2012.04.03 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
APRIL 3, 2012
6:30 p.m. - Call to Order
1.(30 Minutes)Convene in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
7:00 p.m. - Reconvene in Open Session / Flag Salute
2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B.AM-4681 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2012.
C.AM-4684 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2012.
D.AM-4683 Approval of claim checks #131227 through #131303 dated March 29, 2012 for
$419,519.28.
E.AM-4696 Authorization to purchase one (1) new Elgin J Crosswind Regenerative Air Street
Sweeper from Owen Equipment.
F.AM-4695 Approve creation of Human Resource Manager position.
4.(5 Minutes)
AM-4687
Community Service Announcement: SWEL Timebank
5.(30 Minutes)
AM-4686
Update by SNOCOM on the New World Project.
6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
Packet Page 1 of 139
7.(30 Minutes)
AM-4584
Update to the City's General Facilities Charges for utilities by City staff and the FCS
Group. (Public comment will be received.)
8.(15 Minutes)
AM-4691
Presentation on Revenues and Fund Balances
9.(15 Minutes)
AM-4640
Authorization for Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the Lake
Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum.
10.(15 Minutes)
AM-4682
Proposed ordinance amending the provisions of ECDC 18.00.050 for apprenticeship
participation on City construction contracts.
11.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
12.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 139
AM-4681 3. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/03/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2012.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
03-22-12 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 03/30/2012 07:34 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2012 08:14 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 03/28/2012 11:45 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/30/2012
Packet Page 3 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 22, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
March 22, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Carl Nelson, CIO
Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant
Deb Sharp, Accountant
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, announced the Carol Rowe Memorial Food Bank’s food drive at Top Foods on
March 30-April 1 and April 4-6. Further information is available by calling 425-776-7130. He relayed
that the food bank serves 350 families each week.
4. BUDGETING BY PRIORITIES PRESENTATION
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock explained the City is in the process of a strategic planning effort. The
next steps in that process will be a retreat at the April 24 Council meeting and a community open house
on May 3. Further information regarding the strategic planning process is available via the City’s website,
EdmondsWa.gov. One of the potential outcomes of the strategic planning effort will be the development
of a number of community priorities.
Packet Page 4 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 22, 2012
Page 2
Mr. Hunstock introduced Mike Bailey, Finance Director, City of Redmond, who will discuss the process
used in Redmond for several years as well as by the State and other communities in Washington to
allocate the city’s resources to the communities priorities as developed through a strategic planning effort.
That process is commonly known as Budgeting by Priorities. He described Mr. Bailey’s background: he
has worked in local government finance since 1980. His work experience includes serving as Finance
Director for several cities including Lynnwood as well as a Park District in Washington. He is a former
president of the Washington Finance Officers Association and a former member of the Government
Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Executive Board. He has served on various GFOA committees and
is the local government representative on the GFOA Streamline Sales Tax project governing board. Mr.
Bailey earned his degree in business administration and MBA from the University of Puget Sound; he is a
CPA and an executive education studies graduate of Harvard JFK’s School of Government.
Mr. Bailey explained the Budgeting for Outcomes or Budgeting by Priorities model was made famous in
Washington State in 2002 when then-Governor Locke embarked on a Price of Government approach to
solve the State’s budget problems. Much of that effort is chronicled in the book, “The Price of
Government” by David Osborne and Peter Hutchinson. There are nearly 100 local governments in
Washington that use this approach in many different ways. During his presentation he encouraged the
Council to consider what made sense for Edmonds; what elements, if any, would Edmonds be interested
in undertaking at first, what could be added later, etc.
Mr. Bailey referred to Edmonds’ annual budget process, commenting to accomplish this every year would
be overwhelming. The few governments that use this approach and budget annually choose certain parts
to rotate every 2-3 years.
Mr. Bailey provided an overview of Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO):
1. Determine the “price of government”
2. Determine priorities
3. Assign a portion of the “price” to each priority
4. Determine best way to deliver results by priority
a. Results Teams develop strategies/RFOs
b. Program staff submits offers
c. Results Teams rank/scale offers
5. Results budgeting is offers focused on strategies to accomplish priorities
Mr. Bailey explained the following priorities were originally determined based on input from citizens in
focus groups and open meetings:
• Infrastructure
• Environment
• Community
• Safety
• Business
• Government
• Education (determined not to be the city’s responsibility)
He reviewed a chronology of Redmond’s Budgeting by Priorities (BP) process:
• City Council confirms priorities
• Results teams formed around each priority
o Each team consists of four cross-departmental staff members and one citizen (mayoral
appointment)
• Each Results Team develops a Request for Offers (RFO) to support its priority.
• Departments review RFOs and data and write offers that are submitted to Results Teams
Packet Page 5 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 22, 2012
Page 3
• Results Teams rank offers and give feedback to departments
• Based on rankings and feedback, departments revise and resubmit offers
• Results Teams rank offers again, this time including mandates
• Results Teams makes recommendation to mayor
• Mayor uses Results Teams recommendations to develop a preliminary budget
• Mayor presents preliminary budget to City Council
• Council budget review process and adoption of final budget
He provided a general review of Redmond:
• Biennial budget with six year forecasts
• Process includes all funds, all operations, all capital
• Mayor used guidance team (kitchen cabinet) of community leaders in first cycle
• Project team comprised of Finance Director, Budget Manager and Deputy City Administrator
• Citizens on each Results Team
Mr. Bailey described how the “price of government” (POG) is developed in Redmond:
• All resources (eliminate the double counting)
• In context (Redmond uses total community personal income)
• Policy perspective
o Still debate tax and rate changes but now in context of POG
o Discussion now about the “price”
• Allows policy level balancing of the sources
o Council can now choose
Mr. Bailey displayed a graph, explaining over ten years Redmond’s POG was 5-6% of total personal
income. He noted in the years beyond 2012, the graph is drifting below 5%, causing the Mayor to
consider whether there are amenities needed to keep that at 5% and how to best spend dollars that could
be raised via a mechanism that increased revenue and raised the POG to 5%.
Mr. Bailey displayed a graph comparing all revenues to taxes and fees, taxes only, property taxes, sales
taxes and other taxes. He reviewed the community priorities:
• Business Community
o I want a diverse and vibrant range of businesses and services in Redmond.
• Clean & Green Environment
o I want to live, learn, work and play in a clean and green environment.
• Community Building
o I want a sense of community and connections with others.
• Infrastructure & Growth
o I want a well-maintained city whose transportation and other infrastructure keeps pace with
growth.
• Safety
o I want to be safe where I live, work and play.
• Responsible Government
o I want a city government that is responsible and responsive to its resident and businesses
Mr. Bailey explained the community priorities were determined in 2008. In an effort to ensure those are
still the priorities, for the 2011-2012 budget Redmond held a community meeting. For the 2013-2014
budget process, this budget question will be asked during existing neighborhood network meetings. The
priorities were also validated via questions in the citizen survey. In the 2011 survey, 88% of citizens
confirmed the priorities.
Packet Page 6 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 22, 2012
Page 4
Mr. Bailey described the process of assigning a portion of the price to each priority. He acknowledged it
is an art form balancing past practice with intended emphasis. The first time was based on a combination
of history and intended focus. The second round was informed by the experience in the first round as
well. Redmond’s recommendations for funding operations are:
• Infrastructure & Growth – 40%
• Responsible Government – 16%
• Safety – 27%
• Community Building – 5%
• Clean & Green – 7%
• Business Community – 5%
Mr. Bailey provided further details regarding the BP process:
• Results Teams for each priority develop maps illustrating how to achieve results
o These form the recommended strategies
o The Results Teams uses a variety of sources (including internal city expertise) to arrive at
recommended strategies
• Results Maps (and RFOs) become the budget instructions for staff
o The Results Maps get translated into a set of written guidelines to guide budget writers on
offers
o Example: “we are looking for offers that highlight community engagement.”
Mr. Bailey displayed examples of Results Maps for Sense of Community Priority and Safety priorities.
He continued his explanation of the BP process:
• Offers are proposals responding to RFO by program
o Much like budget programs but should be zero based
• Results Team rank offers to achieve maximum results
o A dialog between the offer writer and the Results Tam helps to assure each is understanding
the other correctly
• Budget “buys” the best results through the ranked offers and stop guying when the “price” is met
o Results Teams advise the mayor via their rankings of the offers and their comments about the
merits
Mr. Bailey displayed an example of a ranked offer summary for Sense of Community priority and an
example of a scalability summary. He described the benefits of BP:
• Real citizen engagement
o Initial setting of priorities involved a lot of citizens
o Citizens on Results Teams
• Public view
o Transparent
o Focuses debate on policies/programs (not costs)
o Understandable (about priorities, not bureaucracy)
Mr. Bailey reviewed the value proposition:
• How can you demonstrate results from the resources you are given?
o Performance measures are a required element of each budget offer
o Measure should focus on results (or some element that contributes to the ultimate result)
o Measure should focus on end customer (not process)
• Performance management is a system of measures that complement the BFO:
o Developed 22 indicators – “dash board”
o Dash board responds to priority level
Packet Page 7 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 22, 2012
Page 5
o Supported by budget offer measures
o Supported by tactical measures
• Relationship between performance and budget
o Council seeks “scalability relationship
If I change resource in an offer what are the consequences?
o If performance isn’t as expected/needed, what should change?
Informed by data/not an absolute
Mr. Bailey provided examples of BP accountability for the Safety priority. He commented on managing
the politics:
• Council
o Should focus discussion on priorities, results maps (RFOs), offers and performance
o Difficult to connect offers to line items
o Public perception is positive
• Departments
o Less direct control by department directors
o More vulnerability in budget process
He commented on communications:
• External
o Citizen engagement isn’t automatic
o Local media perception (complicated)
o Giving the Council “talking points”
• Internal
o Equipping your staff to be evangelists
o Email, all employee meetings, chain of command, consistent messages
Mr. Bailey described the capital investment strategy:
• Lessons learned – this approach didn’t work well for capital
• During 2nd cycle, created 7th Results Team
o Made up of “long range planning division”
o Connected to Comprehensive Plan and vision
o Used filter of six community priorities
Passed capital requests through to Capital Team
Used their RFO and Priority RFO to evaluate
• Much better alignment for strategic decisions
o Focus on vision
o Resulted in interim capital Investment Strategy work
He described organizational learning:
• Across department lines
• Transparency (even in tough times
• Director’s Role:
o Budget battle not about winning a bigger slice
o Directors as “first team”
o Directors “own” budget
• Senior Managers next
• Ten year plan for future development
Mr. Bailey explained after the first budget cycle where BP was used, GFOA was asked to look over the
budget and identify any improvements. GFOA made several suggestions, among them creating a ten year
plan for development. He noted some cities accept offers for some functions from outside organizations.
Packet Page 8 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 22, 2012
Page 6
Mr. Bailey concluded there is a lot to this process including community engagement, priority focused,
Results Teams, internal collaboration, allocation of resources by priority, performance measures, value
proposition, etc. Some organizations do not take all of it on at once. He cautioned not to let the scope of
the BP approach be overwhelming. There may be elements/pieces of the process that Edmonds may want
to undertake initially.
During and following his presentation, Mr. Bailey responded to Council, staff and audience questions:
• Are Councilmembers involved on Results Teams? Councilmembers are not on Results Teams.
Councilmembers have an opportunity to interact with Result Teams and hear presentations about
RFO criteria.
• What is the purpose of a citizen on the Results Team? Results teams consider the question, how
can the city as an organization have the most impact with respect to each priority, from the
perspective of the community.
• When do Councilmembers have an opportunity to weigh in? It is the Mayor’s budget until it is
presented to the Council in October. The goal is for as collaborative a process as possible. Debrief
from prior budget process, check-in with Councilmembers at priorities stage and Results Team
stage, and mid-year. Work to keep Council familiar with what is happening, what issues are
arising, etc.
• How are mandatory things like police, jail, etc. handled? Everything is subjected to the same
process.
• Are intergovernmental revenues included? No. Grants from outside the government are included.
• Why are citizens useful on Results Teams? Staff members on the Results Team do not “own”
programs in the priority, citizens have a more generic understanding.
• Provide an example of a budget offer. A budget offer is a budget proposal. Redmond’s website
contains all the offers.
• How do you avoid Results Team members advocating for their own department? You have to
work at ensuring members are wearing their citizen hat and not their department hat. Different
department representatives are included on Results Teams in each round to provide different
perspectives.
• Once Councilmembers read through data, are they more agreeable to working through offers?
This method gives a common basis for a conversation.
• Regarding the option to accept offers from outside organizations, what happens with unions?
That is an organizational dynamic that may make it more viable in certain parts of the country.
• Originally there was a lot of organizational angst in Redmond. Why and how did Redmond work
though that? New Mayor and new staff. There was concern with how BP would work and
whether it would be better. The phrase “we are building this car as we’re driving it down the
driveway” was uttered often.
• Did the BP process help pass a levy? A public safety and parks maintenance levy failed the first
time. The ask was reduced and the levy passed in 2007 which predates this work.
• How much time did it take to lay the groundwork to implement the program and what was the
cost? It takes a certain level of organizational sophistication; the city must be able to do its
finances in the traditional manner and translate it to BP. It is important to get community input
regarding priorities. There are organizational issues associated with familiarizing staff with the
process. Many organizations use an outside consultant but that is not required. He estimated
internal organizational learning would take 3-4 months.
• In the survey where 88% of citizens confirmed the priorities, how many residents were surveyed?
Approximately 400 which was the amount deemed by the consultant to be a statistically valid
representation of the community.
• Does the capital budget include roads? Yes.
• Were employees moved between departments in Redmond? Yes, there was some reorganization
and realignment of functions.
Packet Page 9 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 22, 2012
Page 7
• Were temporary employees used for one-time needs? Yes.
• Who allocates the price to the six priorities? The Mayor with assistance from a guidance team.
• What budget process was used prior to 2008? Incremental budgeting, a percentage
increase/decrease from last year’s budget with adjustments.
• Was that percentage the same for all departments? No, the increment was adjusted by
department.
• Is 5% of personal income typical of other cities? Yes.
• Redmond has a biennial budget; are union negotiations also biennial? Union negotiations are not
necessarily in alignment with the budget cycles. There is a fair amount of estimating done.
• What is the length of union agreements? Typically 3 years.
Mayor Earling thanked Mr. Bailey for his presentation.
7. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Packet Page 10 of 139
AM-4684 3. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/03/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2012.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
03-27-12 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 03/30/2012 07:40 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2012 08:14 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 03/29/2012 08:39 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/30/2012
Packet Page 11 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
March 27, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Carl Nelson, CIO
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER RCW
42.30.140(4)(b), AND POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
At 5:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would convene in executive session
regarding labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b), and potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes and would be held in
the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a
result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor
Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom.
Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Attorney Sharon Cates, Attorney Mark Bucklin, Parks,
Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Human Resources Consultant Tara Adams, Police Chief Al Compaan
and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council
Chambers that an additional 15 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session
concluded at 7:10 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:15 p.m. and led the flag salute.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
5-0. (Councilmember Bloom was not present for the vote.)
2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
(Councilmember Bloom was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
Packet Page 12 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2012
Page 2
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2012,
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #131107 THROUGH #131226 DATED MARCH 22,
2012 FOR $235,481.61. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#51245 THROUGH #51269 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1, 2012 THROUGH MARCH 15,
2012 FOR $632,283.98,
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM GENE ERICSON
($9,640.00),
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A RELEASE OF LIEN FOR A CLAIM OF
LIEN FILED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN 1997 (GOLDIE'S OF EDMONDS),
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no members of the public present who wished to speak.
5. HUMAN RESOURCES REORGANIZATION
Mayor Earling explained the Council previously approved an outline of the Human Resources
Department reorganization. Tonight’s proposal has two parts, 1) reclassify the Human Resources Analyst,
Mary Ann Hardie, to Human Resources Manager on a permanent basis, and 2) add Chapter 2.21 to the
Edmonds City Code, Special Duty Pay. This gives the mayor the authority to temporarily assign
managers and directors special and/or additional duties that are outside the scope of their normal everyday
duties and to compensate them for this additional work. This flexibility will be important as the City
continues to experience budget difficulties.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE MAYOR’S PROPOSAL TO RECLASSIFY MARY ANN HARDIE AS HUMAN
RESOURCES MANAGER.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out tonight is a study session and there is not an action item before the
Council. If the Council concurred with the administration’s proposal, the intent was to return with a
budget amendment and ordinance necessary to finalize the action.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
Councilmember Petso expressed her support for the Mayor’s proposal to reclassify Ms. Hardie as Human
Resources Manager.
Councilmember Petso expressed concern and stated she was not inclined to approve the proposed
ordinance without some significant changes. Under no circumstances could she face the public to say the
Council had given authority for up to a 10% raise for directors anytime they “set one foot outside their
written job description” as stated in the Mayor’s proposal. That was too loose for her to approve.
Although the intent may be to compensate on a temporary basis, the ordinance states on a temporary or
permanent basis. It was her opinion that if a director was asked to cover another position, that position
either needed to be filled by another person or the job needed to be eliminated and the duties assigned
elsewhere. She was not in favor of the concept of continually increasing employees’ pay because they
were asked to do too many jobs. The result is tired directors who are trying to do too much and a lower
level of service to citizens.
Packet Page 13 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2012
Page 3
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether there was a personnel policy that addressed special duty pay
with a 5% discretionary limit. Mr. Taraday responded Councilmember Buckshnis may be referring to the
acting pay provision in the 2011 salary ordinance. That ordinance allows for a 5% pay increase when an
existing employee acts in the capacity of a vacant director position. An example of that is Rob Chave, an
existing employee, the Planning Manager, who is the acting Development Services Director on a
temporary basis. That provision is for a vacant budgeted position and not intended for this situation where
duties are assigned that are outside the director’s normal job description.
Councilmember Buckshnis responded she was not referring to the 2011 salary ordinance; there is a
personnel policy that allows the Mayor to provide a 5% discretionary pay increase. Parks &
Recreation/Interim Human Resources Director Carrie Hite explained the personnel policy contains
discretion for the Mayor to provide an increase for employees in acting positions similar to what Mr.
Taraday described as well as working out of class. She explained out of class means an employee working
at a higher level than their current position; they receive either a 5% increase or the bottom of that
position’s salary range, whichever is higher.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Ms. Hite was acting out of class since she is the director of
Parks & Recreation and acting as Human Resources Director. Ms. Hite answered it is a parallel level,
therefore the provision in the personnel policy does not apply.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Finance Director Shawn Hunstock, who also manages the IT
Department, receives special duty pay. Mr. Taraday assumed Mr. Hunstock’s job description includes
supervision of the IT Department. It is not a special duty if it is included in his job description, even if it
is seemingly two different departments. The question is whether what a director is being asked to do is
part of their job description or not. The proposed ordinance addresses a director who is being asked to do
something outside their job description.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred that this had been reviewed by the Finance Committee. Although
she agreed this may be needed, she was concerned with the proposed 10% increase when the personnel
policy was 5%. Mayor Earling responded the 10% was not a magical number to him; it was simply a
number and could have been 5% or 8%. The reason for this discussion was to solicit the Council’s input.
Council President Peterson pointed out the 10% is not a guarantee, that is the limit of the Mayor’s
discretion. The Mayor has certain duties and obligations in his capacity as Mayor; this is one of those.
The Mayor is as aware as anyone of the budget constraints. With continuing budgetary constraints there
may be future reorganizations and this provides the Mayor the ability to make incremental changes
without making a request to Council every time.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if these situations would be presented to Council when they
occurred. Mr. Taraday answered that could be added to the ordinance if the Council wished; there is
nothing in the ordinance now that requires Council notification. The ordinance as proposed authorizes the
mayor to compensate for special duty pay when he/she deems it necessary. He clarified the amount could
be anything from ½% to 10%, depending on the extent to which the mayor feels additional duties are
being performed. This is being presented to the Council at a study session to solicit the Council’s
feedback prior to finalizing the ordinance.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested if/when special duty pay is provided, the Council be notified
before it occurs. In the current situation, Ms. Hite has a full-time job as Parks & Recreation Director as
well as additional duties of another department. That saves the City the cost of the FTE for that additional
position. Because of the savings, it is a good plan for the future and it is fair to compensate someone when
they assume much additional responsibility. She was not concerned with the proposed 10% increase, but
wanted the Council to be notified in advance.
Packet Page 14 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2012
Page 4
Councilmember Bloom stated Council approval should be required for increases up to 10% and
reorganizations that require an increase in an employee’s salary of 10%. The proposed ordinance does not
state an increase of 5-10% would require Council approval. A 10% increase in a manager’s salary was
potentially $10,000, a significant enough amount that the Council and the citizens should be informed of
the increase and what the reorganization will accomplish. She recommended the Council be notified of an
increase of 5-10% as well as provided a description of the organization and what it will accomplish.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested either this proposal or the personnel policy be revised so that they
were consistent at 5%. She recalled the Council previously discussed that the increase could only last for
six months. Mr. Taraday responded staff discussed the potential need to permanently assign duties that
were once assigned to a position that is no longer funded. The proposal allows for that to occur on a
permanent basis with an eye toward downsizing government.
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated her suggestion to either change the personnel policy or this proposal
so they are consistent. Mr. Taraday explained there are two provisions in the personnel policies that relate
to a 5% pay increase, 1) acting out of class, and 2) acting in the capacity of a vacant position, neither of
which apply to this specific situation. Therefore, the policies are not in conflict with each other. The
Council could change the proposed percentage if they wished.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the personnel policies should be updated to reflect what may be
a trend of a director taking on additional duties or adding a special duty pay provision. Ms. Hite answered
she is currently working on updating the personnel policies to include all the ordinances that have been
passed over the last 3-5 years. That will be presented to the Mayor in the next couple weeks for review
and to the Council shortly thereafter. Whatever ordinances are passed, they will be included in the update
of the personnel policies.
Councilmember Petso pointed out a consultant is working a non-represented employee salary survey. She
suggested waiting until the results of the salary survey are provided.
Council President Peterson suggested the ordinance include a provision that the Personnel Committee be
informed when the Mayor assigns special duty pay. If the Council does not approve, the Council still has
budget authority.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed the non-represented salary survey had not yet been completed,
but in fairness to the employees involved, she encouraged Council to move forward with the proposed
ordinance. The Council can make revisions when the salary survey is completed or if other problems
arise.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out the ordinance refers to Edmonds City Code Title 2, City Officials and
Personnel. The Council approved Mr. Chave as Acting Director of Development Services; that position is
a City official. The shortcut that was taken in the process of approving him as an Acting Development
Services Director was Council was supposed to interview the final three candidates for City officials. This
ordinance preempts that process by including City officials as well as allowing the mayor to consider
whether such special duties are being assigned on a temporary or permanent basis. She concluded the
authority granted in the proposed ordinance is too broad. The Council should have the ability to approve
the appointment of any City official, whether temporary or permanent. Mr. Taraday responded if the
Council did not adopt the ordinance and it was deemed necessary to assign someone additional duties and
pay them additional compensation, a fairly cumbersome process is required that includes returning to the
Council with a revised job description.
Packet Page 15 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2012
Page 5
Alternatively, if the Council determined special duty pay provided too broad discretion, the Parks &
Recreation Director job description could be revised to include the Human Resources-related duties Ms.
Hite has been performing along with a budget amendment that reflects additional compensation. That
could be done every time this type of situation arises. The administration’s proposal was to create a more
flexible tool that would be more responsive to the needs of the administration when things need to happen
that are not within anyone’s current job description.
Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Taraday to review how that would work with the appointment of the
Acting Development Services Director. Mr. Taraday responded that is a different situation because the
2011 budget included funds for an Acting Development Services Director. Assuming there is no money
in the 2013 budget for a Development Services Director yet there is still a need for someone to supervise
that department, there would be an acting out of class situation with a manager doing director duties and
the proposed special duty pay ordinance would apply. More analogous to the current situation would be if
the 2013 budget did not include money for a Development Services Director and Mr. Clifton was
assigned to supervise the department; a director given additional director duties.
Councilmember Bloom observed the proposed ordinance would allow the mayor to determine who was in
that position and leave the Council out of the decision. Mr. Taraday responded by eliminating a director
position, the Council essentially took itself out of the confirmation process; the Council has only given
itself the ability to confirm directors. In order to have the ability to confirm a director, the Council must
fund the director position.
Councilmember Bloom assumed the proposed process would not be used very often as few
reorganizations were likely to occur. She felt a 5-10% pay increase should be presented to the Council.
Mr. Taraday responded that was a policy position the Council could take and it would eliminate the need
for the ordinance. Councilmember Bloom asked if the proposed ordinance could be revised to reflect the
Council’s intent. Mr. Taraday noted at some point it would defeat the purpose of the ordinance. If staff
needed to return to the Council for approval of special duty pay, they may as well come to Council with a
budget amendment. The proposed ordinance was intended to streamline these types of relatively small
pay adjustments.
Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with the proposal to streamline and give the mayor the ability to make
smaller decisions. He suggested rather than a presentation to full Council, it be presented to the Finance
or Personnel Committee and then approved on the consent agenda.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented if the 10% increase resulted in the mayor spending over his
appropriation, it would need to be presented to the Council. She asked if the Human Resources
Department had sufficient funds for special duty pay for Ms. Hite. Ms. Hite explained the previous
proposal approved by Council contained a 5% increment, not 10%. The proposed ordinance would
implement the policy related to special duty pay. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if special duty pay will
come from the Human Resources Department appropriation. Ms. Hite answered yes, from salaries and
wages. A budget amendment related to the Human Resources Department reorganization will be
presented to Council next week.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred the proposal be reviewed by the Finance Committee.
Councilmember Petso expressed her support for review by the Finance Committee. If the Council wanted
a full-time Parks & Recreation Director but circumstances required that director to take on duties of
another department, she asked whether there was anything the Council could do or was that an
administrative decision. Mr. Taraday answered the Council has authority regarding job descriptions.
