2012.05.22 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2012
5:30 p.m. - Reception in honor of Councilmember Michael Plunkett.
6:30 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B.AM-4849 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2012.
C.AM-4844 Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #51350 through #51364 for $438,950.90
and benefit checks #51365 through #51372 & wire payments for $188,234.95 for the
period May 1, 2012 through May 15, 2012.
D.AM-4838 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Rick Colgan ($1,081.53).
E.AM-4839 Resolution thanking Councilman Michael Plunkett for His Service to the Edmonds City
Council.
F.AM-4841 Resolution on Food Service Ware
3.(10 Minutes)
AM-4840
Presentation of Resolution and Plaque to Councilman Michael Plunkett.
4.(5 Minutes)
AM-4846
Proclamation in Honor of Edmonds Public Works Week May 28, 2012 through June 1,
2012
Packet Page 1 of 155
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings .
6.(2 Hours)
AM-4845
Edmonds Strategic Plan and Visioning Retreat #5 (City Council, Planning Board and
Economic Development Commission)
7.(15 Minutes)
AM-4848
Authorization for Mayor to sign Proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with
Parametrix for design services on the Main St. (5th Ave - 6th Ave) Improvement Project.
8.(10 Minutes)
AM-4847
2012 First Quarter Financials
9.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
10.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 155
AM-4849 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:05/22/2012
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 May 15, 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
05-15-12 Draft Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 05/17/2012 04:40 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/18/2012 08:55 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 05/17/2012 02:23 PM
Final Approval Date: 05/18/2012
Packet Page 3 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
May 15, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:31 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
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Alex Springer, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carl Nelson, CIO
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. 1
Kernen Lien, Associate Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Training Related to Closed Record Review Procedures
Mayor Earling explained this agenda item had been added because several Councilmembers have never
participated in a closed record proceeding. Attorney Carol Morris, who will be representing the City
Council tonight regarding the closed record hearing, was invited to make a presentation to the Council
regarding closed record review procedures.
Councilmember Petso advised she would participate in this portion of the meeting with the other
appellants. She left the dais at 6:32 p.m.
Ms. Morris explained she has been a City Attorney for over 20 years and only represents cities and
municipalities. The information she will provide is part of a training session she gives to cities in the
insurance pool and she handles land use litigation for them. Because this training session is immediately
prior to a closed record hearing, she cautioned the Council not to ask questions that are specific to that
application.
She explained quasi-judicial land use applications include a public hearing and are applications where
Councilmembers act as judges. Rather than acting in a legislative capacity setting policy, in this instance
the Council is involved in the application of law to facts. Examples of quasi-judicial processes include
conditional use permits, variances, and preliminary plats. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies.
Quasi-judicial applications have deadlines for processing and can be appealed to Superior Court. If
appealed to Superior Court, there is a non-deferential review by a judge. In a non-deferential review, the
Packet Page 4 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 2
standards of review are not deferential to the City’s decision; there are specific standards of judicial
review. For instance, whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision or is the
decision clearly erroneous and a mistake has been made. Those are the standards a judge will use when
reviewing the decision to determine whether it should be reversed, modified or affirmed. Appeals to
Superior Court are based on the administrative record. Therefore it is very important tonight that the
proceedings conform to the standards. There is no testimony on an appeal to court; the administrative
record is forwarded to the court. The administrative record includes all the documents in the application
file to date in addition to transcripts of the hearings.
When an open record public hearing or closed record hearing occurs, at the outset of the meeting the
Mayor will ask Councilmembers/decision-makers whether they have any Appearance of Fairness, conflict
of interest or ex parte contacts to disclose. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires that the hearing
not only be fair but appear to be fair. Quasi-judicial hearings must be conducted so as to give the
appearance of fairness and impartiality. The courts have stated the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is
satisfied if a reasonably prudent and disinterested observer would conclude that all parties obtained a fair,
impartial and neutral hearing.
Next Ms. Morris described challenges under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. A decision-maker can
be challenged under the doctrine for pre-judgment concerning issues of fact about parties in a particular
case or partiality evincing a personal bias or personal prejudice which signifies an attitude for or against a
party as distinguished between issues of law or policy. The test is something a decision-maker asks
themselves, would a disinterested person having been apprised of the totality of my personal interest
involved in this matter be reasonably justified in thinking that partiality may exist. She clarified the test is
not whether the decision-maker thinks the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine has been violated, it is
whether someone else would be reasonably justified in thinking that partiality may exist. A person
making a challenge that expects the court to uphold a violation must show specific evidence of a
violation, not speculation. Prejudgment and bias are to be distinguished from ideological or policy
leanings of the decision-maker.
She explained ex parte contacts are communications that a decision-maker had with an opponent or
proponent of a project outside the public hearing. It does not include communications with staff unless the
staff is the proponent/opponent of a project. Any communications with the applicants, appellants,
opponents or proponents outside the public hearing constitute an ex parte contact. Decision-makers must
disclose ex-parte contacts at the outset of the hearing. The decision-maker describes the substance of the
communication and then the public is allowed to rebut that information. For example if a decision-maker
discloses they received a letter that is not part of the record, the opponents/proponents may want to see
the letter and have an opportunity to rebut the information in the letter prior to the public hearing. A
decision-maker who engages in prohibited ex parte communication can still participate in a decision as
long as he/she places on the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications.
With regard to conflict of interest, Ms. Morris explained a decision-maker to whom a private benefit may
come as a result of some public action should not be a participant in that action. The private benefit may
be direct or indirect and the possibility, not the actuality of a conflict of interest, should govern. A
decision-maker experiencing a conflict of interest should declare his/her interest publically and if a voting
member, abstain from voting on the matter. An example of a conflict of interest is someone who is an
employee of a developer and the developer is developing property and when the property is sold, the
developer will obtain substantial profit and perhaps the employee will also profit.
The courts have identified at least three types of bias that would prevent a decision-maker from
participating in a decision, 1) prejudgment concerning issues of fact about a party, 2) partiality evidencing
personal bias or personal prejudice, or 3) an interest whereby one stands to gain or lose by a decision. For
example if a decision-maker owns property located next door to property purchased by Costco and he/she
Packet Page 5 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 3
understands from their knowledge of other Costcos that there will be a substantial traffic problem as a
result of the new Costco. In that situation the decision-maker should step down and not participate
because it is likely they will have a bias with regard to that application.
Once a decision-maker has disqualified themselves under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, they must
leave the room. There have been allegations that when a Councilmember remains in the room after they
have disqualified themselves, perhaps they are giving signals to other Councilmembers with regard to
how to vote. In the event there is no quorum because so many Councilmembers have disqualified
themselves, the Councilmembers return, participate and vote to a decision. If that occurs, the decision
cannot be challenged on Appearance of Fairness grounds. The courts have held there needs to be a
decision at the local level; materials cannot simply be forwarded to the court for a final decision on an
application.
Ms. Morris explained there are no damages if a court finds there is a violation of the Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine, the court invalidates the decision and the hearing must be conducted again. She noted
that could be a substantial setback if there were continued hearings, there was a long process and a
number of attorneys were involved.
Ms. Morris reminded decision-makers a record is being kept of the proceedings and everything that is
said is being recorded and may need to be transcribed later. She cited the importance of being clear on the
record and being specific about locations on a map or identifying exhibits so the judge will know what is
being discussed. She cautioned against rustling papers, making jokes, having sidebar conversations with
other Councilmembers, or making offhand remarks.
Ms. Morris explained in a closed record hearing, no new evidence can be introduced. Parties giving oral
argument must reference the portion of the record they are discussing. If the Council chooses to modify or
overturn the hearing examiner’s decision on closed record appeal, it must be done based on evidence in
the record.
Ms. Morris explained occasionally during a close record hearing, the Council will be confronted with a
legal issue and may want to discuss it with the attorney but not during open session and does not hold an
executive session to ask a minor question. She suggested in that instance the Councilmember ask for a
break to ask a question of the attorney. She noted other than questions related to liability,
Councilmembers should feel free to ask questions of the attorney during the hearing. She encouraged the
Council to deliberate on the code and evidence in the record and to provide as much explanation as
possible. The Council’s final decision will include Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which have
standards of adequacy. The courts have held that the Council’s Findings and Conclusions are subject to
the same requirements of Findings of Fact drawn up by a trial court. Therefore findings must be
substantial, refer to the record whenever necessary and include the necessary legal analysis. Based on
deliberations, the attorney for the Council can draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions that are more
detailed than the wording of the motion. The City Council then has an opportunity to review the Findings
and Conclusions to ensure they are consistent with their decision prior to adoption.
With regard to the prevention of disputes and litigation on quasi-judicial applications, Ms. Morris
emphasized the importance of following the code. If the Council identifies a problem with the code
during the process, code amendments can be docketed for later and the Council follows the code as
written during the quasi-judicial process. A 21-day appeal period follows the Council’s adoption of
Findings of Fact and Conclusions. She cautioned Councilmembers not to talk to anyone about the matter
until the end of the appeal period.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if Appearance of Fairness issues arise with regard to matters unrelated to
the subject at hand such as campaign contributions. Ms. Morris answered campaign contributions can
Packet Page 6 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 4
certainly be disclosed but a person challenging on the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine would have to
show actual bias as a result of the campaign contribution. An example of a campaign contribution
violation would be a Council candidate advertised to everyone that he was running for City Council
because he opposed a particular development project and if he was on the Council he would deny it. He
was then elected to the Council and was prevented from participating due to prejudgment bias.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether campaign contributions should be disclosed. Ms. Morris
answered absolutely.
