400.00 $400.00 $205.00 $205.00 $350.00 $350.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 70 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK 8-14 SP 240 SY $35.00 $8,400.00 $29.00 $6,960.00 $27.00 $6,480.00 $28.00 $6,720.00 $30.00 $7,200.00 71 CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE 8-06 SP 230 SY $50.00 $11,500.00 $35.00 $8,050.00 $33.00 $7,590.00 $29.00 $6,670.00 $50.00 $11,500.00 72 PLAZA PAVEMENT 8-06 SP 240 SY $50.00 $12,000.00 $100.00 $24,000.00 $40.00 $9,600.00 $37.00 $8,880.00 $100.00 $24,000.00 73 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE PERPENDICULAR 8-14 SP 20 SY $120.00 $2,400.00 $75.00 $1,500.00 $70.00 $1,400.00 $105.00 $2,100.00 $30.00 $600.00 74 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL A 8-14 SP 40 SY $60.00 $2,400.00 $75.00 $3,000.00 $70.00 $2,800.00 $68.00 $2,720.00 $30.00 $1,200.00 75 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE SINGLE DIRECTION A 8-14 SP 30 SY $80.00 $2,400.00 $100.00 $3,000.00 $95.00 $2,850.00 $75.00 $2,250.00 $30.00 $900.00 76 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE DIAGONAL PARALLEL 8-14 SP 20 SY $120.00 $2,400.00 $75.00 $1,500.00 $70.00 $1,400.00 $65.00 $1,300.00 $30.00 $600.00 77 CURB RAMP DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE RETROFIT 8-14 SP 30 SF $10.00 $300.00 $40.00 $1,200.00 $20.00 $600.00 $65.00 $1,950.00 $20.00 $600.00 78 CHAIN LINK FENCE TYPE 1 8-12 SP 100 LF $40.00 $4,000.00 $26.00 $2,600.00 $28.00 $2,800.00 $65.00 $6,500.00 $25.00 $2,500.00 79 CHAIN LINK FENCE TYPE 6 8-12 SP 1550 LF $35.00 $54,250.00 $19.00 $29,450.00 $17.00 $26,350.00 $25.00 $38,750.00 $18.00 $27,900.00 80 ADJUST MANHOLE 7-05 SP 8 EA $500.00 $4,000.00 $400.00 $3,200.00 $320.00 $2,560.00 $300.00 $2,400.00 $1,200.00 $9,600.00 81 MANHOLE 48 IN. DIAM. TYPE 1 7-05 SP 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 Packet Page 151 of 234 82 MANHOLE 60 IN. DIAM. TYPE 1 7-05 SP 1 EA $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 83 ADJUST CATCH BASIN 7-05 SP 1 EA $500.00 $500.00 $400.00 $400.00 $231.00 $231.00 $200.00 $200.00 $250.00 $250.00 84 ADJUST VALVE BOX 7-05 SP 6 EA $400.00 $2,400.00 $350.00 $2,100.00 $103.00 $618.00 $60.00 $360.00 $300.00 $1,800.00 85 TRIMMING AND CLEANUP 2-11 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $9,500.00 $9,500.00 $9,118.00 $9,118.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $34,000.00 $34,000.00 86 SPCC PLAN 1-07.15 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $2,040.00 $2,040.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 87 CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR SOIL SEPARATION 2-12 2180 SY $5.00 $10,900.00 $1.70 $3,706.00 $1.80 $3,924.00 $4.50 $9,810.00 $1.00 $2,180.00 88 BIKE RACK PROVIDED BY OTHERS 8-28 SP 1 EA $200.00 $200.00 $530.00 $530.00 $317.00 $317.00 $600.00 $600.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 89 INTERPRETIVE PANEL PROVIDED BY OTHERS 8-28 SP 2 EA $100.00 $200.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $400.00 $800.00 $400.00 $800.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 90 CEMENT CONC. STAIRS 8-19 SP 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $1,600.00 $3,200.00 $1,300.00 $2,600.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 91 STEEL SWING GATE 8-26 SP 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,200.00 $6,400.00 $2,800.00 $5,600.00 $2,900.00 $5,800.00 $4,500.00 $9,000.00 92 BENCH FOUNDATION 8-14 SP 4 SY $150.00 $600.00 $820.00 $3,280.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 $200.00 $800.00 $50.00 $200.00 93 CONC. MODULAR RETAINING WALL 8-24 SP 1400 SF $40.00 $56,000.00 $21.00 $29,400.00 $28.00 $39,200.00 $18.00 $25,200.00 $35.00 $49,000.00 94 FRAME AND VANED GRATE RETROFIT 7-05 SP 23 EA $1,000.00 $23,000.00 $590.00 $13,570.00 $500.00 $11,500.00 $550.00 $12,650.00 $2,600.00 $59,800.00 95 ADJUST TOP SLAB MANHOLE 7-05 SP 2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $650.00 $1,300.00 $350.00 $700.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 96 RELOCATE MAILBOX 8-18 SP 5 EA $500.00 $2,500.00 $190.00 $950.00 $150.00 $750.00 $250.00 $1,250.00 $500.00 $2,500.00 97 GROUP MAILBOX 8-18 SP 1 EA $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $470.00 $470.00 $200.00 $200.00 $1,850.00 $1,850.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 98 SHELTER 8-27 SP 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $26,000.00 $26,000.00 $37,600.00 $37,600.00 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 99 KIOSK 8-28 SP 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,200.00 $6,200.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 100 BENCH PROVIDED BY OTHERS 8-28 SP 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00 $400.00 $800.00 $300.00 $600.00 $200.00 $400.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 101 STEEL BOLLARD 8-26 SP 15 EA $350.00 $5,250.00 $620.00 $9,300.00 $1,000.00 $15,000.00 $370.00 $5,550.00 $750.00 $11,250.00 102 WOOD BOLLARD 8-26 SP 3 EA $250.00 $750.00 $620.00 $1,860.00 $720.00 $2,160.00 $320.00 $960.00 $650.00 $1,950.00 103 TRASH RECEPTACLE 8-28 SP 1 EA $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $620.00 $620.00 $900.00 $900.00 $600.00 $600.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,149,900.25 $1,164,777.15 $1,216,300.35 $1,312,945.50 $1,842,216.75 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,149,900.25 $1,164,777.15 $1,216,300.35 $1,312,945.50 $1,842,216.75 Edmonds Interurban Trail Schedule B – Trail Construction West of 76th Ave W Approx. Qty. 1 CONTRACT BOND EXTENSION 1-03.4 SP 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,410.00 $7,410.00 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 2 MOBILIZATION 1-09.7 1 LS $10,650.00 $10,650.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00 3 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 2-01 SP 0.29 AC $10,000.00 $2,900.00 $10,000.00 $2,900.00 $39,000.00 $11,310.00 $5,000.00 $1,450.00 $4,000.00 $1,160.00 4 TREE TRIMMING 2-01.3 SP 1 EST $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 5 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE AND OBSTRUCTION 2-02 SP 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 6 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL 2-03 890 CY $20.00 $17,800.00 $25.00 $22,250.00 $24.50 $21,805.00 $20.00 $17,800.00 $75.00 $66,750.00 7 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL 2-03 480 TON $20.00 $9,600.00 $19.00 $9,120.00 $33.00 $15,840.00 $20.00 $9,600.00 $20.00 $9,600.00 8 UNDERDRAIN PIPE 6 IN. DIAM.7-01 SP 25 LF $12.00 $300.00 $18.00 $450.00 $21.00 $525.00 $35.00 $875.00 $10.00 $250.00 9 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 7-05 SP 1 EA $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 10 SD PIPE 8 IN. DIAM.7-04 SP 20 LF $30.00 $600.00 $40.00 $800.00 $23.00 $460.00 $38.00 $760.00 $80.00 $1,600.00 11 SEWER CLEANOUT 7-19 SP 1 EA $500.00 $500.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $840.00 $840.00 $500.00 $500.00 12 PERMEABLE BALLAST 4-04 1350 TON $35.00 $47,250.00 $26.00 $35,100.00 $36.00 $48,600.00 $25.00 $33,750.00 $20.00 $27,000.00 13 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE 4-04 230 TON $30.00 $6,900.00 $28.00 $6,440.00 $34.00 $7,820.00 $22.00 $5,060.00 $18.00 $4,140.00 14 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 4-04 SP 10 TON $30.00 $300.00 $28.00 $280.00 $25.00 $250.00 $25.00 $250.00 $18.00 $180.00 15 PERVIOUS HMA 5-04 SP 250 TON $80.00 $20,000.00 $127.00 $31,750.00 $90.00 $22,500.00 $130.00 $32,500.00 $200.00 $50,000.00 16 SWPPP PREPARATION AND MAINTENANCE 8-01 SP 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $800.00 $800.00 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 $1,780.00 $1,780.00 $500.00 $500.00 17 EROSION/WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 8-01 SP 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $9,800.00 $9,800.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 18 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 8-01 100 SY $15.00 $1,500.00 $17.00 $1,700.00 $30.00 $3,000.00 $18.00 $1,800.00 $35.00 $3,500.00 19 INLET PROTECTION 8-01 1 EA $100.00 $100.00 $70.00 $70.00 $76.00 $76.00 $82.00 $82.00 $100.00 $100.00 Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Engineer's Estimate Trimaxx Construction, Inc Illiad, Inc Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price A-1 Landscaping & Cosntructin, Inc Westwater Construction Company Unit Cost Total Price SCHEDULE SUBTOTAL WSST @ 9.5% SCHEDULE TOTAL Bid Item Item Description Spec.Unit Packet Page 152 of 234 20 SILT FENCE 8-01 700 LF $4.00 $2,800.00 $4.00 $2,800.00 $3.70 $2,590.00 $5.50 $3,850.00 $10.00 $7,000.00 21 SEEDING, FERTILIZING, AND MULCHING 8-01 SP 0.29 AC $2,500.00 $725.00 $3,200.00 $928.00 $5,200.00 $1,508.00 $3,500.00 $1,015.00 $3,000.00 $870.00 22 PAINT LINE 8-22 800 LF $0.25 $200.00 $0.16 $128.00 $0.15 $120.00 $0.50 $400.00 $0.15 $120.00 23 PLASTIC STOP LINE 8-22 6 LF $4.00 $24.00 $3.25 $19.50 $3.25 $19.50 $5.50 $33.00 $4.00 $24.00 24 PERMANENT SIGNING 8-21 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $350.00 $350.00 $325.00 $325.00 $16,400.00 $16,400.00 $500.00 $500.00 25 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1-10 SP 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 $5,100.00 $5,100.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 26 ROADWAY SURVEYING 1-05 SP 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $5,100.00 $5,100.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 27 TRIMMING AND CLEANUP 2-11 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 28 SPCC PLAN 1-07.15 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $400.00 $400.00 $900.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $500.00 $500.00 29 CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR SOIL SEPARATION 2-12 1190 SY $5.00 $5,950.00 $2.00 $2,380.00 $1.80 $2,142.00 $4.50 $5,355.00 $1.00 $1,190.00 30 STEEL BOLLARD 8-26 SP 3 EA $350.00 $1,050.00 $600.00 $1,800.00 $900.00 $2,700.00 $380.00 $1,140.00 $750.00 $2,250.00 $152,649.00 $152,665.50 $180,290.50 $199,350.00 $248,634.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $152,649.00 $152,665.50 $180,290.50 $199,350.00 $248,634.00 Edmonds Interurban Trail Schedule C – Sewer Improvements Approx. Qty. 1 CONTRACT BOND EXTENSION 1-03.4 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $500.00 $500.00 2 MOBILIZATION 40552 1 LS $3,856.00 $3,856.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 3 REMOVING FENCE 2-02 SP 1 LS $400.00 $400.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 4 SEWER CLEANOUT 7-01 SP 5 EA $500.00 $2,500.00 $400.00 $2,000.00 $400.00 $2,000.00 $450.00 $2,250.00 $500.00 $2,500.00 5 PVC SANITARY SEWER PIPE 6 IN. DIAM.40741 90 LF $55.15 $4,963.50 $35.00 $3,150.00 $38.00 $3,420.00 $38.00 $3,420.00 $80.00 $7,200.00 6 PVC SANITARY SEWER PIPE 8 IN. DIAM.40741 310 LF $78.15 $24,226.50 $50.00 $15,500.00 $41.00 $12,710.00 $48.00 $14,880.00 $110.00 $34,100.00 7 TEMPORARY HMA PATCH 5-04 SP 20 SY $30.00 $600.00 $100.00 $2,000.00 $20.00 $400.00 $98.00 $1,960.00 $10.00 $200.00 8 EROSION/WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 8-01 SP 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 9 SEEDING, FERTILIZING, AND MULCHING 40756 0.1 AC $2,500.00 $250.00 $800.00 $80.00 $5,200.00 $520.00 $3,500.00 $350.00 $3,000.00 $300.00 10 PROPERTY RESTORATION 1 EST $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 11 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 12 SHORING OR EXTRA EXCAVATION CLASS B 2650 SF $1.50 $3,975.00 $2.00 $5,300.00 $4.00 $10,600.00 $2.00 $5,300.00 $0.50 $1,325.00 13 ROADWAY SURVEYING 40548 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $800.00 $800.00 14 MANHOLE 48 IN. DIAM. TYPE 1 7-05 SP 1 EA $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 15 SPCC PLAN 1-07.15 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 $400.00 $400.00 $800.00 $800.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $55,271.00 $46,830.00 $50,950.00 $71,760.00 $65,125.00 $5,250.75 $4,448.85 $4,840.25 $6,817.20 $6,186.88 $60,521.75 $51,278.85 $55,790.25 $78,577.20 $71,311.88 $1,363,071.00 $1,368,721.50 $1,452,381.10 $1,590,872.70 $2,162,162.63 Total Price Unit Cost Total Price Engineer's Estimate Trimaxx Construction, Inc Illiad, Inc A-1 Landscaping & Cosntructin, Inc Westwater Construction Company BASE BID GRAND TOTAL Unit Cost Total Price Unit Cost Total Price SCHEDULE SUBTOTAL WSST @ 9.5% Unit Cost SCHEDULE TOTAL Unit Cost Total Price SCHEDULE SUBTOTAL WSST @ 9.5% SCHEDULE TOTAL Bid Item Item Description Spec.Unit Packet Page 153 of 234 $5 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $6 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 CI T Y O F E D M O N D S ED M O N D S I N T E R U R B A N T R A I L E 2 D B / c 1 4 6 FE D E R A L A I D N o . C M - 0 3 6 5 ( 0 0 9 ) IT E M D E S C R I P T I O N CO S T RE E T F u n d s 41 2 - 3 0 0 S e w e r F u n d s 41 2 - 1 0 0 S t o r m w a t e r F u n d s $750,000 $577,000 PU D R e l o c a t i o n s Mi s c e l l a n e a o u s Co n t i n g e n c y ( 1 0 % ) Ar t s ( 1 % ) $1 3 7 , 0 0 0 $1 3 , 1 7 4 $1 , 7 9 3 , 8 9 6 TO T A L C O N S T R U C I T O N C O S T $65,000 $175,000$226,896 CO N S T R U C T I O N C O S T FU N D I N G S O U R C E FU N D CONTRIBUTION St a t e R C O G r a n t Co n s t r u c t i o n C o n t r a c t ( T r i m a x x C o n s t r u c t i o n ) $1 , 3 6 8 , 7 2 2 $1 3 0 , 0 0 0 Co n g e s t i o n M i t i g a t i o n a n d A i r Q u a l i t y P r o g r a m (C M A Q ) F e d e r a l G r a n t Co n s t r u c t i o n M a n a g e m e n t & T e s t i n g ( P e r t e e t E n g r ) In s p e c t i o n ( C i t y S t a f f ) De s i g n S u p p o r t S e r v i c e s ( K P F F C o n s u l t i n g E n g r s ) TO T A L F U N D I N G $1,793,896 C: \ D o c u m e n t s a n d S e t t i n g s \ e n g l i s h \ D e s k t o p \ I N T E R U R B A N E x h i b i t 2 . x l s x Sheet 1 of 1 Pa c k e t Pa g e 15 4 of 23 4 AM-3999   Item #: 1. K. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Perteet Engineering for the Interurban Trail Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the June 21, 2011 Council meeting. Previous Council Action On September 28, 2010, Council approved the Request for Qualifcations to select a consultant for construction management and material testing for the Interurban Trail Project.  Narrative The City issued a Request for Qualifications in 2010 to hire a consultant to support city staff with the contract administration and federal-aid documentation for the Interurban Trail Project. The City received statement of qualifications from seven firms and the Selection Committee short listed Perteet Engineering and WHPacific for an interview based on their qualifications. Perteet Engineering was selected based on their qualifications and experience outlined in their statement of qualifications and from their presentation during the interview process.  The City has negotiated a consultant fee of $129,990 to complete the construction administration support services and material testing. Refer to attachment 1. The main tasks included in the scope of services are: 1. Submittal review. 2. Federal-aid Documentation.  3. Project files and record maintenance. 4. Material testing (to be completed by HWA Geosciences). 5. Construction observation. 6. Assistance with monthly pay estimates. 7. Project close-out activities. The majority of the construction costs, including this contract, will be paid from the $1,377,000 in federal and state grants secured for the Interurban Trail Project. Other funding sources include the 412-300 Sewer Utility Fund, 412-200 Stormwater Utility Fund and the REET 125 Fund.  Attachments Attachment 1 - Fee Matrix Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/09/2011 04:59 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/10/2011 07:18 AM Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 06/10/2011 08:40 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/10/2011 08:44 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/10/2011 11:15 AM Final Approval Linda Hynd 06/10/2011 01:26 PM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 06/09/2011 12:37 PM Final Approval Date: 06/10/2011  Packet Page 155 of 234 27 0 7 C o l b y A v e n u e , S u i t e 9 0 0 , E v e r e t t , W A 9 8 2 0 1 42 5 . 2 5 2 . 7 7 0 0 / f a x 4 2 5 . 3 3 9 . 6 0 1 8 / p e r t e e t @ p e r t e e t . c o m Pr o j e c t : Ed m o n d s I n t e r u r b a n T r a i l Co n t r a c t S t a r t D a t e : Ju l y 5 , 2 0 1 1 Cl i e n t : Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Co n t r a c t E n d i n g D a t e : Fe b r u a r y 2 9 , 2 0 1 2 PM : Bi l l M i t c h e l l Co n t r a c t D u r a t i o n : 8 M o n t h s TA S K / P H A S E As s o c i a t e Se n i o r Co n s t r u c t i o n Ob s e r v e r T e c h n i c i a n I E n g i n e e r I I A c c o u n t a n t Total Task HoursDirect Salary CostsTotal Task Incl. Salary Escalation $5 9 . 8 5 $3 6 . 2 3 $2 2 . 0 5 $2 9 . 4 0 $3 1 . 