Packet Page 16 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2012
Page 6
Mayor Earling pointed out the City is projected to have an $800,000 - $1,000,000 shortfall by 2013. In
2016-2017, that amount increases to $3.5 million/year. There may be a need to make adjustments within
staff that will require a more agile process than currently exists. He envisioned that bringing back every
manager and director decision to the Council for review would bring the City to a grinding halt, a process
he was not interested in participating in. There must be the ability for the mayor to make quick decisions
in order to move quickly. With regard to the discretionary 10% increase, Mayor Earling explained both
Ms. Hite and Mr. Chave have a 5% adjustment. He pointed out none of the non-represented employees
have received a pay increase because he was trying to be strategic in how/when money was spent. He
concluded it would be very difficult to operate the City efficiently if he was required to come to Council
with every personnel decision. He did not object to having the Finance Committee review the proposal.
Council President Peterson summarized the proposal would be scheduled for the April 10 Finance
Committee meeting and tentatively for full Council on April 17.
6. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ONE (1) NEW ELGIN J CROSSWIND REGENERATIVE
AIR STREET SWEEPER FROM OWEN EQUIPMENT.
Public Works Director Phil Williams advised this is a normal replacement of one of the City’s two street
sweepers. The City will be surplusing a 2001 Elgin J Crosswind sweeper that was anticipated to be
replaced on a 7 year cycle but was extended to 11 years. The maintenance costs in time and service
indicate it is now time for replacement. The proposal is to buy a new Elgin J Crosswind from Owen
Machinery, the exclusive distributor for this product in the Northwest. It will be purchased via a local
government bidding process that occurred in Houston that results in a very competitive price. The cost is
$251,762, less a $25,000 trade-in, for a total cost of $226,762 from the 511 Fund.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this for approval on next week’s consent agenda.
7. METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT EXPLORATORY DISCUSSION
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained Finance Director Shawn Hunstock and she have been
discussing the concept of a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) and would like to introduce it as an
exploratory subject. She noted the information she provided was presented at the Washington Recreation
& Parks Association annual conference and was prepared by Jesse Richardson, City of Sammamish.
Ms. Hite provided the following information:
• Legislative history of MPDs
o MPDs were first authorized in 1907
o This legislation allowed for the creation of the state’s first MPD, which is now Metro Parks
Tacoma
o In the interim, other forms of park financing districts were authorized by the legislature
including:
Parks and Recreation Service Areas
Park and Recreation Districts
o 2011 - Legislature created a task force to investigate ways to finance local parks and
recreation agencies.
One conclusion of the task force was that MPD rules needed to be liberalized
o 2002 – new legislation drafted and passed that made it much easier to form MPDs. Prior to
2002, cities under 5,000 and counties could not create MPDs.
• Purpose – An MPD may be created for the management, control, improvement, maintenance, and
acquisition of parks, parkways, boulevards, and recreational facilities
o Cultural arts cannot be funded via MPD
• Advantages of an MPD
Packet Page 17 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2012
Page 7
o Boundary is flexible
May include both city and county jurisdictions
o Governance is simplified
City Council or County Council or combination may govern the MPD
o Simple majority vote to form
o Levy up to $0.75 per $1000 assessed value (AV)
o Further up on the list of junior taxing districts
o Permanent
• Current MPDs
o Tacoma (1909)
o Pullman (2002)
o Si View-North Bend (2003)
o Bainbridge Island (2004)
o Eastmont-Douglas County (2004)
o Key Peninsula (2004)
o Peninsula (2004)
o Greater Clark (2005)
o Fall City (2009)
o William Shore-Clallam County (2009)
o Des Moines (2009)
o Normandy Park (2009
o Shelton (2010)
o Village Green (2010)
o Tukwila (2011)
Ms. Hite described the regional MPD model:
• Governance options:
o Independent
Board of Commissioners
o County Council
If boundary does not include a City
o Combo City/County
Each governing body designates representatives to serve in an ex-official capacity
• Service Options
o General Purpose
Everything parks and recreation
o Regional services
Local services excluded such as neighborhood parks
o Special purpose
Capital or M&O only
• Who is using the Regional Model?
o Metro Parks Tacoma
o Greater Clark
o Si View Metro Parks
o Clallam County
• Greater Clark MPD, Vancouver WA
o Established February 2005
o Formed because:
Looming threat of significant impact fee refund for County
General Fund maintenance resources unavailable for County
Capital funding seamless and secure between jurisdictions
o Unincorporated Clark County
Packet Page 18 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2012
Page 8
o County Council is MPD Board
o Built 35 parks, 7-8 miles of trails
o Levy rate of $0.26 per $1000 AV
o Election Results:
38% voter turnout
50.05% approval (27 votes)
• Si View Metro Parks, North Bend WA
o Established February 2003
o Formed because:
King County announced it was closing the Si View Community Center and Pool
Only public pool and community center in the Snoqualmie Valley
Crisis
o Standalone MPD
Board of Commissioners
Independent of the city and county
o Levy rate of $0.53/$1000 AV
o Well supported
43% voter turnout
71% approval
• Disadvantages of a Regional MPD
o A lot of territory to serve
o Levy rate limitations
o Capital funding limitations
o Difficult for a start-up/independent MPD
o Local control/governance
• Advantages of a Regional MPD
o Efficiencies (staff, equipment, etc.)
o One stop shopping for customers
o Unincorporated county residents are paying for services
Ms. Hite described the local MPD model:
• City boundaries
• Governance:
o City Council
Funding tool only
o Independent
Board of Commissioners
• Service options
o General Purpose
Everything parks and recreation
o Special purpose
Capital and M&O only
• Pullman MPD, Pullman WA
o Formed September 2002
o Formed because:
City facing a 1.7 million shortfall for calendar year 2003
Unable to sustain Parks & Recreation Department
Parks and Recreation utilized a large portion of the General Fund budget
o City Council serves as Board
o Levy rate of $0.39/$1000 AV
o Well supported
60% approval
Packet Page 19 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2012
Page 9
Ms. Hite provided additional information regarding the formation of a MPD:
• MPDs may be proposed by local government or by citizen petition
• If the County is involved, Boundary Review Board review is required
• Ballot proposition:
o The proposal to the voters includes the MPD boundary and the members of the board
o Maximum levy rate of $0.75/$1000 AV included in ballot language
o Simple majority needed for approval
Ms. Hite provided information regarding Special Purpose MPDs:
• City of Des Moines Proposition No. 1
o Des Moines Resolution No. 1109 proposed creation of the Des Moines Pool MPD
o Ballot language stated:
“…including the authority to levy a general tax on property within the District each year
not to exceed twenty cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation for the purpose of
acquiring and operating a pool facility. A five-member board of commissioners, elected
at large, shall govern the District.”
• Pierce County Proposition No. 1
o Ballot language stated:
“…to levy annually a general tax on all property…not to exceed seventy-five cents per
thousand dollars of assessed valuation…”
Ms. Hite explained MPDs are junior taxing districts. The hierarchy is:
• Library
• Hospital
• Fire
• MPD
• Port
• EMS
• Parks & Recreation
• Flood
• Cemetery
Ms. Hite provided the following information regarding property transfer:
• City Property Transfers
o Cities may transfer land they own to MPDs
o Land transfers may include “any street, avenue or public area within the city for park or
parkway purposes” in addition to park lands
• County property transfers
o Counties may transfer lands but only “park and recreation lands and equipment”
• Indebtedness
o MPD assumes indebtedness from all property transfers
Edmonds could transfer facilities to the MPD and assign indebtedness for Marina Beach
and Frances Anderson Center seismic upgrades
She provided the following points to ponder:
• What services do we need?
• Who is going to provide these services?
• How much will these services cost? (capital and M&O)
o Consider strategies for capital
• If an MPD, what will the governance structure be?
• If an MPD, what will the boundary be?
Packet Page 20 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2012
Page 10
• Levy rate?
o Be wary of promises
o Consider your future
• Boundaries:
o Consider the “true” service area
o Consider the future
• What happens to existing taxes, bonds, levies?
• What if there is more than one MPD in your area?
o Once an MPD is formed, another cannot be formed with overlapping boundaries
• Only one failed MPD (Covington)
Starting the conversation includes:
• Talking with other MPDs
• Talking to staff
• Connect with other providers
• Consider a strategic planning process – long term visioning
• Don’t focus on the “crisis dwelling units jour”
Ms. Hite recommended exploring a local MPD rather than a regional MPD with the City Council as the
governing board, similar to the Transportation Benefit District, a funding mechanism to hold Parks &
Recreation services harmless from budget cuts. There is a lot of support for parks from citizens who adopt
parks, work in parks, and make donations for flower baskets and other programs such as youth
scholarships. In the jurisdiction where she worked previously, Parks & Recreation revenues were
increased as well as cuts made such as the city stopped watering grass in neighborhood parks in the
summer, removed garbage cans so that staff was not picking up garbage, seasonal staff were laid off and
levels of service declined in the summer months. When the prior Mayor asked for budget cuts last year
and she proposed cutting the flower program and the pool, highly subsidized programs, she was told those
would not be cut and she heard from the public that they wanted those programs. She summarized an
MPD was a tool that would help Parks & Recreation as well as the City’s bottom line.
Mr. Hunstock displayed a spreadsheet illustrating potential City savings from an MPD:
Fund 2011 Actuals Equivalent Levy Rate
001 General Fund $2,164,282.10 0.38
125 REET 2 Fund $ 215,346.10 0.04
126 REET 1 Parks Acq Fund $ 213,692.78 0.04
130 Cemetery Maint/Imp Fund $ 3,112.77 0.00
132 Parks Construction Fund
(transferred from REET 125 Fund)
$ 377,122.64 0.07
Total Potential Savings $2,973,556.39 0.52
Maximum allowable levy 0.75
Difference 0.23
Principal amount of debt that could be funded
with difference
$17,348,541
*Net expenditures, for Parks & Recreation related items only
Mr. Hunstock summarized if an MPD were formed and capital expenses were moved to the MPD, it
would free up approximately $600,000 in the 125 and 132 Funds for other non-Parks & Recreation
related expenses. He explained if the MPD Board decided to levy the maximum amount, it could bond for
other projects such as sport field improvements, pool improvements, etc. The City also has a long list of
Packet Page 21 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2012
Page 11
deferred maintenance related to current facilities; as Finance Director he would not recommend the MPD
Board bond up to that amount.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented an MPD is a wonderful, brilliant idea. She inquired about
Tukwila’s levy rate. Mr. Hunstock answered it was $0.15/$1000 AV and was strictly for operation of the
pool. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed that would cost an average Edmonds house $23.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the senior center could be included. Mr. Hunstock answered
yes, the City currently expends approximately $60,000/year from the General Fund budget for
programming activities at the senior center.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed town hall meetings would need to be held if the Council wanted to
move forward with an MPD. She asked if the public could be informed in time for the November ballot.
If the Council is interested in exploring an MPD, Ms. Hite recommended forming an exploratory citizen
committee to discuss the concept and shop it around to determine if there is enough interest to place it on
the ballot. That group would then become the advocacy group for the MPD. Staff can provide information
in an exploratory phase but once it is placed on the ballot, it will be up to the Council and citizens to
advocate for it.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the strategic planning process was part of an exploratory
process. Ms. Hite answered it can be and there was a great deal of support expressed during that process
for parks and recreation. There has not been any specific discussion in the strategic planning process
about an MPD. An exploratory committee often builds the momentum for such an initiative.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether improvements to Yost Pool could be defined. Ms. Hite
cautioned against including specifics but improvements such as to Yost Pool, sports fields, etc. could be
mentioned. She explained there is a template that guides the Parks & Recreation Department’s work, the
City’s Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, which will be updated in 2014. An exploratory committee
could begin to identify some of the community’s priorities based on that plan.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the ballot language could state that property taxes would not be
increased for the next three years. Ms. Hite answered that could not be included in the ballot language but
that intent could be announced to the public.
Councilmember Yamamoto inquired about the timing, whether the intent was the November ballot. Ms.
Hite answered the August primary would be too ambitious; November would also be ambitious but it was
probably the best timing. A special election in February 2013 would be quite expensive and she would
not recommend it immediately following the presidential election because voter turnout would have to be
very high. The August 2013 primary includes local elections so would not be the best timing. She
concluded if an MPD was not on the November 2012 ballot, strategically it would be pushed to 2014.
Council President Peterson suggested 2-3 Councilmembers form an ad hoc committee. He asked
interested Councilmembers to inform him of their interest. If the City formed a local MPD, he asked
whether the City could invite other cities to join. Ms. Hite answered no.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling recalled a few months ago the Military Veterans Promotion project was launched in
Edmonds; participating merchants offer a year-round discount to military families. Today he, along with
the Director of Operation Military Family, appeared on King 5’s Margaret Larson’s New Day Program
where he challenged cities throughout the world to participate in the project.
Packet Page 22 of 139
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2012
Page 12
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis reported Redmond’s Finance Director Mike Bailey made a presentation to the
Council last Thursday regarding Budgeting by Priorities. She supported the City moving toward that
budgeting process.
Council President Peterson requested Councilmembers inform him of any projects/ideas that they want
presented to Council during the second quarter. He planned to provide Councilmembers a policy
regarding how to best utilize the City Attorney’s time. He also plans to work on a policy related to use of
styrene.
Council President Peterson relayed Councilmember Plunkett has announced his final day on the Council
will be June 4, 2012. An application form will be available online and he will provide Councilmembers a
tentative interview schedule. He anticipated the Council would make the appointment on June 5. He
encouraged Councilmembers to invite their friends and neighbors to apply.
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Packet Page 23 of 139
AM-4683 3. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/03/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #131227 through #131303 dated March 29, 2012 for $419,519.28.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2012
Revenue:
Expenditure:419,519.28
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $419,519.28
Attachments
Claim Checks 3-29-12
Project Numbers 3-29-12
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 03/29/2012 02:42 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2012 02:49 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/30/2012 07:30 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2012 08:14 AM
Packet Page 24 of 139
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 03/29/2012 08:00 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/30/2012
Packet Page 25 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131227 3/29/2012 069798 A.M. LEONARD INC C112028951 FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES
ANGLE BROOMS/FLOWER PROGRAM
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 30.98
Total :30.98
131228 3/29/2012 073862 ADAMS CONSULTING SERVICES LLC 2078/5 Consulting service fees (2/1 - 2/27/12
Consulting service fees (2/1 - 2/27/12
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 3,250.00
Total :3,250.00
131229 3/29/2012 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND APRIL 2012 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 04/12 EDMONDS AC
ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 04/12
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,097.71
Total :2,097.71
131230 3/29/2012 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 7159 SHAPING TREES @ TREATMENT PLANT
SHAPE 9 TREES ALONG 2ND AVE @
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 3,500.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 332.50
Total :3,832.50
131231 3/29/2012 069751 ARAMARK 655-6091048 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 28.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.74
Total :31.55
131232 3/29/2012 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 77963 WATCH ENGRAVING
ENGRAVING FOR RETIREMENT WATCH FOR RICH
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 1.90
Total :21.90
1Page:
Packet Page 26 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131233 3/29/2012 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST April 2012 AWC APRIL 2012 AWC PREMIUMS
April 2012 Fire Pension Premiums
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,011.32
April 2012 Retirees Premiums
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 31,067.46
April 2012 AWC Premiums
811.000.000.231.510.000.00 270,990.66
Total :306,069.44
131234 3/29/2012 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2011-203 INV 2011-203 EDMONDS PD
PRE-EMPLOY SCREENING EXAM 03
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 150.00
Total :150.00
131235 3/29/2012 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 926647 INV#926647 - EDMONDS PD -POFF
SEW NAMETAG ON S/S SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 0.71
INV#928479 - EDMONDS PD -BLACKBURN928479
WIRE STARS/BLACK FELT STRIP
001.000.410.521.100.240.00 5.00
SEW YRS OF SERVICE INSIGNIA
001.000.410.521.100.240.00 2.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.240.00 0.71
Total :16.42
131236 3/29/2012 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN14736 YOGA CLASSES
YOGA #14736
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 328.50
YOGA #14739
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 417.60
YOGA #14742
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 490.68
YOGA #14745
2Page:
Packet Page 27 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131236 3/29/2012 (Continued)072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 569.25
YOGA #14748
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 465.75
PILATES YOGA FUSION #14781
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 535.50
Total :2,807.28
131237 3/29/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11725746 Planning Div Copier/Printer
Planning Div Copier/Printer
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 36.16
Bld Div Printer/Copier Lease11725747
Bld Div Printer/Copier Lease
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 36.16
Total :72.32
131238 3/29/2012 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON14832 ART FOR KIDZ
ADVENTURES IN DRAWING #14832
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 357.50
Total :357.50
131239 3/29/2012 068484 CEMEX LLC 9423269535 MILLTOWN RAISED PLANTER CEMENT
CEMENT FOR MILLTOWN RAISED PLANTERS
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 577.00
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 54.82
Total :631.82
131240 3/29/2012 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 179232 WELDING SUPPLIES
RUNNING GEAR/CYLINDER RACK,
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 160.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.21
Total :175.21
131241 3/29/2012 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 33635864 INV#33635864 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD
3Page:
Packet Page 28 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131241 3/29/2012 (Continued)003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS
FUEL FOR NARC VEHICLES
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 290.43
Total :290.43
131242 3/29/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9266 INV#9266 CUST#47 -EDMONDS PD
PRISONER R&B - FEB 2012
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 1,850.83
Total :1,850.83
131243 3/29/2012 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2413393 LINERS, TOILET TISSUE
LINERS, TOILET TISSUE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,173.39
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 111.47
TOILET TISSUEW2413456
TOILET TISSUE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 91.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.72
Total :1,385.35
131244 3/29/2012 063507 COXLEY, BRUCE 03202012 PHOTOGRAPHY FOR WEBSITE
Photography assignment &material costs
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 142.00
Total :142.00
131245 3/29/2012 073966 DE LA CRUZ SANCHEZ, ZAYRA SANCHEZ032612 REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00
Total :500.00
131246 3/29/2012 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 3/13/12 - 3/28/12 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 348.00
Total :348.00
4Page:
Packet Page 29 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131247 3/29/2012 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 12-3263 MINUTE TAKING
3-13 & 3-20 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 381.00
Total :381.00
131248 3/29/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11
LIFT STATION #11
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE3-03575
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 233.90
LIFT STATION #123-07525
LIFT STATION #12
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 62.73
LIFT STATION #153-07709
LIFT STATION #15
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57
LIFT STATION #43-09350
LIFT STATION #4
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 93.22
LIFT STATION #103-09800
LIFT STATION #10
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 49.89
LIFT STATION #93-29875
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.11
Total :530.99
131249 3/29/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 074387 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE
Maintenance for printers 03/21/12 -
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 312.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 29.64
Total :341.64
131250 3/29/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 074427 COPIER LEASE
5Page:
Packet Page 30 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131250 3/29/2012 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 18.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 1.72
Total :19.84
131251 3/29/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 074359 METER READING
Recep.desk copier 11/21-12/21
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 12.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 1.18
Total :13.58
131252 3/29/2012 069848 ERICKSON, KATHERINE ERICKSON15100 IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #15100
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 106.88
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #15103
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 136.00
Total :242.88
131253 3/29/2012 010660 FOSTER, MARLO 31 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 18.07
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 8,030.00
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement32
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 123.45
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 3,830.00
Total :12,001.52
131254 3/29/2012 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH14950 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+ #14950
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 292.50
6Page:
Packet Page 31 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :292.50131254 3/29/2012 072932 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY
131255 3/29/2012 011900 FRONTIER 253-017-8148-050505-ACCT 253-017-8148-050505-5
Circuit ID detail
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 407.50
Total :407.50
131256 3/29/2012 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 29.02
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS253-012-9166
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 151.72
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 281.76
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION253-014-8062
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.53
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.42
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION253-017-4360
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 43.86
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 81.46
TELEMETRY STATIONS425-712-0417
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.82
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 26.82
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.02
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 70.09
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
7Page:
Packet Page 32 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131256 3/29/2012 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 58.87
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 58.87
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 78.49
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE425-712-8347
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 55.01
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 50.15
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 110.68
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST425-778-3297
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.97
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 35.23
Total :1,244.79
131257 3/29/2012 073627 GETAWAY MEDIA CORP 2701 INTERNET TOURISM AD FOR 2012
Internet tourism ad for 3-15-12 -
120.000.310.575.420.440.00 199.00
Total :199.00
131258 3/29/2012 068011 HALLAM, RICHARD 30 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 215.90
Total :215.90
131259 3/29/2012 013338 HICKOK, ROBIN 32 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 648.16
8Page:
Packet Page 33 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :648.16131259 3/29/2012 013338 013338 HICKOK, ROBIN
131260 3/29/2012 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 27 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 15.00
Total :15.00
131261 3/29/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2052295 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 207.46
Total :207.46
131262 3/29/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2045811 Copy paper - 3rd floor
Copy paper - 3rd floor
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 14.57
Copy paper - 3rd floor
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 14.57
Copy paper - 3rd floor
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 14.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 1.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.39
Total :47.85
131263 3/29/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2048379 DAY COUNTER CALENDAR REFILL
At-a-glance day counter daily calendar
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 29.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 2.85
SHARP CALCULATOR2053022
Sharp 2 color printing calculator
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 134.99
9.5% Sales Tax
9Page:
Packet Page 34 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131263 3/29/2012 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 12.82
COPY PAPER2053045
Copy Paper
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 288.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 27.36
SHEET PROTECTORS,STORAGE BOXES2056118
Avery sheet protectors top load
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 29.99
Universal extra strength easy assembly
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 28.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 5.60
Total :560.59
131264 3/29/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2052343 Office Supplies - DSD
Office Supplies - DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 286.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 27.23
Total :313.90
131265 3/29/2012 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 702773 JACK STANDS
2 TON JACK & JACK STANDS
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 49.95
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 4.75
Total :54.70
131266 3/29/2012 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS E2DB.66 E2DB.SERVICES THRU FEBRUARY
E2DB.Services thru February 2012
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 261.45
Total :261.45
131267 3/29/2012 072697 LAWLER, PATRICK 3/1/2012 Remaining tuition reimbursement -
10Page:
Packet Page 35 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131267 3/29/2012 (Continued)072697 LAWLER, PATRICK
Remaining tuition reimbursement -
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 30.36
Tuition Reimbursement -Winter Quarter3/2012
Tuition Reimbursement -Winter Quarter
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 471.69
Total :502.05
131268 3/29/2012 066064 LISTEN AUDIOLOGY SERVICE INC 3014 Hearing Testing - 63 employees (3/14
Hearing Testing - 63 employees (3/14
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 1,121.00
Total :1,121.00
131269 3/29/2012 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 845 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE867
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32
Total :176.64
131270 3/29/2012 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER0321 GYM MONITOR
GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 85.00
Total :85.00
131271 3/29/2012 065767 NORTHEND RENTAL & CONSTRUCTION 10254 MILLTOWN ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
MILLTOWN - CABLE PULLER,ROPE
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 465.00
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 44.18
Total :509.18
131272 3/29/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-434480 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:HAINES WHARF PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 220.77
11Page:
Packet Page 36 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :220.77131272 3/29/2012 061013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
131273 3/29/2012 025530 NW FIRE INVESTIGATORS ASSN 2012 CONF MCINTYRE MAY 2012 CONF REGISTRATION,MCINTYRE
CONF REGISTRATION - MCINTYRE
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 375.00
IFSTA FIRE INV. MANUAL
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 75.00
Total :450.00
131274 3/29/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 040925 INV#040925 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
STANDARD RUBBER BANDS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.20
RUBBER BANDS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.20
KLEENEX FACIAL TISSUE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 44.20
METALLIC BLUE CERTIFICATES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.98
Total :68.86
131275 3/29/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 050130 PAPER FOR POOL
PAPER FOR POOL PASSES, ETC.