The training concluded at 6:55 p.m. Councilmember Petso returned to the dais.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:06 p.m. Prior to the flag salute, he asked
for a moment of silence for Planning Manager Rob Chave’s wife who passed away this morning.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested Item K be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 1, 2012.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 8, 2012.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #131860 THROUGH #132104 DATED MAY 10, 2012
FOR $809,823.07. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #51321
THROUGH #51349 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 16, 2012 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2012 FOR
$451,565.54 AND BENEFIT CHECKS & WIRE PAYMENTS OF $193,034.87 -
TOTALING $644,600.41.
E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DEBI HUMANN
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) AND LAURA PITTMAN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN RESOLUTION NO. 1275 DESIGNATING
AGENTS FOR PURPOSES OF OBTAINING EMERGENCY DISASTER ASSISTANCE
FUNDS.
G. AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE A PERMANENT EASEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITIES OF LYNNWOOD AND EDMONDS FOR N. TALBOT ROAD DRAINAGE
PROJECT.
H. AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT REVISION FOR
THE STELLA’S LANDING PROPERTY.
I. AUTHORIZATION TO SELL TWO (2) SURPLUS FORD CROWN VICTORIA PATROL
VEHICLES TO THE CITY OF TENINO, WASHINGTON.
Packet Page 7 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 5
J. DAWSON PLACE CHILD INTERVIEW SPECIALIST.
L. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3884 AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC)
8.48 AND ORDINANCE NO. 3885 AMENDING ECC 8.52 (PARKING).
M. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3886 - 2012 MAY BUDGET AMENDMENT
N. RESOLUTION NO. 1274 - THANKING ALEX SPRINGER FOR HIS SERVICE AS A
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE
ITEM K: TRANSFER OF MARINE 16 TO FIRE DISTRICT 1 (FD1)
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the value of Marine 16 and whether the City was compensated for
the transfer of the boat. Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless explained the boat was purchased via a federal
grant as a joint asset. The City had no expenditure for the boat when it was purchased. It was a dual
purpose vessel, available to police and fire. Marine 16 is the only piece of equipment that did not transfer
to FD1 when they took over fire services. There was no exchange of funds; the utilization of the boat will
remain the same but the maintenance costs will transfer to FD1.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the value of the boat. Assistant Chief Lawless answered the cost
when purchased was approximately $300,000. No research was done regarding its current value; the boat
will be transferred to FD1 the same as other fire equipment. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked
whether the boat could still be used for the benefit of Edmonds citizens. Assistant Chief Lawless agreed,
explaining via the parameters of the grant, the boat is a regional asset on call from Seattle to the border.
That remains the same and FD1 and the Edmonds Police Department will utilize it in the same manner
they do today.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT - MEMORIAL DAY EVENT
Dale Hoggins, Edmonds Cemetery Board, on behalf of the Cemetery Board, invited the public to attend
the 30th annual Memorial Day Ceremony on Monday, May 28 at 11:00 a.m. at the Edmonds Memorial
Cemetery and Columbarium to honor those who died while serving our country during time of war as
well as all veterans, current military personnel and their families. Army Specialist Joshua Martin, age 20,
Lynnwood, has been added to the list of Snohomish County military casualties since 9/11/2011. Army
PFC Bowe Bergdahl is still a POW. This year’s ceremony pays special recognition to the attack on Pearl
Harbor, December 7, 1941. This year’s special guest is Erwin Schmidt, longtime Snohomish County
resident and Pearl Harbor survivor.
Mr. Hoggins provided a reminder that this is an outdoor event, rain or shine. He encouraged attendees to
bring their own chairs and allow time to walk from parking outside the cemetery. American Sign
Language interpreters from Seattle Community College will be present. The cemetery is located at 820
15th Street SW, Edmonds. He invited anyone seeking additional information to contact him.
Mayor Earling thanked Mr. Hoggins for his continued service in organizing this event.
4. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE TO ALEX SPRINGER, STUDENT
REPRESENTATIVE.
Council President Peterson read a resolution commending Alex Springer for his service as Student
Representative on the City Council during the fall, winter and spring of 2011 and 2012. He presented
Packet Page 8 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 6
Student Representative Springer a clock and expressed his appreciation for his enthusiasm, his thoughtful
questions, and for engaging his peers in the strategic plan. He wished him the very best.
Student Representative Springer explained this fall he plans to attend Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts to study biological engineering. After graduating from college,
he hopes to continue his involvement in city government, hopefully as a City Councilmember.
5. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL POLICE WEEK, MAY 13-19, 2012.
Mayor Earling explained last night he and other Councilmembers attended the Police Department’s
annual awards ceremony. He then read a proclamation in honor of National Police Week, May 13-19,
2012 and presented the proclamation to Police Chief Al Compaan.
Chief Compaan thanked the Council for their support of the members of the Edmonds Police Department.
He commented that there was a wonderful turnout at last night’s awards ceremony to recognize
employees and members of the community who made special contributions to law enforcement during the
past year. Sergeant Karl Roth was named Officer of the Year for his contributions to traffic safety and
Domestic Violence Coordinator Kari Hovorka was awarded Civilian Employee of the Year. On behalf of
the men and women of the Edmonds Police Department, he thanked the City Council and the community
for their support.
Mayor Earling acknowledged a Police Officer and Police Explorer in the audience.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Bob Rinehart, Edmonds, announced the Jazz Connection on Saturday, May 26 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. with a jam session following at the Masonic Center. This event, hosted by the Edmonds Daybreakers
Rotary Club, has been held for over ten years. There is no admission charge for the Jazz Connection and
features very fine student musicians from high schools in this area and throughout the region. Big bands
play at the Masonic Center, jazz combos at the Edmonds Theater and jazz choral groups at the convention
center. He thanked the Hazel Miller Foundation for their support.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to the exploration of a Metropolitan Park District, recalling he raised
that issue in March 2002 and it had been brought up at least 3 times over the past 10 years. Next, he
announced a car show to benefit the food bank on July 14 at Top Foods.
7. MONTHLY GENERAL FUND UPDATE
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock explained the monthly General Fund update, is typically on the
Consent Agenda but was scheduled on the Council agenda to highlight changes to the reporting.
Beginning with the March General Fund update, information regarding department expenditures will be
included. The monthly and quarterly reports were discussed at the Finance Committee meeting and
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto as well as citizens provided input regarding the reports. He
welcomed the Council’s as well as citizens’ input regarding the content of the reports. The monthly
General Fund update, the quarterly reports as well as the annual reports will be available on the Finance
Department’s webpage.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Hunstock for the progressive work he has done. These reports
will assist citizens in seeing the General Fund in a very graphic way. The intent is to educate citizens
regarding how the General Fund operates and this is an example of a job well done.
Packet Page 9 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 7
8. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE MAIN ST.
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (5TH AVE TO 6TH AVE).
Public Works Director Phil Williams provided photographs of sidewalks on Main Street between 5th and
6th where sidewalk panels have been raised by the roots of the European Hornbeam trees creating
significant trip and safety hazards. The Main Street Improvement Project includes the following:
• 12-foot sidewalks replacing the existing 10-foot sidewalks
• Street lights (16 LED Sternbergs)
• 18 new street trees (14 Bohall Maples and 4 October Glory Maples)
• Mid-block pedestrian crossing (6-inch elevation)
• Relocation of overhead electrical utility service on the south side of Main
• Street pavement reconstruction
• Waterline replacement (1920’s cast iron)
• Stormwater improvements
• Artistic flower poles (4)
• Street furniture (bike rack, solid waste and benches)
Mr. Williams displayed a drawing showing tree locations, wider sidewalks, mid-block crossing, new
street lights and new trees. The locations of street trees have been negotiated with the property and
business owners. Parallel parking will remain on both sides. To limit impacts, the property/business
owners decided the best timing for the project would be after the summer festivals and to have it
completed prior to the start of the Christmas shopping season before Thanksgiving. That timing will be
efficient, cheaper and seems to meet the needs of adjacent property owners. A traffic control plan is
included in the bid package to route traffic around this block during construction.
Mr. Williams reviewed the project budget:
• Estimated total project cost: $1.6 million
o Includes approximately $259,000 in design
o Change order #1 (May 22 Council Agenda)
• Available funding: $1.56 million
o Federal grant: $725,000
o State CTED grant: $500,000
o Storm and water utility funding: $330,000
Mr. Williams reviewed the project schedule:
May: Finalize design documents
June: Advertise for construction bids
July: Council award
September 10 – November 16: Construction
Councilmember Bloom asked about the difference between the estimated cost and the available funding.
Mr. Williams explained the estimated cost is an engineer’s cost estimate. The actual cost is unknown until
bids are received. It is not uncommon for there to be a difference between available funds and the
projected cost estimate. He was hopeful bids would be lower than the cost estimate. There is one alternate
in the bid package for the infiltration part of the stormwater; the treatment could be done without
infiltration. That will allow the scope of the project to be reduced if bids are higher than available funds.
Councilmember Bloom asked the likelihood of discovering something unexpected and how cost overruns
would be covered. Mr. Williams answered the estimated project cost includes a 10% contingency. He
anticipated the scope of any surprises would be limited because there is reasonable geotechnical
information of what exists under the street and the utility locations. Surprises that could arise are weather-
related delays or voids under the sidewalk. The project includes a $10,000 allowance for voids under the
sidewalk.