9 7 Ta s k # Pl e a s e s e l e c t d i s c i p l i n e t e a m f o r e a c h w o r k e r f o r t h e s a l e s a l l o c a t i o n - - - - - > Co n s t r u c t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Co n s t r u c t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Co n s t r u c t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Co n s t r u c t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Co n s t r u c t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Co n s t r u c t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Co n s t r u c t i o n Ma n a g e m e n t Construction ManagementConstruction ManagementConstruction ManagementConstruction Management 00 0 1 PR O J E C T P L A N N I N G & M A N A G E M E N T 8 12 2 12 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 5,810 $ 5,810 $ Mo n t h l y B i l l i n g s a n d P r o g r e s s R e p o r t s 14 14 28 955 $ 955 $ Ag e n c y C o o r d i n a t i o n 6 48 60 2,298 $ 2,298 $ WB E / D B E C h e c k P r i o r t o C o n t r a c t A w a r d 0 -$ -$ Cl o s e P r o j e c t 2 60 12 74 2,558 $ 2,558 $ TO R E D U C E T H E S P R E A D S H E E T W I D T H HI D E A N Y O F Cl o s e P r o j e c t 2 60 12 74 2,558 $ 2,558 $ Ta s k # 00 0 2 CO N S T R U C T I O N A D M I N I S T R A T I O N 5 42 8 18 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 617 19,861 $ 19,861 $ Pr o j e c t S e t u p 8 8 16 466 $ 466 $ Pa r t i c i p a t e i n t h e P r e c o n s t r u c t i o n C o n f e r e n c e 6 6 217 $ 217 $ Re v i e w S u b m i t t a l s 72 8 80 2,785 $ 2,785 $ In t e r p r e t a t i o n o f C o n t r a c t D o c u m e n t s a n d R F I R e v i e w & R e s p o n s e 8 24 32 819 $ 819 $ Ch a n g e O r d e r s a n d W o r k D i r e c t i v e s 18 18 652 $ 652 $ Re v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l o f S u b s t i t u t e M a t e r i a l s " o r e q u a l s " 16 16 580 $ 580 $ Ma i n t a i n C o r r e s p o n d e n c e T r a c k i n g S y s t e m 24 24 869 $ 869 $ Mo n t h l y P a y E s t i m a t e s 40 40 1,449 $ 1,449 $ Pa r t i c i p a t e i n W e e k l y M e e t i n g s 30 30 1,087 $ 1,087 $ Cl a i m s M o n i t o r i n g 2 32 34 1,279 $ 1,279 $ Sc h e d u l e R e v i e w 2 20 22 844 $ 844 $ DB E R e q u i r e m e n t s 12 20 32 876 $ 876 $ Fo r c e A c c o u n t T r a c k i n g 12 72 84 2,022 $ 2,022 $ Pr o j e c t F i l e s & R e c o r d s M a i n t e n a n c e 64 40 104 3,200 $ 3,200 $ Fo r m a l A c c e p t a n c e R e v i e w a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 1 4 5 205 $ 205 $ Fu n d i n g A g e n c y R e q u i r e d D o c u m e n t s 8 8 290 $ 290 $ Au d i t s a n d P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w s 48 6 54 1,871 $ 1,871 $ Em p l o y e e I n t e r v i e w s 6 6 12 350 $ 350 $ Em p l o y e e I n t e r v i e w s 6 6 12 350 $ 350 $ Ta s k # 00 0 3 CO N S T R U C T I O N O B S E R V A T I O N 0 32 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 3,805 $ 3,805 $ Co n t r u c t i o n O b s e r v a t i o n 32 90 122 3,805 $ 3,805 $ Pr o j e c t C l o s e o u t 0 -$ -$ Re c o r d D r a w i n g s 0 -$ -$ Ta s k # 00 0 4 PU B L I C N O T I F I C A T I O N C O O R D I N A T I O N 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 1,739 $ 1,739 $ Pr o j e c t U p d a t e s 24 24 869 $ 869 $ Re s p o n s e s t o P r o p e r t y O w n e r s 24 24 869 $ 869 $ Ta s k # 00 0 5 EA R T H W O R K O B S E R V A T I O N & M A T E R I A L T E S T I N G 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 1,739 $ 1,739 $ Co o r d i n a t i o n o f t a s k w o r k o r d e r s 48 48 1,739 $ 1,739 $ To t a l H o u r s 13 67 8 19 6 90 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 997 To t a l D o l l a r s ( D i r e c t S a l a r y C o s t ) $7 7 8 $2 4 , 5 6 1 $4 , 3 2 2 $2 , 6 4 6 $4 4 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 32,954 $ 32,954 $ Ex p e n s e s : Su b c o n s u l t a n t F e e s : Su b T o t a l Sub Markup Markup Total Fee Based on Direct Salary Cost Only Y $3 2 , 4 0 6 5.0%1,620.30 $ Fee Based on DSC + Overhead N 10.0%-$ 10.0%-$ Multiplier 2.90 Ro b o t i c E D M @ $ 1 0 0 / d a y HW A G e o s c i e n c e s Co p i e s GP S R e c e i v e r @ $ 1 5 0 / d a y 10.0%-$ Multiplier 2.90 10.0%-$ 10.0%-$ $3 5 7 10.0%-$ Direct Salary Cost 32,954 $ 32,954 $ To t a l 32 , 4 0 6 $ 1,620 $ Overhead Cost 162.58%53,577 $ 53,577 $ Net Fee 27.54%9,076 $ 9,076 $ Expenses 357 $ 357 $ C: \ D o c u m e n t s a n d S e t t i n g s \ b m i t c h e l l \ D e s k t o p \ 2 0 1 0 0 1 6 6 . P R O - E d m o n d s I n t e r u r b a n T r a i l \ S c o p e a n d F e e \ [ E d m o n d s I n t e r u r b a n T r a i l F e e F o l l o w i n g N e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h C i t y D r a f t . x l s x ] H o u r s TO T A L 35 7 $ Subconsultants 34,026 $ 34,026 $ Management Reserve -$ CONTRACT TOTAL 129,990 $ 129,990 $ Fo r m L a s t U p d a t e d O n : March 10, 2011 Ro b o t i c E D M @ $ 1 0 0 / d a y Di g i t a l L e v e l @ $ 5 0 / d a y AP S ( L o c a t e s ) Mi l e a g e @ c u r r e n t I R S r a t e Mi s c e l l a n e o u s C: \ D o c u m e n t s a n d S e t t i n g s \ b m i t c h e l l \ D e s k t o p \ 2 0 1 0 0 1 6 6 . P R O - E d m o n d s I n t e r u r b a n T r a i l \ S c o p e a n d F e e \ E d m o n d s I n t e r u r b a n T r a i l F e e F o l l o w i n g N e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h C i t y D r a f t Pa c k e t Pa g e 15 6 of 23 4 AM-3991   Item #: 1. L. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Authorization for the Mayor to sign PUD documents for the Interurban Trail Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the June 21, 2011 Council meeting and authorize the Mayor to sign the documents. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The new section of the Interurban trail west of 76th Ave W is within PUD’s existing Right-of-Way. In 2010, PUD granted an easement to the City to construct, operate and maintain the new trail. The easement requires the City to obtain a Temporary Limited Use Permit (Attachment 1) from PUD prior to the start of construction.   In 2007, PUD executed a quit claim deed to help clear the title and ownership of the property where the trail will be constructed east of 76th Ave W. The quit claim deed also reserved an easement for PUD to allow them to maintain their existing power lines. The PUD Consent for Use agreement (Attachment 2) allows the City to enter their easement and construct the trail improvements.  The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the documents.  Attachments Attachment 1-Temporary Limit Use Permit Attachment 2-Consent for Use of PUD ROW Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 06/08/2011 05:20 PM Public Works Phil Williams 06/09/2011 08:42 AM Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 06/09/2011 09:44 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 09:52 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/09/2011 09:54 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 10:05 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 06/08/2011 11:59 AM Final Approval Date: 06/09/2011  Packet Page 157 of 234 P a c k e t P a g e 1 5 8 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 5 9 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 0 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 1 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 2 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 3 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 4 o f 2 3 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 6 5 o f 2 3 4 AM-3989   Item #: 1. M. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion regarding business in parks. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Review report and discuss next steps. Previous Council Action None Narrative See attached memos. Attachments Motorized Mobile Vendors Business in Parks Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/08/2011 03:44 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/08/2011 04:34 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/08/2011 04:43 PM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 06/07/2011 05:29 PM Final Approval Date: 06/08/2011  Packet Page 166 of 234 City of Edmonds Date: June 7, 2011 To: City Council: Community/Development Services Committee From: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Subject: Motorized Mobile Vendors ________________________________________________________________________ Background Mobile food vendors are a growing trend across the United States. “Taco trucks” have almost become ubiquitous, and gourmet food trucks (not the tacos are not gourmet food) are growing in numbers as well. Some of these vendors move from location to location (such as parking lots or vacant lots) without staying at any one location for a significant period of time; others park at one specific location to setup shop and may even leave the vehicle at the location over night, while others may take the vehicle home at night but return to the same location day after day. The City of Edmonds has had some recent requests from persons who wished to operate motorized mobile food vending services within the City. There is confusing and conflicting language within the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as to whether motorized mobile vendors are an allowed activity within Edmonds. Existing Code Edmonds City Code (ECC) 4.12 provides the framework for licensing Peddlers, Solicitors and Street Vendors. ECC 4.12.010 defines these different types of activities as: A. “Solicitor” or “peddler” means any person who shall sell, offer for or expose for sale, or who shall trade, deal or traffic in any goods or services in the city by going from house to house or from place to place or by indiscriminately approaching individuals. 1. Sales by sample or for future delivery, and executory contracts of sale by solicitors or peddlers are included; provided, however, that this section shall not be deemed applicable to any salesman or canvasser who solicits trade from wholesale or retail dealers in the city. 2. Any person who, while selling or offering for sale any goods, services or anything of value, stands in a doorway, any unenclosed vacant lot, parcel of land, or in any other place not used by such person as a permanent place of business shall be deemed a solicitor or peddler within the meaning of this chapter, except as noted in subsection B of this section. MEMORANDUM Packet Page 167 of 234 B. “Street vendor” means any person who shall sell food, flowers, nonalcoholic beverages only, and/or other goods or services from a nonmotorized mobile vending unit, in the commercially zoned areas of the city of Edmonds, including unzoned property or right-of- way adjacent to or abutting on commercially zoned areas, shall be deemed a street vendor subject to the regulations contained in this chapter. The commercially zoned areas are those zoned Neighborhood Business (BN), Community Business (BC), Planned Business (BP), Commercial Waterfront (CW); and General Commercial (CC, CG2). C. “Mobile vending unit” means a cart, kiosk or other device capable of being pushed by one person, with at least two functional wheels and positive wheel-locking devices. Motorized mobile vendors fit within the broad definition of solicitor in that they sell “goods” from “place to place”. However, motorized mobile vendors do not fit into the more narrow definition of street vendor which refers to “nonmotorized mobile vending unit” such as hot dog carts. So under these definitions, motorized mobile vendors may operate as a solicitor under a solicitors license obtained from the City Clerk. However, where they could operate is limited by the zoning code. Within Title 16 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), many of the commercial zones (Downtown Business, Neighborhood Business, Community Business, General Commercial, and Commercial Waterfront) have operating restrictions which state that, “All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building…” with different exceptions depending on the zone. ECDC 21.10 defines a building as “any structure having a roof, excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized.” So while a motorized mobile vendor may be allowed to operate under a solicitors license, the areas they would most likely locate restrict uses to buildings, which would exclude motorized mobile vendors. As the code currently stands, it appears that motorized mobile vendors may be permitted, but their operation is restricted to certain zones which include the residential zones, Public, and Planned Business. Questions and Options Does the City want to allow Motorized Mobile Vendors within the City? If yes, some items to consider while drafting regulations for motorized mobile vendors include:  What zones are appropriate for this type of use.  Should access to restrooms be required.  Are items used for the operation allowed to stay on location overnight, or should they be removed each day.  If the vendor is located over existing parking stalls, the overall site should be verified for compliance with required number of parking stalls.  Should permits be required for temporary structures.  Should design review be required for the motorized mobile vending units. If no, we recommend clarifying in ECC 4.12 that motorized mobile vending units are prohibited. Packet Page 168 of 234 Memorandum To: CSDS Council Committee From: Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Date: June 7, 2011 Re: Business in Parks/Other Recommendation: Review briefing and discuss next steps. Background: In consideration of the budget difficulties the city is facing, and the potential of enhancing the business operations of the parks system, the intent of this briefing is to explore Council interest in pursuing more entrepreneurial efforts in the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department. There are several initiatives operated by local jurisdictions throughout the country that seek to create alternative revenue streams to help support parks, and/or other government services. In times of a “new normal” for government services, jurisdictions are seeking different ways to do business that will help the bottom line. In addition, Edmonds has recognized this as an area of interest most recently in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) plan adopted by Council in December 2008. In Chapter 5, Comprehensive Plan Framework, Goals and Objectives, one of the objectives specifically states “Define a plan to develop the parks as an economic generator for the City.” It is also evident in several other objectives that seek to add opportunities and amenities to the parks system, and to partner with private groups to enhance services, so long as those partnerships are not subsidized. So, with evidence around the country, in surrounding local jurisdictions, and as evidenced in the city’s own PROS plan, is City Council interested in exploring options to create revenue opportunities to help support the parks system, and/or other city services? Examples of business in the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department could include: 1. Charging a non resident fee for recreation: It is common for jurisdictions to charge up to 20% more for classes, rentals, etc to participants who do not live in the city, thus do not contribute to the tax base that subsidizes these services. In the case of Edmonds, and based on the current nonresident usage rate, this has the potential of adding $75,000 to the current revenues. 2. Recreational and food vendors in parks: Concessions in the Parks would add a convenience and service for our users and could generate additional revenues for our parks, programs and facilities. We have had many inquiries in the past few years to request food, beverages, and outdoor recreation options be available at our parks and facilities. In addition, we have allowed private companies to operate in our parks for free, which poses many issues, i.e. liability, gift of public funds, etc. When introducing concessions in a park the city should consider several factors, including, but not limited to, measuring the impact upon users, impact upon park neighbors, liability, cost/benefit, and financial cost to the city ( including maintenance and programming staff time ). Currently, the Edmonds City Code allows for concessions in Parks if it is consistent with the park plan, is at the sole discretion of City Council, and must be posted at said park, and heard before a public hearing. This process is quite lengthy and cumbersome to initiate concessions in parks in general. If Council so desires, it may be worth simplifying the Packet Page 169 of 234 code, and incorporating a request for proposal bid process for all concessionaires, so as to be fair and equitable in the process. Concessionaire contracts can incorporate either a flat rate or a percentage revenue share so as to benefit the city for use of public land. 3. Dive permits, dive park parking: The Underwater Park attracts 20,000 divers per year, mostly divers from out of town. This certainly has positive impacts the economics of downtown businesses, but does not help support the maintenance and upkeep of the park. If we institute an entrance fee or dive fee this could increase our liability risk for the park. However, if we institute a permit fee, or parking fee to visit the park, this would still maintain the dive at your own risk status of the park. This could be worth exploring further. 4. Parking in waterfront parks, parking pass for all parks. Again, this strategy has been instituted across the nation, and most recently in Washington State. This could be a strategy for consideration. 5. Recreation pricing: Parks pricing policy, field rentals, fee increases, etc. The City of Edmonds currently does not have a pricing policy, but does revisit fees every year. It may be worth creating a policy to look at all fees, including recreation programs, rentals, nonresident fees, recreation permit fees, etc. The above five areas are specific to the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department. Other examples of revenue generating policies that could be implemented in the city include the following: 6. Mobile food vendors: Along with food and recreational vendors in the parks, the city as a whole has had several requests for mobile food vendors. Please see attached document from Kernen Lien in regards to this potential. 7. Business Partnerships: Cities are looking to private entities more and more to create partnerships to do business. These can be in the form of contributions, work sharing, private development on public land, sponsorships of events and/or programs, etc. There are several examples of this already in Edmonds, but without a policy or process in place to ensure a fair and equitable process. If Council so desires, this could be an area of further exploration. 8. Donation collections at events: There are several free, community events that are sponsored by the city and attract hundreds of people. Donations at events can often help support and subsidize the cost of the event. This may be an area to explore further. 