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 23.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 2.25
Total :25.95
131276 3/29/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 027832 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 201.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 19.18
OFFICE SUPPLIES033749
Office Supplies
12Page:
Packet Page 37 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131276 3/29/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 148.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 14.06
SUPPLIES033774
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 -263.49
OFFICE SUPPLIES061972
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 200.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 19.07
OFFICE SUPPLIES961522
Office supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 -60.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 -5.71
Total :273.45
131277 3/29/2012 068709 OFFICETEAM 35102291 Deborah Pinney -Temp HR Assistant
Deborah Pinney -Temp HR Assistant
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 525.36
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant services35148131
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 525.36
Total :1,050.72
131278 3/29/2012 073921 ORONG, DANIELLE ORONG0327 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT @
VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT @
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 160.00
Total :160.00
131279 3/29/2012 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.023025486 PAINT SUPPLIES
PAINT SUPPLIES FOR CITY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.93
9.5% Sales Tax
13Page:
Packet Page 38 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131279 3/29/2012 (Continued)027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.89
Total :21.82
131280 3/29/2012 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20110010.000-7 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 2/26/12
E7AC.Services thru 2/26/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 12,900.36
Total :12,900.36
131281 3/29/2012 073546 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT 03222012 POSTAGE
Postage for City Meter250-00280
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 8,000.00
Total :8,000.00
131282 3/29/2012 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 FAC
Alarm Monitoring for FAC
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 211.83
PW ALARM MONITORING730531
24 hour Alarm Monitoring PW
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 23.85
24 hour Alarm Monitoring PW
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 23.85
24 hour Alarm Monitoring PW
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 21.46
24 hour Alarm Monitoring PW
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 27.42
24 hour Alarm Monitoring PW
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 11.92
24 hour Alarm Monitoring PW
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 10.73
Total :331.06
131283 3/29/2012 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H.29 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,767.26
Total :1,767.26
14Page:
Packet Page 39 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131284 3/29/2012 073859 SIMMONS, SHELLY SIMMONS14958 ZUMBATOMIC CLASSES
ZUMBATOMIC #14958
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 144.00
ZUMBATOMIC #14955
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 288.00
Total :432.00
131285 3/29/2012 036955 SKY NURSERY 293166 MILLTOWN PLANTINGS
PLANTS FOR MILLTOWN
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 215.91
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 20.51
FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES293167
FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 58.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 5.60
Total :300.96
131286 3/29/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 201762101 SPRINKLER SYSTEM
SPRINKLER SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 128.36
Total :128.36
131287 3/29/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200386456 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 155.72
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD200468593
LIFT STATION #4
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 496.71
4 WAY LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S200592954
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
200 DAYTON ST-OLD PW BLDG200638609
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 1,193.68
15Page:
Packet Page 40 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131287 3/29/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
SIGNAL LIGHT 200 3RD200678019
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 56.17
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W201265980
LIFT STATION #12
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 308.96
4 WAY LIGHT 599 MAIN ST201283892
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 53.56
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W201374964
LIFT STATION #11
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.95
LIBRARY201551744
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,895.99
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S201572898
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 204.23
LS #15 7710 168TH PL SW201594488
LIFT STATION #15
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.04
4 WAY LIGHT 901 WALNUT201782646
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 58.12
Public Works201942489
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 92.42
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 351.18
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 351.18
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 351.18
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 351.18
16Page:
Packet Page 41 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131287 3/29/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 351.18
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX202291662
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,786.08
LIGHT 120 5TH N202389375
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 16.17
LOG CABIN202421582
LOG CABIN
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 377.50
CITY HALL202439246
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,051.31
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN204425847
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 73.49
Total :15,672.04
131288 3/29/2012 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO 3/21/12 Long Term Disability premiums - 1st qtr
Long Term Disability premiums - 1st qtr
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 107.33
Total :107.33
131289 3/29/2012 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO April 2012 Standard APRIL 2012 STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUMS
April 2012 Standard Insurance Premiums
811.000.000.231.550.000.00 13,952.52
Total :13,952.52
131290 3/29/2012 061782 STATE TREASURER DeLilla.PE License DE LILLA.PE LICENSE RENEWAL 2012
De Lilla.PE License Renewal 2012
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 76.00
Total :76.00
131291 3/29/2012 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 440011337101 C/A 440001304654
17Page:
Packet Page 42 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131291 3/29/2012 (Continued)070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC
Basic e-commerce hosting 03/02/12 -
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
Domain forwarding 02/22/12 - 03/21/12
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 2.00
C/A 440001307733440011337160
03/2012 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
Total :71.90
131292 3/29/2012 068619 SWENSON, LINDA 1232 MAY - AUGUST CRAZE
MAY - AUGUST 2012 CRAZE
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,269.25
Total :1,269.25
131293 3/29/2012 073886 TERRELL, EMILY 2012-004 HE sevices (pro-tem) for Burnstead
HE sevices (pro-tem) for Burnstead
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 570.66
Total :570.66
131294 3/29/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY I01770084-03082012 E9GA.HEARING EXAMINER AD
E9GA.Hearing Examiner Ad
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 73.96
Total :73.96
131295 3/29/2012 073581 TRUAX, KAILEY 03212012 MONITOR FOR ECONOMIC DEV COM
Monitor for Economic Development
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
131296 3/29/2012 073581 TRUAX, KAILEY TRUAX0325 GYM MONITOR
GYM MONITOR 3/25/12
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 48.00
Total :48.00
131297 3/29/2012 062693 US BANK 8313 ENG CREDIT CARD FEBRUARY 2012
Eng Credit Card.February 2012 Charges
18Page:
Packet Page 43 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
131297 3/29/2012 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 450.00
Total :450.00
131298 3/29/2012 072172 VAUGHAN, ERIC AQ64820 Time loss not bought back (2/1 -
Time loss not bought back (2/1 -
411.000.656.538.800.110.00 1,939.95
Total :1,939.95
131299 3/29/2012 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 1065564909 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 97.28
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 174.22
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 111.27
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.49
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 59.57
Cell Service-PD
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 461.74
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 27.26
Cell Service-PW Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.94
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 47.34
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 47.33
Cell Service-PW Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 141.20
Cell Service-PW Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 66.28
Cell Service-WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 40.41
19Page:
Packet Page 44 of 139
03/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
7:31:24AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,308.33131299 3/29/2012 067865 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
131300 3/29/2012 073137 WELCH-LANG, CAROLE LANG0324 ANDERSON CENTER MONITOR
ANDERSON CENTER MONITOR 3/24
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 24.00
Total :24.00
131301 3/29/2012 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC 694239 SUPPLIES
SET-SHOES, LINED~
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 214.06
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 21.62
Total :249.21
131302 3/29/2012 072939 WESTERN WHOLESALE SUPPLY 242866 MILLTOWN INFORMATION SIGNS
MILLTOWN INFORMATION SIGNS
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 83.20
Total :83.20
131303 3/29/2012 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1003 MAR-12 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 13,000.00
Total :13,000.00
Bank total :419,519.2877Vouchers for bank code :front
419,519.28Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report77
20Page:
Packet Page 45 of 139
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA
STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
Revised 3/29/2012Packet Page 46 of 139
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 E8GC
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
WTR 2012 Street Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
Revised 3/29/2012Packet Page 47 of 139
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support
WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM E1FA c336 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
SWR E1GA c347 Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
WTR E2CA c388 2012 Street Overlay Program
WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair
PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
Revised 3/29/2012Packet Page 48 of 139
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements
STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program
STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
STM E7FG m013 NPDES
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR E8GC c300 BNSF Double Track Project
SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program
STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project
STM E9FB c307 Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements
SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
Revised 3/29/2012Packet Page 49 of 139
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements
SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail
General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program
STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza
PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program
SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR c300 E8GC BNSF Double Track Project
SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements
SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
STM c307 E9FB Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements
STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project
PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support
FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs
WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
STM c336 E1FA SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
Revised 3/29/2012Packet Page 50 of 139
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
SWR c347 E1GA Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements
WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
SWR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain
STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Street Overlay Program
WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair
SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update
STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM m013 E7FG NPDES
Revised 3/29/2012Packet Page 51 of 139
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
WTR 2012 Street Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 E8GC
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
Revised 3/29/2012Packet Page 52 of 139
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA
STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
Revised 3/29/2012Packet Page 53 of 139
PROJECT NUMBERS
(Phase and Task Numbers)
Phases and Tasks (Engineering Division)
Phase Title
ct Construction
ds Design
pl Preliminary
sa Site Acquisition & Prep
st Study
ro Right-of-Way
Task Title
196 Traffic Engineering & Studies
197 MAIT
198 CTR
199 Engineering Plans & Services
950 Engineering Staff Time
970 Construction Management
981 Contract
990 Miscellaneous
991 Retainage
stm Engineering Staff Time-Storm
str Engineering Staff Time-Street
swr Engineering Staff Time-Sewer
wtr Engineering Staff Time-Water
prk Engineering Staff Time-Park
Packet Page 54 of 139
AM-4696 3. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/03/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Kody McConnell
Department:Public Works
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to purchase one (1) new Elgin J Crosswind Regenerative Air Street Sweeper from Owen
Equipment.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that authorization be given to the Department of Public Works to purchase one (1)
new Elgin J Crosswind regenerative air street sweeper from Owen Equipment for $251,762 minus a
trade-in allowance of $25,000.
Previous Council Action
This matter was heard on March 27, 2012, by a Committee of the Whole of the City Council and
recommended for approval on the Consent Agenda of the April 3, 2012, City Council Meeting.
Narrative
Unit #55 2001 Elgin J Street Sweeper has previously been budgeted and approved for replacement in the
2012 Fleet Replacement Budget. This vehicle has exceeded its projected seven year life cycle by four
years. It will be traded in to Owen Equipment for a credit of $25,000 against a total purchase price of
$251,762.
The new 2012 Elgin J Street Sweeper will meet and exceed all federal 2010 TIER 3 and TIER 4i
emission standards and will reduce overall fuel consumption. Additionally, overall dust particulate
capturing capacity has been improved with this newest design.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/21/2012 05:14 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/22/2012 03:32 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/22/2012 03:41 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2012 04:43 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/30/2012 07:23 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2012 08:14 AM
Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 03/21/2012 10:13 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/30/2012
Packet Page 55 of 139
AM-4695 3. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/03/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approve creation of Human Resource Manager position.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council Committee of the whole approved this agenda item to be placed on the Consent Agenda.
Previous Council Action
In November 2011, City Council eliminated the HR Director position in the 2012 budget. The Council
then directed the Mayor to reorganize the duties and responsibilities within Human Resources and come
back to Council with a proposal.
In February, 2012, Mayor Earling presented a proposal to the Finance Committee and Personnel
Committee of the Council. Both of these committees forwarded this proposal to City Council for
approval.
On February 21, 2012, the full Council approved the Mayor’s staffing proposal for the Human Resources
Department (attached ).
Narrative
This request is to reclassify the Human Resource Analyst, Mary Ann Hardie, to a Human Resource
Manager on a permanent basis. Ms. Hardie has been performing the essential functions of a Manager
position since September 22, 2011. She is both capable and competent, and has proven herself invaluable
during the reorganization of the HR Department. It is the Mayor’s interest and request to make this a
permanent position within HR, and to reclass the HR Analyst into this position, essentially eliminating
the HR Analyst position. This would also eliminate Ms. Hardie’s “acting’ status, and assist the
department in moving forward.
The cost of this for the remainder of the year is the difference between the HR Analyst salary and the HR
Manager salary, and was authorized as part of the Mayor’s proposal. The HR Manager position will then
be a budgeted position and considered as part of the budget process for 2013.
Packet Page 56 of 139
Attachments
HR Proposal Cost
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2012 03:19 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/30/2012 07:23 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2012 08:14 AM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 03/29/2012 02:53 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/30/2012
Packet Page 57 of 139
HR Temporary Staffing Proposal - Jan. 2012
Monthly Cost
Position
Hours per
month Hourly
1 HR Clerk - Salary 40 $12.67 $507
Benefits 0
Position
Hours per
month Hourly
2 Part-Time HR Assistant*80 $21.89 $1,751.20
Benefits $0.00
Position
3 Acting HR Manager/HR Analyst FT $1,875.11
Benefits - 10%$187.50
Position
4 Acting HR Administrator/ Parks - 5%, FT $516.25
Recreation & Cultural Services Dir
Benefits - 10%$52
Position
5 Lead Police Negotiator/Special Projects
Consultant
Total $4,889
* This is an additional temporary position that will bring HR technical experience to assist with the HR Manager's workload.
Packet Page 58 of 139
Jan - June 2012 Jan - Dec. 2012
6 Month Cost 12 Month Cost
$3,040.80 $6,081.60
0 0
$22,765.60 $45,531.20
$0.00 $0.00
$11,250.66 $22,501.32
$1,125 $2,250
$3,097.50 $6,195.00
$312 $624
$10,000 $10,000
$51,591.56 $93,183.12
* This is an additional temporary position that will bring HR technical experience to assist with the HR Manager's workload.
Packet Page 59 of 139
AM-4687 4.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/03/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Community Service Announcement: SWEL Timebank
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information only.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
SWEL Timebank, operating in Shoreline, Woodway, Edmonds and Lake Forest Park, is a unique
program for citizens that offers the opportunity to donate time. A timebank doesn't bank money, it tracks
time; time spent sharing talents and skills with neighbors.
A representative of SWEL Timebank will provide information on this program at the City Council
Meeting.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 03/30/2012 07:27 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2012 08:14 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 03/29/2012 11:19 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/30/2012
Packet Page 60 of 139
AM-4686 5.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/03/2012
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Update by SNOCOM on the New World Project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information only.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Representatives from SNOCOM will update the City Council on the New World Project. The New
World Project will upgrade the dispatch (CAD) and records management system for police, fire and
corrections. The upgrade will affect the entire county, since SNOPAC (the other call center) will also
upgrade their system.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 03/30/2012 07:28 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2012 08:14 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 03/29/2012 11:05 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/30/2012
Packet Page 61 of 139
AM-4584 7.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/03/2012
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works
Finance
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Update to the City's General Facilities Charges for utilities by City staff and the FCS Group. (Public
comment will be received.)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve proposed General Facilities Charges for sewer, water and storm utility connections and prepare
an ordinance to implement the new charges over a three year period.
Previous Council Action
On October 11, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be forwarded to the
full Council for discussion and approval.
On November 7, 2011, the Finance Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be forwarded to
the full Council for discussion and approval.
On November 15, 2011, Council requested that public comment period be scheduled at a later meeting.
On February 14, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee recommended staff make a
presentation to the full Council and allow public comment.
Narrative
A General Facilities Charge (GFC) is a one time charge paid by new customers connecting to a utility
system. FCS Group, using data provided by the City, modeled a rate fee schedule for water, sewer, and
storm utility connections. The data is based on equivalent residential units (ERUs). The term, ERU, is
used to convert non-residential (commercial) customers into an equivalent number of residential units
based on the defined water/sewer/storm use of a single-family residence. This updated fee schedule will
be used by the City to charge a connection fee to new utility customers connecting water/sewer/storm
utilities to the City systems.
The study has been modeled using methodology consistent with RCW and case law requirements for a
city in the State of Washington, you can find the finalized study attached as Exhibit A, B & C.
The City has not updated its General Facilities Charges (GFC) since March 2000 for the Water and Sewer
Utility and April 2003 for the Stormwater Utility.
Packet Page 62 of 139
Attachments
Exhibit A - FCS Group Report
Exhibit B - GFC Study - Sewer
Exhibit C - GFC Study - Storm
Exhibit D - GFC Study - Water
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 03/29/2012 01:14 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 03/29/2012 03:03 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2012 03:04 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/30/2012 07:38 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2012 08:14 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 02/15/2012
Final Approval Date: 03/30/2012
Packet Page 63 of 139
Redmond Town Center, 7525 166th Ave NE, Suite D-215, Redmond, WA 98052 425.867.1802
225 Bush Street, Suite 1825, San Francisco, CA 94104 415.445.8947
4380 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 220, Portland, OR 97239 503.841.6543
Memorandum
Date: November 14, 2011
To: Michele De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer, City of Edmonds
From: Nihat Dogan, Project Manager, FCS GROUP
RE: Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Utilities General Facilities Charge Update
1. OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY
General facilities charges (also known as connection charges, system development charges, or capital
facilities charges) are legal sources of funding to support capital needs, as provided for by RCW
35.92.025. A GFC is a one-time charge imposed as a condition of a new connection to the utility system
or for increasing the capacity of an existing connection (e.g., re-development). The purpose of the charge
is to promote equity between new and existing customers and to provide a source of funding for capital
projects.
Equity is served by providing a vehicle for new customers to share in the capital costs incurred to support
their addition to the system. In the absence of a GFC, growth-related costs would be borne in large part
by existing customers. In addition, the net investment in the utility already collected from existing
customers, whether through rates, charges and /or assessments, would be diluted by the addition of new
customers, effectively subsidizi ng new customers with prior customers’ payments. To establish equity, a
general facilities charge should recover a proportionate share of investment in the system from a new
customer. From a financial perspective a new customer should become financially equivalent to an
existing customer by paying the connection charge.
Revenues generated from connection charges can be used to fund capital projects or to pay debt service
incurred to finance capital projects, but cannot be used to pay operating and maintenance costs.
There are several documented approaches to establish a connection charge that are legally defensible if
designed properly. Within the range of legally defensible approaches, the choice of the costs the City
targets is a matter of policy. It is important that the City follow a methodical and rational approach to
consistently determine and implement cost-based connection charges . To that end, FCS GROUP, in
concurrence with City staff, calculated general facilities charges using “integrated ” or “average cost ”
method.
Under this method, new development pays an average share of existing and future facilities spread over
the current and projected ratepayers that the system will serve. This approach assumes that existing and
future customers are equal beneficiaries of both the current and future system and, therefore, existing and
future customers should equally share the burden of financing all system facilities. Under this method,
the connection charge is calculated by dividing the existing and future cost basis by the total system
capacity to be served by the system. Most often, repair and replacement (R&R) projects are excluded
from the future cost basis since R&R projects are typically funded through rates. If future R&R projects
are included in the future cost basis, a provision for retirement of assets should also be incorporated to
FCS GROUP
Solutions-Oriented Consulting
Packet Page 64 of 139
November 14, 2011
City of Edmonds
Water, Sewer, and Stormwater GFC Update
Page 2 FCS GROUP
ensure that new customers do not pay for the cost of the original asset as well as the replacement of the
same asset.
It should be noted that these calculated charges represent our estimate of the maximum allowable
general facilities charges. The City may choose as a matter of policy to implement a charge at any level
up to the calculated charge. Revenues generated, as well as equity achieved, will vary depending upon
whether or not the full charge is implemented.
It is also important to note that the calculated general facilities charges are expressed in terms of current
dollars for future project costs. In other words, the calculated charges will only recover an equitable
share of costs from new customers connecting to the system in the first year of implementation. A
customer connecting in the following year should pay a charge that reflects the cumulative system
investment at the time they connect. Relative to the calculated charges presented herein, this would
include:
Assets added to the system during 2012,
An extra year of interest accrued for past capital costs incurred, and
Updated costs for the capital improvement program and construction-work-in-progress.
Given these considerations, the calculated charges herein may not recover a fair share of costs from
customers connecting in subsequent years. The City could potentially address this concern by building an
appropriate provision for inflation to reflect an adjustment for planned net improvements into the general
facilities charges.
Brief descriptions of the components that can be included in the general facilities charge are described
below.
A. EXISTING COST BASIS
Legal interpretations of state statutes have provided guidelines for general facilities charges, which
suggest that such charges should reflect the actual original cost of the utility system, and can include
interest on that cost at the rate of interest applicable at the time of construction for up to a 10-year period,
not to exceed 100 percent of the construction costs. This cost basis does not include donated facilities
and non-utility cash payments, whether from grants, developers or through Local Improvement District
assessments. Although not required by state law, outstanding debt principal (net of existing cash
balances) is then subtracted from this cost basis to avoid double-charging in recognition that debt service
is repaid through rates.
B. FUTURE COST BASIS
Legal interpretations also suggest that future facilities needed to serve growth, as well as to provide for
regulatory system improvements can be included in the general facilities charge. The future cost basis
can include utility capital projects planned for construction and identified in comprehensive system
planning documents. Projects directly funded by developers or special property assessments are not
included in the calculation. Replacement projects are most often excluded from the calculation unless
needed to increase the size of the system or a provision for retirement of assets that would be replaced
are provided for the existing cost basis, since the original cost of replacement projects is already inclu ded
in the existing cost basis.
Packet Page 65 of 139
November 14, 2011
City of Edmonds
Water, Sewer, and Stormwater GFC Update
Page 3 FCS GROUP
C. CUSTOMER BASE / SYSTEM CAPACITY
The sum of the existing cost basis and future cost basis is then divided by the total customer base to
determine the maximum allowable general facilities charge. The customer base represents equivalent
residential or service units that can be supported by the planned system capacity.
2. ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA
The calculation of updated charges relied on the following data sources and assumptions:
Fixed asset detail information as of 2010 year-end was provided by the City’s Finance Department
Contributed, developer donated, or LID funded assets were identified by FCS GROUP and City staff
collaboratively based on the asset descriptions in the detailed asset listings. Per contract between the
City and the wholesale treatment customers (i.e. City of Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View Water
and Sewer District, and Ronald Sewer District), 50.787%.of all assets related to the wastewater
treatment plant is assumed to be funded by the sewer utility, the rest is assumed to be funded by
wholesale customers.
2011 construction-work-in-progress (CWIP) provided by the City’s Finance Department, and tied to
the Engineering Department’s 2011 capital program.
Existing debt service payment schedules, outstanding debt principal balances, and 2011 year-end
estimated cash balances were provided by the City’s Finance Department.
Capital Improvement Plans were provided by the City’s Engineering Department.
Per City staff’s direction, it is assumed that the water utility’s cap ital improvement program target
for repair and replacement projects is to replace 1% of the utility’s aging pipe infrastructure per year.
Based on the 18-year capital improvement program, 18% of the pre-2000 transmission and
distribution assets were assumed to be retired.
The existing customer counts for the water and stormwater utilities are based on the utility billing
system data and provided by City staff. The number of existing equivalent residential units (ERUs)
for the sewer utility is based on the C ity’s flow data at the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), and
provided by the WWTP operations staff.
Based on the Water Utility Comprehensive Plan projections, average annual growth rate of the water
utility’s customer base is 0.5%. Per City staff direction, the sewer utility’s customer base is assumed
to grow at the same rate, while the stormwater utility’s customer growth rate is assumed to be half of
this rate (i.e. 0.25%).
3. RESULTS
Results of the general facilities charge analyses are summarized below. Further detail is provided in the
technical spreadsheets included in the Appendix.
A. WATER UTILITY
As of year-end 2011, the original cost of the water utility system assets equaled $18.1 million.
Approximately $1.1 million of these assets were contributed (or donated), and therefore excluded from
Packet Page 66 of 139
November 14, 2011
City of Edmonds
Water, Sewer, and Stormwater GFC Update
Page 4 FCS GROUP
the calculation. Ten years of interest accumulation totaling $9.3 million was added to the cost basis. The
utility had $4.2 million construction-work-in-progress in 2011. As explained above, a provision for
retirement of pre-2000 transmission and distribution assets is provided, resulting in a deduction of $1.3
million of existing assets and $0.8 million reduction in calculated interest.
At the end of 2011, the utility is expected to have $1.2 million cash balances and will carry $1.5 million
outstanding debt principal. Therefore the existing cost basis was reduced by $0.2 million outstanding
debt principal net of cash balances. The remaining $28.1 million formed the existing cost basis for water
GFC.
The City has planned for about $46.5 million (current day dollars) of capital projects between 2012 and
2029. Hence, the total cost basis (existing plus future) for the general facilities charge is $74.6 million.
Based on summary level customer data provided by City staff, the City had 10,164 water accounts and
20,928 meter capacity equivalents (MEs) as of October 2011. Excluding fire and sprinkler meters, total
number of meter capacity equivalents was 13,436. Base on the projected average annual growth rate of
0.5%, the total number of meter capacity equivalents (MEs) is projected to reach 14,772 at the end of the
analysis period (i.e. 2030).
The calculated GFC of $5,050 per ME is derived by dividing the total cost basis ($74.6 million) by the
total customer base (14,772 MEs). The charge increases by meter size based on the American Water
Works Association (AWWA) meter capacity ratios. A schedule of calculated charges by meter size is
provided below:
Water Utility: Existing and Calculated GFCs
B. SEWER UTILITY
As of year-end 2011, the original cost of the sewer utility system assets equaled $60.7 million.
Approximately $30.3 million of these assets were contributed (or donated), and therefore excluded from
the calculation. Ten years of interest accumulation totaling $15.4 million was added to the cost basis.
The utility had $1.3 million construction-work-in-progress in 2011. At the end of 2011, the utility is
expected to have $5.6 million cash balances and will carry $3.7 million outstanding debt principal.
Meter Size
3/4 "1 5,050$ 908$
1"2.5 12,624$ 2,270$
1 1/2"5 25,248$ 4,540$
2"8 40,397$ 7,264$
3"16 80,794$ 14,528$
4"25 126,240$ 22,700$
6"50 252,480$ 45,400$
8"80 403,968$ 72,640$
Meter
Equivalency
Factors
Existing GFCsCalculated GFCs
Packet Page 67 of 139
November 14, 2011
City of Edmonds
Water, Sewer, and Stormwater GFC Update
Page 5 FCS GROUP
Since the outstanding debt principal is less than the existing cash reserves, no outstanding debt principal
was deducted from the existing cost basis. The resulting existing cost basis totals $47.2 million.
The City has planned for about $14.1 million (current day dollars) of capital projects between 2012 and
2017. Approximately $2.2 million of this amount represent the City’s share of wastewater treatment plant
projects.
By adding the existing cost basis and future cost basis, the total cost basis of $61.3 million for the
general facilities charge is calculated.
Based on wastewater treatment plant flow data provided by City staff, the City had 12,626 equivalent
residential units (ERUs). Based on the projected average annual growth rate of 0.5%, the total number of
ERUs is projected to reach 13,881 at the end of the analysis period (i.e. 2030).
The calculated GFC of $4,417 per ERU is derived by dividing the total cost basis ($61.3 million) by the
total customer base (13,881 ERUs).
C. STORMWATER UTILITY
As of year-end 2011, the original cost of the stormwater utility system assets equaled $9.4 million.
Approximately $2.9 million of these assets were contributed (or donated), and therefore excluded from
the calculation. Ten years of interest accumulation totaling $1.1 million was added to the cost basis. The
utility had $1.3 million construction-work-in-progress in 2011.
At the end of 2011, the utility is expected to have $0.6 million cash balances and will carry $2.4 million
outstanding debt principal. Therefore, the existing cost basis was reduced by $1.8 million outstanding
debt principal net of cash balances. The remaining $7.1 million formed the existing cost basis for
stormwater GFC.
The City has planned for about $21.3 million (current day dollars) of capital projects between 2012 and
2017. Of this total, approximately $10.8 million is expected to be funded by grant money. The net utility
funded capital improvement program is approximately $10.6 million.
Hence, the total cost basis (existing plus future) for the general facilities charge is $17.7 million.
Based on summary level customer data provided by City staff, the City had 21,124 stormwater equivalent
service units (ESUs) as of October 2011. Based on the projected average annual growth rate of 0.25%
(per City staff), the total number of ESUs is projected to reach 22,150 at the end of the analysis period
(i.e. 2030).
The calculated GFC of $799 per ESU is derived by dividing the total cost basis ($17.7 million) by the
total customer base (22,150 ESUs).
Packet Page 68 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Sewer Utility Customer Base
Year
Customer
Growth Rate
[a]
No of ERUs
[b]
2011 12,626
2012 0.50%12,689
2013 0.50%12,753
2014 0.50%12,816
2015 0.50%12,880
2016 0.50%12,945
2017 0.50%13,010
2018 0.50%13,075
2019 0.50%13,140
2020 0.50%13,206
2021 0.50%13,272
2022 0.50%13,338
2023 0.50%13,405
2024 0.50%13,472
2025 0.50%13,539
2026 0.50%13,607
2027 0.50%13,675
2028 0.50%13,743
2029 0.50%13,812
2030 0.50%13,881
[b] WWTP flow data, provided by City staff.
[a] Utility Rate Study & Water Utility Comp. Plan Update financial analysis projections.