Packet Page 10 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 8
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Williams to comment on the new change order policy. Mr.
Williams explained the City has a new change order policy whereby any significant changes in the project
that meet the threshold will be brought to Council Committee and then full Council for authorization. He
anticipated when the contract is awarded there will be a management reserve and if that becomes an issue,
it will be discussed with Council.
Student Representative Springer observed the project includes sharrows and asked whether there would
be pavement markings. Mr. Williams answered the sharrows will be marked with the standard MUTCD
formatted markings to accommodate bicycles and automobiles. Calming the traffic will make it a much
more comfortable experience for bicycles and automobiles on this block. Student Representative Springer
asked how impacts to the sidewalk from the new street trees will be avoided. Mr. Williams answered the
Bohall Maples are well behaved street trees and will be planted with root ball protectors to prevent
problems with the roots. The previous trees, European Hornbeam, have shallow roots and tend to lift
sidewalks.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE
MAIN STREET PROJECT.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he inserted the Main Street project in the budget five years ago but
had no idea how it would be funded. Staff told him to be patient, they would find the funds for the
project. This is a wonderful example of what staff is capable of accomplishing. This is the last piece of
downtown to be improved and completes the wider sidewalks and the great pedestrian look of Edmonds.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3883 - ADOPTING REVISED GENERAL
FACILITIES CHARGES FOR THE CITY'S WATER, SEWER AND STORM WATER UTILITIES
Council President Peterson explained this ordinance was passed 4-2 by the Council and the Mayor
exercised his veto power. The ordinance adjusts the general facilities charges for the City’s water, sewer
and stormwater utilities with a 50%/25%/25% implementation of the increase over three years.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3883, ADOPTING REVISED GENERAL
FACILITIES CHARGES FOR THE CITY'S WATER, SEWER AND STORM WATER
UTILITIES.
Council President Peterson advised overriding a veto requires a super majority vote of the Council (at
least five Councilmembers voting in favor).
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
10. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE APPLICANT HAS APPLIED
FOR A 27-LOT PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD)
AT 23700 104TH AVE W, PARCEL NUMBER 27033600304800. THE CITY OF EDMONDS
GRANTED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE 27-LOT PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRD IN
2007. THE APPROVAL WAS APPEALED AND THE APPELLATE COURT REMANDED THE
APPLICATIONS TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
DRAINAGE PLAN, PERIMETER BUFFER AND OPEN SPACE MATTERS. FOLLOWING A
PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER ON FEBRUARY 9, 2012, THE
HEARING EXAMINER GRANTED APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRD.
THE HEARING EXAMINER’S DECISION HAS BEEN APPEALED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A
CLOSED RECORD REVIEW. APPLICANT: BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, FILE
NO.: P-2007-17 AND PRD-2007-18 / APPEAL NOS.: APL20120001 – APL20120004.
APPELLANTS: LORA PETSO AND COLIN SOUTHCOTE-WANT (APL20120001); IRA
Packet Page 11 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 9
SHELTON AND KATHIE LEDGER (APL20120002); CLIFF SANDERLIN AND HEATHER
MARKS (APL20120003); DARLENE MILLER, RICHARD MILLER, CONSTANTINOS TAGIOS,
AND SOPHIA TAGIOS (APL20120004)
Councilmember Petso advised she will be participating as a citizen on this item. She left the Council dais
and joined the appellants at 7:52 p.m.
Mayor Earling described the format for the hearing, explaining there are three tables, one for the
appellants, one for the applicant and one for staff. City Attorney Jeff Taraday is seated with staff and will
represent the interest of the City. The Council hired an attorney with experience in this type of procedural
matters, Carol Morris, and she will advise the Council and Mayor.
Mayor Earling reviewed the proposed procedures for the closed record review. The purpose of the closed
record hearing is for the City Council to address an appeal of the hearing examiner’s conditional approval
decision on the Woodway Elementary preliminary plat PRD remand. He opened the closed record public
hearing.
Mayor Earling explained the City Clerk will keep a record of the proceedings. When permitted to speak,
speakers should begin by stating their name and address and speak clearly to ensure all parties are on
record. The hearing is not open to public testimony; this is a hearing on appeals filed by Lora Petso and
Colin Southcote-Want, Richard and Darlene Miller, Constantinos and Sophia Tagios, Cliff Sanderlin and
Heather Marks, and Ira Shelton and Kathie Ledger. The hearing is not an open record hearing and there
will be no opportunity during the closed record hearing for public testimony other than from those who
have participated at some point in the process. Oral argument from appellants and parties of record will be
taken. Parties of record include the applicant, any person who testified in the open record public hearing
on the application and any person who originally submitted written comments regarding the application at
the open record public hearing.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires that this hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance.
The hearing must be fair and also appear to be fair. He asked whether any member of the decision-making
body had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents on issues of this appeal outside the
public hearing process.
Councilmembers Plunkett, Yamamoto, Bloom and Fraley-Monillas and Council President Peterson had
no disclosures. Councilmember Buckshnis disclosed Ms. Petso called her twice on May 2, 2012 and left a
message regarding the selection of Carol Morris as an attorney. That morning Councilmember Buckshnis
had forwarded an email from Jeff Taraday to Councilmembers with Ms. Morris’ website. She later spoke
with Ms. Petso and it was determined it was okay that she knew the name of the attorney. Ms. Petso
began to talk about Ms. Morris’ employment history and Councilmember Buckshnis indicated she did not
want to talk about it.
Mayor Earling disclosed after he was elected when the matter was going to the hearing examiner, he
received an email from Mr. Sanderlin and the Millers asking what they should do. He informed them to
allow the hearing examiner to speak.
Mayor Earling asked whether any member of the Council had a conflict of interest or believed he/she
could not hear and consider this application in a fair and objective manner.
Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Bloom, Buckshnis, and Yamamoto and Council President Peterson
indicated they did not have any conflict of interest and could hear the matter in a fair and objective
manner. Councilmember Plunkett disclosed he had contributed to Ms. Petso’s campaigns several times.
She has run three times for office, one time against him. He received campaign contributions from Mr.
Packet Page 12 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 10
Sanderlin and Ms. Marks in at least three of his five campaigns. He believed he could hear the matter
fairly and impartially.
Mayor Earling disclosed Mr. Sanderlin endorsed him but he did not recall whether he contributed to his
campaign.
Councilmember Bloom disclosed Mr. Sanderlin and Ms. Marks contributed to her campaign and
doorbelled for her.
Councilmember Buckshnis disclosed Mr. Sanderlin and Ms. Marks contributed to her campaign.
Mayor Earling asked whether there were any objections to his or the participation of any Councilmember
as a decision-maker in this hearing.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented the presentation the Council had prior to the meeting was
appropriate. He displayed the agenda memo for this item, referring to the second paragraph that states
recommendation from the Mayor and Staff: uphold the hearing examiner’s decision. He stated this was
clearly prejudgment bias. He referred to the second page of the agenda memo that states on May 11, 2012
at 7:54 a.m. Mayor Earling reviewed and approved the agenda memo. Mr. Tupper requested Mayor
Earling recuse himself from this hearing and not participate.
Mayor Earling requested Ms. Morris’ input. Ms. Morris asked whether Mayor Earling made the
recommendation or whether it was a form statement. Mayor Earling responded it is a common practice
that the Mayor recommends along with staff many agenda items. If the record states that, that is what he
did although it was not necessarily with the intent of clouding his ability to participate in the hearing. Ms.
Morris asked whether he could remain impartial. Mayor Earling answered he could.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Tupper’s challenge. She pointed out Agenda Item 9 did not
include a recommendation from the Mayor and staff. She preferred this item had also not included a
recommendation because she agreed it created an appearance of prejudgment bias. She was also
concerned due to her and Mayor Earling’s involvement in the Growth Management Hearings Board
decision involving Mayor Earling, herself, the same property and similar issues. She believed that
decision creates a tremendous opportunity for information not in the 1,000 page record for this item to be
inadvertently used in the course of the hearing. She requested Mayor Earling recuse himself and allow
Council President Peterson to conduct the meeting.
Ms. Morris asked Mayor Earling to repeat his conclusion in the order issued in the Growth Management
Hearings Board decision and the statement he made with regard to Ms. Petso’s comments on his ability to
be impartial. Mayor Earling agreed the Growth Management Hearings Board decision was on the same
piece of property. The issue before the Hearings Board was the matter of jurisdiction of the three parties
and how the transfer of public property took place between the school district, Snohomish County and the
City, an issue dramatically different than those in the closed record hearing. Ms. Petso challenged his
participating in that hearing; her basis was that he had supported her opponent in the last election which
was true. However that did not cloud his ability to make an impartial judgment on the issue before the
Growth Management Hearings Board. Included in his response order to Ms. Petso, he pointed out in the
last meeting when both of them left the Council she had complimented him on his ability to be fair in his
deliberations. Ms. Morris read the comment made by Ms. Petso from the December 16, 2003 City
Council meeting minutes, that Councilmember Earling was a model Council President, fair, not
manipulative, not critical, just did a great job. Ms. Morris asked Mayor Earling whether he believed he
could be impartial in light of the issue Ms. Petso has raised. Mayor Earling answered yes.