9. Other This briefing is meant as a beginning discussion of expanding business policies and programs into parks, and other areas of the city. If Council has an interest, staff could come back with some recommendations for code, policy, and procedures to implement any of these options. Council does need to recognize that these initiatives do take staff time and management, some more than others. Currently, we could realistically implement some of these sooner rather than later, and phase in more strategies each year. Packet Page 170 of 234 AM-3992   Item #: 1. N. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted By:Frances Chapin Department:Parks and Recreation Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information Information Subject Title Report on the SR 99 International District Enhancements Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action March 4, 2008, Council authorized staff to call for bids for the decorative illumination elements.   October 21, 2008, Council authorized the purchase of light poles and electrical components for the project.  Authorization was approved to advertise for bids for construction on August 17, 2009, but due to subsequent delays the project was not advertised.    Narrative This report provides a summary update regarding the scope, budget and schedule for the SR 99 International District Enhancements Project.   The scope of the original project was to create streetscape enhancements including replacement of existing cobra head light poles with new decorative poles, signage, pedestrian lighting, and a sculptural element on a resurfaced median island at 76th Avenue West.  The goals of the enhancement project are to create a visual gateway for the International District, enhance district identity and pedestrian safety, and encourage economic development on SR 99.  Originally scheduled for construction in 2009-10, the project was delayed and the City applied for funding to increase the number of decorative lighting elements in the scope of work for the project area.   Budgeted in the 129 fund, the project was originally awarded Federal Transportation Enhancement funding of $316,000 in 2006.  In 2008 the City received an additional $57,000 grant to bring the total to $373,000.  In late 2010 the City was awarded $289,000 in Federal Transportation Enhancement funding to bring the total grant funded budget to $662,000.   Construction of the initial project will be postponed until design work can be completed for the additional elements. A contract with CH2MHill to complete design and engineering for the additional lighting elements is currently being negotiated, WSDOT approval to go to bid will be sought in the fall 2011, and it is anticipated that construction of the total project will commence in the spring of 2012.  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 12:10 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/10/2011 07:45 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/10/2011 07:58 AM Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 06/08/2011 12:02 PM Final Approval Date: 06/10/2011  Packet Page 171 of 234 AM-3924   Item #: 2. A. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title Park Impact Fee Discussion. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Finance Committee discuss and decide whether to bring this to full Council. Previous Council Action Last Finance Committee meeting, the committee requested this item come back with a full presentation for further discussion. Narrative This topic was first presented at the Finance Committee last month.  The committee requested that a full presentation be provided to preview before a decision is made to take this to full council.  Attached is a memo describing Park Impact Fees and an Example of Park Impact Fees for Edmonds.  Attachments Park Impact Fees Example of fees for Edmonds Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/03/2011 01:56 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/05/2011 02:51 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/05/2011 03:14 PM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 05/03/2011 12:24 PM Final Approval Date: 05/05/2011  Packet Page 172 of 234 1 Memorandum To: City Council, Mayor From: Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Date: April 7, 2011 Re: Park Impact Fees Discussion What is an Impact Fee? An impact fee is a fee charged by a city or county to developers to pay for the costs of providing public facilities or of improving existing ones needed as a result of the new development. Developers are generally responsible for the entire cost of on-site improvements within the development that primarily serve residents of development. Impact fees are a mechanism for assuring that developers to pay a share of the costs of off-site facilities that serve the development. For example, new developments may create the need for new, expanded or improved public facilities such as parks, new or widened roads and sidewalks, schools, fire protection facilities, and utilities in the vicinity of the development. In addition to the new demands on public facilities, the new development also will increase ongoing costs for public services, programs, and facilities operation and maintenance. For example, additional teachers, and firemen, as well as expanded recreation programs, may be needed as a result of the new development. Such ongoing expenses must be covered by funding sources other than impact fees. Impact Fees as Applied in Washington In Washington, impact fees are specifically authorized for those jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (RCW 82.02.050 - .110). However, GMA impact fees are only authorized for public streets and roads; publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities; school facilities; and fire protection facilities. In addition, payments to "mitigate" direct impacts of development, including those on public facilities, are authorized as part of "voluntary agreements" under RCW 82.02.020, and under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA - Ch. 43.21C RCW). See Types of Impact Fees Authorized by Washington Statutes for more information on these and other impact fee or mitigation alternatives. In any case, impact fees must be reasonably related to the demand created by the new development - they may not exceed the development's proportionate share of the public facilities' costs. They must directly benefit the new development, and they may not be used to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities. See Impact Fees for relevant state statutes and case law. Packet Page 173 of 234 2 Research of impact on growth ( Referenced from MRSC ) Growth costs money. And increasingly many municipalities have turned to impact fees—one-time charges against new development—to pay the costs of growth. Traditionally, these costs have been financed by property taxes. However, those revenues have proven mostly inadequate to fund the roads, water and sewer infrastructure, and schools required by new residential and commercial development. Impact fees, though, are not universally accepted. Some private interests and public officials could be concerned that impact fees constrain local economic development, serving as a de facto "tax" on capital, stifling investment, and driving job growth to other fee-free jurisdictions. Supporters argue impact fees act as an investment in the community, spurring economic growth through the timely provision of new infrastructure and the expansion of buildable land. Given that impact fees often pay for public infrastructure projects, understanding the relationship between impact fees and local economic development, defined here as local job growth, is key. This report addresses the controversy around impact fees by reviewing the academic literature concerning the effect of impact fees on employment and the economy generally. In addition, the report presents a new analysis of the relationship between impact fees and job creation by assessing impact fee and economic data, assembled for the period 1993 to 1999, for the 67 counties of Florida. Overall, the research finds that: • Property tax revenues increasingly fail to cover the full costs of the infrastructure needed to serve new development. More and more, political resistance to property taxes compromises the conventional way to pay for infrastructure needs brought on by new development. Consequently, new property values would have to be very high or property tax rates raised across the board to pay for the full array of infrastructure needs For example, one study of a rapidly growing city in Georgia in the 1990s found that the city faced a 50 percent shortfall in funding the new infrastructure demanded by new development and would need to raise $90 million more than it projected in total revenues from all state and federal transfers and property taxes. • Impact fees, like user fees, offer a more efficient way to pay for infrastructure than general taxes, and ensure benefits to those who pay them. Academic literature suggests that the aggregate benefits of impact fees improve efficiency in the provision of infrastructure. While impact fees often do not reflect the full price of infrastructure improvements, fees do make the economic linkage between those paying for and those receiving benefits more direct, and so promote economic efficiency. The obvious direct economic benefits include the actual infrastructure Packet Page 174 of 234 3 investment, such as new roads, new schools, and new water and sewer extensions. Indirect benefits include improved predictability in the marketplace, knowing when and where infrastructure investment will occur, and that all developers are treated equitably. • Impact fees increase the supply of buildable land. In the absence of impact fees, local governments may not have the revenue necessary to accommodate growth. With impact fees, they gain necessary infrastructure¾ water, sewer, drainage, and road facilities¾ to open new parcels of land development. One study also found that impact fees may reduce uncertainty and risk for developers by giving them a reasonably predictable supply of buildable land. • Impact fees have complex effects on housing prices. One particularly thorough study of the effect of impact fees on housing prices found that fees reduced land prices by the amount of fees paid but also raised finished house prices by about half again the fee amount. One interpretation is that while impact fees lower raw land prices as predicted by conventional economic theory, the amount of the fee reflecting infrastructure value is recovered in the sales price. Additionally, the increment above the fee represents the value of the infrastructure as a whole and/or the certainty perceived by the market that facilities will be provided at a desired level and quality of service (i.e. no congestion) regardless of growth pressures. • Impact fees do not slow job growth. In this study, we find, at minimum, that impact fees are not a drag on local economies. At most, impact fees are the grease that helps sustain job growth in the local economy. While impact fees will continue to draw detractors, this discussion shows that impact fees are a practical and valuable tool for financing local infrastructure needs. Without them, growing communities may not be able to sustain growth. In short, impact fees can directly fund vital infrastructure improvements, while increasing the supply of buildable land, improving predictability in the development process, and indirectly promoting local employment at the same time. Faced with the growing demand for investment and the public resistance to tax increases, localities in growing regions that institute impact fees may become more prosperous in the long run than communities in such regions that do not have them. Park Impact Fees in Edmonds? In order to consider imposing park impact fees, the City Council would need to determine that new residential growth and development in the city will create additional demand and need for public facilities, namely parks. In addition, the City Council will need to agree that this new residential growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. The park impact fee rate is usually determined through a comprehensive rate study using a current per capita formula. This formula is then applied to future need and determined by City Council. For cities across Washington State, it varies widely, ranging from $500-5000 for single family units. Packet Page 175 of 234 Growth costs money. And increasingly many municipalities, confronted with tax-averse electorates, have turned to impact fees—one-time charges against new development—to pay the costs of growth. Traditionally, these costs have been financed by property taxes. However, those revenues have proven mostly inadequate to fund the roads, water and sewer infrastructure, and schools required by new residential and commercial development. RELATED CONTENT Where are the Jobs?: Cities, Suburbs and the Competition for Employment John Brennan and Edward W. Hill The Brookings Institution November 1999 Reviving Cities: Think Metropolitan Bruce Katz The Brookings Institution June 1998 The Benefits of High Density Development Amy Liu Delaware Valley Smart Growth Alliance 2nd Annual Forum November 17, 2005 More Related Content » Impact fees, though, are not universally accepted. Conventional wisdom among some private interests and public officials is that impact fees constrain local economic development, serving as a de facto "tax" on capital, stifling investment, and driving job growth to other fee-free jurisdictions. Supporters argue impact fees act as an investment in the community, spurring economic growth through the timely provision of new infrastructure and the expansion of buildable land. Given that impact fees often pay for public infrastructure projects, understanding the relationship between impact fees and local economic development, defined here as local job growth, is key. This report addresses the controversy around impact fees by reviewing the academic literature concerning the effect of impact fees on employment and the economy generally. In addition, the report presents a new analysis of the relationship between impact fees and job creation by assessing impact fee and economic data, assembled for the period 1993 to 1999, for the 67 counties of Florida. Overall, the paper finds that: • Property tax revenues increasingly fail to cover the full costs of the infrastructure needed to serve new development. More and more, political resistance to property taxes compromises the conventional way to pay for infrastructure needs brought on by new development. Consequently, new property values would have to be very high or property tax rates raised across the board to pay for the full array of infrastructure needs For example, one study of a rapidly growing city in Georgia in the 1990s found that the city faced a 50 percent shortfall in funding the new infrastructure demanded by new development and would need to raise $90 million more than it projected in total revenues from all state and federal transfers and property taxes. • Impact fees, like user fees, offer a more efficient way to pay for infrastructure than general taxes, and ensure benefits to those who pay them. Academic literature suggests that the aggregate benefits of impact fees improve efficiency in the provision of infrastructure. While impact fees often do not reflect the full price of infrastructure improvements, fees do make the economic linkage between those paying for and those receiving benefits more direct, and so promote economic efficiency. The obvious direct economic benefits include the actual infrastructure investment, such as new roads, new schools, and new water and sewer extensions. Indirect benefits include improved predictability in the marketplace, knowing when and where infrastructure investment will occur, and that all developers are treated equitably. • Impact fees increase the supply of buildable land. In the absence of impact fees, local governments may not have the revenue necessary to accommodate growth. With impact fees, they gain necessary infrastructure¾ water, sewer, drainage, and road facilities¾ to open new parcels of land development. One study also found that impact fees may reduce uncertainty and risk for developers by giving them a reasonably predictable supply of buildable land. • Impact fees have complex effects on housing prices. One particularly thorough study of the effect of impact fees on housing prices found that fees reduced land prices by the amount of fees paid but also raised finished house prices by about half again the fee amount. One interpretation is that while impact fees lower raw land prices as predicted by conventional economic theory, the amount of the fee reflecting infrastructure value is recovered in the sales price. Additionally, the increment above the fee represents the value of the infrastructure as a whole and/or the certainty perceived by the market that facilities will be provided at a desired level and quality of service (i.e. no congestion) regardless of growth pressures. • Impact fees do not slow job growth. In this study, we find, at minimum, that impact fees are not a drag on local economies. At most, impact fees are the grease that helps sustain job growth in the local economy. Packet Page 176 of 234 While impact fees will continue to draw detractors, this paper shows that impact fees are a practical and valuable tool for financing local infrastructure needs. Without them, growing communities may not be able to sustain growth. In short, impact fees can directly fund vital infrastructure improvements, while increasing the supply of buildable land, improving predictability in the development process, and indirectly promoting local employment at the same time. Faced with the growing demand for investment and the public resistance to tax increases, localities in growing regions that institute impact fees may become more prosperous in the long run than communities in such regions that do not have them. Packet Page 177 of 234 AM-3995   Item #: 2. B. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Committee:Finance Type:Action Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign a Lease Agreement with Pitney Bowes for Postage Meter Equipment. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the Finance Committee approve placing the lease agreement on the City Council Consent Agenda for approval. Previous Council Action On 07-18-06, the City Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Lease Agreement with Pitney Bowes for Postage Meter Equipment.  This lease is due to expire this year. Narrative One of the responsibilities of the City Clerk's Office is to process and post all city mail.  Currently, the city has a lease agreement with Pitney Bowes for postage meter equipment that is due to expire.  The equipment has proven to be extremely reliable, and required very little service through the years.  The response to any requests for repairs or assistance has been excellent.   Pitney Bowes is proposing to replace the equipment and enter into a new lease agreement. The new equipment (DM1100) will be very similar to what is currently used; a positive change is that the speed will be slightly higher because the equipment will be new.  The proposal for the DM1100 includes set up and training, meter rental, maintenance and shape based rating.  Included is a 30 pound scale (which is the same as the city currently has) and all new rate changes that the post office has will be automatically added to the machine at no cost.  The monthly lease amount is $718.60 (not including tax) and it is for a 60 month term. We will realize a savings of approximately $75 per month from the current lease amount. Pitney Bowes was awarded the State Contract for this mail processing equipment.  Because the equipment has gone through the bidding process with the state the city is able to take advantage of this pricing. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the the agreement and approved as to form. Attachments Exhibit 1: Pitney Bowes Contract for DM1100 Exhibit 2: Pitney Bowes Contract for DM1100 Attachment A Exhibit 3: DM1100 Equipment Information Exhibit 4: State Contract Information Exhibit 5: Additional State Contract Information Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 06/10/2011 07:45 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/10/2011 07:58 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 06/08/2011 03:45 PM Final Approval Date: 06/10/2011  Packet Page 178 of 234 2011 6907 CITY OF EDMONDS (425) 771 0240 ext ____ (425) 771 0265 ext ____ EDMONDS WA 98020-3163 EDMONDS WA 98020-3163 Huda Olsen (425) 771 0240 ext ____ X X X X X X X X X X Pitney Bowes Global Financial Services (PBGFS) Pitney Bowes Inc. (PBI) Brenda Mascott (360) 661 2439 ext ____ brenda.mascott@pb.com (203) 617 6637 ext ____ Pitney Bowes Global Financial Service Box 856460 Louisville, KY 40285-6460 Pitney Bowes Inc, Box 856390 Louisville, KY 40285-6390 201344287 60495050 X 60 121 5TH AVE N 121 5TH AVE N Sandy Chase (425) 771 0240 Form Revision Date: April 17, 2008 Page 1 of 2Packet Page 179 of 234 See Attachment A for Details See Attachment B Form Revision Date: April 17, 2008 Page 2 of 2Packet Page 180 of 234 NASPO MASTER AGREEMENT OFF22 ATTACHMENT A State Contract Number [ 6907 ] Purchase Order Number [ ] Equipment Model Number Equipment/ Accessory Description (E.G. Digital Postage Equipment ) Qty Number Of Lease Or Rental Months Trade- in Value Net Total Lease, Purchase Or Rental Equipment Costs Service Plan Selected With Applicable Net Rate Per Unit/Each Purchase Price Or Monthly Lease Or Rental Net Total Cost For Service 1 $387.37 60SVAF $23,242.20 $191.09 $191.09DM1100 WOW Mailing System $0.00 1 $63.00 601M00 $3,780.00 $0.00 $0.00IntelliLink Interface / PSD for DM500-DM1100 $0.00 1 $0.00 601FAN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00INVIEW Accounting - 300 Accounts $0.00 1 $51.58 601FW6 $3,094.80 $0.00 $0.0030 lb Interfaced Weighing $0.00 1 $0.00 601E90050 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00NASPO Warranty Label $0.00 1 $0.00 60MP30 $0.00 $12.51 $12.5115/30 lb Weighing Platform $0.00 1 $31.18 60U7PS $1,870.80 $28.23 $28.23Power Stacker for DM900, DM1000 $0.00 1 $0.00 601D00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00IntelliLink Subscription $0.00 GRAND TOTAL: $533.14 $718.60 $185.46 $185.46TOTALS :$0.00 Packet Page 181 of 234 Packet Page 182 of 234 Packet Page 183 of 234 Packet Page 184 of 234 Packet Page 185 of 234 Packet Page 186 of 234 About GA | Jobs Purchasing & Contracts >> Contracts Printable Version Multi-State Postage and Mail Processing Equi Contract#: 06907 Replaces: 08101 Related Contracts: 13600 This multi-state contract is for postage and mail processing equipment, accessories, services and supplies. This contract is awarded to multiple contractors: Formax, Division of Bescorp, Inc.; Francoptyp-Postalia, Inc.; Hasler, Inc.; Neopost, Inc.; Pitney Bowes, Inc. The contract consists of Category 1 and 2 described below, with Category 2 consisting of sub-categories 2A through 2H. Category 1 - Postage and mailing systems equipment, accessories, service and supplies, including full equipment and accessory product lines and service maintenance levels for 4-, 8-, 12- and 24-hour response times for annual rates (Plan A) or time and material hourly rates (Plan B). Category 2 - Mail processing equipment, accessories, service and supplies, including full equipment and accessory product lines and service maintenance levels for 4-, 8-, 12- and 24-hour response times for annual rates (Plan A) or time and material hourly rates (Plan B). Sub-Category 2A. Folding/inserting equipment Sub-Category 2B. Folding equipment Sub-Category 2C. Tabbing equipment Sub-Category 2D. Sorting equipment Sub-Category 2E. Mail/letter opening equipment Sub-Category 2F. Pressure sealing equipment Sub-Category 2G. Check imprinting/endorsing equipment Sub-Category 2H. Bursting equipment Current Term Start Date: 02-02-2008 Award Date: 02-02-2008 Est. Annual Worth: $2,491,157 Current Term Ends On: 11-13-2012 Final Term Ends On: 11-13-2012 Commodity Code(s): 600-02 ,600-03 ,600-05 ,600-08 ,600- 11 ,600-14 ,600-15 ,600-16 ,600-17 Diversity: 0% WBE 0% MBE Contact Information: Office of State Procurement - Customer Service (360) 902-7400 or csmail@ga.wa.gov Who can use this contract? Washington State agencies Qualified Cooperative Members (Political Subdivisions/Non-Profit Organizations) Participating Colleges, Universities, Community & Technical Colleges Contract Documents & Resources View Current Contract Information (CCI) Green-recycled product listing Contract Activity Submit Contractor Feedback Best-buy Notification Contractor(s): BESCORP INC FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA, INC. NEOPOST USA INC PITNEY BOWES The symbol of a tree indicates that environmentally preferred or friendly products are available. These products may not be available from all vendors on this contract. Performance Based Contracting: Packet Page 187 of 234 Performance-based contracts identify expected deliverables, performance measures or outcomes; and payment is contingent on their successful delivery. Performance-based contracts also use appropriate techniques, which may include but are not limited to, consequences and/or incentives to ensure that agreed upon value to the state is received. GA Home Page | Contact us | Feedback Copyright © 2006 Washington State Department of General Administration All Rights Reserved Packet Page 188 of 234 State of Washington Current Contract Information Revision date: June 8, 2011 Contract number: 06907 (replaces #08101 & 13600) Commodity code: 7490 Contract title: Multi-State Postage & Mail Processing Equipment Purpose: Update Pitney Bowes vendor contact information Award date: 02/02/2008 Period of performance: 02/15/2008 through: 11/13/2010 Contract term: Not to exceed 6 years or 11/13/2012 Contract type: This contract is designated as mandatory use. Scope of Contract The State of Washington has joined as a participant on the Massachusetts multi-state mail contract #OFF22. The State of Massachusetts manages the contract on behalf of state members including the State of Washington. You will be directed to the Massachusetts site for contract information that is not included on this document. Contract is awarded to five contractors for multi-state postage and mail processing equipment, accessories, services and supplies. Category 1: Postage and Mailing Systems Equipment, Accessories, Service and Supplies. Category 2: Mail Processing Equipment, Accessories, Service and Supplies. Products/Services available: The contract consists of Category 1 and 2 described below with Category 2 consisting of Sub- Categories 2A through 2H. Category 1 - Postage and Mailing Systems Equipment, Accessories, Service and Supplies Including full equipment and accessory product lines and service maintenance levels for 4, 8, 12 and 24 hour response times for annual rates (Plan A) or time and material hourly rates (Plan B). Category 2- Mail Processing Equipment, Accessories, Service and Supplies Including full equipment and accessory product lines and service maintenance levels for 4, 8, 12 and 24 hour response times for annual rates (Plan A) or time and material hourly rates (Plan B). Sub-Category 2A. Folding/Inserting Equipment Sub-Category 2B. Folding Equipment Sub-Category 2C. Tabbing Equipment Sub-Category 2D. Sorting Equipment Sub-Category 2E. Mail/Letter Opening Equipment Sub-Category 2F. Pressure Sealing Equipment Sub-Category 2G. Check Imprinting/Endorsing Equipment Sub-Category 2H. Bursting Equipment Contract exclusions: Exception #1: Any State agency that wishes to acquire “commercial” or “production” grade mail processing equipment or accessories must first obtain written approval from Consolidated Mail Services in cooperation with the Purchasing Activity’s Contract Administrator. Exception #2: In addition to Exception #1, any correctional facility that is part Packet Page 189 of 234 of the Washington State Department of Corrections and involved in the processing of secure inmate mail must first obtain authorization from that agency’s HQ Purchasing Manager before acquiring any mailing equipment or accessories other than Pitney Bowes. Contractors: This contract is awarded to multiple contractor(s). 1. Formax, Division of Bescorp, Inc. 2. Franco-Postalia, Inc. 3. Hasler, Inc. 4. Neopost, Inc. 5. Pitney Bowes, Inc. Primary user agency(ies): General use: All State Agencies, Political Subdivisions of Washington and Oregon State, Qualified Non-profit Corporations, Materials Management Center, Participating Institutions of Higher Education (College and Universities, Community and Technical Colleges). Contract pricing: See eyeglasses icon with individual contractors below Ordering information: FOR ORDERS…. ALL CUSTOMERS MUST COMPLETE A EQUIPMENT CONFIRMATION FORM FOR EACH LEASE. See forms with individuals below Ordering procedures: See Massachusetts website: https://www.ebidsourcing.com/ or www.comm-pass.com Equipment Confirmation Form (ECF) must be used and attached to each equipment lease, purchase, service or rental encumbrance document to confirm the selection of equipment covered under the Statewide Contract Number OFF22. Conflicting or additional terms, conditions or agreements included in or attached to this form, which conflict with the terms of the OFF22 Statewide Contract shall be considered to be superseded and void. Customers are required to sign this confirmation form instead of a separate lease, purchase, service or rental agreement. This form is optional for all supply purchases. Current participation: $0.00 MBE $0.00 WBE $0.00 OTHER $0.00 EXEMPT MBE 0% WBE 0% OTHER 0% EXEMPT 0% Lead State for Contract: Massachusetts Contract Manager: Darren Walz, Procurement Manager, Operational Services Division Room 1017, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-720-3106 Fax: 617-727-4527 Email: Darren.Walz@state.ma.us Packet Page 190 of 234 Washington Contact: Customer Service Office of State Procurement General Administration 210 11th Avenue SW, GA Bldg, Room 201 Olympia, WA 98504-1017 Phone: (360) 902-7400 Fax: (360) 586-2426 csmail@ga.wa.gov contract number 06907 Visit our Internet site: www.ga.wa.gov HOW TO FIND THE MASSACHUSETTS CONTRACT ON THE WEB: The complete details of the contract are located on Comm-Pass at www.comm-pass.com. Use the following steps: • Front page of Comm-Pass select search for contracts link, • Search page – input OFF22 in the document number box and click search, • Sentence Link – Click on the sentence link at the top of the search page and the contract title will appear, • Click on the eyeglasses at the end of the active contract name, • Click on the Terms Tab for additional contract information or click on the Vendor Tab to view the list of Contractors, • Click on the eyeglasses for all Contractors to expand the view and at the bottom of the expanded view are the approved cost files. As a Contractor’s websites are approved the Contractors Name will become a live link to the pricing which may replace the cost files at the bottom of the expanded view. NOTES: I. Best Buy: The following provision applies to mandatory use contracts only. This contract is subject to RCW 43.19.190(2) & RCW 43.19.1905(7): which authorizes state agencies to purchase materials, supplies, services, and equipment of equal quantity and quality to those on state contract from non-contract suppliers. Provided that an agency subsequently notifies the Office of State Procurement (OSP) contract administrator that the pricing is less costly for such goods or services than the price from the state contractor. If the non-contract supplier's pricing is less, the state contractor shall be given the opportunity by the state agency to at least meet the non-contractor's price. If the state contractor cannot meet the price, then the state agency may purchase the item(s) from the non-contract supplier, document the transactions on the appropriate form developed by OSP and forwarded to the SPO administering the state contract. (Reference General Authorities document) If a lower price can be identified on a repeated basis, the state reserves the right to renegotiate the pricing structure of this agreement. In the event such negotiations fail, the state reserves the right to delete such item(s) from the contract. II. State Agencies: Submit Order directly to Contractor for processing. Political Subdivisions: Submit orders directly to Contractor referencing State of Washington contract number. If you are unsure of your status in the State Purchasing Cooperative call (360) 902-7415 or visit https://fortress.wa.gov/ga/inet/servlet/PCACoopListSv III. Only authorized purchasers included in the State of Washington Purchasing Cooperative (WSPC). It is the contractor’s responsibility to verify membership of these organizations prior to processing orders received under this contract. A list of Washington members is available on the Internet http://www.ga.wa.gov/servlet/PCACoopListSv, contractors shall not process state contract orders from unauthorized users. IV. Contract Terms: This participating addendum to the Massachusetts contract includes by reference all terms and conditions published in the original Participating Addendum, including Standard Terms and Conditions, and Packet Page 191 of 234 Definitions, included in the Competitive Procurement Standards published by OSP (as Amended). These terms along with the Master Contract terms created by Massachusetts control transactions in the State of Washington. Mass Contract Terms and Conditions.doc Formax PA.doc Francotyp-Postalia PA.doc Hasler PA.doc Neopost PA.doc Pitney Bowes PA.doc SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Vendor Information Company Name: Formax, Division of Bescorp Inc Doing Business As (DBA): Formax Programs: Comments: Awards for Category 2, Sub-Category 2A, 2B, 2C, 2E, 2F, 2G and 2H. Name: Eric Flinton Title: Government Contracts Address 1: 44 Venture Dr City: Dover State or Province: NH Postal Code: 03820 Country: US Phone1: 800-232-5535 ext. 37 Phone2: Phone3: Fax1: Products: Pressure sealers, inserters, document folders, bursters, cutters, letter openers joggers, etc. E-mail: eflinton@formax.com Website: http://www.formax.com Effective Start Date: 2007-11-14 08:00:00.0 Effective End Date: 2010-11-13 17:00:00.0 Vendor Code 1: VC6000064124 Washington Vendor Number W8953 Upload Date Document Description View Formax Pricing OFF22 Equipment Contract Cost Sheets Per Category and Model LOCAL CONTRACTOR FOR WASHINGTON SALES: Formax local contractor Equipment Confirmation Form.doc Packet Page 192 of 234 Company Name: Francotyp-Postalia, Inc. Doing Business As (DBA): FP Mailing Solutions Home Page http://www.fp-usa.com/ Comments: Awards for Category 1, Category 2, Sub-Category 2A and 2E Name: Joan Rader Title: Major Account Coordinator Address 1: 140 N Mitchell Ct., Suite 200 City: Addison State or Province: IL Postal Code: 60101 Country: US Phone1: 800-341-6052x5722 Phone2: 630-827-5722 Alternate Contact: Russell Wood, Western Region Major Account Manager, FP Mailing Solutions, 140 N. Mitchell Court, Suite 200, Addison, IL 60101; (630) 981-1290; rwood@fp-usa.com Fax1: 800-810-3761 Fax2: E-mail: Jrader@fp-usa.com Website: http://www.fpusa.net/majorgvtaccts.cfm Effective Start Date: 2/15/2008 Effective End Date: 11/13/2010 Washington Vendor Number Vendor Code 2: 5 Vendor Documents Upload Date Document Description View Francotyp-Postalia Pricing OFF22 Equipment Contract Cost Sheets Per Category and Model LOCAL CONTRACTOR FOR WASHINGTON SALES: Franco Postalia contact info Equipment Confirmation Form.doc FP Products 2010 to 2012.pdf FP Product Line.pdf Vendor Information Company Name: Hasler, Inc. Doing Business As (DBA): Programs: Comments: Awards for Category 1, Category 2, Sub-Category 2A and 2C equipment, accessories, services and supplies. Name: Lucy Boyd (877) 311-4860 x 2920; cell: (626) 376-7655 Packet Page 193 of 234 437 Countrywood Lane Encinitas, CA 92024 Fax (928) 396-7655 Title: Public Sector Business Development Manager Address 1: 478 Wheelers Farms Road City: Milford State or