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 S - Customer
Page 1 of 7
Packet Page 69 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Sewer Utility Plant in Service Edmonds' Share in WWTP => 50.78700%
2011
2625 3RD AVE SANITARY SEWERS LID 1/1/1947 1947 16,859$ 16,859$ -$ 20,665$ 10.00 5.00%(1,903)$
94 SEWER TRUNK LID 60 12/31/1947 1947 20,665$ 20,665$ -$ 20,665$ 10.00 5.00%-$
95 SEWER TRUNK LID 61 12/31/1948 1948 5,690$ 5,690$ -$ 5,690$ 10.00 5.00%-$
2626 NORTH CHERRY HILL SANITARY S 1/1/1950 1950 153,226$ 153,226$ -$ 10.00 5.00%76,613$
99 SEWER TRUNK LID 71 12/31/1953 1953 49,602$ 49,602$ -$ 49,602$ 10.00 2.75%-$
100 SEWER TRUNK LID 73 12/31/1953 1953 5,016$ 5,016$ -$ 5,016$ 10.00 2.75%-$
101 SEWER TRUNK LID 74 12/31/1955 1955 53,232$ 53,232$ -$ 53,232$ 10.00 2.47%-$
15 PUMP STATION NO.1 1979 BALAN 12/31/1957 1957 18,199$ 18,199$ -$ 10.00 3.33%6,065$
103 SEWER TRUNK LID 80 12/31/1957 1957 5,745$ 5,745$ -$ 5,745$ 10.00 3.33%-$
105 SEWER TRUNK LID 85 12/31/1958 1958 10,678$ 10,678$ -$ 10,678$ 10.00 3.20%-$
106 SEWER TRUNK LID 86 12/31/1958 1958 16,593$ 16,593$ -$ 16,593$ 10.00 3.20%-$
107 SEWER TRUNK LID 94 12/31/1959 1959 6,603$ 6,603$ -$ 6,603$ 10.00 3.63%-$
108 SEWER TRUNK LID 95 12/31/1959 1959 54,685$ 54,685$ -$ 54,685$ 10.00 3.63%-$
81 LITTLE METRO TRUNK WPC-WN-49 4/7/1960 1960 212,914$ 212,914$ -$ 10.00 3.58%76,314$
109 SEWER TRUNK LID 96 12/31/1960 1960 17,947$ 17,947$ -$ 17,947$ 10.00 3.58%-$
111 SEWER TRUNK LID 99 12/31/1960 1960 25,651$ 25,651$ -$ 25,651$ 10.00 3.58%-$
160 SEWER LATERAL LID 99 12/31/1960 1960 6,032$ 6,032$ -$ 6,032$ 10.00 3.58%-$
110 SEWER TRUNK LID 97 12/31/1961 1961 174,970$ 171,899$ 3,071$ 174,970$ 10.00 3.52%-$
112 SEWER TRUNK LID 104 12/31/1961 1961 5,961$ 5,856$ 105$ 5,961$ 10.00 3.52%-$
159 SEWER TRUNK LID 97 12/31/1961 1961 5,499$ 5,402$ 97$ 5,499$ 10.00 3.52%-$
113 SEWER TRUNK LID 105 12/31/1962 1962 9,875$ 9,512$ 363$ 9,875$ 10.00 3.20%-$
115 SEWER TRUNK LID 107 12/31/1962 1962 22,243$ 21,425$ 818$ 22,243$ 10.00 3.20%-$
118 SEWER TRUNK LID 111 12/31/1962 1962 5,741$ 5,530$ 211$ 5,741$ 10.00 3.20%-$
116 SEWER TRUNK LID 108 12/31/1963 1963 320,476$ 302,484$ 17,992$ 320,476$ 10.00 3.21%-$
165 SEWER LATERAL LID 108 12/31/1963 1963 40,364$ 38,098$ 2,266$ 40,364$ 10.00 3.21%-$
119 SEWER TRUNK LID 119 12/31/1964 1964 147,046$ 135,932$ 11,114$ 147,046$ 10.00 3.25%-$
168 SEWER LATERAL LID 119 12/31/1964 1964 25,122$ 23,223$ 1,899$ 25,122$ 10.00 3.25%-$
120 SEWER TRUNK LID 135 12/31/1965 1965 33,761$ 30,551$ 3,210$ 33,761$ 10.00 3.31%-$
141 SEWER TRUNK MAPLEWOOD VILLAG 12/31/1965 1965 8,636$ 7,815$ 821$ 10.00 3.31%2,859$
146 SEWER TRUNK SIERRA HEIGHLAND 12/31/1965 1965 5,000$ 4,524$ 476$ 10.00 3.31%1,655$
170 SEWER LATERAL LID 135 12/31/1965 1965 9,631$ 8,715$ 916$ 9,631$ 10.00 3.31%-$
125 SEWER TRUNK LID 145 12/31/1966 1966 8,852$ 7,838$ 1,014$ 8,852$ 10.00 3.90%-$
126 SEWER TRUNK LID 147 12/31/1966 1966 15,469$ 13,659$ 1,810$ 15,469$ 10.00 3.90%-$
127 SEWER TRUNK LID 149 12/31/1966 1966 15,093$ 13,362$ 1,731$ 15,093$ 10.00 3.90%-$
22 LIFT STATION #8 12/31/1967 1967 14,274$ 14,274$ -$ 10.00 4.04%5,765$
23 LIFT STATION #9 12/31/1967 1967 11,148$ 11,148$ -$ 10.00 4.04%4,502$
122 SEWER TRUNK LID 138 12/31/1967 1967 27,342$ 23,670$ 3,672$ 27,342$ 10.00 4.04%-$
123 SEWER TRUNK LID 139 12/31/1967 1967 626,397$ 523,681$ 102,716$ 626,397$ 10.00 4.04%-$
131 SEWER TRUNK LID 159 12/31/1967 1967 6,149$ 5,323$ 826$ 6,149$ 10.00 4.04%-$
172 SEWER LATERAL LID 139 12/31/1967 1967 148,345$ 128,424$ 19,921$ 148,345$ 10.00 4.04%-$
124 SEWER TRUNK LID 140 12/31/1968 1968 17,113$ 14,478$ 2,635$ 17,113$ 10.00 4.58%-$
128 SEWER TRUNK LID 151 12/31/1968 1968 845,836$ 695,915$ 149,921$ 845,836$ 10.00 4.58%-$
129 SEWER TRUNK LID 153 12/31/1968 1968 58,118$ 49,170$ 8,948$ 58,118$ 10.00 4.58%-$
130 SEWER TRUNK LID 154 12/31/1968 1968 6,341$ 5,365$ 976$ 6,341$ 10.00 4.58%-$
177 SEWER LATERAL LID 151 12/31/1968 1968 11,337$ 9,592$ 1,745$ 11,337$ 10.00 4.58%-$
178 SEWER LATERAL LID 153 12/31/1968 1968 5,202$ 4,401$ 801$ 5,202$ 10.00 4.58%-$
190 SEWER LATERAL WS-11 3/31/1969 1969 6,129$ 5,058$ 1,071$ 10.00 5.95%3,647$
193 SEWER LATERAL PRIOR 1961 UNK 3/31/1969 1969 835,148$ 696,500$ 138,648$ 10.00 5.95%496,885$
194 SEWER LATERAL SINCE 1961 UNK 3/31/1969 1969 158,429$ 130,730$ 27,699$ 10.00 5.95%94,260$
132 SEWER TRUNK LID 161 12/31/1969 1969 539,358$ 424,412$ 114,946$ 539,358$ 10.00 5.95%-$
181 SEWER LATERAL LID 161 12/31/1969 1969 72,994$ 60,319$ 12,675$ 72,994$ 10.00 5.95%-$
24 PUMP STA NO.10 1979 BALANCE 12/31/1970 1970 21,151$ 21,151$ -$ 10.00 6.61%13,977$
133 SEWER TRUNK LID 164 12/31/1970 1970 781,829$ 607,895$ 173,935$ 781,829$ 10.00 6.61%-$
134 SEWER TRUNK LID 173 12/31/1970 1970 14,013$ 11,303$ 2,710$ 14,013$ 10.00 6.61%-$
82 OUTFALL EXPANSION WPC-WN-263 12/31/1971 1971 25,808$ 20,307$ 5,501$ 10.00 5.69%14,687$
189 SEWER LATERAL WS-10 5/1/1972 1972 16,017$ 12,371$ 3,646$ 10.00 5.46%8,742$
148 SEWER TRUNK WILLOW BROOKS PL 5/1/1976 1976 5,585$ 3,867$ 1,718$ 10.00 6.95%3,879$
208 SEWER SERVICE COUNT 7,855 PE 12/31/1979 1979 119,585$ 112,278$ 7,307$ 10.00 6.81%81,456$
2829 MEADOWDALE SLIDE AREA STUDY 12/31/1980 1980 35,568$ 21,278$ 14,289$ 10.00 9.05%32,172$
2968 SANITARY SEWERS LID 206 11/30/1981 1981 115,434$ 44,321$ 71,113$ 115,434$ 10.00 12.20%-$
2977 MEADOWDALE MONITORING SYSTEM 11/30/1981 1981 10,045$ 5,876$ 4,170$ 10.00 12.20%12,255$
2995 SANITARY SEWERS LID 206 11/30/1981 1981 253,366$ 146,364$ 107,002$ 253,366$ 10.00 12.20%-$
3030 SANITARY SEWERS LID 207 12/31/1981 1981 38,620$ 22,506$ 16,114$ 38,620$ 10.00 12.20%-$
5633 SANITARY SEWERS LID 212 9/30/1988 1988 26,142$ 11,708$ 14,434$ 26,142$ 10.00 8.00%-$
5635 CULVERT (412 PORTION)9/30/1988 1988 149,621$ 67,008$ 82,613$ 10.00 8.00%119,697$
5637 BALLINGER SEWER UPGRADE (412 9/30/1988 1988 163,809$ 71,364$ 92,445$ 10.00 8.00%131,047$
5767 LID 210 SANITARY SEWERS (412 12/31/1988 1988 613,815$ 271,831$ 341,984$ 613,815$ 10.00 8.00%-$
5769 LID 210 SANITARY SEWERS STAT 12/31/1988 1988 297,249$ 131,638$ 165,611$ 297,249$ 10.00 8.00%-$
5774 LID 210 SANITARY SEWERS 12/31/1988 1988 648,233$ 287,073$ 361,160$ 648,233$ 10.00 8.00%-$
5779 LID 210 SANITARY SEWERS 12/31/1988 1988 39,190$ 17,356$ 21,834$ 39,190$ 10.00 8.00%-$
5911 STORM SEWER 7/31/1989 1989 152,017$ 65,375$ 86,642$ 10.00 7.50%114,012$
6379 SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION 12/31/1990 1990 77,724$ 62,420$ 15,304$ 10.00 7.50%58,293$
6394 AURORA TOYOTA SEWER PIPELINE 12/31/1990 1990 12,038$ 9,668$ 2,370$ 10.00 7.50%9,028$
6719 ALLIED HOPAC - 8700C 11/8/1991 1991 6,000$ 6,000$ -$ 10.00 7.10%4,260$
6852 6' X 10' & 4' X 10' TITAN TR 6/5/1992 1992 5,997$ 5,997$ -$ 10.00 6.60%3,958$
6853 INLINE LATTERAL CUTTER 6/5/1992 1992 5,194$ 5,194$ -$ 10.00 6.60%3,428$
Allocable
Interest CostOriginal Cost Accumulated
Depreciation Book Value CIAC Applicable
Asset AgeAsset No Description Date Acquired Year Acquired Applicable
Interest Rate
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 S - Plant in Service
Page 2 of 7Packet Page 70 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Sewer Utility Plant in Service Edmonds' Share in WWTP => 50.78700%
2011
Allocable
Interest CostOriginal Cost Accumulated
Depreciation Book Value CIAC Applicable
Asset AgeAsset No Description Date Acquired Year Acquired Applicable
Interest Rate
6902 EDMONDS WAY BASIN STUDY 7/31/1992 1992 180,934$ 66,938$ 113,996$ 10.00 6.60%119,416$
7127 LOCKING MANHOLE FRAMES & LID 2/17/1994 1994 6,494$ 2,171$ 4,323$ 6,494$ 10.00 6.50%-$
7478 STORAGE CONTAINER FOR BUILDI 5/4/1995 1995 6,708$ 6,708$ -$ 10.00 6.20%4,159$
7605 UNI-HOIST CRANE W/ADAPTER 11/7/1995 1995 5,026$ 5,026$ -$ 10.00 6.20%3,116$
7622 TRUCK-MOUNTED CRANES 12/20/1995 1995 16,463$ 16,463$ -$ 10.00 6.20%10,207$
7637 1995 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/1995 1995 21,526$ 6,465$ 15,061$ 10.00 6.20%13,346$
7735 TALBOT ROAD STORM DRAINAGE 8/31/1996 1996 189,780$ 68,388$ 121,392$ 10.00 6.00%113,868$
7736 SIERRA DRIVE DRAINAGE IMP.8/31/1996 1996 7,897$ 2,846$ 5,051$ 10.00 6.00%4,738$
7739 LIFT STATION BACKUP POWER 8/31/1996 1996 66,344$ 23,908$ 42,436$ 10.00 6.00%39,806$
7740 SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8/31/1996 1996 18,920$ 6,818$ 12,102$ 10.00 6.00%11,352$
7744 LAKE BALLINGER MONITORING 8/31/1996 1996 131,354$ 47,334$ 84,020$ 10.00 6.00%78,813$
7852 SEWER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 12/31/1996 1996 234,574$ 65,755$ 168,818$ 10.00 6.00%140,744$
8382 ALDER ST SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 12/30/1999 1999 70,082$ 19,087$ 50,995$ 10.00 5.70%39,947$
8416 GRIMMER SCHMIDT AIR COMPRESSOR #80 9/28/2000 2000 14,411$ 14,411$ -$ 10.00 6.00%8,647$
8439 PROSCOUT PLUS, LATERAL 12/31/2000 2000 7,199$ 7,199$ 0$ 10.00 6.00%4,319$
8477 pump and motor unit for l/s #3 8/28/2001 2001 5,294$ 4,984$ 310$ 10.00 5.50%2,912$
8478 pump and motor unit for l/s #3 8/28/2001 2001 5,294$ 4,984$ 310$ 10.00 5.50%2,912$
8483 SEWER TV CAMERA SOFTWARE 9/6/2001 2001 59,942$ 22,370$ 37,572$ 10.00 5.50%32,968$
8488 RADIX METER READING SYSTEM 10/31/2001 2001 6,684$ 6,684$ -$ 10.00 5.50%3,676$
8656 NORTH PERRINVILLE LID 216 12/31/2001 2001 28,470$ 10,340$ 18,130$ 28,470$ 10.00 5.50%-$
8648 2002 CITY WIDE SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2002 2002 4,522$ 1,461$ 3,060$ 9.00 5.22%2,124$
8601 2002 CITY WIDE SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2003 2003 18,023$ 2,553$ 15,471$ 8.00 4.75%6,846$
8602 ADMIRAL WAY SEWER REPLACEMENT 12/31/2003 2003 33,480$ 4,742$ 28,738$ 8.00 4.75%12,718$
8654 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE 12/31/2003 2003 44,412$ 12,578$ 31,835$ 8.00 4.75%16,871$
8658 SEWER TV CAMERA 11/18/2004 2004 59,672$ 36,762$ 22,909$ 7.00 4.68%19,538$
8675 DIESEL GENERATOR LIFT STATION #1 9/1/2005 2005 21,744$ 7,724$ 14,019$ 6.00 4.37%5,701$
8682 LIFT STATION #1 RENOVATION 12/31/2005 2005 1,061,724$ 215,756$ 845,968$ 6.00 4.37%278,384$
8686 DALEY STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2005 2005 709,242$ 144,127$ 565,115$ 6.00 4.37%185,963$
8727 96TH/228TH MAJOR RD CONSTRUCTION 12/31/2006 2006 90,946$ 14,589$ 76,357$ 5.00 4.40%20,012$
8740 SW EDMONDS STUDY/STORM PROJECT 5/30/2007 2007 58,822$ 14,120$ 44,702$ 4.00 4.40%10,343$
8741 2005 MEADOWDALE BCH RD DRAINAGE 5/30/2007 2007 101,530$ 24,372$ 77,157$ 4.00 4.40%17,852$
8810 TELEMETRY UPGRADE/ALL LIFT STATIONS 12/31/2008 2008 232,242$ 19,354$ 212,888$ 3.00 4.44%30,911$
8874 ULTRA SHORTY CRAWLER 7/27/2011 2011 6,012$ -$ 6,012$ 0.00 4.44%-$
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ASSETS
35 INITIAL SITE AQUISITION TREA 12/31/1955 1955 7,000$ -$ 7,000$ 3,445$ 10.00 2.47%877$
52 OUTFALL SEWER EXPANSION-POWE 12/31/1971 1971 23,872$ 23,872$ -$ 11,748$ 10.00 5.69%6,899$
3025 SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITY 12/31/1981 1981 137,284$ 133,105$ 4,180$ 67,562$ 10.00 12.20%85,062$
4305 LAND 4/20/1984 1984 143,350$ -$ 143,350$ 70,547$ 10.00 10.50%76,443$
6693 RIGHT TO USE LYNNWOOD SECOND 12/31/1993 1993 1,250,000$ 853,915$ 396,085$ 615,163$ 10.00 5.80%368,206$
7105 SECONDARY SEWAGE TREATMENT P 12/31/1993 1993 35,974,014$ 13,243,311$ 22,730,703$ 17,703,892$ 10.00 5.80%10,596,671$
7608 UNI-HOIST EQUIPMENT 12/20/1995 1995 6,676$ 6,676$ -$ 3,285$ 10.00 6.20%2,102$
7918 FORKLIFT 1/25/1996 1996 6,852$ 6,852$ -$ 3,372$ 10.00 6.00%2,088$
7803 LAB MICROSCOPE W/ACCESORIES 12/19/1996 1996 9,922$ 9,922$ -$ 4,883$ 10.00 6.00%3,023$
7881 JET MILLING MACHINE JTM-4VS 2/6/1997 1997 5,800$ 5,800$ -$ 2,854$ 10.00 5.80%1,709$
7895 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE 5/8/1997 1997 36,954$ 36,954$ -$ 18,186$ 10.00 5.80%10,885$
7905 LATHE MODEL #GH-1340A 6/5/1997 1997 5,004$ 5,004$ -$ 2,463$ 10.00 5.80%1,474$
8613 SOLIDS HANDLING IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/1997 1997 32,249$ 28,117$ 4,132$ 15,871$ 10.00 5.80%9,499$
8618 SCADA UPGRADE 12/31/1998 1998 368,099$ 368,099$ -$ 181,153$ 10.00 5.30%99,082$
8619 CONNECTION TO CITY NETWORK 12/31/1998 1998 8,967$ 6,403$ 2,564$ 4,413$ 10.00 5.30%2,414$
8421 COMPACT ELECTRIC ACUATOR 10/12/2000 2000 6,152$ 6,152$ -$ 3,028$ 10.00 6.00%1,875$
8614 WWTP EMERGENCY GENERATOR 12/31/2000 2000 739,600$ 739,600$ -$ 363,979$ 10.00 6.00%225,372$
8627 DEWATERED SLUDGE MIXER UPGRADE 12/31/2000 2000 11,138$ 11,138$ -$ 5,481$ 10.00 6.00%3,394$
8630 BELT PRESS IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2000 2000 218,867$ 218,867$ -$ 107,711$ 10.00 6.00%66,694$
8631 PARKING LOT CONTAINMENT 12/31/2000 2000 6,828$ 2,753$ 4,075$ 3,360$ 10.00 6.00%2,081$
8632 PLC UPGRADE 12/31/2000 2000 223,382$ 223,382$ -$ 109,933$ 10.00 6.00%68,069$
8580 2000 STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT 12/31/2001 2001 187,619$ 68,142$ 119,477$ 92,333$ 10.00 5.50%52,407$
8634 PRIMARY CLARIFIER 12/31/2001 2001 32,396$ 29,414$ 2,982$ 15,943$ 10.00 5.50%9,049$
8640 CAT WALK INSTALLATION 12/31/2001 2001 9,310$ 8,453$ 857$ 4,582$ 10.00 5.50%2,600$
8642 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2001 2001 215,205$ 130,239$ 84,966$ 105,909$ 10.00 5.50%60,113$
8646 ELECTRONIC UPGRADE 12/31/2002 2002 30,550$ 24,678$ 5,872$ 15,035$ 9.00 5.22%7,290$
8647 INCINERATOR IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2002 2002 467,286$ 356,808$ 110,478$ 229,965$ 9.00 5.22%111,500$
8650 DATA SERVER UPGRADE 12/31/2002 2002 11,560$ 11,560$ -$ 5,689$ 9.00 5.22%2,758$
8573 2003 CHEV. S-10 TRUCK #131 3/20/2003 2003 15,220$ 14,897$ 323$ 7,490$ 8.00 4.75%2,936$
8560 WWTP VENTURI SCRUBER 4/16/2003 2003 30,733$ 23,801$ 6,932$ 15,125$ 8.00 4.75%5,929$
8564 WWTP ACCESS PLATFORM INSTALLATION 4/16/2003 2003 15,448$ 11,963$ 3,484$ 7,602$ 8.00 4.75%2,980$
8651 ODOR CONTROL 12/31/2003 2003 23,188$ 16,411$ 6,777$ 11,411$ 8.00 4.75%4,473$
8652 HEAT EXCHANGER REPLACEMENT 12/31/2003 2003 328,179$ 232,267$ 95,911$ 161,507$ 8.00 4.75%63,313$
8653 DISINFECTION CONVERSION 12/31/2003 2003 357,732$ 253,141$ 104,591$ 176,051$ 8.00 4.75%69,015$
8655 BUILDING 100 HEAT REPLACEMENT 12/31/2003 2003 13,903$ 9,236$ 4,667$ 6,842$ 8.00 4.75%2,682$
8666 OUTFALL SLIP LINING PROJECT 12/31/2004 2004 920,606$ 223,899$ 696,707$ 453,058$ 7.00 4.68%153,087$
8683 SEWER MAIN REHAB PROJECT SR 104 12/31/2005 2005 1,356,836$ 136,969$ 1,219,867$ 667,740$ 6.00 4.37%180,681$
8692 CALIBRATION METER FLUKE 744 2/2/2006 2006 4,470$ 4,387$ 83$ 2,200$ 5.00 4.40%500$
8693 VFD 411 3/2/2006 2006 5,461$ 2,551$ 2,910$ 2,688$ 5.00 4.40%610$
8725 LAKE BALLINGER MTR STN A REHAB 12/31/2006 2006 350,013$ 56,148$ 293,864$ 172,252$ 5.00 4.40%39,115$
8726 OUTFALL PROJECT 12/31/2006 2006 1,193,347$ 191,435$ 1,001,913$ 587,282$ 5.00 4.40%133,360$
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 S - Plant in Service
Page 3 of 7Packet Page 71 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Sewer Utility Plant in Service Edmonds' Share in WWTP => 50.78700%
2011
Allocable
Interest CostOriginal Cost Accumulated
Depreciation Book Value CIAC Applicable
Asset AgeAsset No Description Date Acquired Year Acquired Applicable
Interest Rate
8733 WWTP VFD DRIVE REPLACEMENT 12/31/2006 2006 234,371$ 94,406$ 139,965$ 115,341$ 5.00 4.40%26,192$
8743 ALLEN-BRADLEY POWER FLEX 700 VFD 6/1/2007 2007 7,205$ 2,541$ 4,664$ 3,546$ 4.00 4.40%643$
8776 SCREENING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2007 2007 1,511,695$ 233,053$ 1,278,642$ 743,951$ 4.00 4.40%134,995$
8782 INCINERATOR PROJECT 12/31/2007 2007 120,652$ 37,201$ 83,451$ 59,376$ 4.00 4.40%10,774$
8784 WWTP CONCRETE REPAIR 12/31/2007 2007 177,034$ 54,585$ 122,448$ 87,124$ 4.00 4.40%15,809$
8785 CLARIFIER REPAIR 12/31/2007 2007 105,089$ 32,403$ 72,687$ 51,718$ 4.00 4.40%9,385$
8786 SWITCH GEAR IMPROVEMENT 12/31/2007 2007 309,036$ 95,286$ 213,750$ 152,086$ 4.00 4.40%27,597$
8802 QUAD CORE PROCESSOR 12/10/2008 2008 5,823$ 2,022$ 3,801$ 2,866$ 3.00 4.44%394$
8834 WWTP CLAY FEEDER 12/31/2009 2009 90,876$ 4,922$ 85,954$ 44,723$ 2.00 4.44%4,095$
8835 AERATION BASINS CONTROL UPGRADE 12/31/2009 2009 21,850$ 2,367$ 19,483$ 10,753$ 2.00 4.44%985$
8847 LIFT STATIONS 2 & 13 IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2010 2010 773,459$ -$ 773,459$ 380,642$ 1.00 4.44%17,428$
8852 WWTP ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2010 2010 279,870$ -$ 279,870$ 137,733$ 1.00 4.44%6,306$
8854 CP301 UPGRADE 12/31/2010 2010 49,222$ -$ 49,222$ 24,224$ 1.00 4.44%1,109$
8859 SECONDARY CLARIFIER #2 REFURBISHMENT 12/31/2010 2010 95,648$ -$ 95,648$ 47,071$ 1.00 4.44%2,155$
8861 THREE HUNDRED PLC UPGRADE 12/31/2010 2010 27,320$ -$ 27,320$ 13,445$ 1.00 4.44%616$
Total Plant-in-Service 60,682,776$ 25,531,896$ 35,150,880$ 30,283,923$ 15,416,565$
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 S - Plant in Service
Page 4 of 7Packet Page 72 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program (Source: City Capital Improvement Program; 2011-2017)
Project Costs in Year: 2011
Project
ID Project Name % Growth 2012 - 2017
TOTAL COSTS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations
Lift Stations 7 and 8 and West Dayton Sewer -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lift Station 2 339,195 339,195 - - - - -
Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 4,129,618 2,840,667 1,288,952 - - - -
- - - - - - -
Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP
2012 Sewer Replacement / Rehab /Improvements (224th, Alder St, Beach Pl, Dellwood)1,210,784$ 1,210,784$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
2013 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements (200th, 216th, 72nd W, 76th W, 8th S, Hemlock, 7th Ave)1,916,403 145,098 1,771,305 - - - -
2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements (Walnut St, NW Traction, 7117 - 176th, 8015 - 196th, 465 Admiral W, 1053 Alder, 240th St, 76th Ave W, Ballinger)1,815,365 - - 178,566 1,636,799 - -
2016 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements (238th St)361,699 - - - 34,863 326,837 -
Citywide Sewer Improvements 177,457 29,412 28,281 31,725 30,505 29,332 28,203
GFC Study - - - - - - -
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 1,614,398 103,922 188,537 407,892 174,313 377,119 362,615
Infiltration & Inflow Study & Projects
I & I Study -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Meter Installations Basin LS-01 52,549 52,549 - - - - -
Meter Installations Basin Edmonds Zone 18,129 - - 18,129 - - -
Smoke Test Zone 1 - - - - - - -
Smoke Test in Basin LS-01 70,701 - 70,701 - - - -
Smoke Test in Basin Edmonds Zone 87,157 - - - 87,157 - -
- - - - - - -
Sewer Comp Plan Update 170,588$ 170,588$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Transfer to Const. Improvement Fund 112 (Dayton Street)- - - - - - -
Transfer to Const. Improvement Fund 132 (Interurban Trail)- - - - - - -
Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars 11,964,044$ 4,892,215$ 3,347,775$ 636,312$ 1,963,636$ 733,288$ 390,818$
Total Growth Related Project Costs - - - - - - -
Total Repair & Replacement Project Costs 11,964,044 4,892,215 3,347,775 636,312 1,963,636 733,288 390,818
WWTP Projects Through Fund 414
Project
ID Project Name % Growth 2012 - 2017
TOTAL COSTS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Edmonds' Contribution for R&R, Upgrades, and Studies & Consulting 2,183,843$ 558,657$ 304,722$ 330,116$ 330,116$ 330,116$ 330,116$
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 S - CIP
Page 5 of 7Packet Page 73 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Sewer Utility Capital Improvement Program (Source: City Capital Improvement Program; 2011-2017)
Cumulative Construction Cost Inflation ==>2.00%6.08%10.32%14.74%19.33%24.10%
Construction Cost Inflation ==> 2.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS
Project
ID Project Name % Growth 2012 - 2017
TOTAL COSTS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations
Lift Stations 7 and 8 and West Dayton Sewer -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Lift Station 2 345,979 345,979 - - - - -
Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, & 15 4,264,800 2,897,480 1,367,320 - - - -
- - - - - - -
Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP
2012 Sewer Replacement / Rehab /Improvements (224th, Alder St, Beach Pl, Dellwood)1,235,000$ 1,235,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
2013 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements (200th, 216th, 72nd W, 76th W, 8th S, Hemlock, 7th Ave)2,027,000 148,000 1,879,000 - - - -
2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements (Walnut St, NW Traction, 7117 - 176th, 8015 - 196th, 465 Admiral W, 1053 Alder, 240th St, 76th Ave W, Ballinger)2,075,000 - - 197,000 1,878,000 - -
2016 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements (238th St)430,000 - - - 40,000 390,000 -
Citywide Sewer Improvements 200,000 30,000 30,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
GFC Study - - - - - - -
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation 1,856,000 106,000 200,000 450,000 200,000 450,000 450,000
Infiltration & Inflow Study & Projects
I & I Study -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Meter Installations Basin LS-01 53,600 53,600 - - - - -
Meter Installations Basin Edmonds Zone 20,000 - - 20,000 - - -
Smoke Test Zone 1 - - - - - - -
Smoke Test in Basin LS-01 75,000 - 75,000 - - - -
Smoke Test in Basin Edmonds Zone 100,000 - - - 100,000 - -
- - - - - - -
Sewer Comp Plan Update 174,000$ 174,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Transfer to Const. Improvement Fund 112 (Dayton Street)- - - - - - -
Transfer to Const. Improvement Fund 132 (Interurban Trail)- - - - - - -
Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars 12,856,379$ 4,990,059$ 3,551,320$ 702,000$ 2,253,000$ 875,000$ 485,000$
Total Growth Related Project Costs - - - - - - -
Total Repair & Replacement Project Costs 12,856,379 4,990,059 3,551,320 702,000 2,253,000 875,000 485,000
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 S - CIP
Page 6 of 7Packet Page 74 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Sewer Utility - General Facilities Charge (GFC) Calculation
Existing Cost Basis Total Notes
PLANT-IN-SERVICE
Utility Capital Assets 60,682,776$ Fixed Assets at Original Cost
less: Contributed Capital (30,283,923) CIAC Additions at Original Cost
plus: Interest on Non-Contributed Plant 15,416,565 Interest on assets up to a maximum 10-year period
plus: 2011 Construction-Work-in-Progress 1,342,594 $1,108174 for sewer, $233,620 for WWTP
2011 Year-end Estimated Cash Balances 5,584,776$ $2,173,498 in Fund 411 & $3,411,278 in Fund 412-300
less: Debt Principal Outstanding (3,746,849) Total principal outstanding for the existing debt at the end of 2011
less: Net Debt Principal Outstanding -$ Debt principal outstanding, net of cash reserves
TOTAL EXISTING COST BASIS 47,158,012$
Future Cost Basis Notes
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Total Sewer Projects 11,964,044$
Total WWTP Projects 2,183,843
TOTAL FUTURE COST BASIS 14,147,887$ Planned Capital Improvements Project costs 2012 through 2017
Customer Base Notes
Existing Equivalent Residential Units 12,626 No of ERUs (2011)
Future Equivalent Residential Units (Incremental)1,255 Projected Incremental ERUs (2011 - 2030)
TOTAL CUSTOMER BASE 13,881 No of ERUs (2030)
Resulting Charge Notes
Reimbursement Charge Component for Existing Assets
Existing Cost Basis 47,158,012$
Total Customer Base 13,881
Reimbursement Charge 3,397$
Improvement Charge Component for Future Assets
Future Cost Basis 14,147,887
Total Customer Base 13,881
Improvement Charge 1,019$
TOTAL GFC PER ERU 4,417$
Existing GFC per ERU 730$
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 S - GFC
Page 7 of 7
Packet Page 75 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Stormwater Utility Customer Base
Year Customer
Growth Rate [a]No of ESUs
2011 21,124
2012 0.25%21,177
2013 0.25%21,230
2014 0.25%21,283
2015 0.25%21,336
2016 0.25%21,389
2017 0.25%21,443
2018 0.25%21,496
2019 0.25%21,550
2020 0.25%21,604
2021 0.25%21,658
2022 0.25%21,712
2023 0.25%21,766
2024 0.25%21,821
2025 0.25%21,875
2026 0.25%21,930
2027 0.25%21,985
2028 0.25%22,040
2029 0.25%22,095
2030 0.25%22,150
[a] Comprehensive Plan Update financial analysis projections.