Packet Page 13 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 11
Colin Southcoat-Want, Edmonds, referred to the presentation by Ms. Morris regarding the Appearance
of Fairness Doctrine, commenting this is clearly unfair. He was distraught by Ms. Morris’ asking Mayor
Earling leading questions. He referred to the Mayor’s recommendation in the agenda memo, uphold the
hearing examiner’s decision, and asked Mayor Earling to recuse himself.
Cliff Sanderlin, Edmonds, agreed with the previous statements requesting that Mayor Earling recuse
himself. He viewed this as an extension of the violation of their due process rights throughout this entire
procedure, dating back to when staff sent them a 100 page report containing very complex material and
expected them to digest it, formulate their position and return to a hearing within less than a week. He
stated having Ms. Morris in the room speaking was also a violation of their rights.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, challenged Mayor Earling’s participation. He stated it was obvious that any
reasonable person would say Mayor Earling’s mind had already been made up by the comment in the
agenda memo. He was concerned if the matter proceeded to court, Mayor Earling’s participation would
jeopardize the City’s position and increase the City’s liability. He requested Mayor Earling recuse himself
and allow Council President Peterson to conduct the hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he had attended the District Court meetings. He commented on the
appeal of hearing examiner decisions to the City Council.
Cliff Sanderlin, Edmonds, provided another reason for Mayor Earling to recuse himself and further
evidence of the violation of their due process rights, they were only told three hours before this hearing
about the format of the hearing and how much time they would have to speak. The applicants will only
have a total of 40 minutes to speak. Considering they spent $365 for each appeal, that is $36.50/minute
they are allowed to speak. Due to the short turnaround time, he believed Mayor Earling should not
participate in this process.
Mayor Earling declared a five minute recess. The meeting was reconvened at 8:22 p.m.
Mayor Earling explained he spoke with the attorney and the Council President during the recess and came
to the conclusion that he will step down. He explained most of the charges leveled against him are bogus.
In particular bringing up the Growth Management Hearings Board, Ms. Petso certainly knows that is a
separate issue decided on a completely different set of circumstances. The reason he was stepping down
was only on one issue, the common form he approves for any agenda item other than those that come
from the City Council. The agenda memo referenced by Ms. Petso that did not have a recommendation
from the Mayor and staff was an item that came from the City Council. The recommendation from the
Mayor and staff on agenda items is done numerous times for each Council agenda and in this instance
perhaps he should have thought it through before placing the item on the Council agenda. Because he did
that, it is a fair question to ask and he is willing to step down. The other charges leveled are absolutely
unfounded. He relayed that Ms. Morris did not believe the charges against him would be found
objectionable under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and in her view he could participate. To avoid
clouding the issue, he will step down.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess and left the dais at 8:28 p.m. Council President Peterson
reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
Council President Peterson explained in the interest of time, oral argument from the appellants, applicants
and parties of record would be limited to a total of 80 minutes. The Council’s jurisdiction in this closed
record hearing is to address the same issues as the hearing examiner, the drainage plan, the perimeter
buffer and open space. He proposed oral argument be divided as follows:
• Staff Presentation: 10 minutes
• Drainage: 20 minutes each for oral argument from the appellants and applicants
Packet Page 14 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 12
• Perimeter buffer: 10 minutes each for oral argument from the appellants and applicants
• Open space: 10 minutes each for oral argument from the appellants and applicants
• Parties of Record: 3 minutes each
Councilmembers did not object to the above timelines.
Staff Presentation
Associate Planner Kernen Lien explained this application has been through a long review process. The
application is for a 27-lot subdivision and Planned Residential Development (PRD). It was originally
applied for on February 28, 2007. An open record hearing was held on SEPA appeal, the subdivision and
PRD before the hearing examiner. Another hearing examiner hearing was held as well as a hearing
examiner remand to address the perimeter buffer. The hearing examiner’s decision was appealed to City
Council and the City Council heard a closed record review on this application in 2007. The City Council
upheld the hearing examiner’s decision and it was appealed to Superior Court and again to appellate court
who remanded the application back to the City to consider three items: storm drainage, perimeter buffer
and open space. On February 9, 2012 a public hearing was held before the hearing examiner on those
three remand items. That decision has been appealed to City Council.
With regard to storm drainage, Mr. Lien explained the previous storm drainage report was remanded for
two main reasons, 1) there appeared to be a misunderstanding of the infiltration rate used by the hearing
examiner related to vault sizing of the stormwater system, and 2) it was unclear who would be responsible
for maintenance of the storm drainage system. The previous infiltration had been designed with an
infiltration rate of 10 inches/hour. The proposed infiltration rate under the revised storm drainage report
has been designed using a more conservative 2.3 inches/hour infiltration rate based on new infiltration
tests including one at the proposed location of the infiltration vault. Staff found the preliminary design
infiltration parameters satisfies the appellate court’s recommendations for a proper designed infiltration
rate obtained from infiltration tests done at the site of the proposed facility. This method of determining
the infiltration rate meets or exceeds the standard to which the applicant is vested. Additional infiltration
tests at the proposed location of the vault will be required at the final design phase.
With regard to maintenance of the storm drainage system, Mr. Lien explained the standard practice for all
development is for the final drainage plan to include a commitment for proper maintenance by the
developer to the applicable drainage standards. A performance bond is placed on the stormwater system
requiring the developer to properly maintain the system for two years and the system will be inspected
annually. After the bonding period is complete, the system is inspected and if it meets the City’s
standards, the bond is released and maintenance of the facility is the responsibility of the property owners.
The final plat will have covenants, conditions and restrictions that will, 1) allow the City to regularly
inspect the stormwater management system, and 2) bind all the owners of the lots and their successors to
maintain the plat’s stormwater management system in accordance with the City’s maintenance standards.
To that end, the hearing examiner added the following specific conditions of approval:
4. The recorded documents shall include access easement on Tract C as identified in Exhibit 1 of
Attachment 2012-3 and/or all final locations of storm drainage facilities to the City of Edmonds
for the purpose of accessing and inspecting the storm drainage facility or facilities. The City shall
use enforcement actions as appropriate to ensure all necessary maintenance is completed in a
timely fashion.
5. The recording documents shall reflect the responsibility for long term maintenance of all
stormwater and open space facilities rests with the homeowners association and that each lot
owner within the plat is jointly and separately liable.
With regard to the perimeter buffer, Mr. Lien explained the perimeter buffer design is addressed in ECDC
20.35.050(c) and states the design of the perimeter buffer shall either comply with all the zoning criteria
Packet Page 15 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 13
applicable to the zone by providing same front, side and rear yard setbacks for all lots adjacent to the
perimeter of the development and/or provide a landscape buffer, open space or passive use recreation area
the depth from the exterior property line at least equal to the depth of the rear yard setback applicable to
the zone. On the original application, Burnstead requested reduced street and side setbacks on all
perimeter lots. Since they were requesting the reduced side setbacks, a perimeter buffer was required. The
appellate court found the proposed perimeter buffer non-compliant because it was only proposed on two
sides of the development; the court found a perimeter buffer should be on all sides and remanded the
perimeter buffer issue. On the remand application, Burnstead chose to apply standard RS-8 zoning
setbacks for all perimeter lots. Since the standard RS-8 zoning setback was applied, they complied with
ECDC 20.35.050(c)(1) and a perimeter buffer is not required.
With regard to open space, the parameters for open space are addressed in ECDC 20.35.050(b) which
requires at least 10% of gross lot area be set aside as open space. The subject property is 5.61 acres or
244,227 square feet; 24,423 square feet of open space must be provided. The proposal includes four open
space tracts, Tract A, C, E and F totaling 25,185 square feet of open space which meets the 10%
requirement. Mr. Lien identified the open space tracts on a map. On the original application, the perimeter
buffer was along one side that overlapped Tract A. The appellate court found the open space was not
compliant because ECDC 20.35.050(b) indicates the required landscape buffers cannot be counted toward
open space. Because the application at that time double counted the open space, the appellate court
remanded the open space. On remand, the applicant chose to apply standard RS-8 setbacks, thereby
eliminating the requirement for a perimeter buffer and eliminating the conflict of double counting the
open space.
Mr. Lien concluded staff feels the applicant has addressed the remand issues and recommended approval
to the hearing examiner. It was his recommendation that the hearing examiner’s decision be upheld that
the Mayor approved on the agenda memo.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the map, observing the size of Tract A is 4,913 square feet and
inquiring about the 37’ stated on the map. Lien responded the 37’ is measuring the length of the curve at
that location. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if open space must be contiguous or whether it could be in
separate tracts. Mr. Lien responded the code does not specifically state it must be contiguous open space.
He referenced ECDC 20.35.050(d), open space requirements, which states at least 10% of the gross lot
area and not less than 500 square feet shall be set aside for every PRD of 5 or more lots. All the proposed
open space tracts are at least 500 square feet.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it is common practice for a two year bond for drainage system
maintenance before it becomes the responsibility of the HOA. Mr. Lien answered yes. Councilmember
Buckshnis inquired about the change in the infiltration rate and asked if that was done after the first
remand. Mr. Lien answered the stormwater report that went through the appeal to Superior Court and
appellate court had the 10 inches/hour infiltration rate. The drainage report was redone as part of the
remand and included an infiltration rate of 2.3 inches/hour. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was a
common industry standard, noting that staff stated it meets or exceeds the standard. Mr. Lien stated yes.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the perimeter buffer, observing it was initially proposed
on two sides rather than on all sides. Mr. Lien referred to the plat map explaining the perimeter buffer was
originally only proposed on the west and south side. The layout of the lots and road, dimension of the
lots, everything is the same on the remand application and the original application. The only change is
that the standard RS-8 setbacks were applied to the exterior lots which eliminated the requirement for the
perimeter buffer.
Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Lien to explain what an impervious surface is. Mr. Lien read the
definition of impervious surface in the hearing examiner’s decision on page 23 of the record, condition of
Packet Page 16 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 14
approval #2, Impervious surface means a hard surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of
water into the soil mantle as it occurs under natural conditions prior to development, resulting in storm
water runoff from the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow compared to storm water
runoff characteristics under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces
include (but are not limited to) rooftops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas,
concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled macadam or other surface
that similarly impede the natural infiltration of storm water. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities
shall not be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for
application of minimum requirements are exceeded. However, open, uncovered retention/detention
facilities shall be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling. Outdoor swimming
pools shall be considered impervious surfaces in all situations.
Councilmember Bloom questioned impervious surface and the coverage issue, whether all impervious
surfaces are used to determine coverage. Stormwater Program Manager Jerry Shuster responded there is a
difference between lot coverage and impervious surface coverage. Mr. Lien explained the City does not
have a maximum impervious surface regulation. The zoning code has maximum coverage regulations
related to structures. His response to the appellant argument includes definitions for impervious surface.
He read from the current code, Impervious surface means a constructed hard surface area that either
prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil. Impervious surfaces include (but are not limited to)
rooftops, patios, storage areas, concrete, asphalt, brick, gravel, oiled, packed earthen or other surfaces that
similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. Coverage means the total ground coverage of all
buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or
from a point 2½ feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof whichever covers the greatest area.
He also provided the definition of structure, Structure means a combination of materials constructed and
erected permanent on the ground or has a permanent location on the ground. Not included are residential
fences less than 6 feet in height, retaining walls, rockeries, and similar improvements of minor character
less than 3 feet in height.
Mr. Lien explained the RS-8 zone has a maximum lot coverage of 35% related to structures. Impervious
surface includes all roofs versus coverage which measures 2½ feet in from the edge of the roof and
therefore does not include all impervious surface. A structure is something constructed and erected
permanently on the ground; the dictionary definition of erect is something in a vertical position.
Applicants are required to provide both the structural coverage calculation as well as the impervious
surface calculation and they are not the same.
Appellant - Drainage
Ms. Petso asked if there would be time allotted for rebuttal. Council President Peterson answered rebuttal
time was not included. There will be time at the end of the presentations for Council questions of staff,
the appellant and the applicant.
Ms. Petso commented that the plat, application, the process, everything has been so badly mangled that
she wanted to shoot it. She requested it be reversed and start over with modern drainage codes and
modern laws. There are a variety of due process violations, no SEPA, no ADB review, it is an illegal
rezone, and there are changes to the setbacks that are outside the scope of the remand. The staff
presentation did not mention that the setback on Lots 24 and 25 were also changed although there is no
possible relationship between that change and the three remand issues, drainage, perimeter buffer and
open space. She noted this hearing was restricted to those three issues yet the City and the applicant have
already violated that. The applicant also moved the side of two houses to within 10 feet of the sidewalk.
Ms. Petso commented there is no evidence that drainage is adequate as required by every applicable law.
SEPA requires no significant adverse environmental impacts. The state and local subdivision ordinances
require a subdivision not be approved unless there are adequate provisions for drainage. Even the PRD
Packet Page 17 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 15
ordinance has a drainage provision. The local subdivision ordinance has a provision that states the
proposal must minimize offsite impacts to drainage. They won at the Court of Appeals and the court said
drainage must be improved. Staff eliminated a condition that limited impervious surface to 35%; the new
hearing examiner replaced it with 3,000 square feet per lot which is approximately 49%. She summarized
the appellants lost ground by winning, going from 35% impervious surface on lots to nearly 50%.
Ms. Petso explained there is no evidence in the record that could be used to make a finding that drainage
is adequate. Staff provided documentation that this is a conservative approach but this neighborhood
already floods which would indicate an approach beyond conservative, a system that works, is needed.
Staff has said infiltration is feasible which is not that all water will be kept on site, only that theoretically
in this area some infiltration is possible. Part of the preliminary plat review is that they are required to
provide sufficient information for the Council to make its decision and cannot say it will be fixed later.
However, that is what has been done. For example, the overflow pipe is on 237th, the street she lives on in
Woodway Meadows. It does not show whether the overflow will flow into her neighborhood and flood in
the usual place or be routed to the drainage facility under Hickman Park. Staff was confused by this and
requested reconsideration of the hearing examiner decision for clarity. She stated the water cannot go
down 237th, that area already floods. Staff made the suggestion that the water be dumped into Hickman
Park but that also already floods during rains. She referred to photographs of standing water on the soccer
fields that overflows onto 237th.
Ms. Petso referred to a rough transcript of the February 9, 2012 hearing examiner on pages 910-912.
There was no testimony by staff or the applicant that the drainage system will work. AES’s representation
that it will work is wrong; AES specifically said do not use 2.3 inches/hour, only that 10 inches/hour was
wrong and more testing needed to be done.
Despite the order of the court of appeals stating that infiltration rate and safety factor was essential, the
evidence shows that a proper infiltration rate and safety factor have not been determined. The rate of 2.3
inches/hour has not been settled on. Ms. Petso referred to pages 182, 184, 167, and 840. The reason this
bothers the appellants is because the infiltration vault fills the entire available space. If further testing
indicates the infiltration rate should be 2.1 inches/hour, there is no space for a larger or deeper vault. She
pointed out the soil log indicates a depth of 6 feet for the vault, below that there is clay, heavy soils that
do not infiltrate.
The court of appeals stated that there needed to be adequate testing; in the record a single vault test to a
depth of 9 feet for a vault of this size, 140 feet long, is declared to be inadequate by the experts. She
referenced pages 97, 131, 132, 155 and 156. There is also no testing of point drains or dry wells, therefore
the applicant has not demonstrated adequate drainage which is stated on pages 180 and 182.
The applicant testified they wanted to test on each lot for a place for a local facility to take the burden off
the main facility. The lots are so small there is nowhere to place such a facility, they have not conducted
those tests and when the applicant said they would do it on the perimeter lots as well, staff said that made
no sense.
Ms. Petso further stated the maintenance of the storm facility is inadequate; it is dependent on the HOA,
no standards are specified in the plat or the City’s ordinances. A Public Works memo stated the
maintenance standards are stated in the modern version of the drainage code, leading her to assume
standards are not included in the previous version of the drainage code. The proposed vault is a type that
is difficult if not impossible to maintain. The vault needs to be shoveled out but OSHA defined space
regulations will not let a person enter a vault that is only 6 feet deep. The Southwest Edmonds Drainage
Basin Plan asks for heightened maintenance in this area, not difficult to maintain.
Packet Page 18 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 16
Ms. Petso concluded the applicant will likely state they can do it later. They cannot fix it later due to the
size constraints and on final plat approval the Council can only hold the applicant to what is in the
preliminary plat. If the preliminary plat states this vault is big enough, the Council will not be able to
make them have a larger vault. She pointed out the applicant stated she did not hire an expert. She did not
need an expert as she was using clear errors of staff and AES. She summarized she did not have an expert
for the other court appeals and both determined drainage was inadequate. The PRD ordinance also has a
requirement for minimizing impervious surfaces. Allowing impervious surfaces to go from 35% per lot to
50% was not minimizing impervious surfaces.
Constantinos Tagios, Edmonds, advised he was also representing Richard and Darlene Miller who are
out of town. Mr. Tagios explained he and the Millers have lived there for 32 years and they experience
flooding problems. When it rains, water is not absorbed into the ground, there is no percolation. He has a
drain system in his yard to take water out to 107th and the Burnstead property. It was unknown what will
happen when that area is graded and built on, whether water from that site will flow onto their property.
The Millers have a French ditch that goes to the Burnstead property. He questioned whether development
of the site would double their flooding problem and worried that eventually their houses will be flooded.
When it rains, it takes 5-6 days for the water to subside via evaporation rather than percolation. He
commented on top soil he and the Millers added to their yards, when it rains the only place the water has
to go is the drain pipes and French ditch. He asked what the City planned to do to remedy the problem
that would be created by the new development.
Ira Shelton, Edmonds, displayed a photograph of flooding at the corner of 237th Place SW and 104th
Avenue. Mr. Taraday advised this photograph is part of the appeal and is not part of the record. The
record for this hearing is the documentation the hearing examiner considered. The photograph was
submitted after the hearing examiner made her decision and therefore is not part of the record.
David Johnson, Livengood Fitzgerald and Alskog, representing Burnstead, also objected to
submission of the photograph.
Mr. Taraday explained this photograph would be new evidence because it was not submitted to the
hearing examiner. Under the closed record appeals chapter, no new testimony or other evidence will be
accepted by the City Council except new information required to rebut the substance of an ex parte
communication and relevant information that in the opinion of the City Council was improperly excluded
by the hearing body or officer. Unless this was offered to the hearing examiner and excluded which he did
not think it was, it should not be accepted by the City Council. Ms. Morris agreed the photograph cannot
be submitted as it is new evidence.