Province: CT Postal Code: 06461 Country: US Phone1: 800-237-9154x2112 Phone2: (203) 301-3400 Phone3: Fax1: 203-925-5427 Fax2: E-mail: l.boyd@neopost.com Website: Effective Start Date: 2007-11-14 08:00:00.0 Effective End Date: 2010-11-13 17:00:00.0 Vendor Code 1: VC6000200080 Vendor Code 2: 3 General Correspondence Address Hasler, Inc., P.O. Box 3811, Milford, CT 06460-8711 Customer Payments Address Hasler, Inc., P.O. Box 3808, Milford, CT 06460-8708 Vendor Documents Upload Date Document Description View Hasler Pricing OFF22 Equipment Contract Cost Sheets Per Category and Model Welcome to NESCA.pdf Hasler Contractor Information.doc Hasler WA Dealer List 11-12-09.XLS Equipment Confirmation Form.doc Hasler.exclusions on 06907.doc Vendor Information Company Name: Neopost Inc. Doing Business As (DBA): Programs: Comments: Awards for Category 1, Category 2, Sub-Category 2A, 2B and 2C, equipment, accessories, services and supplies. Name: Jim Leiby j.leiby@neopost.com Title: Director, Government Sales Address 1: 30955 Huntwood Avenue City: Hayward State or Province: CT Postal Code: 94145 Country: Packet Page 194 of 234 Phone1: 800-636-7678x2883 Alternate Contact: Philip Baldwin, Public Sector Business Development Manager Nexxpost Mailing and Imaging Solutions 5200 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 140, Seattle WA 98188 206-764-9000 www.nexxpost.com Cell Phone: (425) 444-5898 Office Phone: (206) 764-9000 Fax1: E-mail: Philip.baldwin@nexxpost.com Website: www.nexxpost.com Effective Start Date: 2007-11-14 08:00:00.0 Effective End Date: 2010-11-13 17:00:00.0 Vendor Code 1: VC6000264572 Vendor Code 2: 2 Vendor Documents Document Description View Neopost Pricing OFF22 Equipment Contract Cost Sheets Per Category and Model LOCAL CONTRACTORS FOR WASHINGTON SALES: Nexxpost, LLC, Digital Mail Machines, Excel Business Systems Pacific Office Equipment Welcome to NESCA.pdf Nexxpost Contact Information.doc Neopost - WASHINGTON 11-12-09.xls Equipment Confirmation Form.doc Company Name: Pitney Bowes Inc. Doing Business As (DBA): Programs: Comments: Awards for Category 1, Category 2, Sub-Category 2A, 2D and 2E equipment, accessories, services and supplies Name: Robert Mailo Title: State Government Contract Manager Address 1: 959 Concord St City: Framingham State or Province: MA Postal Code: 01701 Country: Phone1: 800-322-8000x36770 Phone2: Phone3: Packet Page 195 of 234 Fax1: Fax2: E-mail: bob.mailo@pb.com Website: http://www.pb.com/cgi- bin/pb.dll/jsp/SPLInterest.do?sitelet=StateandLocal&catOID=- 20071&=en&country=US Effective Start Date: 2007-11-14 08:00:00.0 Effective End Date: 2010-11-13 17:00:00.0 Vendor Code 1: VC6000199850 Vendor Code 2: 1 Vendor Documents One item found. Upload Date Document Description View Pitney Bowes Pricing OFF22 Equipment Contract Cost Sheets Per Category and Model WASHINGTON STATE CONTACT FOR PITNEY BOWES Contractor: PITNEY BOWES Mail Machines and maintenance on existing mail equipment Equipment Confirmation Form.doc Contact: Chelsea Jorgensen Phone: (206) 851-3353 Government Account Representative E Mail: Chelsea.Jorgensen@pb.com e-Fax: (203) 460-3251 Alternate: Art Adams Phone: e-fax: (203) 351-7866 (203) 460-3827 Director, Government Contracts E Mail: Art.adams@pb.com ORDERS TO: BILLING FROM: PAYMENT TO: Chelsea Quimby Pitney Bowes Pitney Bowes 1313 N. Atlantic Spokane, WA 99201-2302 Pitney Bowes PO Box 856390 Louisville, KY 40285-6390 Call Contractor to arrange service. General: 1-800-322-8000 Billing: 1-800-228-1071 Equipment Repair: 1-800-522-0020 Consumable Supply Line: 1-800-243-7824 Ordering procedures: Place order directly with Chelsea or area representative Minimum orders: None Credit card acceptance: Visa, MasterCard, American Express, & Discover Federal ID No.: 06-0495050 Delivery time: 30 days After Receipt of Order Packet Page 196 of 234 Shipping destination: Freight on Board (FOB) destination Supplier No.: W3321 Exclusions on contract Exceptions.exclusion s on 06907.doc Packet Page 197 of 234 AM-3997   Item #: 2. C. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Jim Tarte Department:Finance Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title General Fund Update - May 2011 Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Informational purposes Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Refer to the attached report Attachments General Fund Update Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 12:10 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/10/2011 07:45 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/10/2011 07:58 AM Form Started By: Jim Tarte Started On: 06/09/2011 11:53 AM Final Approval Date: 06/10/2011  Packet Page 198 of 234 2011 Annual Budget YTD Actuals Variance % Rec/Exp BEGINNING WORKING CAPITAL 2,815,313 2,759,501 55,812 REVENUES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,506,114 4,757,297 4,748,817 50% EMS PROPERTY TAX 3,233,038 1,763,258 1,469,780 55% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 877,984 432,524 445,460 49% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,524,195 1,902,764 2,621,431 42% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 16,667 5,566 11,101 33% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 530,130 212,796 317,334 40% GAS UTILITY TAX 890,000 536,287 353,713 60% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 698,865 176,663 522,202 25% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,563,454 671,763 891,691 43% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,532,043 761,420 770,623 50% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 285,918 134,013 151,905 47% WATER UTILITY TAX 764,082 308,073 456,009 40% SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 197,150 272,850 42% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 237,600 106,192 131,408 45% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 250,938 54,241 196,697 22% PULLTABS TAX 61,043 29,030 32,013 48% LICENSES AND PERMITS 1,484,829 764,406 720,423 51% INTERGOVERNMENTAL 837,256 276,546 560,710 33% CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES 3,637,480 1,727,829 1,909,651 48% FINES AND FORFEITURES 667,100 237,356 429,744 36% MISCELLANEOUS 339,073 151,131 187,942 45% NONREVENUES - - - 0% INTERFUND TRANSFERS 104,464 17,324 87,140 17% 32,512,273 15,223,630 17,288,643 47% EXPENDITURES: SALARIES / WAGES 12,813,121 4,933,927 7,879,194 39% BENEFITS 4,408,629 1,699,845 2,708,784 39% SUPPLIES 531,004 166,162 364,842 31% SERVICES 3,644,274 1,736,555 1,907,719 48% INTERGOVERNMENTAL 8,825,569 4,074,769 4,750,800 46% CAPITAL OUTLAY - - - 0% DEBT SERVICE PRINCIPAL 1,111,369 - 1,111,369 0% DEBT SERVICE INTEREST 340,759 5,106 335,653 1% INTERFUND SERVICES 646,172 164,804 481,369 26% 32,320,897 12,781,168 19,539,729 40% CHANGE IN WORKING CAPITAL (YTD)191,376 2,442,462 (2,251,086) ENDING WORKING CAPITAL 3,006,689 5,201,963 (2,195,274) Page 1 of 6 City of Edmonds General Fund Update May 2011 Packet Page 199 of 234 2010 OUTLOOK 658,799 2011 BUDGET 700,000 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast %7.79%5.06%6.55%8.36%8.00%10.19%9.31%10.84%9.65%9.82%7.83%6.61% Cumulative Forecast %7.79%12.85%19.40%27.76%35.76%45.95%55.26%66.10%75.74%85.56%93.39%100.00% Monthly Forecast $54,509 35,415 45,854 58,548 55,975 71,363 65,138 75,882 67,525 68,726 54,798 46,268 Cumulative Forecast $54,509 89,923 135,777 194,325 250,300 321,663 386,801 462,683 530,208 598,934 653,732 700,000 Actual Collected $64,450 26,992 30,969 61,193 51,964 84,378 77,017 89,722 79,840 81,260 64,792 54,707 Cumulative Collection $64,450 91,442 122,411 183,604 235,568 319,946 396,964 486,685 566,525 647,786 712,578 767,284 YEAR END FORECAST 827,667 711,822 631,090 661,380 658,799 696,263 718,392 736,313 747,948 757,095 763,011 767,284 Projected YE Variance 127,667 11,822 (68,910) (38,620) (41,201) (3,737) 18,392 36,313 47,948 57,095 63,011 67,284 Budget Variance %18.24%1.69%-9.84%-5.52%-5.89%-0.53%2.63%5.19%6.85%8.16%9.00%9.61% City of Edmonds 2011 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2011 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS Actuals/Trend Budget C:\Documents and Settings\tarte\My Documents\Book1 11 CHARTS Page 2 of 6 6/9/2011 11:44 AMPacket Page 200 of 234 2011 OUTLOOK 4,598,289 2011 BUDGET 4,524,195 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast %7.98%10.14%7.08%7.51%8.67%7.78%7.81%9.33%8.31%8.38%9.33%7.69% Cumulative Forecast %7.98%18.12%25.20%32.71%41.38%49.16%56.96%66.30%74.61%82.98%92.31%100.00% Monthly Forecast $361,138 458,856 320,307 339,615 392,188 351,881 353,139 422,201 376,021 378,930 421,884 348,035 Cumulative Forecast $361,138 819,994 1,140,302 1,479,916 1,872,104 2,223,985 2,577,124 2,999,325 3,375,345 3,754,276 4,176,160 4,524,195 Actual Collected $358,415 449,791 344,713 325,279 424,567 349,227 350,476 419,017 373,185 376,072 418,702 345,411 Cumulative Collection $358,415 808,205 1,152,918 1,478,197 1,902,764 2,251,991 2,602,467 3,021,483 3,394,668 3,770,741 4,189,443 4,534,853 YEAR END FORECAST 4,490,075 4,459,150 4,574,251 4,518,939 4,598,289 4,581,167 4,568,685 4,557,619 4,550,095 4,544,037 4,538,585 4,534,853 Projected YE Variance (34,120) (65,045) 50,056 (5,256) 74,094 56,972 44,490 33,424 25,900 19,842 14,390 10,658 Budget Variance %-0.75%-1.44%1.11%-0.12%1.64%1.26%0.98%0.74%0.57%0.44%0.32%0.24% City of Edmonds 2011 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model SALES AND USE TAX - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2011 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS Actuals/Trend Budget C:\Documents and Settings\tarte\My Documents\Book1 11 CHARTS Page 3 of 6 6/9/2011 11:44 AMPacket Page 201 of 234 2011 OUTLOOK 859,757 2011 BUDGET 890,000 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast %13.97%14.79%13.39%10.91%9.32%7.00%5.14%3.62%3.36%3.67%6.27%8.56% Cumulative Forecast %13.97%28.76%42.15%53.06%62.38%69.37%74.51%78.13%81.50%85.16%91.44%100.00% Monthly Forecast $124,297 131,645 119,196 97,069 82,945 62,262 45,728 32,251 29,930 32,637 55,825 76,215 Cumulative Forecast $124,297 255,942 375,138 472,207 555,152 617,413 663,141 695,392 725,322 757,960 813,785 890,000 Actual Collected $118,216 119,279 111,076 103,988 83,728 59,216 43,491 30,673 28,466 31,041 53,094 72,486 Cumulative Collection $118,216 237,495 348,571 452,559 536,287 595,503 638,993 669,667 698,132 729,173 782,268 854,754 YEAR END FORECAST 846,460 825,854 826,971 852,968 859,757 858,416 857,591 857,075 856,637 856,199 855,531 854,754 Projected YE Variance (43,540) (64,146) (63,029) (37,032) (30,243) (31,584) (32,409) (32,925) (33,363) (33,801) (34,469) (35,246) Budget Variance %-4.89%-7.21%-7.08%-4.16%-3.40%-3.55%-3.64%-3.70%-3.75%-3.80%-3.87%-3.96% City of Edmonds 2011 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model GAS UTILITY TAX - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2011 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS Actuals/Trend Budget C:\Documents and Settings\tarte\My Documents\Book1 11 CHARTS Page 4 of 6 6/9/2011 11:44 AMPacket Page 202 of 234 2011 OUTLOOK 1,695,925 2011 BUDGET 1,563,454 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast %5.64%9.53%9.56%6.30%8.58%6.51%9.54%8.94%6.22%11.08%5.56%12.54% Cumulative Forecast %5.64%15.16%24.73%31.03%39.61%46.12%55.67%64.61%70.82%81.90%87.46%100.00% Monthly Forecast $88,105 148,971 149,501 98,560 134,154 101,832 149,200 139,777 97,178 173,153 86,900 196,123 Cumulative Forecast $88,105 237,076 386,576 485,136 619,291 721,123 870,323 1,010,100 1,107,278 1,280,431 1,367,331 1,563,454 Actual Collected $119,046 76,840 192,889 113,698 169,290 137,594 201,597 188,864 131,306 233,962 117,418 264,998 Cumulative Collection $119,046 195,886 388,775 502,473 671,763 809,357 1,010,954 1,199,818 1,331,124 1,565,086 1,682,504 1,947,502 YEAR END FORECAST 2,112,514 1,291,816 1,572,347 1,619,325 1,695,925 1,754,753 1,816,085 1,857,104 1,879,520 1,911,028 1,923,833 1,947,502 Projected YE Variance 549,060 (271,638) 8,893 55,871 132,471 191,299 252,631 293,650 316,066 347,574 360,379 384,048 Budget Variance %35.12%-17.37%0.57%3.57%8.47%12.24%16.16%18.78%20.22%22.23%23.05%24.56% City of Edmonds 2011 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 1,750,000 2,000,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2011 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS Actuals/Trend Budget C:\Documents and Settings\tarte\My Documents\Book1 11 CHARTS Page 5 of 6 6/9/2011 11:44 AMPacket Page 203 of 234 2011 OUTLOOK 1,413,069 2011 BUDGET 1,532,043 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast %10.07%11.81%10.51%10.53%9.28%7.62%7.22%6.33%6.62%5.79%7.34%6.87% Cumulative Forecast %10.07%21.88%32.39%42.93%52.21%59.83%67.05%73.38%80.00%85.79%93.13%100.00% Monthly Forecast $154,344 180,865 161,039 161,397 142,207 116,798 110,597 96,931 101,381 88,779 112,474 105,231 Cumulative Forecast $154,344 335,209 496,248 657,645 799,852 916,651 1,027,247 1,124,178 1,225,559 1,314,338 1,426,812 1,532,043 Actual Collected $163,770 142,743 151,197 162,822 140,887 123,932 117,351 102,851 107,572 94,201 119,343 111,658 Cumulative Collection $163,770 306,514 457,711 620,533 761,420 885,352 1,002,703 1,105,554 1,213,127 1,307,328 1,426,671 1,538,329 YEAR END FORECAST 1,625,612 1,400,895 1,413,069 1,445,587 1,458,430 1,479,732 1,495,438 1,506,662 1,516,502 1,523,872 1,531,892 1,538,329 Projected YE Variance 93,569 (131,148) (118,974) (86,456) (73,613) (52,311) (36,605) (25,381) (15,541) (8,171) (151) 6,286 Budget Variance %6.11%-8.56%-7.77%-5.64%-4.80%-3.41%-2.39%-1.66%-1.01%-0.53%-0.01%0.41% City of Edmonds 2011 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 1,750,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2011 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS Actuals/Trend Budget C:\Documents and Settings\tarte\My Documents\Book1 11 CHARTS Page 6 of 6 6/9/2011 11:44 AMPacket Page 204 of 234 AM-3998   Item #: 2. D. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:10 Minutes   Submitted By:Jim Tarte Department:Finance Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title Quarterly Report - 4th 2010 - REVISED Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Informational purposes Previous Council Action N/A Narrative 4th quarter 2010 report was re-run using format that was used in prior quarters. Attachments Quarterly Report - 4th 2010 - REVISED Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/09/2011 12:24 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/10/2011 07:45 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/10/2011 07:58 AM Form Started By: Jim Tarte Started On: 06/09/2011 12:02 PM Final Approval Date: 06/10/2011  Packet Page 205 of 234 DECEMBER 31, 2010 BUDGET REPORT i CITY OF EDMONDS REVISED DECEMBER 31, 2010 BUDGET REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS (December 31, 2010) Overview General Fund Update………………………………………………………………………i Revenues by Fund-Summary…………..……………….………………………………………..1 Expenditures by Fund-Summary………………………………………………………...………2 Revenues- General Fund Detail…………………………………………………..………….…..3 Expenditure by Fund - Detail All Funds…………………………………………………………………………………..7 Expenditure by Department-Summary General Fund……………………………………………………………………………..13 Combined Utility……………………………………………...……………..…………..13 Expenditure by Department-Detail General Fund……………………………………………………………………………..14 Combined Utility……………………………………………………………………...…19 Packet Page 206 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Revenues 2010 Over / (Under)% Received GENERAL FUND 35,567,645 34,565,693 (1,001,952) 97% EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE - - - 0% LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 387,566 377,585 (9,981) 97% PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY RESERVE 1,334,693 1,335,961 1,268 100% DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 28,500 32,903 4,403 115% STREET FUND 1,539,574 1,559,132 19,558 101% COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,172,797 541,149 (1,631,648) 25% MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.3,000,000 2,551 (2,997,449) 0% BUILDING MAINTENANCE 412,438 349,950 (62,488) 85% MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 115,540 63,281 (52,259) 55% MEMORIAL STREET TREE 400 47 (353) 12% HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 67,530 68,625 1,095 102% EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 27,500 16,719 (10,781) 61% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,464 3,512 48 101% TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,368 19,440 72 100% REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 775,356 631,840 (143,516) 81% REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 764,397 630,822 (133,575) 83% GIFTS CATALOG FUND 32,281 35,936 3,655 111% SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 239,910 15,652 (224,258) 7% CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 208,630 145,051 (63,579) 70% FIRE DONATIONS 2,800 4 (2,796) 0% PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,789,000 69,704 (1,719,296) 4% PARKS TRUST FUND 3,760 295 (3,465) 8% CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 31,223 18,146 (13,077) 58% SISTER CITY COMMISSION 21,400 7,287 (14,113) 34% L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 107,500 81,416 (26,084) 76% L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 60,000 87,435 27,435 146% LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,452,160 452,160 - 100% COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 14,106,473 14,263,011 156,538 101% COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 7,858,332 129,866 (7,728,466) 2% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 2,782,176 1,281,221 (1,500,955) 46% EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 2,138,757 1,399,623 (739,134) 65% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 103,782 93,648 (10,134) 90% TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 750,000 589,545 (160,455) 79% 76,904,952 58,869,208 (18,035,744) 77% Notes: - Budgeted Revenue total of $76,904,952 reconciles to final amended budget (Ordinance #3826) - Actual Revenue total of $58,869,208 