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 SW - Customer
Page 1 of 5
Packet Page 76 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Stormwater Utility Plant in Service
2011
8624 1999 MEADOWDALE STORM DRAINAGE 12/31/1999 1999 41,487$ 18,386$ 23,101$ 10.00 5.70%23,648$
8626 2000 MEADOWDALE DRAINAGE 12/31/2000 2000 42,003$ 16,935$ 25,068$ 10.00 6.00%25,202$
8629 MARINA BEACH PROJECTS 12/31/2000 2000 110,126$ 44,401$ 65,725$ 10.00 6.00%66,076$
8479 GIS SOFTWARE UPGRADES 7/5/2001 2001 5,724$ 5,724$ -$ 10.00 5.50%3,148$
8636 2001 STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2001 2001 507$ 184$ 323$ 10.00 5.50%279$
8643 MEADOWDALE STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT 12/31/2002 2002 144,716$ 77,935$ 66,781$ 9.00 5.22%67,992$
8645 VACTOR STATION SHED 12/31/2002 2002 54,344$ 14,637$ 39,706$ 9.00 5.22%25,532$
8579 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS LID 215 6/11/2003 2003 2,889,869$ 876,211$ 2,013,658$ 2,889,869$ 8.00 4.75%-$
8596 STORMWATER COMP PLAN 12/31/2003 2003 6,540$ 2,315$ 4,225$ 8.00 4.75%2,484$
8598 2001 CITY WIDE STORM DRAINAGE 12/31/2003 2003 6,151$ 1,742$ 4,409$ 8.00 4.75%2,336$
8599 2002 STORM DRAINAGE PROJECT 12/31/2003 2003 20,838$ 5,901$ 14,936$ 8.00 4.75%7,916$
8600 ESA STORMWATER PLAN 12/31/2003 2003 24,001$ 8,496$ 15,505$ 8.00 4.75%9,117$
8681 2004 CITYWIDE STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT 12/31/2005 2005 60,607$ 10,264$ 50,343$ 6.00 4.37%15,891$
8687 SHELLABARGER CREEK/5TH AVENUE SOUTH 12/31/2005 2005 138,180$ 23,402$ 114,778$ 6.00 4.37%36,231$
8690 WOODWAY ELEMENTARY ( 1 OF 2 - 8691)12/31/2005 2005 55,359$ 11,250$ 44,109$ 6.00 4.37%14,515$
8729 157TH ST STORM IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2006 2006 64,041$ 10,273$ 53,768$ 5.00 4.40%14,092$
8730 242ND ST SW STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2006 2006 116,871$ 18,748$ 98,123$ 5.00 4.40%25,717$
8734 MARINA BEACH STORMWATER REPAIR 12/31/2006 2006 818,850$ 131,358$ 687,492$ 5.00 4.40%180,181$
8735 2005 CITYWIDE STORM DRAINAGE 12/31/2006 2006 90,134$ 14,459$ 75,675$ 5.00 4.40%19,833$
8778 DALEY ST/GLEN ST GROUNDWATER ISS 12/31/2007 2007 146,078$ 22,520$ 123,558$ 4.00 4.40%25,685$
8779 242ND ST STORM IMPROVEMENTS/PHASE2 12/31/2007 2007 157,254$ 19,395$ 137,860$ 4.00 4.40%27,651$
8780 2006 CITY-WIDE STORM IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2007 2007 333,702$ 41,157$ 292,545$ 4.00 4.40%58,676$
8789 SPECTRA DG511 PIPE LASER 8/11/2008 2008 5,336$ 1,290$ 4,047$ 3.00 4.44%710$
8805 74TH PL W & MEADOW BCH RD DRAINAGE 12/31/2008 2008 101,958$ 8,496$ 93,461$ 3.00 4.44%13,571$
8806 2007 CITY-WIDE STORM IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2008 2008 85,114$ 6,451$ 78,663$ 3.00 4.44%11,329$
8807 SW EDMONDS BASIN STORM PROJECT 12/31/2008 2008 183,375$ 15,281$ 168,094$ 3.00 4.44%24,407$
8808 DAYTON ST STORMWATER OUT 12/31/2008 2008 423,029$ 35,252$ 387,777$ 3.00 4.44%56,305$
8809 NORTHSTREAM LANE STORM IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2008 2008 115,846$ 9,654$ 106,192$ 3.00 4.44%15,419$
8811 WILLOW CREEK STORMWATER OUT 12/31/2008 2008 756,795$ 62,694$ 694,101$ 3.00 4.44%100,729$
8812 220TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2008 2008 669,102$ 55,758$ 613,343$ 3.00 4.44%89,057$
8813 NORTHSTREAM CULVERT 12/31/2008 2008 544,614$ 45,385$ 499,229$ 3.00 4.44%72,488$
8841 INFO WATER SOFTWARE 12/13/2010 2010 8,760$ -$ 8,760$ 1.00 4.44%389$
8843 N MEADOWDALE STORM/LORIAN WOODS 12/31/2010 2010 60,082$ -$ 60,082$ 1.00 4.44%2,666$
8844 93RD AVE W STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/2010 2010 299,906$ -$ 299,906$ 1.00 4.44%13,306$
8853 LAKE BALLINGER WATER QUALITY IMP 12/31/2010 2010 25,539$ -$ 25,539$ 1.00 4.44%1,133$
8855 LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATER 12/31/2010 2010 221,307$ -$ 221,307$ 1.00 4.44%9,819$
8856 UPPER EDMONDS STREET STORM PROJECT 12/31/2010 2010 56,521$ -$ 56,521$ 1.00 4.44%2,508$
8857 MOUNTAIN LANE STORM IMPROVEMENT 12/31/2010 2010 24,487$ -$ 24,487$ 1.00 4.44%1,086$
8858 12TH AVENUE NORTH STORM IMP 12/31/2010 2010 23,985$ -$ 23,985$ 1.00 4.44%1,064$
8860 PERRINVILLE STREAM DIVERSION MODS 12/31/2010 2010 30,832$ -$ 30,832$ 1.00 4.44%1,368$
8862 HARTER PROPERTY STORM EASEMENT 12/31/2010 2010 1,696$ -$ 1,696$ 1.00 4.44%75$
8864 OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SITE 12/31/2010 2010 180,472$ -$ 180,472$ 1.00 4.44%8,007$
8865 20719 86TH PL W 4/28/2011 2011 138,727$ -$ 138,727$ 0.00 4.44%-$
8869 20719 86TH PL W BUILDING 4/28/2011 2011 163,268$ -$ 163,268$ 0.00 4.44%-$
Total Plant-in-Service 9,448,135$ 1,615,958$ 7,832,177$ 2,889,869$ 1,077,638$
Allocable
Interest Cost Original Cost Accumulated
Depreciation Book Value CIAC Applicable
Asset AgeAsset No Description Date Acquired Year Acquired Applicable
Interest Rate
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 SW - Plant in Service
Page 2 of 5Packet Page 77 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Stormwater Utility Capital Improvement Program
Project Costs in Year: 2011 [NOTE: Capital Improvement Program costs are inflated].
Project ID Description Outside Funding 2012 - 2017 TOTAL
COSTS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 - Replace Infiltration Pipe (near 107th PL W)0%67,873$ -$ 67,873$ -$ -$ -$ -$
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect sumps near Robin Hood LN 0%461,091 - - - 91,514 369,577 -
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park infiltration System 0%525,264 102,941 422,323 - - - -
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 4 - Connect sumps on 105th & 106th Ave W near 228th St SW 0%203,243 14,706 188,537 - - - -
Edmonds Marsh - Shelbarger / Willow Creek Flood Plain Delineation Study (See Note 1)0%- - - - - - -
Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation 0%470,436 - - 470,436 - - -
Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr 0%199,269 - 43,363 155,906 - - -
Rehabilitation of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr 0%73,351 - - 26,286 47,065 - -
Talbot Rd / Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvement & Habitat Enhancement 0%586,275 586,275 - - - - -
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement at Talbot Rd 0%144,753 144,753 - - - - -
95th / 93rd St Drainage Improvement Project 0%214,027 25,490 188,537 - - - -
City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects (See Note 2)0%839,121 140,196 140,460 139,590 140,322 139,953 138,599
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects (See Note 3)0%598,704 100,000 99,925 99,707 100,230 99,727 99,115
North Talbot Rd Drainage Improvement Project 0%176,471 176,471 - - - - -
Public Works Yard Water Quality Upgrade (Vehicle Wash Station & Cover for Material Piles) (See Note 4)0%122,549 122,549 - - - - -
Stormwater Utility for Drainage Portions of Transportation Projects (See Note 5)0%- - - - - - -
NPDES Phase II Permit Capacity Building (Illicit discharge, Public Education, O&M) (See Note 6)0%23,631 23,631 - - - - -
Dayton Emergency Storm 0%- - - - - - -
Dayton St Storm Cured in-place pipe (CIPP) Rehabilitation 0%- - - - - - -
Low Impact Development Retrofit Project (See Note 7)0%569,684 - 116,893 115,116 114,175 112,298 111,202
BNSF Utility Crossings 0%- - - - - - -
Goodhope Pond Basin Study 0%181,286 - - 181,286 - - -
SW Perrinville Creek Basin Study 0%235,671 - 235,671 - - - -
0%- - - - - - -
Dayton St and Hwy 104 0%618,401 147,059 471,342 - - - -
0%- - - - - - -
Dayton St between 6th and 8th Ave N 0%147,059 147,059 - - - - -
88th Ave W and 194th St SW 0%90,643 - - 90,643 - - -
0%- - - - - - -
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement at Talbot Rd - Construction 75%548,389 - - 548,389 - - -
Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study (See Notes 8 & 9)67%147,059 147,059 - - - - -
Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr Daylighting/Restoration (See Notes 8 & 9)75%6,029,812 - - 853,855 2,075,196 3,100,760 -
Shell Creek Channel Restoration in Yost Park 75%161,344 - - 161,344 - - -
Perrinville Creek High Flow Management Project 75%7,479,342 - - - 2,788,137 2,403,508 2,287,697
0%- - - - - - -
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Shell Valley Emergency Access) (See Note 10)0%- - - - - - -
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Dayton St Overlay)0%- - - - - - -
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Main St LID Retrofit)0%117,647 117,647 - - - - -
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (226th Walkway)0%- - - - - - -
Transfer to Street Fund 112 0%299,738 50,000 49,962 49,854 49,679 50,283 49,960
Transfer to Parks Fund 125 (Interurban Trail - Permeable Paving - includes design)0%- - - - - - -
Transfer to Parks Fund 125 (Interurban Trail - 76th Storm Pipe - from City-Wide)0%- - - - - - -
Transfer to Parks Fund 125 (Interurban Trail - Stormwater Vault - from Lake Ballinger Associated 0%- - - - - - -
Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars 21,332,131$ 2,045,835$ 2,024,887$ 2,892,411$ 5,406,318$ 6,276,106$ 2,686,574$
Grant Funded Project Costs 10,762,204 98,039 - 1,172,691 3,647,500 4,128,201 1,715,773
Total Repair & Replacement Project Costs 10,569,927 1,947,796 2,024,887 1,719,720 1,758,818 2,147,905 970,801
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 SW - CIP
Page 3 of 5Packet Page 78 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Stormwater Utility Capital Improvement Program
Cumulative Construction Cost Inflation ==>2.00%6.08%10.32%14.74%19.33%24.10%
Construction Cost Inflation ==> 2.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS
Project ID Description Outside Funding 2012 - 2017 TOTAL
COSTS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 1 - Replace Infiltration Pipe (near 107th PL W)72,000$ 72,000$
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect sumps near Robin Hood LN 546,000 105,000 441,000
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park infiltration System 553,000 105,000 448,000
SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 4 - Connect sumps on 105th & 106th Ave W near 228th St SW 215,000 15,000 200,000
Edmonds Marsh - Shelbarger / Willow Creek Flood Plain Delineation Study (See Note 1)-
Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation 519,000 519,000
Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr 218,000 46,000 172,000
Rehabilitation of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr 83,000 29,000 54,000
Talbot Rd / Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvement & Habitat Enhancement 598,000 598,000
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement at Talbot Rd 147,648 147,648
95th / 93rd St Drainage Improvement Project 226,000 26,000 200,000
City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects (See Note 2)946,000 143,000 149,000 154,000 161,000 167,000 172,000
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects (See Note 3)675,000 102,000 106,000 110,000 115,000 119,000 123,000
North Talbot Rd Drainage Improvement Project 180,000 180,000
Public Works Yard Water Quality Upgrade (Vehicle Wash Station & Cover for Material Piles) (See Note 4)125,000 125,000
Stormwater Utility for Drainage Portions of Transportation Projects (See Note 5)-
NPDES Phase II Permit Capacity Building (Illicit discharge, Public Education, O&M) (See Note 6)24,104 24,104
Dayton Emergency Storm -
Dayton St Storm Cured in-place pipe (CIPP) Rehabilitation -
Low Impact Development Retrofit Project (See Note 7)654,000 - 124,000 127,000 131,000 134,000 138,000
BNSF Utility Crossings -
Goodhope Pond Basin Study 200,000 200,000
SW Perrinville Creek Basin Study 250,000 250,000
-
Dayton St and Hwy 104 650,000 150,000 500,000
-
Dayton St between 6th and 8th Ave N 150,000 150,000
88th Ave W and 194th St SW 100,000 100,000
-
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement at Talbot Rd - Construction 75%605,000 605,000
Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study (See Notes 8 & 9)67%150,000 150,000
Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr Daylighting/Restoration (See Notes 8 & 9)75%7,023,000 942,000 2,381,000 3,700,000
Shell Creek Channel Restoration in Yost Park 75%178,000 178,000
Perrinville Creek High Flow Management Project 75%8,906,000 3,199,000 2,868,000 2,839,000
-
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Shell Valley Emergency Access) (See Note 10)-
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Dayton St Overlay)-
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Main St LID Retrofit)120,000 120,000
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (226th Walkway)-
Transfer to Street Fund 112 338,000 51,000 53,000 55,000 57,000 60,000 62,000
Transfer to Parks Fund 125 (Interurban Trail - Permeable Paving - includes design)-
Transfer to Parks Fund 125 (Interurban Trail - 76th Storm Pipe - from City-Wide)-
Transfer to Parks Fund 125 (Interurban Trail - Stormwater Vault - from Lake Ballinger Associated -
Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars 24,451,752$ 2,086,752$ 2,148,000$ 3,191,000$ 6,203,000$ 7,489,000$ 3,334,000$
Grant Project Costs 12,634,000 100,000 - 1,293,750 4,185,000 4,926,000 2,129,250
Total Repair & Replacement Project Costs 11,817,752 1,986,752 2,148,000 1,897,250 2,018,000 2,563,000 1,204,750
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 SW - CIP
Page 4 of 5Packet Page 79 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Stormwater Utility - General Facilities Charge (GFC) Calculation
Existing Cost Basis Total Notes
PLANT-IN-SERVICE
Utility Capital Assets 9,448,135$ Fixed Assets at Original Cost
less: Contributed Capital (2,889,869) CIAC Additions at Original Cost
plus: Interest on Non-Contributed Plant 1,077,638 Interest on assets up to a maximum 10-year period
plus: 2011 Construction-Work-in-Progress 1,278,201
2011 Year-end Estimated Cash Balances 630,291$ $630,291 in Fund 411 only (No balance in Fund 412-200)
less: Debt Principal Outstanding (2,408,066) Total principal outstanding for the existing debt at the end of 2011
less: Net Debt Principal Outstanding (1,777,775)$ Debt principal outstanding, net of cash reserves
TOTAL EXISTING COST BASIS 7,136,330$
Future Cost Basis Notes
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Total Capital Improvement Program Cost 21,332,131$
Less: Projects to be Funded by Grants or Other Outside Sources (10,762,204)
TOTAL FUTURE COST BASIS 10,569,927$ Planned Capital Improvements Project costs 2012 through 2017
Customer Base Notes
Existing Equivalent Service Units 21,124 No of ESUs (2011)
Future Equivalent Service Units (Incremental)1,026 Projected Incremental ESUs (2011 - 2030)
TOTAL CUSTOMER BASE 22,150 No of ESUs (2030)
Resulting Charge Notes
Reimbursement Charge Component for Existing Assets
Existing Cost Basis 7,136,330$
Total Customer Base 22,150
Reimbursement Charge 322$
Improvement Charge Component for Future Assets
Future Cost Basis 10,569,927
Total Customer Base 22,150
Improvement Charge 477$
TOTAL GFC PER ESU 799$
Existing GFC per ESU 428$
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 SW - GFC
Page 5 of 5
Packet Page 80 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Water Utility Customer Base
Number of Accounts by Meter Sizes
3/4 " [a]1"1 1/2"2"3"4"6"8"TOTAL
Single Family Residential 8,553 165 6 - - - - - 8,724 8,996
Apt., Multiple Unit, Condo 208 162 117 146 3 1 - - 637 2,439
Hotel, Motel, Trailer Parks 2 2 - 5 1 - - - 10 63
Nursing Homes 1 1 2 2 2 - - - 8 62
Commercial Buildings 116 61 31 20 2 2 - - 232 666
Laundry 1 - - - - - - - 1 1
Car Wash - - - 1 - - - - 1 8
Medical Office 1 1 - - - - - - 2 4
Hospital - 1 - 1 - - 1 - 3 61
Office Buildings 48 18 10 7 - 1 - - 84 224
Restaurant 24 10 10 1 - - - - 45 107
Service Station 2 4 - 1 - - - - 7 20
Supermarkets 2 2 2 - - - - - 6 17
Taverns 3 - - - - - - - 3 3
Other 3 3 - - - 2 1 - 9 111
City Accounts 39 10 9 17 2 2 2 - 81 427
Church 7 5 3 1 - - - - 16 43
School 1 1 1 1 6 3 - - 13 188
Fire Meter 3 - - 9 1 57 28 53 151 7,156
Sprinkler 77 31 12 8 2 1 - - 131 336
TOTAL 9,091 477 203 220 19 69 32 53 10,164 20,928
Meter Equivalency Factors 1.0 2.5 5.0 8.0 16.0 25.0 50.0 80.0
Meter Capacity Equivalents 9,091 1,193 1,015 1,760 304 1,725 1,600 4,240 20,928
[a] Includes one 5/8" meter and one unknown meter size account.
Customer Classes
Meter
Capacity
Equivalents
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 W - Customer
Page 1 of 9
Packet Page 81 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Water Utility Customer Base
Year
Customer
Growth Rate
[b]
No of Total
MEs
No of MEs
(Excl. Fire
Meters &
Sprinkler)
2011 20,928 13,436
2012 0.50%21,032 13,503
2013 0.50%21,137 13,571
2014 0.50%21,243 13,639
2015 0.50%21,349 13,707
2016 0.50%21,456 13,775
2017 0.50%21,563 13,844
2018 0.50%21,671 13,913
2019 0.50%21,779 13,983
2020 0.50%21,888 14,053
2021 0.50%21,998 14,123
2022 0.50%22,108 14,194
2023 0.50%22,218 14,265
2024 0.50%22,329 14,336
2025 0.50%22,441 14,408
2026 0.50%22,553 14,480
2027 0.50%22,666 14,552
2028 0.50%22,779 14,625
2029 0.50%22,893 14,698
2030 0.50%23,008 14,772
[b] Comprehensive Plan Update financial analysis projections.