Mr. Shelton read the comments he and his wife submitted related to the hearing examiner’s decision and
provided information they gleaned from the massive document they were required to review. He
displayed the volume of documentation, commenting its size illustrated the amount of stress the
homeowners have been under for the past eight months. Their appeal to the hearing examiner included a
failure to correctly apply the PRD requirements including but not limited to the requirements related to
density. The Burnstead development appears to effectively constitute a rezoning of part of the
neighborhood rather than a PRD. He referred to the map of the proposed development, pointing out the
density of homes in the development is much greater than the density of homes in the surrounding area.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this was relevant to drainage. Mr. Shelton replied yes, density and
drainage are connected. He stated one of the things the appellants found most objectionable in the email
outlining the amount of time they would have was that the delineation of each topic area prevented them
from showing a connection between effects of the development on their lives. That is impossible because
some of the elements they objected to are connected and cannot be addressed as standalone realities.
Packet Page 19 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 17
Mr. Shelton continued, stating the density of the development is inconsistent with the surrounding
neighborhood, Sherwood School and the area south of Edmonds Way. Development is so tight that some
homes have shared driveways. He identified their home on the map, explaining three other homes will
border their property.
Mr. Shelton relayed another of their concerns, a lack of safety and efficient site access including but not
limited to traffic safety and fire safety. With regard to drainage, he referred to the geologist report that
examined the soil under the proposed plat. One of the geologist’s conclusions was the soil under the plat
is dense enough to support homes but not too dense to allow for percolation of water downward. He noted
it is obvious during times of rain that there is very little percolation and a lot of runoff. The assertion that
anything other than a robust system will work is preposterous. Even after Hickman Park was developed
with a very robust drainage system, there is still water overflowing into the street. They are uncomfortable
and angry with allowing the final parameters of the drainage system to be determined later.
Mr. Shelton pointed out the height of the northeast corner of the plat will be increased which he feared
will create much faster and more forceful drainage southward toward his property. He concluded they
have serious misgivings and doubts about the ability of the drainage system to work as currently
constituted. Another issue is the recommended vertical shafts drilled to the infiltration level will not be
done.
Council President Peterson advised the time for the appellant’s oral argument regarding drainage had
expired.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Ms. Petso’s indication that the applicant needs to prove drainage is
adequate. He asked what that was based on. Ms. Petso explained the state and local subdivision ordinance
require a Council not approve a subdivision unless it is shown that there is adequate provision for public
services including drainage. The Council also has to find that the proposed subdivision would be in the
public interest. The applicant has not provided any basis to make a finding.
Councilmember Plunkett noted adequate provision is not the same as proof. Ms. Petso summarized there
is no evidence at all that the drainage will be adequate. There is evidence they want to study it later.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked who AES is. Mr. Johnston answered it is Associated Earth
Sciences. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how vaults are maintained. Mr. Shuster answered there
are various kinds of vaults; detention vaults hold water and the water flows out into a pipe system. This is
an infiltration vault which is basically an open bottom vault; stormwater enters the vault and infiltrates
into the ground. The most important maintenance provision for an infiltration vault is not the vault itself
but ensuring there is something upstream of the vault to catch soils and solids so that they do not enter the
vault and take up space.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how to test for drainage. Mr. Shuster answered soils are tested at
the level of soil where the water will be injected. A test is done by digging down to find the layer of soil
that can take water, pouring water into it and measuring how fast it infiltrates. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas asked if that is done in one place or multiple places. Mr. Shuster replied it depends on the size of
the facility. The applicable standards have guidelines regarding the number of test holes based on the size
of the facility.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Ms. Petso’s indication that the applicant used outdated drainage
codes, the 1992 Stormwater Management Manual for Puget Sound Basin Department of Ecology. She
asked if Ms. Petso felt that was inadequate. Ms. Petso answered yes; the 1992 Stormwater Manual allows
the assumption that the vault is empty when a storm hits which is fairly rare in this climate. The
application was apparently completed in time for the 1992 Stormwater Manual to be applicable. The
Packet Page 20 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 18
record reflects her challenge of a “mix and match hodgepodge” being a violation of the Vested Right
Doctrine. The City has used a variety of manuals rather than as required under the Vested Rights
Doctrine, if the application is vested under the 1992 Stormwater Manual, the City should use that manual
throughout. The City’s response has been that would be totally inadequate. In her opinion that has led to a
procedural nightmare because the application is vested under the 1992 drainage code. Councilmember
Buckshnis summarized Ms. Petso’s position was that the 2005 King County Surface Water Design
Manual could be utilized for the infiltration rate. Ms. Petso answered that was her position; the hearing
examiner disagreed.
Applicant - Drainage
Mr. Johnston explained staff has addressed the issue of drainage in a thoughtful manner. The other
changes Burnstead made to the plat in order to meet City code were made because this has been a
uniquely frustrating land use experience. Burnstead Construction has been in business for 50 years and
has an excellent reputation. Burnstead is not a developer that comes into a community and builds in an
unethical manner or does not fulfill its obligations. This litigation has been underway since March 2007 at
considerable cost to Burnstead as well as the City in attorney’s fees and staff time.
Mr. Johnston referred to the importance of the rule of law and that the Council, acting in the capacity of
judges, understand what the code provides for and that Burnstead has the right to develop their property if
they meet code. The standard of review is very important; the standard of review in this case is the
Council would have to find that the hearing examiner’s decision was clearly erroneous given the record.
The definition of clearly erroneous is the Council has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed. The hearing examiner was very thorough and thoughtful in her decision. City staff
supported that decision with the analysis that is required, not in an emotional way that deals with personal
experiences but in an objective way. The hearing examiner echoed staff’s recommendation, not because
of prejudice but that was what the code provides for and Burnstead changed the plat to address the
remand issues.
To Ms. Petso’s statement that there is no evidence, Mr. Johnston pointed out the experts in stormwater
drainage have concluded that this project meets City code. There was a review by City staff in
conjunction with Burnstead’s consultants. Anecdotal stories of flooding do not hold the weight of experts
and do not meet the standard of clearly erroneous, that the hearing examiner clearly was wrong in relying
on expert opinions from drainage experts versus anecdotal stories from neighbors who obviously do not
want development next to them. The preliminary plat provides for maintenance of that system. There will
be a performance bond for two years and covenants, conditions and restrictions as well as easements. The
City has the mechanism to enforce maintenance requirements.
Mr. Johnston emphasized this is preliminary plat approval, not final engineering. There is a great deal of
work to be done; details regarding the final plat and how drainage is ultimately addressed will come later.
The Council must consider the preliminary plat requirements, not sweeping statements that none of the
issues have been addressed and will not be addressed later.
Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead, commented it has been a long few years. She assured they were concerned
about neighbors but it is difficult when Burnstead has spent this amount of time following the code.
Burnstead agrees with staff’s recommendation and has put an extensive amount of research and expertise
behind their review. They are concerned about the neighboring properties and that is the reason for the
extensive amount of work they have done to ensure they are protected and that Burnstead does what the
code requires.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Ms. Petso’s assertion that the drainage is inadequate and Burnstead’s
assertion that drainage meets the standards for preliminary plat. He asked the standard for preliminary
plat. Rob Long, Project Drainage Engineer, Blue Land Group, representing Burnstead, explained
Packet Page 21 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 19
the level of design and detail on this project is beyond the standard typically done in preliminary design.
They have done extensive analysis of soils, infiltration rate design and sizing. They typically, and as has
been done for this project, do storm modeling to size the drainage facility and ensure areas are identified
within the proposed development to handle the storm facilities. Details such as exact elevations and the
size of the control structure are typically worked out at the final engineering level. For this project they
have designed the facility to the 1000th of an inch of staged storage. The drainage analysis was originally
done at 10 inches/hour and has been revised to 2.3 inches/hour to provide safety factors recommended by
the soils engineer and geotech. They used a conservative approach; the design also includes flow from an
area to the north and the system has been sized to accept and infiltrate that.
Mr. Long explained the standard they are designing to is a 100 year storm event in accordance with the
1992 DOE manual. They also added a correction factor that the manual recommends of 29% to account
for back-to-back storms and anomalies per recommendations in the manual. Other conservative
approaches included in the preliminary sizing are they did not take credit for individual dry wells that will
be designed and installed at final engineering. Those are smaller infiltration systems that will be placed on
each individual lot. The sizing assumes all runoff from the lots goes to the vault.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the standard for drainage for preliminary plat and what has Burnstead
done above and beyond the standard. Mr. Long answered per RCW the standard for preliminary plat is a
neat and approximate drawing. There is criteria for designing storm drainage for a 2-year, 10-year and
100-year storms. They designed the system to fully infiltrate a 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm as well
as included the safety factors as recommended by the 1992 DOE manual. Councilmember Plunkett asked
if the manual is the standard for preliminary plat. Mr. Long answered the manual states the criteria.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the requirement is a neat drawing and a certain year storm. Burnstead
has designed the system to meet those storm criteria. Mr. Long answered yes. Councilmember Plunkett
asked the minimum that must be met. Mr. Long explained the code outlines the criteria of the drainage
system design, matching 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events. The City code allows a site to be
developed and the drainage to be released from the site at the existing conditions in a 2-year, 10-year and
100-year storm. Their design proposes not to release anything from the site in a 2-year, 10-year and 100-
year storm. Councilmember Plunkett summarized the appellant contends the drainage is inadequate and
that the applicant cannot prove it is adequate but the applicant indicates the site will release nothing in a
storm event.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether the three remand items were at code or did they require
revision. Ms. Brown answered everything was designed to code the way it was interpreted by staff and by
the applicant. It was also to code based on the Development Services Director’s interpretation of the code.