reconciles to unaudited financials statement reported to State of Washington CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY 1Packet Page 207 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Expenditures 2010 Over / (Under) % Used GENERAL FUND 35,718,908 33,779,491 (1,939,417) 95% LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 465,161 461,440 (3,721) 99% DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 74,115 47,989 (26,126) 65% STREET FUND 1,537,232 1,432,434 (104,798) 93% COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 1,982,560 433,132 (1,549,428) 22% MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.3,000,000 2,866 (2,997,134) 0% BUILDING MAINTENANCE 454,473 206,105 (248,368) 45% MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 110,425 44,471 (65,954) 40% HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 186,883 131,085 (55,798) 70% EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,086 25,957 (129) 100% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,307 3,586 (721) 83% TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 23,985 16,684 (7,301) 70% REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,942,000 1,808,263 (133,737) 93% REAL EST EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 956,796 700,596 (256,200) 73% GIFTS CATALOG FUND 15,259 9,946 (5,313) 65% SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 242,110 16,607 (225,503) 7% CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 151,289 150,291 (998) 99% FIRE DONATIONS 22,466 22,465 (1) 100% PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,784,000 3,693 (1,780,307) 0% PARKS TRUST FUND 25,403 24,681 (722) 97% SISTER CITY COMMISSION 21,000 5,058 (15,942) 24% L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 113,300 87,293 (26,007) 77% LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,452,160 452,160 - 100% COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 18,367,154 13,406,533 (4,960,621) 73% COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 6,823,600 310,593 (6,513,007) 5% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 2,743,588 181,468 (2,562,121) 7% EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 2,892,423 2,478,438 (413,985) 86% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 125,048 111,279 (13,769) 89% TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 750,000 589,545 (160,455) 79% 81,011,731 56,944,146 (24,067,585) 70% Notes: - Budgeted Expenditures of $81,011,731 reconciles to final amended budget (Ordinance #3826) - Actual Expenditures of $56,944,146 reconciles to unaudited financials statement reported to State of Washington CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY 2Packet Page 208 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Revenues 2010 Over/Under % Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,383,001 9,349,624 (33,377) 100% EMS PROPERTY TAX 3,911,000 3,473,256 (437,744) 89% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 853,084 849,993 (3,091) 100% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,519,949 4,468,237 (51,712) 99% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 16,065 12,963 (3,102) 81% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 649,836 534,045 (115,791) 82% GAS UTILITY TAX 924,550 757,340 (167,210) 82% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 533,544 635,609 102,065 119% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,387,744 1,467,800 80,056 106% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,529,710 1,453,611 (76,099) 95% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 280,908 279,116 (1,792) 99% WATER UTILITY TAX 710,854 711,836 982 100% SEWER UTILITY TAX 487,425 459,746 (27,679) 94% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 190,575 219,131 28,556 115% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 242,000 249,384 7,384 103% PULLTABS TAX 55,000 53,730 (1,270) 98% AMUSEMENT GAMES 500 - (500) 0% PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES 500 - (500) 0% 25,676,245 24,975,421 (700,824) 97% LICENSES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,130 905 (4,225) 18% PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 1,500 690 (810) 46% AMUSEMENTS 5,875 13,050 7,175 222% BUS. LICENCE PERMIT PENALTY 1,500 4,918 3,418 328% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 117,900 102,662 (15,238) 87% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 615,609 666,609 51,000 108% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER - 94,086 94,086 0% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK - 1,694 1,694 0% OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 124,499 231,002 106,503 186% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 19,000 20,805 1,805 110% NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 47,100 63,450 16,350 135% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE - 6,531 6,531 0% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 643,991 361,928 (282,063) 56% ANIMAL LICENSES 14,000 15,185 1,185 108% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 45,000 53,185 8,185 118% OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 6,100 5,715 (385) 94% 1,647,204 1,642,415 (4,789) 100% CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 3Packet Page 209 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Revenues 2010 Over/Under % Received CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND INTERGOVERNMENTAL: HUD EDI Grant 91,447 83,723 (7,724) 92% DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - Bullet Proof Vest 2,500 1,349 (1,151) 54% EECBG Grant 76,204 65,089 (11,115) 85% 2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne 25,522 24,619 (903) 96% WTSC SLOW DOWN OR PAY UP 2,645 5,006 2,361 189% WTSC X-52 DUI AND SPEEDING 3,222 3,958 736 123% WTSC-NIGHT TIME SEAT BELT ENFORCEMENT - 1,392 1,392 0% Target Zero Teams Grant 2,125 2,953 828 139% HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT - 2,788 2,788 0% E07943 P#17 PW#242 2006 Storm Assistance - 100 100 0% WSP - DRUG RECOGNITION EXPERT OT 500 - (500) 0% WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT 1,970 1,969 (1) 100% WSDOT SHELL VALLEY LA 7223 - 15,449 15,449 0% WA STATE DEPT OF HEALTH GRANT 1,644 - (1,644) 0% SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - 1,040 1,040 0% PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 183,859 186,257 2,398 101% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 15,000 15,875 875 106% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 9,421 11,387 1,966 121% CRIMINAL JUSTICE - SPECIAL PROGRAMS 31,793 43,109 11,316 136% DUI - CITIES 7,337 9,443 2,106 129% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 205,430 202,318 (3,112) 98% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 299,586 327,163 27,577 109% SHARED COURT COSTS 11,000 524 (10,476) 5% MUNICIPAL COURT AGREEMENT W/LYNNWOOD - 188 188 0% POLICE FBI CONTRACTS 13,500 - (13,500) 0% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 9,000 9,682 682 108% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.56,850 33,225 (23,625) 58% WOODWAY - LAW PROTECTION 7,200 11,625 4,425 161% SNOCOM/DIRECTOR SERVICES - 61,151 61,151 0% SNO-ISLE 65,792 68,093 2,301 103% 1,123,547 1,189,474 65,927 106% CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,300 646 (654) 50% COURT RECORD SERVICES 1,000 - (1,000) 0% D/M COURT REC SER - 104 104 0% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 1,000 166 (834) 17% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 600 211 (389) 35% PHOTOCOPIES 7,100 4,278 (2,822) 60% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 5,200 5,376 176 103% ASSESSMENT SEARCH - 20 20 0% PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 30,000 14,825 (15,175) 49% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 25,000 26,166 1,166 105% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES - 64 64 0% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 123,000 82,399 (40,601) 67% ELECTRONIC MONITORING 20,000 1,448 (18,552) 7% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 13,000 785 (12,215) 6% BOOKING FEES 7,000 6,370 (630) 91% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 15,019 6,920 (8,099) 46% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 11,000 22,514 11,514 205% DUI EMERGENCY AID - 250 250 0% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 700,000 786,853 86,853 112% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 1,000 15 (985) 2% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 10,700 571 (10,129) 5% CRIM CONV FEE CT 6,400 7,124 724 111% 4Packet Page 210 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Revenues 2010 Over/Under % Received CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,900 2,676 776 141% POLICE TRAINING CLASSES 250 1,473 1,223 589% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 119,000 92,737 (26,263) 78% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 7,500 7,529 29 100% ANNUAL VEHICLE FEE (TBD)580,000 583,141 3,141 101% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 119,000 47,936 (71,064) 40% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 11,955 4,005 (7,950) 34% PLAN CHECKING FEES 335,000 204,991 (130,009) 61% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 4,150 1,829 (2,321) 44% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 14,280 3,395 (10,885) 24% SHORELINE PERMIT 850 - (850) 0% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 20,230 23,060 2,830 114% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 53,600 67,608 14,008 126% LOCKER FEES 500 577 77 115% SWIM CLASS FEES 65,350 64,743 (607) 99% PROGRAM FEES 760,770 834,390 73,620 110% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 8,600 6,432 (2,168) 75% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES - 570 570 0% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 1,355,059 1,283,812 (71,247) 95% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES - 325 325 0% 4,436,313 4,198,333 (237,980) 95% FINES AND FORFEITURES: PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 13,000 7,850 (5,150) 60% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 60,000 58,596 (1,404) 98% BC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 275,000 287,671 12,671 105% NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 6,000 1,464 (4,536) 24% OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 600 851 251 142% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 15,000 31,694 16,694 211% PR - HANDICAPPED 8,000 2,675 (5,325) 33% PARKING INFRACTION LOC 100 800 700 800% PARK / INDDISZONE - 389 389 0% DWI PENALTIES 7,000 8,331 1,331 119% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 2,300 101 (2,199) 4% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 50,000 51,627 1,627 103% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 1,900 890 (1,010) 47% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 16,000 14,557 (1,443) 91% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,000 1,078 78 108% CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 119,000 111,641 (7,359) 94% JURY DEMAND COST 100 - (100) 0% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 39,000 41,007 2,007 105% COURT INTERPRETER COST 300 450 150 150% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 26,000 2,778 (23,222) 11% 640,300 624,447 (15,853) 98% 5Packet Page 211 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Revenues 2010 Over/Under % Received CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST - 11,017 11,017 0% INVESTMENT SERVICE FEES - (162) (162) 0% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 25,000 5,982 (19,018) 24% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 4,000 3,282 (718) 82% PARKING 4,000 9,930 5,930 248% SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 128,230 145,026 16,796 113% GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 8,000 7,772 (228) 97% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 5,240 240 105% LEASES LONG-TERM 164,570 168,866 4,296 103% VENDING MACHINE CONCESSION 2,200 3,562 1,362 162% OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 14,000 8,445 (5,555) 60% PARKS DONATIONS 3,900 3,909 9 100% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS - 1,250 1,250 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE - 1,321 1,321 0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 3,000 4,863 1,863 162% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY - 1,082 1,082 0% OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT - 100 100 0% POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 3,200 471 (2,729) 15% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - (21) (21) 0% OTHER MISC REVENUES 48,712 5,659 (43,053) 12% SMALL OVERPAYMENT - 105 105 0% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC - 150 150 0% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 500 703 203 141% PLANNING SIGN REVENUE 2,000 3,174 1,174 159% 416,312 391,727 (24,585) 94% TRANSFERS-IN: SALE OF FIXED ASSETS 1,497,857 968,872 (528,985) 65% Interfund transfer from fund 511 - 525,237 525,237 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER-IN 25,000 - (25,000) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER 25,086 25,086 - 100% INTERFUND TRANSFER 25,403 24,681 (722) 97% INTERFUND TRANSFER 54,378 - (54,378) 0% 1,627,724 1,543,876 (83,848) 95% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 35,567,645 34,565,693 (1,001,952) 97% Notes: - Budgeted General Fund Revenue total of $35,567,645 reconciles to final amended budget (Ordinance #3826) - Actual General Fund Revenue total of $34,565,693 reconciles to unaudited financials statement reported to State of Washington 6Packet Page 212 of 234 Title Final Amended Actual Over / (Under) % Used GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES: SALARIES 12,703,681 11,714,629 (989,052) 92% OVERTIME 317,793 478,978 161,185 151% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 189,869 182,967 (6,902) 96% BENEFITS 4,833,248 4,676,667 (156,581) 97% UNIFORMS 67,685 44,215 (23,470) 65% SUPPLIES 456,154 374,933 (81,221) 82% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 91 (909) 9% SMALL EQUIPMENT 188,626 192,239 3,613 102% PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,949,903 1,922,507 (27,397) 99% COMMUNICATION 223,374 195,811 (27,563) 88% TRAVEL 57,987 29,196 (28,791) 50% ADVERTISING 81,912 55,250 (26,662) 67% RENTAL/LEASE 140,878 144,058 3,180 102% INSURANCE 429,000 457,879 28,879 107% PUBLIC UTILITY 445,916 427,077 (18,839) 96% REPAIR/MAINT 241,369 160,366 (81,003) 66% MISCELLANEOUS 372,720 328,295 (44,425) 88% INTERGOVTL SVC 8,286,405 8,020,655 (265,750) 97% EXCISE TAXES 11,000 5,532 (5,468) 50% INTERFUND TRANSFERS-OUT 2,013,165 2,013,051 (114) 100% EQUIPMENT 30,000 - (30,000) 0% 1998 LTGO REF BOND PRINCIPAL 969,661 969,661 (0) 100% FIRE STATION # 20 - PRINCIPAL 62,131 62,131 0 100% 2005 LOAN-PHONE SYSTEM 22,882 22,883 1 100% 1998 BONDS - INTEREST 367,777 367,780 3 100% FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,500 - (1,500) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 340,000 141,789 (198,211) 42% INTERFUND FUEL - BOAT - 361 361 0% INTERFUND SUPPLIES - BOAT - 6,387 6,387 0% INTERFUND RENTAL 912,272 769,228 (143,044) 84% INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,000 14,878 13,878 1488% 35,718,908 33,779,491 (1,939,417) 95% LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE: BENEFITS 408,161 382,198 (25,963) 94% In-Home LTC Claims 55,000 62,471 7,471 114% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 16,771 15,771 1677% MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 465,161 461,440 (3,721) 99% DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND: SUPPLIES 200 - (200) 0% FUEL CONSUMED 2,000 2,177 177 109% SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - (5,000) 0% COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 1,403 (830) 63% REPAIR/MAINT 800 - (800) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 5,000 (15,000) 25% INTERGOVTL SVC 43,882 39,409 (4,473) 90% 74,115 47,989 (26,126) 65% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 7Packet Page 213 of 234 Title Final Amended Actual Over / (Under) % Used CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL STREET FUND: SALARIES 465,483 488,581 23,098 105% OVERTIME 32,413 25,136 (7,277) 78% BENEFITS 173,517 183,887 10,370 106% UNIFORMS 7,300 5,761 (1,539) 79% SUPPLIES 208,400 176,446 (31,954) 85% SMALL EQUIPMENT 34,136 15,229 (18,907) 45% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,000 2,663 (16,337) 14% COMMUNICATIONS 4,200 2,766 (1,434) 66% TRAINING 3,380 - (3,380) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,500 928 (1,572) 37% INSURANCE 37,478 49,223 11,745 131% PUBLIC UTILITY 254,250 247,287 (6,963) 97% REPAIR/MAINT 15,300 19,021 3,721 124% MISCELLANEOUS 12,660 5,800 (6,860) 46% INTERGOVTL SVC 16,000 2,025 (13,975) 13% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 10,595 - (10,595) 0% 1998 LTGO REF BOND PRINCIPAL 35,929 35,929 - 100% 2007 LTGO BOND - INTEREST 9,266 9,267 1 100% INTERFUND RENTAL 195,425 162,485 (32,940) 83% 1,537,232 1,432,434 (104,798) 93% COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 88,208 88,208 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT 162,086 - (162,086) 0% CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 1,732,711 228,173 (1,504,538) 13% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,201 72,201 0 100% INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 5,562 5,562 0 100% INTERFUND SERVICES 10,000 38,987 28,987 390% 1,982,560 433,132 (1,549,428) 22% MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD: PROFESSIONAL SVC - CAPITAL BUDGET 3,000,000 2,866 (2,997,134) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER - 0% 3,000,000 2,866 (2,997,134) 0% BUILDING MAINTENANCE: SUPPLIES 33,500 31,043 (2,457) 93% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 46,000 24,904 (21,096) 54% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE - 148,788 148,788 0% MISCELLANEOUS - 1,369 1,369 