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 W - Customer
Page 2 of 9
Packet Page 82 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Water Utility Plant in Service
2011
75 Yes MAINS BALANCE PRIOR 1961 12/1/1949 1949 270,215$ 219,885$ 50,330$ 10.00 5.00%135,108$
64 FIVE CORNER TANK 1.5 MG 5/1/1960 1960 72,492$ 34,165$ 38,327$ 10.00 3.58%25,983$
55 LAND FIVE CORNERS 12/31/1960 1960 10,123$ -$ 10,123$ 10.00 3.58%3,628$
80 Yes MAINS COST UNIDENTIFIED 12/1/1964 1964 243,688$ 149,539$ 94,149$ 10.00 3.25%79,266$
67 Yes SEATTLE TRANSMISSION MAINS W 6/21/1966 1966 135,521$ 80,556$ 54,965$ 10.00 3.90%52,848$
217 PUBLIC WORKS BLDG ORIGINAL C 12/31/1967 1967 87,576$ 82,859$ 4,717$ 10.00 4.04%35,368$
68 Yes PHASE I MAINS WS-2 3/19/1968 1968 444,714$ 252,832$ 191,882$ 10.00 4.58%203,865$
69 Yes PHASE II MAINS WS-3 12/31/1968 1968 79,602$ 36,849$ 42,753$ 10.00 4.58%36,491$
77 Yes MAIN REPLACEMENT WS-11 10/7/1970 1970 45,655$ 24,660$ 20,996$ 10.00 6.61%30,170$
10 1970 ADDITIONS EASEMENTS 12/31/1970 1970 8,563$ -$ 8,563$ 10.00 6.61%5,659$
78 Yes MAIN REPLACEMENT WS-12 6/23/1971 1971 10,917$ 5,761$ 5,155$ 10.00 5.69%6,212$
73 Yes 9TH AVE MAIN WS-4 10/1/1971 1971 116,758$ 61,508$ 55,250$ 10.00 5.69%66,444$
76 Yes MAIN REPLACEMENT WS-10 10/13/1972 1972 50,769$ 26,069$ 24,699$ 10.00 5.46%27,708$
63 YOST PARK TANK 1.5 MG 4/5/1974 1974 245,698$ 119,951$ 125,746$ 10.00 6.44%158,289$
74 YOST PARK TANK WATER MAINS 4/5/1974 1974 44,915$ 21,928$ 22,986$ 10.00 6.44%28,936$
54 LAND-SEAVIEW TANK 12/31/1975 1975 36,500$ -$ 36,500$ 10.00 7.39%26,959$
65 Yes SEAVIEW WATER TANK WATER MAI 12/31/1975 1975 52,596$ 24,884$ 27,712$ 10.00 7.39%38,847$
218 PUBLIC WORKS BLDG ADDITION K 12/31/1975 1975 68,680$ 48,561$ 20,118$ 10.00 7.39%50,726$
222 GEN PLANT IMPROVEMENTS UNKNO 12/31/1975 1975 9,738$ 9,738$ -$ 10.00 7.39%7,192$
66 REPLACE 12 INCH BUTTERFLY VA 3/31/1976 1976 12,180$ 5,623$ 6,557$ 10.00 6.95%8,460$
72 Yes PHASE 4 CITY WIDE MAINS 7/13/1976 1976 616,285$ 279,552$ 336,733$ 10.00 6.95%428,071$
61 SEAVIEW TANK 1.5 MG 7/31/1976 1976 331,462$ 175,000$ 156,461$ 10.00 6.95%230,233$
71 Yes PHASE III CITY WIDE MAINS 12/30/1978 1978 624,793$ 270,654$ 354,140$ 10.00 6.35%397,034$
62 DEMOLITION COST 9TH AND MAIN 12/31/1978 1978 8,361$ 3,622$ 4,739$ 10.00 6.35%5,313$
196 Yes FIRE MAINS 4 IN QUANTITY 12 12/31/1979 1979 10,514$ 6,685$ 3,829$ 10.00 6.81%7,162$
197 Yes FIRE MAINS 6 IN QUANTITY 15 12/31/1979 1979 16,851$ 10,712$ 6,139$ 10.00 6.81%11,478$
198 Yes FIRE MAINS 8 IN QUANTITY 33 12/31/1979 1979 44,648$ 28,419$ 16,229$ 10.00 6.81%30,413$
214 4 1/2 IN FIRE HYDRANT COUNT 12/31/1979 1979 87,533$ 65,099$ 22,434$ 10.00 6.81%59,624$
215 5 1/4 IN FIRE HYDRANT COUNT 12/31/1979 1979 100,205$ 73,543$ 26,662$ 10.00 6.81%68,255$
219 PUBLIC WORKS BLDG REMODELING 12/31/1979 1979 24,678$ 15,503$ 9,175$ 10.00 6.81%16,810$
220 PUBLIC WORKS BLDG MISC COSTS 1/1/1980 1980 68,463$ 50,696$ 17,767$ 10.00 9.05%61,927$
2587 5 CORNER PUMP STATION STRUCT 6/30/1980 1980 202,992$ 202,992$ -$ 10.00 9.05%183,612$
2588 5 CORNER PUMP STATION EQUIPM 6/30/1980 1980 81,281$ 81,281$ -$ 10.00 9.05%73,521$
2589 YOST PK CHLORINATION FACILIT 6/30/1980 1980 51,040$ 51,040$ -$ 10.00 9.05%46,167$
2591 5 CORNER 3.0 MG TANK LAND 6/30/1980 1980 30,625$ -$ 30,625$ 10.00 9.05%27,701$
2633 5 CORNER 3.0 MG TANK 6/30/1980 1980 376,817$ 153,650$ 223,167$ 10.00 9.05%340,842$
2785 Yes FIRE LINE 12/31/1980 1980 6,500$ 3,917$ 2,583$ 10.00 9.05%5,879$
2786 Yes FIRE LINE 12/31/1980 1980 6,000$ 3,616$ 2,384$ 10.00 9.05%5,427$
2830 Yes WATER MAINS PHASE 4 SEL E &12/31/1980 1980 546,981$ 217,891$ 329,090$ 10.00 9.05%494,760$
2826 FIRE LINE DONATED 4/30/1981 1981 8,000$ 4,768$ 3,232$ 8,000$ 10.00 12.20%-$
2918 6IN FIRE LINE DONATED 9/30/1981 1981 8,000$ 4,702$ 3,298$ 8,000$ 10.00 12.20%-$
2827 Yes CITY WIDE WATER MAIN PH4 SCH 12/31/1981 1981 40,967$ 13,877$ 27,090$ 10.00 12.20%49,980$
3023 Yes 5 CORNER TANK IMPROVEMENT 12/31/1981 1981 10,338$ 4,019$ 6,320$ 10.00 12.20%12,613$
3031 WATER MAINS LID 207 12/31/1981 1981 20,979$ 8,154$ 12,825$ 20,979$ 10.00 12.20%-$
3055 Yes WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT 12/31/1981 1981 13,029$ 5,065$ 7,964$ 10.00 12.20%15,895$
3073 Yes 8IN FIRE LINE 3/31/1982 1982 5,500$ 3,178$ 2,322$ 10.00 12.40%6,820$
3633 WATER MAIN LID 208 12/31/1982 1982 17,861$ 6,607$ 11,254$ 17,861$ 10.00 12.40%-$
3796 Yes 4 INCH FIRE LINE 4/30/1983 1983 6,000$ 3,330$ 2,670$ 10.00 10.00%6,000$
4144 Yes 8IN WATER MAIN 12/31/1983 1983 5,500$ 1,991$ 3,510$ 10.00 10.00%5,500$
4185 WATER MAIN LID 209 12/31/1983 1983 8,665$ 3,137$ 5,528$ 8,665$ 10.00 10.00%-$
4458 Yes FIRE LINE 10/31/1984 1984 9,500$ 4,998$ 4,502$ 10.00 10.50%9,975$
4794 Yes PIERCE ARROW UNDERGROUND PIE 10/24/1985 1985 6,630$ 6,630$ -$ 10.00 9.60%6,365$
4901 6 INCH FIRE LINE DONATED 4/30/1986 1986 6,000$ 2,977$ 3,023$ 6,000$ 10.00 7.80%-$
5465 DONATED FIRE LINE 2/29/1988 1988 9,500$ 4,365$ 5,135$ 9,500$ 10.00 8.00%-$
5508 DONATED FIRE LINE 5/31/1988 1988 10,000$ 4,546$ 5,454$ 10,000$ 10.00 8.00%-$
5550 DONATED 4" METER 6/30/1988 1988 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ 10,000$ 10.00 8.00%-$
5551 DONATED FIRE LINE 6/30/1988 1988 10,000$ 4,529$ 5,471$ 10,000$ 10.00 8.00%-$
Asset No Description Date Acquired Year Acquired CIACT&D Applicable
Asset Age
Applicable
Interest Rate
Allocable
Interest Cost Original Cost Accumulated
Depreciation Book Value
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 W - Plant in Service
Page 3 of 9Packet Page 83 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Water Utility Plant in Service
2011
Asset No Description Date Acquired Year Acquired CIACT&D Applicable
Asset Age
Applicable
Interest Rate
Allocable
Interest Cost Original Cost Accumulated
Depreciation Book Value
5564 DONATED FIRE LINE 7/31/1988 1988 10,000$ 4,512$ 5,488$ 10,000$ 10.00 8.00%-$
5623 Yes 8" WATERMAIN PIPE EXT(412 SH 9/30/1988 1988 14,749$ 4,406$ 10,344$ 10.00 8.00%11,800$
5632 WATERMAIN LID 212 9/30/1988 1988 21,115$ 6,307$ 14,808$ 21,115$ 10.00 8.00%-$
5641 Yes 1985 WATER IMPROVEMENTS (412 9/30/1988 1988 27,424$ 8,191$ 19,233$ 10.00 8.00%21,939$
5670 WATER MAIN LID211 10/31/1988 1988 11,567$ 3,442$ 8,125$ 11,567$ 10.00 8.00%-$
5675 Yes DAYTON STREET RECONSTRUCTION 10/31/1988 1988 10,750$ 8,650$ 2,100$ 10.00 8.00%8,600$
5804 CONTRIBUTED FIRE LINE 3/31/1989 1989 8,000$ 3,503$ 4,497$ 8,000$ 10.00 7.50%-$
6333 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY LAND 5/11/1990 1990 846,790$ -$ 846,790$ 10.00 7.50%635,092$
6362 Yes 1990 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT 12/31/1990 1990 402,653$ 323,372$ 79,281$ 10.00 7.50%301,990$
6374 FIVE CORNERS DRAINAGE PROJEC 12/31/1990 1990 20,015$ 16,074$ 3,941$ 10.00 7.50%15,011$
6378 Yes 1989 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT P 12/31/1990 1990 521,328$ 418,680$ 102,648$ 10.00 7.50%390,996$
6412 AEREAL MAPPING - SHELL CREEK 12/31/1990 1990 28,675$ 23,029$ 5,646$ 10.00 7.50%21,506$
6776 Yes 8" FIRE LINE 12/31/1991 1991 10,000$ 7,618$ 2,382$ 10.00 7.10%7,100$
6778 MISC HYDRANTS 12/31/1991 1991 6,141$ 4,679$ 1,463$ 10.00 7.10%4,360$
6809 Yes 8" FIRE LINE 1/7/1992 1992 10,000$ 3,774$ 6,226$ 10.00 6.60%6,600$
6808 Yes 8" FIRE LINE 1/20/1992 1992 10,000$ 3,774$ 6,226$ 10.00 6.60%6,600$
6795 5 CORNERS TAPPING PROJECT 2/7/1992 1992 6,750$ 5,057$ 1,693$ 10.00 6.60%4,455$
6859 58 WATER ACCOUNTS PER ANNEXA 6/19/1992 1992 8,772$ 3,260$ 5,512$ 10.00 6.60%5,789$
6896 Yes WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJEC 7/31/1992 1992 190,666$ 70,539$ 120,127$ 10.00 6.60%125,840$
6927 POLICE MOBILE OFFICE INSTALL 7/31/1992 1992 9,183$ 6,794$ 2,390$ 10.00 6.60%6,061$
6933 MISC. HYDRANT EXTENSIONS FOR 7/31/1992 1992 34,505$ 7,979$ 26,526$ 10.00 6.60%22,773$
6983 CONTRIBUTED FIRE LINE - TOP 8/31/1992 1992 10,000$ 7,324$ 2,676$ 10,000$ 10.00 6.60%-$
6999 CONTRIBUTED FIRE LINE 12/31/1992 1992 10,000$ 7,231$ 2,769$ 10,000$ 10.00 6.60%-$
7231 ALUMINUM BUILD-A-BOX SHORING 6/23/1994 1994 13,457$ 13,457$ -$ 10.00 6.50%8,747$
7330 SHELVING AND BINS 12/15/1994 1994 12,622$ 10,146$ 2,476$ 10.00 6.50%8,204$
7349 METAL LOCKERS 12/29/1994 1994 9,896$ 7,955$ 1,941$ 10.00 6.50%6,432$
7350 DATALINK FOR ANDERSON CENTER 12/29/1994 1994 6,086$ 3,914$ 2,172$ 10.00 6.50%3,956$
7392 FUEL TANK REMOVAL 12/31/1994 1994 59,505$ 37,644$ 21,861$ 10.00 6.50%38,678$
7393 Yes WATERLINE IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/1994 1994 20,754$ 13,315$ 7,439$ 10.00 6.50%13,490$
7395 Yes 1993 WATERLINE IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/1994 1994 327,689$ 210,228$ 117,460$ 10.00 6.50%212,998$
7396 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 12/31/1994 1994 144,991$ 93,019$ 51,972$ 10.00 6.50%94,244$
7397 LID 213 WATER/SEWER IMPROVEM 12/31/1994 1994 874,046$ 519,386$ 354,660$ 874,046$ 10.00 6.50%-$
7398 Yes 1992 WATERLINE IMPROVEMENTS 12/31/1994 1994 276,694$ 177,512$ 99,182$ 10.00 6.50%179,851$
7437 TELECOMMUNICATIONS LINK TO P 3/23/1995 1995 12,167$ 12,167$ -$ 10.00 6.20%7,543$
7488 ANDERSON FRAMES, BEAMS,& CAN 5/25/1995 1995 6,651$ 6,651$ -$ 10.00 6.20%4,123$
7513 1" WATER METER & SERVICE LIN 7/31/1995 1995 72,656$ 72,656$ -$ 10.00 6.20%45,047$
7514 1 1/2" WATER METER & SERVICE 7/31/1995 1995 53,891$ 53,891$ -$ 10.00 6.20%33,412$
7515 2" WATER METER & SERVICE LIN 7/31/1995 1995 114,518$ 114,518$ -$ 10.00 6.20%71,001$
7516 3/4" WATER METER & SERVICE L 7/31/1995 1995 361,890$ 361,890$ -$ 10.00 6.20%224,372$
7517 3" WATER METER & SERVICE LIN 7/31/1995 1995 20,122$ 13,752$ 6,370$ 10.00 6.20%12,476$
7538 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8/31/1995 1995 178,668$ 108,829$ 69,839$ 10.00 6.20%110,774$
7539 Yes 1994 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT 8/31/1995 1995 405,697$ 250,104$ 155,593$ 10.00 6.20%251,532$
7557 MANHOLES 48"8/31/1995 1995 8,827$ 5,432$ 3,395$ 10.00 6.20%5,473$
7609 REMOTE READ METERS 12/6/1995 1995 5,288$ 3,190$ 2,098$ 10.00 6.20%3,279$
7614 BORING TOOL - 4" MOLE 12/20/1995 1995 5,283$ 5,283$ -$ 10.00 6.20%3,275$
7621 TRUCK-MOUNTED CRANES 12/20/1995 1995 11,100$ 11,100$ -$ 10.00 6.20%6,882$
7639 CHARLSTON DONATED PROPERTY 12/29/1995 1995 43,773$ -$ 43,773$ 43,773$ 10.00 6.20%-$
7638 Yes 1995 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT 12/31/1995 1995 1,160,558$ 640,585$ 519,973$ 10.00 6.20%719,546$
7670 9-KUPFERLE SAMPLING STATIONS 2/8/1996 1996 6,315$ 3,760$ 2,555$ 10.00 6.00%3,789$
7756 1996 WALTER TRAILER #78 SWR 9/12/1996 1996 6,716$ 6,716$ -$ 10.00 6.00%4,030$
7846 CHERRY ST STORM DRAINAGE PRO 12/31/1996 1996 202,261$ 113,549$ 88,712$ 10.00 6.00%121,357$
7850 PW FAC VACTOR DEWATERING STN 12/31/1996 1996 24,887$ 13,714$ 11,173$ 10.00 6.00%14,932$
8009 5-CORNERS GENERATOR 12/31/1997 1997 45,305$ 19,673$ 25,632$ 10.00 5.80%26,277$
8201 FOLDING/INSERTER MACHINE 2/18/1999 1999 10,084$ 10,084$ -$ 10.00 5.70%5,748$
8243 ELECTRONIC CONTROL VALVE 4/29/1999 1999 12,261$ 12,261$ -$ 10.00 5.70%6,989$
8287 REMODEL WATER/SEWER OFFICES 7/28/1999 1999 5,572$ 3,193$ 2,379$ 10.00 5.70%3,176$
8381 WATER/SEWER TELEMETRY PROJEC 12/30/1999 1999 159,361$ 43,402$ 115,959$ 10.00 5.70%90,836$
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 W - Plant in Service
Page 4 of 9Packet Page 84 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Water Utility Plant in Service
2011
Asset No Description Date Acquired Year Acquired CIACT&D Applicable
Asset Age
Applicable
Interest Rate
Allocable
Interest Cost Original Cost Accumulated
Depreciation Book Value
8383 Yes 1999 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT 12/30/1999 1999 164,688$ 44,853$ 119,835$ 10.00 5.70%93,872$
8625 Yes 1999 WATERLINE PROJECTS 12/31/1999 1999 158,309$ 70,160$ 88,150$ 10.00 5.70%90,236$
8369 COMPUTER SOFTWARE-VARIOUS 3/29/2000 2000 5,211$ 5,211$ -$ 10.00 6.00%3,127$
8407 JET PLOTTER 8/10/2000 2000 9,889$ 9,889$ (0)$ 10.00 6.00%5,933$
8455 METRO SWAP 8/31/2000 2000 28,344$ 28,344$ -$ 10.00 6.00%17,006$
8420 ARC/INFO FLOATING LICENSE 9/27/2000 2000 12,157$ 12,157$ -$ 10.00 6.00%7,294$
8426 2000 GO-4 #400 POL 11/21/2000 2000 21,150$ 21,150$ -$ 10.00 6.00%12,690$
8438 HAMMONDS CHLORINATOR 12/31/2000 2000 9,611$ 9,611$ -$ 10.00 6.00%5,767$
8487 RADIX METER READING SOFTWARE & HARDWARE 10/25/2001 2001 6,684$ 6,684$ -$ 10.00 5.50%3,676$
8489 ROMAC VALVE EXERCISOR W/HYDRAULIC DRIVE 12/4/2001 2001 5,957$ 5,409$ 548$ 10.00 5.50%3,276$
8498 COMPAQ WORKSTATION W/ARCINFO 12/31/2001 2001 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ 10.00 5.50%7,150$
8635 WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 12/31/2001 2001 342,573$ 124,420$ 218,153$ 10.00 5.50%188,415$
8637 2001 WATER MAIN PROJECT 12/31/2001 2001 471,773$ 171,345$ 300,428$ 10.00 5.50%259,475$
8644 ADMIRAL WAY SEWER REPLACEMENT 12/31/2002 2002 79,828$ 25,800$ 54,028$ 9.00 5.22%37,506$
8582 RESERVOIR SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS 11/13/2003 2003 13,590$ 9,639$ 3,951$ 8.00 4.75%5,162$
8597 2002 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT 12/31/2003 2003 125,253$ 17,740$ 107,513$ 8.00 4.75%47,580$
8672 2005 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 050-WTR 6/23/2005 2005 16,884$ 11,772$ 5,113$ 6.00 4.37%4,427$
8684 2003 WATERMAIN PROJECT 12/31/2005 2005 1,122,827$ 228,173$ 894,654$ 6.00 4.37%294,405$
8685 ALDER STREET WATER/SEWER 12/31/2005 2005 270,329$ 54,934$ 215,395$ 6.00 4.37%70,880$
8731 2004 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 12/31/2006 2006 1,018,600$ 163,402$ 855,198$ 5.00 4.40%224,134$
8772 STORAGE AREA NETWORK DEVICE 11/26/2007 2007 8,821$ 3,990$ 4,830$ 4.00 4.40%1,551$
8777 2005 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 12/31/2007 2007 1,678,757$ 106,153$ 1,572,604$ 4.00 4.40%295,182$
8837 WATER DEPT GIS SYSTEM 12/31/2010 2010 7,859$ -$ 7,859$ 1.00 4.44%349$
8850 2006 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT 12/31/2010 2010 35,922$ -$ 35,922$ 1.00 4.44%1,594$
8851 2007 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJ 12/31/2010 2010 99,771$ -$ 99,771$ 1.00 4.44%4,427$
Total Plant-in-Service 18,125,858$ 8,061,119$ 10,064,738$ 1,097,505$ 9,259,633$
Pre-2000 City-Build Transmission & Distribution Assets 7,132,433$ 4,002,840$ 3,129,593$ -$ 4,613,321$
City's Water Main Replacement Program 1.00%per year thoughout the CIP period.
Number of Years in the CIP period (2012 through 2029)18 years
Amount of Water Mains to be Replaced in the CIP period 18.00%of the pre-2000 water mains.
Estimated avg. original cost of water mains to be replaced & estimated interest 1,283,838$ 830,398$
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 W - Plant in Service
Page 5 of 9Packet Page 85 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Water Utility Capital Improvement Program
Project Costs in Year: 2011 [NOTE: Capital Improvement Program costs are inflated].
CIP No Description % Growth 2012 - 2029 TOTAL
COSTS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-22 2023-29
2010 Replacement Program 234,003$ 234,003$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
2011 Replacement Program 497,918 497,918 - - - - -
2012 Replacement Program 1,033,625 1,033,625 - - - - -
2012 Waterline Overlays 513,725 513,725 - - - - -
2013 Replacement Program 2,259,992 86,275 2,173,718 - - - -
2014 Replacement Program 2,259,996 - 86,275 2,173,722 - - -
2015 Replacement Program 2,259,968 - - 86,275 2,173,694 - -
2016 Replacement Program 2,259,951 - - - 86,275 2,173,677 -
2017 Replacement Program 2,259,977 - - - - 86,275 2,173,703
2018 Replacement Program 86,275 - - - - - 86,275
BNSF Crossings - - - - - - -
PRV Station 11 Abandonment - - - - - - -
PRV Station 12 Abandonment - - - - - - -
System-wide Pressure Relief Improvements 475,012 - 225,019 249,993 - - -
Annual PRV Station Improvement Program 625,051 - 125,000 124,996 124,982 125,036 125,036
Alderwood Meter, Seaview & Yost Improvements 6,275 6,275 - - - - -
Five Corners Pump Station Improvements - - - - - - -
Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating 629,967 - - - 629,967 - -
Five Corners 1.5 MG Reservoir Recoating 399,998 - - - - 399,998 -
Fire Hydrant Improvements, General Fund 575,975 95,980 95,965 95,991 95,959 96,040 96,040
76th Ave Waterline Replacement (includes PRV Impr)516,078 516,078 - - - - -
Telemetry System Improvements 106,822 56,863 9,992 9,971 10,023 9,973 10,000
2010 Water System Plan Update - - - - - - -
2016 Water System Plan Update 150,047 - - - 75,042 75,005 -
GFC Study 3,137 3,137 - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Transfer to Sewer Utility Fund 412-300 (Lift Station 2)101,471 101,471 - - - - -
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Main St)126,471 126,471 - - - - -
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Shell Valley)- - - - - - -
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Dayton Street)- - - - - - -
-
Projects Beyond 2017 (from Comp. Plan)-
Annual Water Main Replacement Program (2017-22 total was $13,560,000)26,794,748 11,213,748 15,581,000
Annual PRV Station Improvements (2017-22 total was $750,000)624,964 624,964
Fire Hydrant Improvements (2017-22 total was $549,000)1,040,960 452,960 588,000
Telemetry System Improvements (2017-22 total was $300,000)360,000 290,000 70,000
Comprehensive Water System Plan Update 300,000 150,000 150,000
Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars 46,502,406$ 3,271,820$ 2,715,969$ 2,740,947$ 3,195,942$ 2,966,003$ 2,491,053$ 12,731,672$ 16,389,000$
Total Growth Related Project Costs - - - - - - - - -
Total Repair & Replacement Project Costs 46,502,406 3,271,820 2,715,969 2,740,947 3,195,942 2,966,003 2,491,053 12,731,672 16,389,000
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 W - CIP
Page 6 of 9Packet Page 86 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Water Utility Capital Improvement Program
Cumulative Construction Cost Inflation ==>2.00%6.08%10.32%14.74%19.33%24.10%29.06%34.23%
Construction Cost Inflation ==> 2.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%4.00%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN INFLATED DOLLARS
CIP No Description % Growth 2012 - 2017 TOTAL
COSTS 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-22 2023-29
2010 Replacement Program 238,683$ 238,683$
2011 Replacement Program 507,876 507,876
2012 Replacement Program 1,054,297 1,054,297
2012 Waterline Overlays 524,000 524,000
2013 Replacement Program 2,393,880 88,000 2,305,880
2014 Replacement Program 2,489,639 91,520 2,398,119
2015 Replacement Program 2,589,193 95,181 2,494,012
2016 Replacement Program 2,692,740 98,988 2,593,752
2017 Replacement Program 2,800,482 102,948 2,697,535
2018 Replacement Program 107,065 107,065
BNSF Crossings -
PRV Station 11 Abandonment -
PRV Station 12 Abandonment -
System-wide Pressure Relief Improvements 514,500 238,700 275,800
Annual PRV Station Improvement Program 718,268 132,600 137,900 143,400 149,200 155,168
Alderwood Meter, Seaview & Yost Improvements 6,400 6,400
Five Corners Pump Station Improvements -
Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating 722,800 722,800
Five Corners 1.5 MG Reservoir Recoating 477,300 477,300
Fire Hydrant Improvements, General Fund 649,484 97,900 101,800 105,900 110,100 114,600 119,184
76th Ave Waterline Replacement (includes PRV Impr)526,400 526,400
Telemetry System Improvements 115,410 58,000 10,600 11,000 11,500 11,900 12,410
2010 Water System Plan Update -
2016 Water System Plan Update 175,600 86,100 89,500
GFC Study 3,200 3,200
-
Transfer to Sewer Utility Fund 412-300 (Lift Station 2)103,500 103,500
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Main St)129,000 129,000
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Shell Valley)-
Transfer to Street Fund 112 (Dayton Street)-
Total Capital Projects in Current Dollars 19,539,718$ 3,337,256$ 2,881,100$ 3,023,900$ 3,666,900$ 3,539,200$ 3,091,362$ -$ -$
Total Growth Related Project Costs - - - - - - - - -
Total Repair & Replacement Project Costs 19,539,718 3,337,256 2,881,100 3,023,900 3,666,900 3,539,200 3,091,362 - -
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 W - CIP
Page 7 of 9Packet Page 87 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Water Utility - General Facilities Charge (GFC) Calculation
Existing Cost Basis Total Notes
PLANT-IN-SERVICE
Utility Capital Assets 18,125,858$ Fixed Assets at Original Cost
less: Contributed Capital (1,097,505) CIAC Additions at Original Cost
plus: Interest on Non-Contributed Plant 9,259,633 Interest on assets up to a maximum 10-year period
less: Estimated avg. original cost of water mains to be replaced (1,283,838)
less: Estimated interest on water mains to be replaced (830,398)
plus: 2011 Construction-Work-in-Progress 4,187,575
2011 Year-end Estimated Cash Balances 1,224,913$ $1,224,913 in Fund 411 & ??? in Fund 412-100
less: Debt Principal Outstanding (1,498,350) Total principal outstanding for the existing debt at the end of 2011
less: Net Debt Principal Outstanding (273,437)$ Debt principal outstanding, net of cash reserves
TOTAL EXISTING COST BASIS 28,087,888$
Future Cost Basis Notes
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Total Growth Related Projects -$
Total Existing (R&R) Related Costs 46,502,406
TOTAL FUTURE COST BASIS 46,502,406$ Planned Capital Improvements Project costs 2012 through 2029
Customer Base (excluding Fire & Sprinkler Meters)Notes
Existing Equivalent Residential Units (Meter Equivalents)13,436 No of Meter Equivalents (2011)
Future Equivalent Residential Units (Incremental)1,336 Projected Incremental Meter Equivalents (2011 - 2030)
TOTAL CUSTOMER BASE 14,772 No of Meter Equivalents (2030)
Resulting Charge Notes
Reimbursement Charge Component for Existing Assets
Existing Cost Basis 28,087,888$
Total Customer Base 14,772
Reimbursement Charge 1,901$
Improvement Charge Component for Future Assets
Future Cost Basis 46,502,406
Total Customer Base 14,772
Improvement Charge 3,148$
TOTAL GFC PER METER EQUIVALENT 5,050$
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 W - GFC (No Fire)
Page 8 of 9
Packet Page 88 of 139
City of Edmonds
General Facilities Charge (GFC) Analysis
Water Utility - Existing and Calculated General Facilities Charges
Meter Size
3/4 "1 5,050$ 908$
1"2.5 12,624$ 2,270$
1 1/2"5 25,248$ 4,540$
2"8 40,397$ 7,264$
3"16 80,794$ 14,528$
4"25 126,240$ 22,700$
6"50 252,480$ 45,400$
8"80 403,968$ 72,640$
Meter
Equivalency
Factors
Existing GFCsCalculated GFCs
PREPARED BY FCS GROUP, INC.