Superior Court determined one of the items could have been interpreted differently and the applicant
made revisions based on the court’s interpretation. The revision was made by removing the perimeter
buffer from two sides and utilizing the underlying RS-8 setback.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the applicant used the 1992 DOE manual. She asked whether the
2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual was used for any of the design. Mr. Long answered the
2005 manual was used for the evaluation of infiltration rate of soils. The 2005 King County manual
provides a much more descriptive and detailed procedure to determine the rate. The 2005 King County
manual is more restrictive and provides a more conservative evaluation of soils. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked whether using two different manuals was problematic. Mr. Long answered not in
evaluating infiltration rates. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the most conservative manual is utilized.
Mr. Long answered the manual that the code requires is what is usually used.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Mr. Long’s indication that each house would have its own dry well
and asked how big they would be and whether that was stated in the documentation. Mr. Long answered it
Packet Page 22 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 20
is covered prescriptively; there is currently no design but they will be included in the design at final
engineering for each individual lot. The exact system has not yet been determined; they can be done in a
circular pit well or a strip trench. The newer manual has size criteria related to rooftops; generally it is 10
feet of linear trench for every 700 square feet of rooftop or a 4-foot diameter by 4-foot deep pit of rock for
every 700 square feet or rooftop. Councilmember Buckshnis observed those would help with runoff. Mr.
Long agreed little water would enter the vault from rooftops.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the 6-foot vault was standard and whether it was difficult to clean out.
Mr. Long replied the vault system is an upside-down vault with an open, gravel bottom. The 6-foot is an
interpretation by the appellant based on the volume of storage the applicant proposed. The actual height
inside the vault will be at least 7 feet and only 6 feet will be used for storage. Ms. Petso objected, stating
that evidence was not in the record. Mr. Long noted the drainage report states the volume of water storage
is 6 feet.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Ms. Petso’s statement that testing remains inadequate which he
assumed meant testing of the drainage. He asked whether the applicant was required to test the drainage
system under the preliminary plat standard. Mr. Johnston responded there is nothing in the appellate court
decision regarding testing. The appellate court remand was on three issues, one of those was storm
drainage. There was no finding by the appellate court of faulty testing or testing requirements.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if there were any standards in the preliminary plat design for testing the
drainage system. Mr. Long answered they do analysis and testing of the soils to understand how they can
be utilized. There is no specific criteria at preliminary plat that the design must be tested. Councilmember
Plunkett asked if the system must be tested during final engineering. Mr. Long answered some evaluation
has been done in the preliminary plat and there will be extensive testing done in final engineering.
To clarify, Mr. Taraday observed Councilmember Plunkett was asking about the reference made
regarding failure to test. There is a statement in the court of appeals opinion, page 68 of the record, that
states this mistake is compounded by the fact that Burnstead’s stormwater infiltration studies do not
include any infiltration tests at the site of the proposed vault. His understanding was that the test the court
of appeals said was not done was done following the remand in the location of the infiltration vault to
evaluate the soils. The test found the soils were adequate and resulted in the design rate of 2.3
inches/hour. Adequate means the storm drainage requirements in the code can be met by the soils in the
location of the vault.
Ms. Morris referred to the legal standard; the hearing examiner’s order on reconsideration does note that
the stormwater design at this phase is preliminary and the applicant’s burden at this preliminary phase is
to provide a feasible stormwater design. The applicable law is that the preliminary plat application is
meant to give local government and the public an approximate picture of how the final subdivision will
look. It is expected that modifications will be made during the give and take approval process. The
applicant must make a threshold showing that the completed development is able to comply with
applicable zoning ordinances and health regulations. She cited Knight v. City of Yelm where the court
stated the local decision-making body cannot conditionally approve a preliminary plat and then
disapprove a final plat application for a project that conforms to the conditions of preliminary approval.
So while the hearing examiner is saying this application has a preliminary stormwater design that is
feasible, the law states the applicant must make a threshold showing that it meets the applicable
ordinances. If the Council approves the preliminary plat, at final plat the Council would not be able to
deny it if it does not comply at that point.
Ms. Morris agreed the applicant did not have to provide a final stormwater design at preliminary plat.
However, the preliminary stormwater design cannot be so sketchy that it is totally different at final plat
Packet Page 23 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 21
and the Council cannot approve it. The applicant must make a threshold showing that the complete
development is able to comply with applicable regulations even though it is not a final stormwater plan.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the applicant if they met that standard. Mr. Long answered they did. Mr.
Shuster agreed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for a further description of the individual lot drains. Mr. Long
stated there are different types; he anticipated a trench or pit system would be used. The pit drywell is
typically a 48-inch hole filled with drain rock and roof drains are connected to the pit. Because these will
not be the primary stormwater control, there will be an overflow into the main drainage system and into
the drainage vault. A trench is very similar to the pit, typically 2-3 feet deep with a 2 foot ribbon of drain
rock that allows water to dissipate into the soils. That would also have an overflow connected to the main
system. One of the advantages of individual drains is it spreads the dispersion of water in the ground
throughout the development prior to leading to the main system.
AT 10:00 P.M., COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she did not see the individual lot drainage system in the
documents. Mr. Long answered it is included in the storm drainage report. Mr. Taraday pointed out there
is no condition of approval from the hearing examiner that individual dry wells be included as part of
final plat. The Council could impose that as a condition of final plat approval and apparently it is assumed
as part of the drainage report. Mr. Lien referenced the storm drainage report on page 105 that states final
engineering will include individual infiltration systems for some if not all the roof areas. An image of the
individual systems is provided on page 166 of the record.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized the individual lot drains are not a requirement but the
applicant has indicated they will install them. Ms. Brown answered during engineering design they will
be looked at. She explained at preliminary plat an applicant needs to prove the threshold and do what they
have done. They have gone above and beyond what normally is done at the preliminary plat stage due to
the sensitivity of this plat to ensure the neighbors are heard. The final engineering process will go into
much more detail. The applicant needs to know how many lots, the location of streets, etc. before an
engineer can design it. The drainage report mentions individual lot drains and other things the applicant
can do. Tests have been done in the location where the vault will be located. She assured they cannot
proceed haphazardly; they still have to provide more information and get a permit. Dry wells are options
that can be considered and done on an individual lot basis.
Ms. Petso objected, stating the record does not indicate testing has been done at the location of point
drains. Ms. Brown responded they can still do further testing at final engineering but the applicant needs
to know where the lots will be. The applicant does not know what the plat looks like until it is approved.
She clarified the detention facility does not take in account any individual dry wells; if they are not
installed, there is still adequate drainage provided.
Councilmember Bloom referred to Ms. Petso’s statement that the allowable impervious surface increased
by order of the hearing examiner from 35% to 50%. Mr. Lien referred to Condition #9 of the original
hearing examiner decision, no individual lot shall exceed 35% impervious lot coverage. Impervious
coverage includes residence footprints, driveways, patios and sidewalks. As part of the remand the
drainage report used 3,000 square feet of impervious surface per lot in their calculations. Councilmember
Bloom asked why the allowable impervious surface increased from 35% to 50% after the most recent
remand to the hearing examiner. Mr. Lien referred to page 23 of the record, with the 3,000 square feet
impervious surface per lot, the percentage ranges from 35.9 to 52.6. The City does not have a maximum
Packet Page 24 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 22
impervious coverage requirement in its code. There is a maximum coverage requirement. Condition #9
was replaced with Condition #2 of the new decision, no individual lot or tract shall exceed 3,000 square
feet of impervious surface area. That was based on the revised storm drainage report that showed
infiltration was feasible at these levels.
Councilmember Bloom asked if there logically would be increased drainage issues with an increase from
35% to 50% impervious surface. Mr. Lien explained engineers used information regarding impervious
surface in the right-of-way, in the open space, on individual lots, etc. in their calculations to determine the
size of the vault. Given these assumptions on impervious surface, the applicant has a vault that will fit in
Tract C and will infiltrate as described.
Councilmember Bloom observed the original hearing examiner decision imposed a limit of 35%
impervious surface but it was changed to up to 52% on some lots. Mr. Lien explained that was based on
the impervious surface calculations in the revised storm drainage report. The impervious surface
calculations in this report were different than the impervious surface calculations in the previous report.
This report found infiltration is feasible at this location assuming these impervious surface numbers. The
plat was conditioned to limit impervious area to 3,000 square feet per lot.
Councilmember Bloom asked if infiltration testing was done on each individual lot. Mr. Lien explained
infiltration tests were not done at each dry well on each individual lot. The stormwater report for the
preliminary plat assumed that all drainage from all the roofs on individual lots would go to the main
detention system in Tract C. At final plat, tests will be done at individual locations. Ms. Petso suggested
page 134 illustrated the test pit locations on site and one off-site.
Council President Peterson asked if the City’s code required an amount of testing at preliminary plat. Mr.
Taraday answered the City’s code does not specify a certain number of test pits. The code to which this
project is developed incorporates the 1992 DOE manual. That manual requires one core sample for a
certain number of square feet. Mr. Shuster explained the 1992 DOE manual states one core sample is
required per 5,000 square feet of vault area. This vault is 6,500 square feet. The manual also requires a
minimum of three core samples. One was done during preliminary plat to demonstrate feasibility; the
applicant will be required to do additional testing during the final design process. Mr. Lien displayed the
map on page 153 of the record, identifying the new pit that was dug at the site of the infiltration vault
within Tract C. The squares on the map are previous pits.