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER 200 - (200) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 374,773 - (374,773) 0% 454,473 206,105 (248,368) 45% MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND: SUPPLIES 4,475 3,242 (1,233) 72% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 1,014 14 101% PROFESSIONAL SVS 84,200 30,798 (53,402) 37% ADVERTISING 4,000 4,000 (0) 100% RENTAL/LEASE 1,000 - (1,000) 0% REPAIRS/MAINT.300 - (300) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 12,450 5,417 (7,033) 44% TRANSFER TO FUND 117 3,000 - (3,000) 0% 110,425 44,471 (65,954) 40% 8Packet Page 214 of 234 Title Final Amended Actual Over / (Under) % Used CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 127,000 70,058 (56,942) 55% ADVERTISING 25,000 35,003 10,003 140% MISCELLANEOUS 10,000 4,720 (5,280) 47% TRANSFER TO FUND 623 24,883 21,304 (3,579) 86% 186,883 131,085 (55,798) 70% EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND: SUPPLIES 1,000 871 (129) 87% INTERFUND TRANSFER 25,086 25,086 - 100% 26,086 25,957 (129) 100% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND: MISCELLANEOUS 4,307 3,586 (721) 83% 4,307 3,586 (721) 83% TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS: SUPPLIES 100 - (100) 0% PROFESSIONAL SVC 10,500 8,704 (1,796) 83% ADVERTISING 4,885 4,765 (121) 98% MISCELLANEOUS 8,500 3,216 (5,284) 38% 23,985 16,684 (7,301) 70% REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2: SUPPLIES - 43,591 43,591 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 134,000 271,136 137,136 202% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 334,000 66,069 (267,931) 20% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - 25,000 25,000 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER 796,000 - (796,000) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 617,000 1,215,564 598,564 197% INTERFUND SERVICES 61,000 186,902 125,902 306% 1,942,000 1,808,263 (133,737) 93% REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ: SUPPLIES 5,000 - (5,000) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER 70,792 70,792 - 100% LAND 250,000 - (250,000) 0% 1998 REF BOND PRINCIPAL 461,581 461,581 - 100% 2001 BONDS, B - INTEREST 168,223 168,223 (0) 100% FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,200 - (1,200) 0% 956,796 700,596 (256,200) 73% GIFTS CATALOG FUND: SUPPLIES 6,759 5,446 (1,313) 81% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,500 4,500 (4,000) 53% 15,259 9,946 (5,313) 65% 9Packet Page 215 of 234 Title Final Amended Actual Over / (Under) % Used CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,000 16,607 8,607 208% CONSTRUCTION 234,110 - (234,110) 0% 242,110 16,607 (225,503) 7% CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT: SALARIES 68,505 66,450 (2,055) 97% OVERTIME 2,050 2,413 363 118% BENEFITS 29,053 28,621 (432) 99% UNIFORMS 1,000 - (1,000) 0% SUPPLIES 7,000 9,213 2,213 132% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 21,274 1,274 106% PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 1,000 1,459 459 146% COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 1,361 (51) 96% TRAVEL 1,000 550 (450) 55% ADVERTISING 3,000 1,454 (1,546) 48% PUBLIC UTILITY 3,800 3,897 97 103% REPAIR/MAINT 500 5,327 4,827 1065% MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 797 (203) 80% INTERFUND SERVICES 3,000 - (3,000) 0% INTERFUND RENTAL 8,969 7,473 (1,496) 83% 151,289 150,291 (998) 99% FIRE DONATIONS: MISCELLANEOUS 22,466 22,465 (1) 100% 22,466 22,465 (1) 100% PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 3,693 3,693 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER 17,840 - (17,840) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,766,160 - (1,766,160) 0% 1,784,000 3,693 (1,780,307) 0% PARKS TRUST FUND: INTERFUND TRANSFER 25,403 24,681 (722) 97% 25,403 24,681 (722) 97% SISTER CITY COMMISSION: SUPPLIES 1,000 52 (948) 5% TRAVEL 16,500 - (16,500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,500 5,006 1,506 143% 21,000 5,058 (15,942) 24% L.I.D. FUND CONTROL: MISCELLANEOUS 300 - (300) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER 58,000 87,293 29,293 151% SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS 50,000 - (50,000) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 5,000 - (5,000) 0% 113,300 87,293 (26,007) 77% 10Packet Page 216 of 234 Title Final Amended Actual Over / (Under) % Used CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND: 2002 BOND PRINCIPAL 165,000 165,000 - 100% 2002 BOND INTEREST 287,160 287,160 - 100% 452,160 452,160 - 100% COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION: SALARIES 2,773,158 2,561,901 (211,257) 92% OVERTIME 117,320 97,589 (19,731) 83% BENEFITS 1,034,942 1,003,473 (31,469) 97% UNIFORMS 28,800 20,229 (8,571) 70% SUPPLIES 630,709 583,710 (46,999) 93% FUEL CONSUMED 140,030 44,156 (95,874) 32% WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,540,000 1,242,227 (297,773) 81% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR RESALE 143,000 98,756 (44,244) 69% SMALL EQUIPMENT 24,100 37,265 13,165 155% PROFESSIONAL SVC 206,373 130,376 (75,997) 63% COMMUNICATIONS 71,955 62,977 (8,978) 88% TRAINING 19,430 4,334 (15,096) 22% ADVERTISING 2,820 - (2,820) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 32,420 11,049 (21,371) 34% INSURANCE 344,938 391,610 46,672 114% PUBLIC UTILITY 945,004 879,623 (65,381) 93% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 109,488 77,879 (31,609) 71% MISCELLANEOUS 495,770 541,138 45,368 109% INTERGOVTL SVC 288,676 228,105 (60,571) 79% STORMWATER TAX 1,320,000 1,390,713 70,713 105% INTERFUND TRANSFER 5,611,496 - (5,611,496) 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,925 - (1,925) 0% 1998 LTGO BOND PRIN 103,866 - (103,866) 0% REVENUE BONDS 353,507 - (353,507) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 85,618 - (85,618) 0% OTHER DEBT 15,254 - (15,254) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEB 194,499 200,229 5,730 103% DEBT ISSUE COSTS 33,104 33,103 (1) 100% INTERFUND SERVICES 1,243,611 934,292 (309,319) 75% INTERFUND RENTAL 452,841 371,898 (80,943) 82% INTERFUND REPAIRS/MAINT 2,500 - (2,500) 0% DEPRECIATION / AMORTIZATION - 2,459,902 2,459,902 0% 18,367,154 13,406,533 (4,960,621) 73% COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 248,218 248,218 0% INTERFUND SERVICE 196,000 62,375 (133,625) 32% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 6,627,600 - (6,627,600) 0% 6,823,600 310,593 (6,513,007) 5% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 69,352 69,352 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 129,790 - (129,790) 0% MISCELLANEOUS - 2,653 2,653 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,272,176 - (2,272,176) 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 144,222 - (144,222) 0% REVENUE BONDS 53,663 - (53,663) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 34,875 - (34,875) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 108,862 109,463 601 101% 2,743,588 181,468 (2,562,121) 7% 11Packet Page 217 of 234 Title Final Amended Actual Over / (Under) % Used CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND: SALARIES 212,655 200,856 (11,799) 94% OVERTIME 2,000 738 (1,262) 37% BENEFITS 78,264 85,832 7,568 110% UNIFORMS 2,000 1,084 (916) 54% SUPPLIES 70,000 98,543 28,543 141% FUEL CONSUMED 4,120 639 (3,481) 16% FUEL PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 499,973 251,090 (248,883) 50% SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,000 8,760 (11,240) 44% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,550 1,004 (2,546) 28% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 3,581 581 119% TRAVEL 2,000 40 (1,960) 2% ADVERTISING 500 145 (355) 29% RENTAL/LEASE - 3,434 3,434 0% INSURANCE 36,985 38,257 1,272 103% PUBLIC UTILITY 17,000 11,450 (5,550) 67% RADIO REPAIR/MAINT 145,000 68,939 (76,061) 48% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 6,619 2,619 165% INTERGOVTL SVC 4,000 2,188 (1,813) 55% INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,452,679 1,259,932 (192,747) 87% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 311,500 - (311,500) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES-CAPITAL COSTS 15,000 - (15,000) 0% INTERFUND RENTAL 8,197 6,897 (1,300) 84% DEPRECIATION / AMORTIZATION - 428,410 428,410 0% 2,892,423 2,478,438 (413,985) 86% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND: SALARIES - 49,548 49,548 0% BENEFITS 71,000 57,032 (13,968) 80% PENSION PAYMENTS 54,048 - (54,048) 0% PROF SERVICES - 4,699 4,699 0% 125,048 111,279 (13,769) 89% TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 6,305 6,305 0% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 750,000 583,241 (166,760) 78% 750,000 589,545 (160,455) 79% Grand Totals of Expenditures by Fund 81,011,731 56,944,146 (24,067,585) 70% Notes: - Budgeted Expenditures of $81,011,731 reconciles to final amended budget (Ordinance #3826) - Actual Expenditures of $56,944,146 reconciles to unaudited financials statement reported to State of Washington 12Packet Page 218 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Expenditures 2010 Over / (Under) % Used CITY COUNCIL 309,744 295,489 (14,255) 95% OFFICE OF MAYOR 287,902 248,201 (39,701) 86% HUMAN RESOURCES 299,755 274,056 (25,699) 91% MUNICIPAL COURT 796,067 736,393 (59,674) 93% ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 79,700 39,381 (40,319) 49% CITY CLERK 535,207 485,484 (49,723) 91% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,413,549 1,259,405 (154,144) 89% CITY ATTORNEY 645,283 703,824 58,541 109% NON-DEPARTMENTAL 12,890,369 12,560,633 (329,736) 97% POLICE SERVICES 9,578,825 9,002,907 (575,918) 94% FIRE SERVICES 13,898 27,435 13,537 197% COMMUNITY SERVICES 426,660 383,272 (43,388) 90% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,010,414 1,605,427 (404,987) 80% PARKS & RECREATION 3,485,530 3,334,651 (150,879) 96% PUBLIC WORKS 1,543,902 1,476,653 (67,249) 96% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,402,103 1,346,281 (55,822) 96% 35,718,908 33,779,491 (1,939,417) 95% Notes: - Budgeted General Fund Expenditures of $35,718,908 reconciles to final amended budget (Ordinance #3826) - Actual General Fund Expenditures of $33,779,491 reconciles to unaudited financials statement reported to State of Washington Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Expenditures 2010 Over / (Under) % Used STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY 2,336,789 2,046,518 (290,271) 88% WATER 5,559,160 4,413,657 (1,145,503) 79% SEWER 7,072,401 2,604,143 (4,468,258) 37% TREATMENT PLANT 3,398,804 4,342,215 943,411 128% 18,367,154 13,406,533 (4,960,621) 73% Notes: - Budgeted Combined Utility Fund Expenditures of $18,367,154 reconciles to final amended budget (Ordinance #3826) - Actual Combined Utility Fund Expenditures of $13,406,533 reconciles to unaudited financials statement reported to State of Washington CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 13Packet Page 219 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Expenditures 2010 Over / (Under) % Used CITY COUNCIL SALARIES 114,461 102,405 (12,056) 89% OVERTIME 5,590 6,940 1,350 124% BENEFITS 99,743 93,542 (6,201) 94% SUPPLIES 1,000 1,277 277 128% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 327 327 0% PROFESSIONAL SVC 56,000 78,554 22,554 140% COMMUNICATIONS - 44 44 0% TRAVEL 2,500 302 (2,198) 12% REPAIRS/MAINT 1,500 1,212 (288) 81% MISCELLANEOUS 28,950 10,885 (18,065) 38% 309,744 295,489 (14,255) 95% OFFICE OF MAYOR SALARIES 222,450 193,965 (28,485) 87% BENEFITS 53,352 44,791 (8,561) 84% SUPPLIES 3,000 2,537 (463) 85% PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,100 752 (348) 68% COMMUNICATION 1,400 2,094 694 150% TRAVEL 1,500 408 (1,092) 27% RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 1,660 160 111% REPAIR/MAINT 100 506 406 506% MISCELLANEOUS 3,500 1,488 (2,012) 43% 287,902 248,201 (39,701) 86% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES 184,335 169,403 (14,932) 92% BENEFITS 57,154 51,365 (5,789) 90% SUPPLIES 2,756 2,621 (135) 95% SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - (100) 0% PROFESSIONAL SVC 24,500 27,987 3,487 114% COMMUNICATIONS - 739 739 0% TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0% ADVERTISING 10,000 12,136 2,136 121% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,660 (340) 83% REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 370 (5,630) 6% MISCELLANEOUS 12,410 7,777 (4,633) 63% 299,755 274,056 (25,699) 91% MUNICIPAL COURT SALARIES 513,233 464,042 (49,191) 90% OVERTIME 2,900 2,181 (719) 75% BENEFITS 172,284 152,021 (20,263) 88% SUPPLIES 16,000 20,288 4,288 127% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,700 4,625 2,925 272% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 55,000 67,834 12,834 123% COMMUNICATIONS - 2,496 2,496 0% TRAVEL 2,800 1,788 (1,012) 64% RENTAL/LEASE 1,900 1,952 52 103% REPAIR/MAINT 1,050 1,820 770 173% MISC - JURY 18,200 16,166 (2,034) 89% INTERGOVTL SVC 11,000 1,179 (9,821) 11% 796,067 736,393 (59,674) 93% ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUPPLIES 2,500 520 (1,980) 21% SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - (800) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,000 24,627 5,627 130% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 14Packet Page 220 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Expenditures 2010 Over / (Under) % Used CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL COMMUNICATIONS 9,400 12 (9,388) 0% TRAVEL 3,000 9 (2,991) 0% ADVERTISING 40,000 10,133 (29,867) 25% MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 4,080 (920) 82% 79,700 39,381 (40,319) 49% CITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES 281,319 270,842 (10,477) 96% OVERTIME 410 - (410) 0% BENEFITS 88,583 79,232 (9,351) 89% SUPPLIES 13,760 13,971 211 102% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 31,738 24,381 (7,357) 77% COMMUNICATIONS 59,050 40,023 (19,027) 68% TRAVEL 2,080 175 (1,905) 8% ADVERTISING 20,420 27,162 6,742 133% RENTAL/LEASE 23,810 21,360 (2,450) 90% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 3,255 (4,782) 41% MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 5,083 (917) 85% 535,207 485,484 (49,723) 91% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES 685,382 619,396 (65,986) 90% OVERTIME 6,100 10,228 4,128 168% BENEFITS 206,000 182,420 (23,580) 89% SUPPLIES 83,273 55,112 (28,161) 66% SMALL EQUIPMENT 118,205 109,508 (8,697) 93% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 68,750 63,463 (5,287) 92% COMMUNICATIONS 72,494 65,406 (7,088) 90% TRAVEL 2,750 741 (2,009) 27% ADVERTISING - 25 25 0% RENTAL/LEASE 9,600 11,779 2,179 123% REPAIR/MAINT 109,995 52,204 (57,791) 47% MISCELLANEOUS 21,000 89,121 68,121 424% DP MACHINERY/EQUP 30,000 - (30,000) 0% 1,413,549 1,259,405 (154,144) 89% CITY ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL SVC 642,283 703,824 61,541 110% MISC PROSECUTOR 3,000 - (3,000) 0% 645,283 703,824 58,541 109% NON-DEPARTMENTAL BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 857,207 820,361 (36,846) 96% PROFESSIONAL SVC PUB DEF 255,898 266,167 10,268 104% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,300 (300) 92% INSURANCE 429,000 457,879 28,879 107% MISCELLANEOUS 87,111 52,919 (34,191) 61% INTERGOVT SVC 7,469,437 7,377,180 (92,257) 99% EXCISE TAXES 11,000 5,532 (5,468) 50% INTERFUND TRANSFERS 2,013,165 2,013,051 (114) 100% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 969,661 969,661 (0) 100% CAPITAL LEASES & INSTALLPURCHASES 62,131 62,131 0 100% OTHER DEBT 22,882 22,883 1 100% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 367,777 367,780 3 100% FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,500 - (1,500) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 340,000 141,789 (198,211) 42% 12,890,369 12,560,633 (329,736) 97% 15Packet Page 221 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Expenditures 2010 Over / (Under) % Used CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL POLICE SERVICES SALARIES 5,505,263 5,051,926 (453,337) 92% OVERTIME 269,491 446,953 177,462 166% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 189,869 182,967 (6,902) 96% BENEFITS 1,734,078 1,767,845 33,767 102% UNIFORMS 55,580 38,753 (16,827) 70% SUPPLIES 80,105 71,973 (8,132) 90% FUEL CONSUMED - 91 91 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 43,607 52,569 8,962 121% PROFESSIONAL SVC 128,431 96,486 (31,945) 75% COMMUNICATIONS 21,700 28,665 6,965 132% TRAVEL 28,520 21,412 (7,108) 75% ADVERTISING 2,500 230 (2,270) 9% RENTAL/LEASE 12,000 17,008 5,008 142% REPAIR/MAINT 26,254 13,068 (13,186) 50% MISCELLANEOUS 43,304 28,137 (15,167) 65% INTERGOVTL SVC 738,718 571,330 (167,388) 77% INTERFUND FUEL - BOAT - 361 361 0% INTERFUND SUPPLIES - 6,387 6,387 0% INTERFUND RENTAL 698,405 591,869 (106,536) 85% INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,000 14,878 13,878 1488% 9,578,825 9,002,907 (575,918) 94% FIRE SERVICES BENEFITS - 9,194 9,194 0% UNIFORMS 290 288 (2) 99% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,227 13,561 4,334 147% COMMUNICATIONS 3,448 3,459 11 100% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 131 131 (0) 100% MISCELLANEOUS 802 802 (0) 100% 13,898 27,435 13,537 197.4% COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN SALARIES 218,676 201,630 (17,046) 92% OVERTIME 1,117 - (1,117) 0% BENEFITS 54,639 47,809 (6,830) 88% SUPPLIES 2,000 625 (1,375) 31% SMALL EQUIPMENT 9,014 116 (8,898) 1% PROFESSIONAL SVC 133,447 128,962 (4,485) 97% COMMUNICATIONS 690 742 52 107% TRAVEL 2,000 260 (1,740) 13% ADVERTISING 1,060 - (1,060) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 1,320 1,660 340 126% REPAIR/MAINT 500 370 (130) 74% MISCELLANEOUS 2,000 954 (1,046) 48% INTERFUND RENTAL 197 144 (53) 73% 426,660 383,272 (43,388) 90% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING SALARIES 1,270,844 1,071,042 (199,802) 84% OVERTIME 6,020 3,057 (2,963) 51% BENEFITS 389,355 347,478 (41,877) 89% UNIFORMS 1,655 - (1,655) 0% SUPPLIES 30,700 16,685 (14,015) 54% MINOR EQUIPMENT 1,900 1,442 (458) 76% PROFESSIONAL SVC 190,750 89,034 (101,716) 47% COMMUNICATIONS 6,784 5,596 (1,188) 82% 