(425) 867-1802
EDMONDS - GFC Analysis - November 14 2011 W - GFC Table
Page 9 of 9
Packet Page 89 of 139
AM-4691 8.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/03/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Shawn
Hunstock
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation on Revenues and Fund Balances
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N.A.
Previous Council Action
N.A.
Narrative
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director, will give an overview of historical fund balances for the City's
governmental funds as well as an overview of the different types of revenue received by the City and
restrictions on the use of those resources. The presentation is for informational purposes only.
Attachments
CouncilPresentation
RevenueRestrictionsDetail
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2012 02:49 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/30/2012 07:26 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2012 08:14 AM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 03/29/2012 02:37 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/30/2012
Packet Page 90 of 139
{
City of Edmonds
Fund balance trends
Restricted revenue
Implications for the General Fund
April 3, 2012
Packet Page 91 of 139
•Ending fund balance in the General Fund
remained somewhat consistent between 2001-
2010, ranging from a high of $8,089,403 in
2006 to a low of $5,075,385 in 2001.
•Ending fund balance in the Special Revenue
Funds have declined by almost 31% from 2001-
2010, and by over 46% from 2007-2010.
If the Public Safety Reserve Fund was not
established in 2010, these percentages
increase to 47% for 2001-2010 and 59% for
2007-2010.
Fund Balance Historical Trends –
All Governmental Funds
Packet Page 92 of 139
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
% Change
2001-2010
% Change
2007-2010
General Fund (001)3,323,930$ 3,730,545$ 4,503,347$ 5,719,555$ 6,055,094$ 6,161,803$ 5,810,379$ 3,260,920$ 4,141,306$ 4,927,508$ 48.24% -15.19%
Emergency/Financial Reserve (006)1,751,455 1,861,979 1,929,631 1,927,600 1,927,600 1,927,600 1,927,600 1,927,600 1,927,600 1,927,600 10.06% 0.00%
Total General Fund 5,075,385 5,592,524 6,432,977 7,647,154 7,982,694 8,089,403 7,737,979 5,188,520 6,068,906 6,855,108 35.07% -11.41%
Special Revenue Funds
LEOFF Medical Reserve Fund (009)- - 525,628 288,544 314,270 351,103 421,194 564,552 512,176 428,322 0.00% 1.69%
Public Safety Emergency Reserve (010)- - - - - - - - - 1,335,961 0.00% 0.00%
Drug Enforcement Fund (104)67,466 36,828 6,020 73,099 90,586 75,344 101,130 143,375 131,976 116,889 73.26% 15.58%
Street Fund (111)- - 231,418 222,254 274,781 145,634 267,557 195,797 370,530 497,227 0.00% 85.84%
Street Construction Fund (112)1,855,507 1,176,648 1,129,087 1,186,045 1,904,718 644,197 700,143 451,189 95,735 203,752 -89.02% -70.90%
Multi-Modal Transportation Fund (113)- - 24,604 51,683 59,535 84,295 49,344 62,394 56,175 55,859 0.00% 13.20%
Underground Wiring (115)86 86 - - - - - - - - -100.00% 0.00%
Building Maintenance Fund (116)111,685 166,659 169,777 189,929 307,130 317,442 1,023,893 109,551 42,035 185,881 66.43% -81.85%
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund (117)101,005 115,238 155,292 169,175 201,809 243,240 286,034 330,367 374,547 393,358 289.44% 37.52%
Memorial Tree Fund (118)- - 14,656 14,765 15,247 16,029 16,925 17,342 17,570 17,617 0.00% 4.09%
Council Contingency (119)908,228 124,004 - - - - - - - - -100.00% 0.00%
Hotel/Motel Tax Fund (120)25,465 51,416 53,491 54,918 61,968 108,129 150,123 170,420 187,571 125,112 391.31% -16.66%
Employee Pkg Permit Fund (121)44,335 52,871 3,595 69,724 70,473 76,067 86,882 90,927 93,897 84,660 90.96% -2.56%
Youth Scholarship Fund (122)10,357 8,700 6,981 6,911 8,313 8,083 10,775 19,019 17,166 17,092 65.03% 58.63%
Tourism Promotional/Arts Fund (123)31,348 34,762 28,068 29,051 31,491 34,351 40,886 48,208 50,855 53,611 71.02% 31.12%
Off-Street Parking (124)152,523 160,487 140,429 - - - - - - - -100.00% 0.00%
Reet 2 Fund (125)2,254,470 2,769,218 2,112,285 2,974,338 4,248,184 5,552,582 4,624,397 3,998,526 1,620,084 443,662 -80.32% -90.41%
Reet 1 Parks Acquis Fund (126)2,093,655 1,297,725 1,308,180 1,594,615 1,609,218 410,908 1,748,600 936,101 492,825 423,051 -79.79% -75.81%
Gifts Catalog Fund (127)108,378 143,805 148,009 131,629 138,784 150,968 160,904 172,678 172,069 198,059 82.75% 23.09%
Special Projects Fund (129)- - - - - 11,000 11,606 5,214 3,052 2,098 0.00% -81.92%
Cemetery Maint/Imprv Fund (130)400,882 447,126 479,290 529,804 566,672 (116,146) 8,611 104,943 94,066 88,826 -77.84% 931.54%
Fire Donations Fund (131)15,440 31,381 9,133 4,362 7,940 4,508 8,289 19,405 22,462 - -100.00% -100.00%
Parks Const. Fund (132)- - - - - - - (645) 24,007 90,017 0.00% 0.00%
Public Utility Assistance (135)- 3 298 - - - - - - - 0.00% 0.00%
Parks Trust Fund (136/601)- - - 111,745 124,359 132,627 142,083 145,946 144,280 119,895 0.00% -15.62%
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund (137/610)- - 563,153 580,974 602,726 648,346 705,711 743,504 766,066 784,211 0.00% 11.12%
Sister City Commission (138/623)14,958 15,020 16,517 14,258 13,733 12,641 14,538 11,049 11,181 13,409 -10.36% -7.77%
Total Special Revenue Funds 8,195,788 6,631,977 7,125,910 8,297,822 10,651,937 8,911,348 10,579,625 8,339,862 5,300,325 5,678,569 -30.71% -46.33%
Debt Service Funds
L.I.D. Fund Control Fund (211)345,602 184,433 181,591 74,323 16,316 20,051 13,508 23,150 6,337 460 -99.87% -96.59%
L.I.D. Guaranty Fund (213)314,463 319,342 389,631 248,387 136,429 41,950 46,416 49,556 50,233 137,667 -56.22% 196.59%
LTGO Bond Debt Service Fund (230)150,155 143,728 - 1,001 - - - - - - -100.00% 0.00%
Total Debt Service Funds 810,220 647,503 571,222 323,711 152,745 62,001 59,924 72,706 56,570 138,127 -82.95% 130.50%
Capital Projects
Capital Improvements (325)(8,277) 95,291 - - - - - - - - 0.00% 0.00%
Public Safety Bldg Const Fund (326)1,979,522 1,587,556 205,136 146,451 - - - - - - -100.00% 0.00%
2001 Capital Improvement Fund (330)3,009,518 1,216,920 167,799 21,318 - - - - - - -100.00% 0.00%
Total Capital Projects 4,980,763 2,899,767 372,935 167,769 - - - - - - -100.00% 0.00%
Expendable Trust
Special Library Fund (621)9,382 9,504 9,598 8,457 2,779 - - - - - -100.00% 0.00%
2002 PFD Project (634)- 16,320 - - - - - - - - 0.00% 0.00%
Total Expendable Trust 9,382 25,824 9,598 8,457 2,779 - - - - - -100.00% 0.00%
Total Governmental Fund Balances 19,071,538$ 15,797,595$ 14,512,642$ 16,444,914$ 18,790,155$ 17,062,752$ 18,377,528$ 13,601,088$ 11,425,801$ 12,671,804$ -33.56% -31.05%
City of Edmonds
Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
Packet Page 93 of 139
Some significant declines in ending fund balance
include:
The REET 2 Fund (125) declined from
$5,552,582 in 2006 to $443,662 in 2010, a
decrease of 92%.
The REET 1 Parks Acquisition Fund (126)
declined from $2,093,655 in 2001 to $423,051 in
2010, a decrease of 80%.
The Street Construction Fund (112) declined from
$1,904,718 in 2005 to $203,752 in 2010, a
decrease of 89%.
The Building Maintenance Fund (116) declined
from $1,023,893 in 2007 to $185,881 in 2010, a
decrease of 82%.
Fund Balance Historical Trends –
All Governmental Funds (cont.)
Packet Page 94 of 139
Fund balance in the General Fund is relatively stable. Fund balances in the other funds, however, have declined significantly, particularly in the Special Revenue Funds.
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Special Revenue Funds 8,195,788 6,631,977 7,125,910 8,297,822 10,651,937 8,911,348 10,579,625 8,339,862 5,300,325 5,678,569
Expendable Trust Funds 9,382 25,824 9,598 8,457 2,779 -----
Capital Project Funds 4,980,763 2,899,767 372,935 167,769 ------
Debt Service Funds 810,220 647,503 571,222 323,711 152,745 62,001 59,924 72,706 56,570 138,127
General Fund 5,075,385 5,592,524 6,432,977 7,647,154 7,982,694 8,089,403 7,737,979 5,188,520 6,068,906 6,855,108
Total Fund Balances
by Fund Type
Packet Page 95 of 139
The adopted budget for 2012 includes anticipated revenue of
$66,678,974
Over 62% of that revenue is restricted in some manner,
either legally, contractually or through Council action.
In the General Fund, approximately 24% of the revenue is
restricted in its use.
Two of the largest revenue sources in the General Fund,
sales tax and property tax, are either flat or declining. These
two make up 55% of the revenue in the General Fund.
Sales tax declined by 14.8% from 2007 to what is
budgeted for 2012.
Property taxes are limited by state statute to 1% annual
increases.
Restricted Revenue
Packet Page 96 of 139
2012 2012 RESTRICTED
FUND FUND BEGINNING BUDGETED REVENUE PERCENT
NO.DESCRIPTION FUND BALANCE REVENUE SOURCES RESTRICTED
001 GENERAL FUND 3,526,333$ 33,006,588$ 7,953,145$ 24.10%
006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 1,927,600 - - 0.00%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 320,656 600,550 600,550 100.00%
010 PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY RESERVE 1,338,178 2,200 - 0.00%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 124,661 28,200 28,200 100.00%
111 STREET FUND 333,251 1,313,650 1,300,000 98.96%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 354,989 2,006,864 1,965,067 97.92%
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.55,859 - - 0.00%
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 192,561 56,860 - 0.00%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 401,698 58,325 54,500 93.44%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,646 28 28 100.00%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 83,047 69,200 69,200 100.00%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 77,577 20,140 20,140 100.00%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 16,534 2,525 2,525 100.00%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 60,250 19,000 18,750 98.68%
125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 279,604 590,850 590,850 100.00%
126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 170,142 590,800 590,800 100.00%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 193,985 10,759 10,759 100.00%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 3,665 313,004 313,004 100.00%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 85,714 119,850 119,850 100.00%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 268,289 1,185,000 1,185,000 100.00%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 156,611 177 177 100.00%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 801,079 14,600 14,600 100.00%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,261 5,230 5,230 100.00%
211 LID FUND CONTROL 104,869 46,700 46,700 100.00%
213 LID GUARANTY FUND 137,896 46,725 46,725 100.00%
234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND - 478,573 478,573 100.00%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 5,284,368 15,306,920 15,306,920 100.00%
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 13,538,882 7,888,400 7,888,400 100.00%
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 234,575 1,126,377 1,126,377 100.00%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,703,790 1,076,456 1,076,456 100.00%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 213,210 94,423 94,423 100.00%
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 600,000 600,000 100.00%
Totals 35,017,780$ 66,678,974$ 41,506,949$ 62.25%Packet Page 97 of 139
2012 RESTRICTED RESTRICTED NET
FUND FUND BUDGETED REVENUE REVENUE RESTRICTED USE UNRESTRICTED
NO.DESCRIPTION REVENUE SOURCES SOURCES OF REVENUE REVENUE
001 GENERAL FUND 33,006,588$
3,233,038$ EMS levy
Use of the EMS levy is limited to
the "provision of emergency medical
care or emergency medical services"
(RCW 84.52.069)
877,984
Voted property tax for bond
issue
Repayment of voter approved 2003
bond issue
530,130
1/10th Criminal Justice Sales
Tax
Funds are to be used exclusively for
criminal justice purposes (RCW
82.14.340)
61,043 Gambling taxes
Revenue to be used for gambling
enforcement activity (RCW
9.46.110)
10,151
Liquor Excise Tax and Profit
Sharing
2% of excise tax and profit sharing
must be used to support an approved
alcoholism or drug addiction
pr ogram (amount shown represents
2% of gross revenue)
238,762
Budgeted grant money for
specific expenditures
Use of grant revenue is limited to
expenditures funded by the grant
750,000 EMS transport fees
Provision of emergency medical
transport services (Ord 3706)
838,016 Permitting and inspection fees
Fees generated from permitting and
inspection activities are limited to
the expenses related to those
functions (RCW 82.02.020)
1,388,935 Interfund reimbursements
Interfund reimbursements are for the
provision of services by General
Fund employees to other funds (for
instance, the utility funds)
25,086 Interfund transfers
Interfund transfers represent other
miscellaneous reimbursements by
other funds
7,953,145 Total restricted revenue 25,053,443$
24.10%Percent restrictedPacket Page 98 of 139
2012 RESTRICTED RESTRICTED NET
FUND FUND BUDGETED REVENUE REVENUE RESTRICTED USE UNRESTRICTED
NO.DESCRIPTION REVENUE SOURCES SOURCES OF REVENUE REVENUE
111 STREET FUND 1,313,650
700,000 Motor vehicle fuel taxes
Used exclusively for street
maintenance and/or construction
(RCW 47.24.040)
600,000 Interfund transfers from TBD
Use is limited to maintenance or
construction of transportation
infrastructure (RCW 36.73.015,
RCW 82.80.070), further limited by
Ord 3707 to maintenance, repair and
street operations
1,300,000 Total restricted revenue 13,650
98.96%Percent restricted
112
COMBINED
STREET
CONST/IMPROVE 2,006,864
1,491,067
Budgeted grant money for
specific expenditures
Use of grant revenue is limited to
expenditures funded by the grant
140,000 Motor vehicle fuel taxes
Used exclusively for street
maintenance and/or construction
(RCW 47.24.040)
35,000 Traffic impact fees
Payments received from developers
for off-site transportation
improvements needed due to the
development (RCW 39.92.040)
299,000 Interfund transfers
Transfers in from utility funds for
street overlay component of utility
construction projects, must be used
for the benefit of utility customers
1,965,067 Total restricted revenue 41,797 Packet Page 99 of 139
In the General Fund two of the largest revenue sources are declining or
are flat.
Property tax, the City’s largest revenue source, and sales tax
comprise 55% of the revenue in the General Fund.
Increases in property tax are limited by state statute to 1% per
year.
Compared to what was actually received in 2007, sales tax is
expected to decline by 14.8% for 2012.
With the two largest revenue sources flat or declining, and over 24% of
the revenue restricted for particular purposes, there is greater demand
on discretionary income in the General Fund, particularly for
maintaining financial viability of other funds experiencing declining
balances. Some recent examples include:
Transfer of $600,000 to the LEOFF Medical Insurance Fund in
2012.
The Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Fund is expected to be
in a deficit situation by the end of 2012.
Implications of Declining Fund Balances
and Restrictions on Revenue
Packet Page 100 of 139
20
1
2
*
*
2
0
1
2
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
NET
FU
N
D
FU
N
D
BE
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
B
U
D
G
E
T
E
D
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
U
S
E
UNRESTRICTED
NO
.
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
F UN
D
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
SO
U
R
C
E
S
OF
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
REVENUE
00
1
GE
N
E
R
A
L
F
U
N
D
3,
5
2
6
,
3
3
3
$
33
,
0
0
6
,
5
8
8
$
3,
2
3
3
,
0
3
8
$
EM
S
l
e
v
y
Us
e
o
f
t
h
e
E
M
S
l
e
v
y
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
"
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
c
a
r
e
o
r
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
"
(
R
C
W
8
4
.
5
2
.
0
6
9
)
87
7
,
9
8
4
Vo
t
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
f
o
r
b
o
n
d
i
s
s
u
e
Re
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
v
o
t
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
0
0
3
b
o
n
d
i
s
s
u
e
53
0
,
1
3
0
1/
1
0
t
h
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
S
a
l
e
s
T
a
x
Fu
n
d
s
a
r
e
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
d
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
y
f
o
r
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
ju
s
t
i
c
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
(
R
C
W
8
2
.
1
4
.
3
4
0
)
61
,
0
4
3
Ga
m
b
l
i
n
g
t
a
x
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
g
a
m
b
l
i
n
g
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
R
C
W
9
.
4
6
.
1
1
0
)
10
,
1
5
1
Li
q
u
o
r
E
x
c
i
s
e
T
a
x
a
n
d
P
r
o
f
i
t
S
h
a
r
i
n
g
2%
o
f
e
x
c
i
s
e
t
a
x
a
n
d
p
r
o
f
i
t
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
m
u
s
t
b
e
u
s
e
d
to
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
i
s
m
o
r
d
r
u
g
ad
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
a
m
o
u
n
t
s
h
o
w
n
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
2
%
of
g
r
o
s
s
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
)
23
8
,
7
6
2
Bu
d
g
e
t
e
d
g
r
a
n
t
m
o
n
e
y
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Us
e
o
f
g
r
a
n
t
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
fu
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
g
r
a
n
t
75
0
,
0
0
0
EM
S
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
f
e
e
s
Pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(O
r
d
3
7
0
6
)
83
8
,
0
1
6
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
e
e
s
Fe
e
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
th
o
s
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
R
C
W
8
2
.
0
2
.
0
2
0
)
1,
3
8
8
,
9
3
5
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
r
e
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
r
e
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
b
y
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
fu
n
d
s
(
f
o
r
i
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
,
t
h
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
f
u
n
d
s
)
25
,
0
8
6
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
r
m
i
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
o
t
h
e
r
f
u
n
d
s
7,
9
5
3
,
1
4
5
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
25,053,443 $
24
.
1
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
00
6
EM
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
/
F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
1,
9
2
7
,
6
0
0
-
-
Us
e
o
f
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
i
s
f
u
n
d
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
b
y
O
r
d
37
5
5
t
o
"
t
r
u
e
c
a
t
a
s
t
r
o
p
h
i
c
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
.
"
-
00
9
LE
O
F
F
-
M
E
D
I
C
A
L
I
N
S
.
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
32
0
,
6
5
6
60
0
,
5
5
0
55
0
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
Us
e
o
f
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
o
n
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
li
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
u
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
60
0
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
f
r
o
m
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
-
i
n
i
s
un
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
,
b
u
t
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
LE
O
F
F
1
r
e
t
i
r
e
e
p
e
n
s
i
o
n
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
60
0
,
5
5
0
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
20
1
2
B
u
d
g
e
t
Al
l
C
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
s
*
Page 1 of 7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
10
1
of
13
9
20
1
2
*
*
2
0
1
2
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
NET
FU
N
D
FU
N
D
BE
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
B
U
D
G
E
T
E
D
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
U
S
E
UNRESTRICTED
NO
.
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
F UN
D
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
SO
U
R
C
E
S
OF
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
REVENUE
01
0
PU
B
L
I
C
S
A
F
E
T
Y
E
M
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
RE
S
E
R
V
E
1,
3
3
8
,
1
7
8
2
,
2
0
0
-
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
2,200
10
4
DR
U
G
E
N
F
O
R
C
E
M
E
N
T
F
U
N
D
12
4
,
6
6
1
2
8
,
2
0
0
2
8
,
2
0
0
Pr
o
c
e
e
d
s
f
r
o
m
s
e
i
z
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
l
a
w
en
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
y
(
R
C
W
10
.
1
0
5
.
0
1
0
)
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
11
1
ST
R
E
E
T
F
U
N
D
33
3
,
2
5
1
1
,
3
1
3
,
6
5
0
70
0
,
0
0
0
Mo
t
o
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
f
u
e
l
t
a
x
e
s
Us
e
d
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
y
f
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
/
o
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
C
W
4
7
.
2
4
.
0
4
0
)
60
0
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
f
r
o
m
T
B
D
Us
e
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
(
R
C
W
3
6
.
7
3
.
0
1
5
,
RC
W
8
2
.
8
0
.
0
7
0
)
,
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
b
y
O
r
d
3
7
0
7
t
o
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
r
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
1,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
13,650
98
.
9
6
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
11
2
CO
M
B
I
N
E
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
CO
N
S
T
/
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
35
4
,
9
8
9
2
,
0
0
6
,
8
6
4
1,
4
9
1
,
0
6
7
Bu
d
g
e
t
e
d
g
r
a
n
t
m
o
n
e
y
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Us
e
o
f
g
r
a
n
t
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
fu
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
g
r
a
n
t
14
0
,
0
0
0
Mo
t
o
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
f
u
e
l
t
a
x
e
s
Us
e
d
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
y
f
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
/
o
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
R
C
W
4
7
.
2
4
.
0
4
0
)
35
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
s
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
f
o
r
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(
R
C
W
3
9
.
9
2
.
0
4
0
)
29
9
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
i
n
f
r
o
m
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
f
u
n
d
s
f
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
o
v
e
r
l
a
y
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
o
f
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
m
u
s
t
be
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
o
f
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
1,
9
6
5
,
0
6
7
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
41,797
97
.
9
2
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
11
3
MU
L
T
I
M
O
D
A
L
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
FD
.
55
,
8
5
9
-
-
Fu
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
i
s
t
h
e
u
n
e
x
p
e
n
d
e
d
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
$9
3
,
0
2
0
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
r
e
d
i
n
f
r
o
m
C
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
F
u
n
d
i
n
20
0
1
-
11
6
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
19
2
,
5
6
1
56
,
8
6
0
-
20
1
2
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
f
r
o
m
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
56,860
11
7
MU
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
A
R
T
S
A
C
Q
U
I
S
.
F
U
N
D
40
1
,
6
9
8
58
,
3
2
5
26
,
0
0
0
E ve
n
t
a
d
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
f
e
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
re
v
e
n
u
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
A
r
t
s
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
O
r
d
1
7
6
5
i
n
1
9
7
5
7,
0
0
0
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
/
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
Us
e
o
f
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
pu
r
p
o
s
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
d
o
n
o
r
(
s
)
Page 2 of 7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
10
2
of
13
9
20
1
2
*
*
2
0
1
2
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
NET
FU
N
D
FU
N
D
BE
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
B
U
D
G
E
T
E
D
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
U
S
E
UNRESTRICTED
NO
.
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
F UN
D
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
SO
U
R
C
E
S
OF
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
REVENUE
4,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
An
n
u
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
o
f
$
4
,
0
0
0
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
L
o
d
g
i
n
g
Ta
x
f
u
n
d
1,
5
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
o
f
$
1
,
5
0
0
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
R
E
E
T
1
2
5
f
u
n
d
fo
r
1
%
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
r
t
s
(
O
r
d
2
6
6
7
)
1,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
o
f
$
1
,
0
0
0
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
2
f
u
n
d
f
o
r
1
%
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
r
t
s
(
O
r
d
26
6
7
)
15
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
An
n
u
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
o
f
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
,
p
e
r
O
r
d
2
6
6
7
i
n
1
9
8
8
,
f
o
r
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
A
r
t
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
54
,
5
0
0
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
3,825
93
.
4
4
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
11
8
ME
M
O
R
I
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
T
R
E
E
17
,
6
4
6
2
8
2
8
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
Us
e
o
f
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
in
c
o
m
e
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
,
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
pu
r
p
o
s
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
d
o
n
o
r
(
s
)
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
12
0
HO
T
E
L
/
M
O
T
E
L
T
A
X
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
FU
N
D
83
,
0
4
7
6
9
,
2
0
0
6
9
,
2
0
0
Lo
d
g
i
n
g
t
a
x
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
o
f
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
p
a
y
i
n
g
"
a
l
l
o
r
p
a
r
t
o
f
th
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
"
(
R
C
W
67
.
2
8
.
1
8
1
5
)
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
12
1
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
E
R
M
I
T
FU
N
D
77
,
5
7
7
2
0
,
1
4
0
2
0
,
1
4
0
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
o
f
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
b
y
O
r
d
3
0
7
9
t
o
ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
12
2
YO
U
T
H
S
C
H
O
L
A
R
S
H
I
P
F
U
N
D
16
,
5
3
4
2
,
5
2
5
2
,
5
2
5
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
/
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
Us
e
o
f
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
pu
r
p
o
s
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
d
o
n
o
r
(
s
)
(
O
r
d
6
3
2
)
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
12
3
TO
U
R
I
S
M
P
R
O
M
O
T
I
O
N
A
L
FU
N
D
/
A
R
T
S
60
,
2
5
0
1
9
,
0
0
0
1,
5
0
0
Bu
d
g
e
t
e
d
g
r
a
n
t
m
o
n
e
y
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Us
e
o
f
g
r
a
n
t
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
fu
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
g
r
a
n
t
17
,
2
5
0
Lo
d
g
i
n
g
t
a
x
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
An
n
u
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
L
o
d
g
i
n
g
T
a
x
f
u
n
d
,
pe
r
O
r
d
6
3
0
,
o
f
2
5
%
o
f
l
o
d
g
i
n
g
t
a
x
m
o
n
i
e
s
18
,
7
5
0
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
250
98
.
6
8
%
Pe
rc
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
Page 3 of 7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
10
3
of
13
9
20
1
2
*
*
2
0
1
2
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
NET
FU
N
D
FU
N
D
BE
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
B
U
D
G
E
T
E
D
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
U
S
E
UNRESTRICTED
NO
.
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
F UN
D
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
SO
U
R
C
E
S
OF
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
REVENUE
12
5
PA
R
K
A
C
Q
/
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
27
9
,
6
0
4
5
9
0
,
8
5
0
5
9
0
,
8
5
0
RE
E
T
2
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
o
f
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
fo
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
i
n
a
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
(
R
C
W
8
2
.
4
6
.
0
3
5
)
,
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
li
m
i
t
e
d
b
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
p
o
l
i
c
y
t
o
P
a
r
k
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
fo
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
$
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
o
f
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
12
6
SP
E
C
I
A
L
C
A
P
I
T
A
L
F
U
N
D
17
0
,
1
4
2
5
9
0
,
8
0
0
5
9
0
,
8
0
0
RE
E
T
1
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
o
f
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
fo
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
i
n
a
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
(
R
C
W
8
2
.
4
6
.
0
1
0
)
,
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
li
m
i
t
e
d
b
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
p
o
l
i
c
y
f
o
r
"
e
x
c
e
s
s
"
m
o
n
e
y
t
o
Pa
r
k
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
12
7
GI
F
T
S
C
A
T
A
L
O
G
F
U
N
D
19
3
,
9
8
5
1
0
,
7
5
9
1
0
,
7
5
9
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
/
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
Us
e
o
f
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
pu
r
p
o
s
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
d
o
n
o
r
(
s
)
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
12
9
SP
E
C
I
A
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
F
U
N
D
3,
6
6
5
3
1
3
,
0
0
4
3
1
3
,
0
0
4
Bu
d
g
e
t
e
d
g
r
a
n
t
m
o
n
e
y
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Us
e
o
f
g
r
a
n
t
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
fu
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
g
r
a
n
t
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
13
0
CE
M
E
T
E
R
Y
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
/
I
M
P
R
O
V
85
,
7
1
4
1
1
9
,
8
5
0
15
0
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
Us
e
o
f
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
o
n
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
li
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
u
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
27
,
0
0
0
Re
s
a
l
e
i
t
e
m
s
Fu
n
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
t
e
r
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
(
O
r
d
2
3
0
6
)
92
,
7
0
0
Gr
a
v
e
s
a
l
e
s
Fu
n
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
t
e
r
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
(
O
r
d
2
3
0
6
)
11
9
,
8
5
0
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
13
2
PA
R
K
S
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
26
8
,
2
8
9
1
,
1
8
5
,
0
0
0
98
0
,
5
0
0
Bu
d
g
e
t
e
d
g
r
a
n
t
m
o
n
e
y
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
Us
e
o
f
g
r
a
n
t
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
fu
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
g
r
a
n
t
20
4
,
5
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
o
f
R
E
E
T
2
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
P
a
r
k
s
Ac
q
/
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
1
2
5
f
u
n
d
,
u
s
e
o
f
m
o
n
e
y
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
t
o
R
E
E
T
2
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
(
R
C
W
8
2
.
4
6
.
0
3
5
)
1,
1
8
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
rc
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
Page 4 of 7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
10
4
of
13
9
20
1
2
*
*
2
0
1
2
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
NET
FU
N
D
FU
N
D
BE
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
B
U
D
G
E
T
E
D
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
U
S
E
UNRESTRICTED
NO
.
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
F UN
D
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
SO
U
R
C
E
S
OF
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
REVENUE
13
6
PA
R
K
S
T
R
U
S
T
F
U
N
D
15
6
,
6
1
1
1
7
7
1
7
7
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
Us
e
o
f
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
in
c
o
m
e
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
,
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
pu
r
p
o
s
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
d
o
n
o
r
(
s
)
(
O
r
d
3
4
6
6
)
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
13
7
CE
M
E
T
E
R
Y
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
T
R
U
S
T
FD
80
1
,
0
7
9
1
4
,
6
0
0
1,
3
0
0
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
Us
e
o
f
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
o
n
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
li
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
u
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
3,
0
0
0
Re
s
a
l
e
i
t
e
m
s
10
%
o
f
c
e
m
e
t
e
r
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
to
o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
c
a
r
e
a
n
d
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
o
f
th
e
c
e
m
e
t
e
r
y
(
O
r
d
2
5
9
6
)
10
,
3
0
0
Gr
a
v
e
s
a
l
e
s
10
%
o
f
c
e
m
e
t
e
r
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
to
o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
c
a
r
e
a
n
d
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
o
f
th
e
c
e
m
e
t
e
r
y
(
O
r
d
2
5
9
6
)
14
,
6
0
0
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
13
8
SI
S
T
E
R
C
I
T
Y
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
10
,
2
6
1
5
,
2
3
0
5
,
2
3
0
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
/
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
Us
e
o
f
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
pu
r
p
o
s
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
d
o
n
o
r
(
s
)
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
21
1
LI
D
F
U
N
D
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
10
4
,
8
6
9
4
6
,
7
0
0
4
6
,
7
0
0
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
,
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
a
n
d
pe
n
a
l
t
y
Us
e
o
f
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
i
s
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
re
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
d
e
b
t
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
21
3
LI
D
G
U
A
R
A
N
T
Y
F
U
N
D
13
7
,
8
9
6
4
6
,
7
2
5
46
,
5
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
f
r
o
m
L
I
D
F
u
n
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
2
1
1
fu
n
d
,
u
s
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
L
I
D
b
o
n
d
s
22
5
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
Us
e
o
f
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
o
n
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
li
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
u
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
46
,
7
2
5
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
23
4
LT
G
O
B
O
N
D
D
E
B
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
F
U
N
D
-
4
7
8
,
5
7
3
41
0
,
4
9
3
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
P
F
D
f
o
r
re
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
0
2
L
T
G
O
b
o
n
d
s
,
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
th
a
t
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
b
o
n
d
co
v
e
n
a
n
t
s
68
,
0
8
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
I nt
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
f
r
o
m
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Fu
n
d
1
2
6
f
o
r
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
C
i
t
y
'
s
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
EC
A
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
47
8
,
5
7
3
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
Page 5 of 7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
10
5
of
13
9
20
1
2
*
*
2
0
1
2
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
NET
FU
N
D
FU
N
D
BE
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
B
U
D
G
E
T
E
D
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
U
S
E
UNRESTRICTED
NO
.
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
F UN
D
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
SO
U
R
C
E
S
OF
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
REVENUE
41
1
CO
M
B
I
N
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
5,
2
8
4
,
3
6
8
1
5
,
3
0
6
,
9
2
0
1
5
,
3
0
6
,
9
2
0
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
o
f
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
t
i
n
g
ut
i
l
i
t
y
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
41
2
CO
M
B
I
N
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
CO
N
S
T
/
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
*
*
*
13
,
5
3
8
,
8
8
2
7
,
8
8
8
,
4
0
0
7
,
8
8
8
,
4
0
0
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
o
f
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
t
i
n
g
ut
i
l
i
t
y
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
41
4
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
RE
S
E
R
V
E
23
4
,
5
7
5
1
,
1
2
6
,
3
7
7
1
,
1
2
6
,
3
7
7
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
Us
e
o
f
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
t
i
n
g
ut
i
l
i
t
y
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
51
1
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
R
E
N
T
A
L
F
U
N
D
4,
7
0
3
,
7
9
0
1
,
0
7
6
,
4
5
6
1,
0
0
0
Ga
r
a
g
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
p
a
y
f
o
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
n
t
a
l
f
u
n
d
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
fu
n
d
s
(
E
M
C
3
.
0
5
)
20
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
s
a
l
e
s
a
n
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
p
a
y
f
o
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
n
t
a
l
f
u
n
d
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
fu
n
d
s
(
E
M
C
3
.
0
5
)
7,
0
0
0
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
Us
e
o
f
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
o
n
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
li
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
u
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
1,
0
4
8
,
4
5
6
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
i
n
c
o
m
e
Re
v
e
n
u
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
i
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
p
a
y
f
o
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
n
t
a
l
f
u
n
d
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
fu
n
d
s
(
E
M
C
3
.
0
5
)
1,
0
7
6
,
4
5
6
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
61
7
FI
R
E
M
E
N
'
S
P
E
N
S
I
O
N
F
U
N
D
21
3
,
2
1
0
9
4
,
4
2
3
46
,
0
0
0
Fi
r
e
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
p
r
e
m
i
u
m
t
a
x
e
s
Ta
x
e
s
a
r
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
u
s
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
e
m
e
n
'
s
p
e
n
s
i
o
n
fu
n
d
(
R
C
W
4
1
.
1
8
)
40
0
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
Us
e
o
f
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
o
n
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
i
s
li
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
u
s
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
48
,
0
2
3
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
f
r
o
m
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
-
i
n
i
s
un
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
,
b
u
t
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
p
r
e
-
LE
O
F
F
1
r
e
t
i
r
e
e
p
e
n
s
i
o
n
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
94
,
4
2
3
To
t
a
l
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
-
10
0
.
0
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
63
1
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
B
E
N
E
F
I
T
D IS
T
R
I
C
T
-
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
60
0
,
0
0
0
An
n
u
a
l
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
f
e
e
Us
e
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
(
R
C
W
3
6
.
7
3
.
0
1
5
,
RC
W
8
2
.
8
0
.
0
7
0
,
O
r
d
3
7
0
7
)
To
t
a
l
s
35
,
0
1
7
,
7
8
0
$
66
,
6
7
8
,
9
7
4
$
41
,
5
0
6
,
9
4
9
$
25,172,025 $
62
.
2
5
%
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
u
n
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
37.75%Page 6 of 7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
10
6
of
13
9
20
1
2
*
*
2
0
1
2
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
NET
FU
N
D
FU
N
D
BE
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
B
U
D
G
E
T
E
D
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
RE
S
T
R
I
C
T
E
D
U
S
E
UNRESTRICTED
NO
.
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
F UN
D
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
SO
U
R
C
E
S
OF
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
REVENUE
*
N
o
t
e
:
A
l
l
f
u
n
d
s
e
x
c
e
p
t
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
h
a
v
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
s
o
m
e
k
i
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
m
o
n
e
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
f
u
n
d
.
**
2
0
1
2
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
s
a
r
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
u
n
a
u
d
i
t
e
d
.
**
*
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
$
1
1
.
7
M
f
r
o
m
b
o
n
d
s
i
s
s
u
e
d
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
.
Page 7 of 7
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
10
7
of
13
9
AM-4640 9.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/03/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Review Committee: Planning/Parks/Public Works Committee Action: Recommend
Review by
Full Council
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek
Watershed Forum.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement with Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum.
Previous Council Action
On July 1, 2008, and September 7, 2010, Council approved a similar Interlocal Agreement (ILA) to be
implemented by the appointed City representative to the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed
Forum. Both of these ILAs were one year agreements. The ILA approved in 2010 for calendar year 2011
included funding for a Federal lobbyist approved by Edmonds City Council.
On January 23, 2012, Council approved a version of this ILA that did not include the $10,000
contribution toward the Forum’s Federal Lobbying efforts.
On March 13, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee recommended full Council review
of this item at the April 3, 2012 Council meeting.
Narrative
Since the last time Staff addressed this issue there have been some developments that have changed our
recommendation regarding funding the Federal lobbyist. Initially, the lobbying dollars were going to
focus on placing two Forum projects to the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) bill. Staff did
not feel this was good use of these funds. Additional information from our Congressional delegation
indicates a possible reform of the WRDA process that would make it easier for Forum projects to get
funded.
Secondly, by being the “squeaky wheel” in Congress, the Forum’s capital improvement projects will
likely benefit in the long term. The lobbying work funded by this ILA would build on work that began in
2011 with our federal delegation (Cantwell, Murray and McDermott). The Forum has a list of capital
improvement projects that not only address flooding, but also improve water quality and aquatic habitat in
Lake Ballinger that will benefit Edmonds’ residents. These are expensive long-term projects that can only
be done with help from the Federal level. Lastly, Congress is generally more inclined to fund projects that
Packet Page 108 of 139
are multijurisdictional and show unity of purpose. By lobbying Congress with a unified front, the chances
of successfully obtaining funding are generally greater.
This version of the ILA has been approved by the City Councils of Mountlake Terrace and Lake Forest
Park. The Cities of Shoreline and Lynnwood have chosen not to participate in this ILA. Snohomish
County is in the process of evaluating its participation in the ILA.
Fiscal Impact
Staff has budgeted $102,000 for Lake Ballinger Associated projects in 2012 from the Stormwater Utility
Fund. There is sufficient funding in this line item to fund the administrative and lobbying costs in 2012.
As written, this ILA commits the City of Edmonds to $1,600 per year for administrative cost to the Forum
and $10,000 for Forum Federal lobbying support. This amount, however, assumes three jurisdictions
would participate (Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Lake Forest Park). If Snohomish County chooses to
participate, the costs could drop, depending on how much Snohomish County is willing to pay. Since this
ILA extends through 2013 and Edmonds does not, yet, have a Council-approved 2013 budget, the ILA
has the following language in Section 6.2:“…the financial obligations of each Member Jurisdiction to
fund this Agreement after December 31, 2011 are contingent upon local legislative appropriation of
necessary funds in future fiscal years…”.
Attachments
Attachment 1-Interlocal Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 03/29/2012 11:08 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 03/29/2012 02:02 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2012 03:04 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/30/2012 07:35 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2012 08:14 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 03/14/2012
Final Approval Date: 03/30/2012
Packet Page 109 of 139
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
0
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
1
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
2
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
3
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
4
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
5
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
6
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
7
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
8
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
1
9
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
0
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
1
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
2
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
3
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
4
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
5
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
6
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
7
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
8
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
9
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
0
o
f
1
3
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
1
o
f
1
3
9
AM-4682 10.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:04/03/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Review Committee: Planning/Parks/Public Works Committee Action: Recommend
Review by
Full Council
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed ordinance amending the provisions of ECDC 18.00.050 for apprenticeship participation on City
construction contracts.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve ordinance.
Previous Council Action
On September 13, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed a proposed ordinance to implement
apprenticeship participation on City construction contracts.
On September 20, 2011, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 3854 setting requirements for
apprenticeship participation on City construction projects.
On March 13, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee recommended this item be
presented to the City Council for review and action.
Narrative
In September 2011, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 3854 to add apprenticeship requirements
on City construction projects estimated to cost $250,000 or more. Over the last several months, staff has
been working to implement apprenticeship requirements in the City's bid documents. The process has
included the review of policies and procedures of other public agencies.
Based on this review and discussions with the Public Works, Planning and Parks Committee, staff is
recommending the following changes to the apprenticeship provisions on public works construction
contracts:
1. Increase the threshold and apply apprenticeship requirements to public works construction contracts
that cost more than the dollar amount threshold for Small Works Construction Contracts (currently
$300,000).
2. Require an Apprenticeship Utilization Plan from the Contractor after the contract has been awarded.
Packet Page 132 of 139
3. Require a monthly Apprenticeship Utilization Report for tracking purposes.
4. Correction to paragraph 4 "Failure to Meet Utilization Goal" under Section 1(B).
An additional recommendation from staff is to include a provision that prevents this ordinance from being
in conflict with state or federal grant requirements. The new provision is listed as paragraph 6 "Grant
Funding" under Section 1(B).
Attachment 1 is a redlined copy of the proposed ordinance showing the recommended changes.
Attachments
Proposed Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 03/29/2012 01:28 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 03/29/2012 02:02 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2012 03:04 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/30/2012 07:31 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2012 08:14 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 03/28/2012 03:56 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/30/2012
Packet Page 133 of 139
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF
ECDC 18.00.050 TO REVISE THE ESTIMATED PROJECT
COST THRESHOLD FOR APPRENTICE UTILIZATION; TO
REVISE THE TIMING OF THE SUBMITTAL OF THE
APPRENTICESHIP UTILIZATION FORM AND THE
INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED ON THE REQUIRED
FORMS; TO CLARIFY THE INTENT OF THE FAILURE TO
MEET UTILIZATION GOAL REQUIREMENTS; TO ADDRESS
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH STATE OR FEDERAL LAW;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, ECDC 18.00.050 currently requires the use of apprentices on public
works construction projects with an estimated cost of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars
($250,000) or more;
WHEREAS, the City has determined that apprenticeship utilization requirements
are more appropriate for public works construction projects that are estimated to cost more than
the $300,000 dollar amount threshold for small works roster contracts, as that amount is
currently set forth in RCW 39.04.155;
WHEREAS, ECDC 18.00.050(B)(3) currently requires that an Apprenticeship
Utilization Form, which identifies the intended usage of apprentices by the contractor and any
subcontractors, be completed by contractors when submitting their bid documents;
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is more appropriate for an Apprentice
Utilization Plan form to be submitted by the successful bidder after the contract award has been
made;
WHEREAS, ECDC 18.00.050(B)(3) currently requires that the Apprenticeship
Utilization Form include the identification of individual apprentices by name and Washington
Packet Page 134 of 139
State Apprenticeship registration number, an estimate of the total number of apprentice labor
hours, and the identification of apprentice hours to be worked by minorities, women, persons
with disabilities and disadvantaged youth;
WHEREAS, the City has determined that, rather than providing this information
at the beginning of the public works project, it is more appropriate to include this information in
the Monthly Apprentice Utilization Report, to be submitted by the contractor at the conclusion of
the project;
WHEREAS, the City wishes to clarify the intent of the Failure to Meet Utilization
Goal requirement of this section, as set forth in ECDC 18.00.050(B)(4); and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to clarify that the provisions of this ordinance shall
not apply to the extent that they are deemed to be in conflict with state or federal grant funding
requirements; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 18.00.050 of the ECDC Apprentice Requirements
18.00.050 Apprentice Requirements.
is hereby
amended to read as follows (deleted language in strike through and new language underlined):
This section is intended to supplement, and to be followed in conjunction with, the City
of Edmonds Purchasing Policies and Procedures, dated January 201209, or as amended.
A. Definitions.
1. “Apprentice” means an apprentice enrolled in a state-approved apprenticeship training
program.
2. “Contractor” means a person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or
joint venture entering into a contract with the city to construct a public work.
3. “Labor hours” refers to the total number of hours worked by workers receiving an
hourly wage who are directly employed on the site of the public work and who are
subject to state or federal prevailing wage requirements. “Labor hours” shall also include
Packet Page 135 of 139
hours worked by workers employed by subcontractors on the site of the public work, and
shall include additional hours worked as a result of a contract or project adjustment or
pursuant to an agreed-upon change order.
4. “Estimated cost” means the anticipated cost of a public work, as determined by the
city, based upon the expected costs of materials, supplies, equipment, and labor, but
excluding taxes and contingency funds.
5. “Public work” refers to all city funded construction projects that constitute a public
work pursuant to RCW 39.04.010 as now or hereafter amended and estimated to cost
$25300,000 or more.
6. “State-approved apprenticeship training program” means an apprenticeship program
approved or recognized by the Washington State Apprenticeship and Training Council.
7. “Subcontractor” means a person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or
joint venture that has contracted with the contractor to perform all or part of the work to
construct a public work by a contractor.
B. Apprentice Utilization. Apprentices shall be utilized for the construction
of public works by contractors and subcontractors in accordance with this section.
1. Apprenticeship Utilization Program Goal. For public works contracts with an
estimated cost of $25300,000 or more, the director of public works, or his
designee, is authorized to require that up to 15 percent of the contract labor hours,
including contractor and subcontractor hours, be performed by apprentices.
2. Contract Requirements. Contract documents for such public works construction
projects shall include provisions detailing the apprentice labor requirements.
3. Monitoring. The city will include make available an aApprenticeship
uUtilization Plan form for contractors to complete when submitting their bid
documents, which identifies the intended usage of apprentices by the contractor
and any subcontractors. This document is to be submitted by the successful bidder
after the contract has been awarded. will require the identification of individual
apprentices by name and Washington State apprenticeship registration number, an
estimate of the total apprentice labor hours, and the identification of apprentice
hours to be worked by minorities, women, persons with disabilities and
disadvantaged youth. This provision is not intended and shall not be used to
discriminate against any applicant for training. In addition, the city will require
periodic reporting on apprentice utilization, to include the submittal of ana
Monthly aApprenticeship Utilization Reportverification form by the contractor at
the conclusion of the public works project that will identify the actual work
Packet Page 136 of 139
performed by apprentices for the contractor and subcontractors on a monthly
basis. Required reporting will include the identification of individual apprentices
by name and Washington State apprenticeship registration number, the total
apprentice labor hours worked, and identification of apprentice hours worked by
minorities, women, persons with disabilities and disadvantaged youth. This
provision is not intended and shall not be used to discriminate against any
applicant for training.
4. Failure to Meet Utilization Goal. Failure by a contractor to comply with
established apprenticeship requirements, unless otherwise adjusted or waived in
writing as set forth below, shall be deemed a breach of contract for which the city
shall be entitled to all remedies allowed by law under the contract. Failure to
comply with the apprenticeship requirements may also be considered evidence
bearing on a contractor’s qualification for award of future contracts with the city.
(Note: Some jurisdictions require an assessment of $1.00 to $10.00 per hour for
each hour the contractor fails to meet the utilization goal instead of a breach of
contract provision.)
5. Adjustment and Waiver. The director of public works, or his designee, may
adjust or waive the requirements of this section for a specific project at any time
for the following reasons:
a. The demonstrated lack of availability of apprentices in specific geographic
areas;
b. A disproportionately high ratio of material costs to labor hours, which does
not make feasible the required minimum levels of apprentice participation;
c. The reasonable and necessary requirements of the contract render apprentice
utilization infeasible at the required levels;
d. In order to meet the requirement, the contractor will be forced to displace
members of its workforce;
e. The participating contractor has demonstrated a good faith effort to comply
with the requirements of this section; and/or
f. Other criteria deemed appropriate that are not inconsistent with the purpose
and goals of this section. [Ord. 3854 § 1, 2011].
6. Grant Funding. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to the extent
they are deemed to be in conflict with state or federal grant funding requirements.
Packet Page 137 of 139
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
APPROVED:
. 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.
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
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 138 of 139
6
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2012, the City Council of the City of
Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said
ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF
ECDC 18.00.050 TO REVISE THE ESTIMATED
PROJECT COST THRESHOLD FOR APPRENTICE
UTILIZATION; TO REVISE THE TIMING OF THE
SUBMITTAL OF THE APPRENTICESHIP
UTILIZATION FORM AND THE INFORMATION TO
BE PROVIDED ON THE REQUIRED FORMS; TO
CLARIFY THE INTENT OF THE FAILURE TO MEET
UTILIZATION GOAL REQUIREMENTS; TO ADDRESS
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH STATE OR FEDERAL
LAW; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2012.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 139 of 139