16Packet Page 222 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Expenditures 2010 Over / (Under) % Used CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL TRAVEL 6,630 2,284 (4,346) 34% ADVERTISING 3,580 2,329 (1,251) 65% RENTAL/LEASE 27,590 21,832 (5,758) 79% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 14,598 2,639 (11,959) 18% MISCELLANEOUS 43,215 27,756 (15,459) 64% INTERFUND RENTAL 16,793 14,253 (2,540) 85% 2,010,414 1,605,427 (404,987) 80% ENGINEERING SALARIES 856,006 802,658 (53,348) 94% OVERTIME 11,965 832 (11,133) 7% BENEFITS 256,916 248,421 (8,495) 97% UNIFORMS 620 - (620) 0% MINOR EQUIPMENT 500 9,427 8,927 1885% PROFESSIONAL SVC 2,000 10,430 8,430 522% COMMUNICATIONS 8,400 5,852 (2,548) 70% TRAVEL 620 481 (139) 78% ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0% REPAIR/MAINT 1,780 535 (1,245) 30% MISCELLANEOUS 5,250 8,418 3,168 160% INTERFUND RENTAL 23,233 18,512 (4,721) 80% 1,167,790 1,105,567 (62,223) 95% PARKS & RECREATION SALARIES 1,931,503 1,857,710 (73,793) 96% OVERTIME 5,500 3,471 (2,029) 63% Employee Benefits 572,612 528,955 (43,657) 92% UNIFORMS 6,540 2,538 (4,002) 39% SUPPLIES 119,600 99,816 (19,784) 83% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 6,725 3,925 240% PROFESSIONAL SVC 331,779 326,385 (5,394) 98% COMMUNICATIONS 24,528 24,939 411 102% TRAVEL 3,327 1,068 (2,259) 32% ADVERTISING 3,852 3,236 (616) 84% RENTAL/LEASE 51,072 54,198 3,126 106% PUBLIC UTILITY 133,416 157,416 24,000 118% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 24,324 22,712 (1,612) 93% MISCELLANEOUS 86,578 71,667 (14,911) 83% INTERGOVTL SVC 64,250 70,965 6,715 110% INTERFUND RENTAL 123,849 102,850 (20,999) 83% 3,485,530 3,334,651 (150,879) 96% PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES 282,224 275,037 (7,187) 97% OVERTIME 200 235 35 118% BENEFITS 70,540 74,720 4,180 106% SUPPLIES 5,460 5,530 70 101% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 60 60 0% COMMUNICATIONS 480 1,267 787 264% TRAVEL 960 268 (692) 28% RENTAL/LEASE 6,486 7,465 979 115% PUBLIC UTILITY 2,500 2,212 (288) 88% REPAIR/MAINT 2,100 64 (2,036) 3% MISCELLANEOUS 2,200 1,553 (647) 71% INTERFUND RENTAL 2,962 2,673 (289) 90% 376,112 371,086 (5,026) 99% 17Packet Page 223 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Expenditures 2010 Over / (Under) % Used CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES 637,985 634,571 (3,414) 99% OVERTIME 8,500 5,079 (3,421) 60% BENEFITS 220,785 228,512 7,727 103% UNIFORMS 3,000 2,637 (363) 88% SUPPLIES 96,000 83,978 (12,022) 87% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - (1,000) 0% MINOR EQUIPMENT 10,000 7,501 (2,499) 75% COMMUNICATIONS 15,000 14,476 (524) 97% TRAVEL 800 - (800) 0% RENTAL/LEASE - 183 183 0% PUBLIC UTILITY 310,000 267,449 (42,551) 86% REPAIR/MAINT 45,000 61,479 16,479 137% MISCELLANEOUS 4,200 1,488 (2,712) 35% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 3,000 - (3,000) 0% INTERFUND RENTAL 46,833 38,927 (7,906) 83% 1,402,103 1,346,281 (55,822) 96% Grand Totals of General Fund Expenditures 35,718,908 33,779,491 (1,939,417) 95% Notes: - Budgeted General Fund Expenditures of $35,718,908 reconciles to final amended budget (Ordinance #3826) - Actual General Fund Expenditures of $33,779,491 reconciles to unaudited financials statement reported to State of Washington 18Packet Page 224 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Expenditures 2010 Over / (Under) % Used STORM DRAINAGE SALARIES - 333,180 333,180 0% SALARIES 458,420 449,091 (9,329) 98% OVERTIME 22,360 9,433 (12,927) 42% BENEFITS 175,230 184,188 8,958 105% UNIFORMS 6,500 5,955 (545) 92% SUPPLIES 49,500 33,539 (15,961) 68% MINOR EQUIPMENT 2,800 13,922 11,122 497% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 22,115 6,932 (15,183) 31% COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 1,090 (2,110) 34% TRAVEL 3,330 37 (3,293) 1% ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 24,000 5,397 (18,603) 22% INSURANCE 38,828 49,223 10,395 127% UTILITIES 10,000 8,406 (1,594) 84% REPAIR/MAINT 8,486 6,433 (2,053) 76% MISCELLANEOUS 76,640 82,213 5,573 107% INTERGOVT SERVICE 20,070 34,332 14,262 171% STORMWATER TAX 206,000 219,131 13,131 106% INTERFUND TRANSFER 318,126 - (318,126) 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,925 - (1,925) 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 100,545 - (100,545) 0% REVENUE BOND 36,005 - (36,005) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOAN 32,063 - (32,063) 0% OTHER DEBT 1,842 - (1,842) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 91,865 92,242 377 100% INTERFUND SERVICES 436,736 352,424 (84,312) 81% INTERFUND RENTAL 189,703 159,351 (30,352) 84% 2,336,789 2,046,518 (290,271) 88% WATER SALARIES 689,345 582,229 (107,116) 84% OVERTIME 24,180 22,744 (1,436) 94% BENEFITS 249,338 222,956 (26,382) 89% UNIFORMS 6,880 2,960 (3,920) 43% SUPPLIES 135,000 134,305 (695) 99% FUEL CONSUMED - 421 421 0% WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,540,000 1,242,227 (297,773) 81% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR RESALE 140,000 99,665 (40,335) 71% SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,000 7,775 (2,225) 78% PROFESSIONAL SVC 74,300 39,011 (35,289) 53% COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 25,497 (4,503) 85% TRAVEL 4,850 37 (4,813) 1% ADVERTISING 560 - (560) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 640 (860) 43% INSURANCE 86,849 81,729 (5,120) 94% PUBLIC UTILITY 28,000 20,763 (7,237) 74% REPAIR/MAINT 22,286 3,838 (18,448) 17% RCP - MISCELLANEOUS 223,830 266,138 42,308 119% INTERGOVTL SVC 30,000 28,854 (1,146) 96% WATER TAX 646,000 711,836 65,836 110% INTERFUND TRANSFER-OUT 918,126 - (918,126) 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 1,845 - (1,845) 0% REVENUE BOND 116,226 - (116,226) 0% CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 19Packet Page 225 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Expenditures 2010 Over / (Under) % Used CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 4,295 - (4,295) 0% OTHER DEBT 5,343 - (5,343) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 57,040 58,257 1,217 102% AMORTIZED DEBT ISSUE COSTS 16,552 16,552 0 100% INTERFUND SVC 361,169 247,327 (113,842) 68% INTERFUND RENTAL 135,646 110,634 (25,012) 82% DEPRECIATION / AMORTIZATION - 487,264 487,264 0% 5,559,160 4,413,657 (1,145,503) 79% SEWER SALARIES 426,330 401,240 (25,090) 94% OVERTIME 17,330 13,386 (3,944) 77% BENEFITS 180,340 174,266 (6,074) 97% UNIFORMS 5,170 2,689 (2,481) 52% SUPPLIES 52,469 38,706 (13,763) 74% FUEL CONSUMED 800 - (800) 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR RESALE 3,000 (909) (3,909) -30% SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,000 10,385 4,385 173% PROFESSIONAL SVC 50,958 25,520 (25,438) 50% COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 27,222 (2,778) 91% TRAVEL 2,490 - (2,490) 0% ADVERTISING 560 - (560) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 1,870 1,160 (710) 62% INSURANCE 129,098 168,102 39,004 130% PUBLIC UTILITY 462,024 460,964 (1,060) 100% REPAIR/MAINT 18,666 2,040 (16,626) 11% MISCELLANEOUS 116,500 119,509 3,009 103% INTERGOVTL SVS 139,906 89,346 (50,560) 64% SEWER UTILITY TAX 468,000 459,746 (8,254) 98% INTERFUND TRANSFER 4,375,244 - (4,375,244) 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 1,476 - (1,476) 0% REVENUE BONDS 102,750 - (102,750) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 49,260 - (49,260) 0% OTHER DEBT 3,283 - (3,283) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 25,493 29,597 4,104 116% AMORTIZED DEBT ISSUE COSTS 16,552 16,551 (1) 100% INTERFUND SVC 265,706 173,223 (92,483) 65% INTERFUND RENTAL 118,626 94,113 (24,513) 79% INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT 2,500 - (2,500) 0% DEPRECIATION / AMORTIZATION - 297,286 297,286 0% 7,072,401 2,604,143 (4,468,258) 37% 20Packet Page 226 of 234 Title Final Amended Budget 2010 Actual Expenditures 2010 Over / (Under) % Used CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL TREATMENT PLANT SALARIES 1,199,063 1,129,340 (69,723) 94% OVERTIME 53,450 52,026 (1,424) 97% BENEFITS 430,034 422,062 (7,972) 98% UNIFORMS 10,250 8,626 (1,624) 84% SUPPLIES 393,740 377,160 (16,580) 96% FUEL CONSUMED 139,230 43,736 (95,494) 31% SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,300 5,183 (117) 98% PROFESSIONAL SVC 59,000 58,914 (86) 100% COMMUNICATIONS 8,755 9,169 414 105% TRAVEL 8,760 4,261 (4,499) 49% ADVERTISING 1,200 - (1,200) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 5,050 3,852 (1,198) 76% INSURANCE 90,163 92,555 2,392 103% UTILITIES 444,980 389,491 (55,489) 88% REPAIR/MAINT 60,050 65,569 5,519 109% MISCELLANEOUS 78,800 73,278 (5,522) 93% INTERGOVTL SVS 98,700 75,573 (23,127) 77% REVENUE BOND 98,526 - (98,526) 0% OTHER DEBT 4,786 - (4,786) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 20,101 20,133 32 100% INTERFUND SVC 180,000 161,318 (18,682) 90% INTERFUND RENTAL 8,866 7,800 (1,066) 88% DEPRECIATION / AMORTIZATION - 1,342,171 1,342,171 0% 3,398,804 4,342,215 943,411 128% Grand Totals of Combined Utility Fund Expenditures 18,367,154 13,406,533 (4,960,621) 73% Notes: - Budgeted Combined Utility Fund Expenditures of $18,367,154 reconciles to final amended budget (Ordinance #3826) - Actual Combined Utility Fund Expenditures of $13,406,533 reconciles to unaudited financials statement reported to State of Washington 21Packet Page 227 of 234 AM-3985   Item #: 3. A. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Gerry Gannon Department:Police Department Committee:Public Safety Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion on Marine 16. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff For information at this time. Previous Council Action None Narrative Marine 16 has been part of the city inventory since November 2006.  During that time the police and fire department shared the boat with designated personnel operating the boat.  With the the city fire department moving to Fire District 1, the Edmonds Police Department has borne the burdon for all maintance and repairs of the boat. Below you will find the maintance costs for 2010 and 2011 through May. In addition, there are two documents attached that show the fuel use by the police department and FD 1. Boat builder: NorthWind Marine Vessel Type: 28’ Argus Class Fire/SAR Overall Length: 30’ Beam: 9’-6” Hull Number: NWP46101D506 Year: 2006 Total Cost: $218,083.82 Dept. of Emergency Management Grant $209,000.00 Main Propulsion Engines: (2) 225hp Honda, 655 engine hrs., Engine replacement ideally would be at 10-12 years.  However, because of the higher use by FD 1 and how the boat is operated the replacement time will be more than likely cut by two years on the engines.  You still have a little re-sale value left in them ($3-5,000). Cost to replace them today would be about $20,000 per engine.  Fire Pump Engine: Marine Power 335hp GM 5.7 Liter, 200 engine hrs. Engine replacement at 2000 hrs or when replacement out-weighs repair cost. ($7,000) Boat Maintenance cost 2010: $24,000.00 +or- Boat Maintenance cost 2011 to date: $6,453.00 Boat did not come with trailer. Trailer cost $15,000.00 Attachments FD 1 Fuel Use PD Fuel Use Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/07/2011 10:48 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/07/2011 01:55 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/08/2011 04:43 PM Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 06/03/2011 01:29 PM Final Approval Date: 06/08/2011  Packet Page 228 of 234 card 1090 fire 2011 date $ gal 1/11/2011 69.92 19.123 1/16/2011 27.43 7.395 1/27/2011 77.8 21.032 1/30/2011 169.04 45.698 2/10/2011 223.34 60.053 2/15/2011 146.13 38.265 4/4/2011 203.31 47.962 4/17/2011 144.27 33.172 4/24/2011 132.47 30.252 4/30/2011 251.95 56.887 5/1/2011 49.2 11.108 5/10/2011 116.4 26.164 5/20/2011 237.73 55.299 5/22/2011 168.18 39.12 $2,017.17 491.53 2010 date $ gal 1/23/2010 $116.19 36.898 1/27/2010 $69.99 22.226 2/7/2010 $59.95 19.47 2/20/2010 $3.22 1.037 2/20/2010 $23.01 7.402 3/11/2010 $41.06 12.296 3/14/2010 $59.54 17.831 3/26/2010 $128.79 38.804 3/28/2010 $48.04 14.474 3/31/2010 $117.02 35.258 4/11/2010 $101.82 29.869 4/16/2010 $13.35 3.95 4/17/2010 $115.22 34.099 4/18/2010 $82.27 24.346 4/19/2010 $59.77 17.689 4/22/2010 $6.79 2.01 4/25/2010 $41.47 12.274 Packet Page 229 of 234 4/27/2010 $124.79 36.606 5/30/2010 $62.03 19.33 6/10/2010 $211.10 64.378 6/13/2010 $79.45 24.23 6/27/2010 $7.77 2.34 6/28/2010 $89.33 26.916 7/1/2010 $40.92 12.181 7/3/2010 $86.32 25.698 7/9/2010 $64.83 19.651 7/14/2010 $20.16 6.019 7/18/2010 $145.66 43.493 7/25/2010 $33.52 9.921 7/26/2010 $34.02 10.068 7/30/2010 $67.97 19.765 8/9/2010 $171.06 47.796 8/21/2010 $79.73 23.116 8/22/2010 $26.04 7.549 8/28/2010 $30.47 8.939 8/30/2010 $33.34 9.781 9/2/2010 $72.05 21.134 9/8/2010 $116.68 35.05 9/19/2010 $86.45 26.445 9/25/2010 $66.52 20.411 10/27/2010 $25.42 7.567 11/1/2010 $29.88 8.896 11/9/2010 $27.57 8.112 11/16/2010 $82.08 24.147 11/26/2010 $80.30 23.555 12/23/2010 $115.39 32.79 12/27/2010 $153.25 43.548 $3,351.60 999.365 Packet Page 230 of 234 card 1058 city date amount gallons 4/12/2011 $7.95 1.829 4/13/2011 $75.46 17.352 4/15/2011 $140.43 32.291 $223.84 51.472 9/15/2010 $82.75 24.856 8/27/2010 $45.57 13.367 7/21/2010 $22.02 6.516 6/23/2010 $31.86 9.599 6/23/2010 $87.66 26.411 6/24/2010 $23.57 7.103 4/9/2010 $13.99 4.103 4/16/2010 $19.02 5.629 4/22/2010 $12.08 3.576 4/23/2010 $12.46 3.687 4/28/2010 $95.60 28.043 3/8/2010 $37.65 11.448 $484.23 144.338 Packet Page 231 of 234 AM-3993   Item #: 3. B. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 06/14/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted By:John Westfall Department:Fire Committee:Public Safety Type:Action Information Subject Title Revisions to open burning requirements. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Update Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.22, as attached, for open burning requirements. Previous Council Action None Narrative Since 1992 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) has established requirements in the Snohomish County Urban Growth Areas, including Edmonds, banning all outdoor burning. The burn ban originates from the WA Clean Air Act legislation and Chapters 173-425 WAC (Outdoor Burning). There are exceptions to the burn during times when the weather is clear for burning and air quality conditions are favorable to do so. The exceptions include fire training, ceremonial fires and recreational fires.   Recreational fires are defined in state law as cooking fires and charcoal barbecues, campfires and bonfires that occur in designated areas or on private property for cooking, pleasure or ceremonial purposes. Fires lit in chimneys, fire pits, fire bowls and similar free-standing devices, commonly sold at home-improvement stores and mass retailers, fall under this definition and are allowed in both urbanized and unincorporated areas.  Puget Sound Clean Air Agency is the regulatory agency that enforces clean air requirements, however, the fire department is often first on the scene responding to outdoor burning complaints.  In 1992, City established a burn ban more restrictive than the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, eliminating the recreational fire allowance and specifying only "small cooking fires" and other similar exceptions.  This variation has complicated the standards when neighbors in Esperance may enjoy a recreational or chimney fire in their yards and Edmonds neighbors must cook their food and then extinguish their fire once the cooking is complete, by City Code.  Attached are revisions that update the City Code to align with the greater Urban Growth Area requirements and allowances. No burning still may be conducted during designated air quality impairment periods designated by Snohomish County Fire Marshal and by consideration of weather conditions. City firefighters will still respond to evaluate nuisance and air quality impairment calls from neighbors who are bothered by smoke from recreational fires and order extinguished when a nuisance.  These changes will extend compliant recreational fire burning to the Boy Scouts, religious ceremonial organizations, and backyard chimney and fire dish burners so they may enjoy the outdoors on their properties.  Attachments Open Burning Revisions Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/08/2011 03:54 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 06/08/2011 04:34 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 06/08/2011 04:43 PM Packet Page 232 of 234 Form Started By: John Westfall Started On: 06/08/2011 02:07 PM Final Approval Date: 06/08/2011  Packet Page 233 of 234 Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.22 FIRE, CRIMES RELATING TO 5.22.030 Outdoor burning ban. A. Outdoor burning means the combustion of material of any type in an open fire or in an outdoor container. B. Notwithstanding any other code provision to the contrary, it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in outdoor burning within the city limits of Edmonds, except as provided herein in this chapter. C. Except under active air quality burn bans when designated by Snohomish County, Tthis section shall not apply to: (1) fires which are burned for fire-fighting training; or (2) small cooking fires (consisting solely of charcoal, natural gas, propane or seasoned natural wood); and (3) campfires at designated state, county and city campgrounds; (4) road flares, marine flares, and similar devices associated with signal and illumination for public safety purposes; and (5) recreational and ceremonial fires defined and regulated by Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. All fires creating nuisance or air quality impairment must immediately be extinguished. D. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, be punished as provided in ECC 5.50.020. This penalty provision shall be in effect until December 31, 2000; thereafter, the penalties for violation of this section shall be the same as specified in RCW 70.94.430 and 70.94.431 as they now exist or may hereafter be amended. [Ord. 2886 § 1, 1992]. Packet Page 234 of 234