Councilmember Bloom acknowledged the project was vested under the 1992 DOE manual. She asked
how the standards in the 1992 DOE manual differed from the 2005 King County manual. Mr. Shuster
answered the first drainage design he saw was completed per the 1992 DOE manual except for the
determination of the infiltration rate which was determined using the 2005 King County manual. That was
okay with him because the newer manual had the benefit of 13 years of experience in operation of these
facilities and methods evolve to better designs. The infiltration determination using the 2005 King County
manual requires digging a hole, pouring water in the ground, and measuring the rate at the point where the
facility will be located. It also has several correction/safety factors from the field to the design. The 1992
DOE manual considers the soil type and a chart in the manual identifies the infiltration rate which is then
divided by 2. The method of actually pouring water into the ground is superior to determining the
infiltration rate.
Councilmember Bloom asked if there were any other factors in the 1992 DOE manual compared to the
2005 King County manual that would provide greater assurance the drainage would be addressed. Mr.
Shuster answered the models used in the 1992 DOE manual to size the vault differ from the model used in
the 2005 King County manual. The 1992 DOE manual has a volumetric factor whereby the size of the
vault is increased based on the amount of impervious surface. That factor also addresses uncertainties
such as whether the vault is empty or full when the storm hits. The model in the newer 2005 King County
Packet Page 25 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 23
manual takes those things into account without a correction factor. Councilmember Bloom asked if he
would prefer the model in the 2005 King County manual. Mr. Shuster answered he did not have a
preference. He pointed out the infiltration rate is the most important factor in the design. Using a more
advanced manual with a better method is good.
Councilmember Bloom referred to Ms. Petso’s comment about overflow and a pipe to 237th. Mr. Shuster
explained a vault or any other stormwater facility is sized for a certain storm event/volume of water. If
that is exceeded and the water has no place to go and there is no overflow, the system itself could be
damaged. The overflow must be a controlled overflow and should not overflow onto other properties or
into a stream system causing erosion and stability problems. Southwest Edmonds does not have an outlet
of a surface stream. There needs to be an overflow to protect the vault and neighboring properties. All
overflows go to the street because the street is a better place to store water than people’s homes.
Councilmember Bloom referenced comments regarding drainage issues at Hickman Park and asked why
there are serious drainage issues at Hickman Park. Mr. Shuster answered he would not characterize them
as serious. The park may have some ponding likely due to the sod or soil at the surface that is restricting
infiltration. He suggested having Parks Maintenance Supervisor Rich Lindsay punch holes in the sod to
solve flooding there. Ms. Petso objected to Mr. Shuster’s answer as that information is not in the record.
Council President Peterson asked for guidance regarding Council questions, noting Hickman Park has
nothing to do with the hearing examiner’s remand. Ms. Morris answered the Council may ask whatever
question they like. When the Council makes its final decision, the decision cannot be based on
information outside the record.
Council President Peterson relayed a question as to whether the Council would make a decision regarding
each issue. His understanding was the Council’s decision would be to either uphold the hearing
examiner’s decision, reject the decision or modify the decision. Ms. Morris recommended the Council
wait until the end of the hearing to make its decision as there are other issues raised in the rebuttal briefs
that need to be addressed in a comprehensive manner.
Council President Peterson declared a brief recess.
Appellant – Perimeter Buffer
Ms. Petso referred to staff’s testimony regarding protecting the drainage vault and protecting the new
homes, pointing out the existing homes are not protected. She was unclear why the overflow from the
Burnstead site had to be channeled into their neighborhood. With regard to the perimeter buffer, Ms.
Petso explained the original plat had a perimeter buffer on two sides. She pointed out to the court of
appeals that a perimeter is four sides of a rectangle; the court agreed and remanded the perimeter buffer.
When they attempted to alter the perimeter buffer, they eliminated a plat condition that required the
landscaping be maintained on two sides of the plat, the sides adjacent to the existing residential areas, the
east and south sides of the plat. That deed restriction on those perimeter lots was relied upon by the
Superior Court in finding that one of the other buffering requirements was met. She summarized when
changes are made to meet one question, something else is fouled up. The reason the per lot impervious
surface went from 35% to 50% was the houses would not have fit on the lots without 3,000 square feet.
Ms. Petso pointed out the PRD approval cannot be granted since the proposal renders 50% of the
proposed homes too large for the lots. In order to satisfy the perimeter buffer, the applicant has used full
front and rear setbacks on the perimeter lots, 15 feet in the back and 25 feet in front. Most of the lots are
approximately 100 feet deep, some are smaller. A 100 foot lot, less 40 feet for setbacks, will not
accommodate a home more than 60 feet deep. Two of the homes approved by the ADB are more than 60
feet deep, one is 61 and another is 64. The PRD ordinance usually calls for a variety of planned homes,
instead Ira Shelton and Kathie Ledger will be looking at three identical homes or perhaps a clever
Packet Page 26 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 24
alteration of the style. She summarized this was a violation of the PRD ordinance requirement for a
coordinated design and is the reason ADB review is required. It is in violation of the ADB conditions of
approval. She noted one of the ADB’s conditions of approval was the houses be allowed to encroach
slightly closer to the street. The cover story for that was neighborhood feel; it may be because the ADB
realized the 61 and 64 foot house would need to encroach into the setbacks. Staff has removed that ADB
condition for the perimeter lots even though ADB approval was conditioned on it.
Ms. Petso referred to page 483, noting the appellants were promised if the design of the home changed, it
would go back to the ADB for review. That has never been done. On page 372 and 390, the first hearing
examiner indicated the variety of housing styles and the proposed homes were important and relevant to
her decision. The City’s PRD ordinance requires the location and dimensions of proposed homes be
shown and that drawings and text showing the bulk and architectural character be provided. The applicant
now indicates it was conceptual. Ms. Petso commented that was allowed in a subdivision; the PRD
ordinance requires the applicant show the proposed homes and that they will be evaluated according to
the criteria in the code. In addition to the fact that half the homes can no longer fit on most of the lots, Ms.
Petso stated some of the lots such as Lots 7 and 21 have become entirely undevelopable. She urged the
Council not to approve a subdivision where the homes did not fit on the lots.
Mr. Shelton referred to the assertion that direct observation of standing water should be invalidated
because it is anecdotal. In science, direct observation is the preferred means of proof; inference is
secondary. Using a mathematical model to extrapolate a result is inferential reasoning and is not as valid
as direct observation.
Ms. Petso offered to play a portion of the testimony from the prior hearing regarding drainage. The
recording was not audible to those present. Council President Peterson noted the audio portion of the
hearing was included as part of the record. Ms. Petso advised this portion is at approximately 56 minutes
and is approximately 2½ minutes long. A rough transcript is included in the record at pages 9, 10, 11 and
12. She wanted the Council to hear the enthusiasm with which the hearing examiner pushed staff to say
the drainage is adequate and the reluctance of staff to say that it is. She encouraged the Council to listen
to the audio.
Applicant - Perimeter Buffer
Mr. Johnston agreed with staff’s conclusion that the perimeter buffer condition is no longer required.
Burnstead changed their plat after remand in an effort to obtain approval and work with the City as a
compromise to their plat. Burnstead changed the application to provide the RS-8 setbacks on the
perimeter lots which complies with ECDC 20.35.050(c). He summarized Burnstead made a change to
their application, it meets code and they are entitled to approval.
In response to Ms. Petso, Ms. Brown pointed out the impervious surface was changed to 3,000 square feet
because that is what the storm drainage design is based on. Even the more conservative approach is based
on 3,000 square feet of impervious surface per lot.
With regard Ms. Petso’s comment that the sketches of the homes Burnstead presented to the ADB would
not fit on the lots, Ms. Brown pointed out those were sketches, they were not submitting for a building
permit and the sketches are not to scale. The sketches were a design presentation to the ADB so they
could understand what Burnstead’s product will look like and to allow Burnstead to incorporate any
critique or suggestions made by the ADB. The one suggestion the ADB made, encroaching slightly into
the front yard setback, was removed because Burnstead is now incorporating standard RS-8 setbacks.
They would happily accept the ability to encroach into the front yard setback.
Ms. Brown explained they are trying hard to meet the City’s code the way it is written. She hired all the
experts to ensure the engineering studies were done the way the code requests. She was frustrated because
Packet Page 27 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 25
regardless of what she did to meet the City’s code, she was encountering resistance. She wanted to do
what the staff has asked her to do. She was not sure what more could be done except meet the City’s code
which she was confident they had done by removing the perimeter buffer due to the misinterpretation of
the code by staff. She assured that removing the perimeter buffer did not mean they were not complying
with the rest of the City’s code. She was frustrated that taking a “cartoon rendering” and showing it would
not fit on a lot was an acceptable argument.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Ms. Petso how she knew that Lots 7 and 21 could not be
developed. Ms. Petso answered 40 feet of setback was required on perimeter lots. She identified Lot 7 on
the map, explaining the depth of the lot less 40 feet for setbacks left an amount that was smaller than the
depth of the smallest house. She recalled the smallest house was 50-53 feet deep. With a full setback in
front and back, none of the home designs fit on the space that remains. She identified Lot 21 on the map,
stating the same was true for that lot.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the applicant the same question. Ms. Brown responded Burnstead
would not develop a lot they could not build on. She acknowledged they had to abide by the setbacks on
the approved preliminary plat. The house will be designed to meet the setback and they will submit a
building permit for that house. Burnstead has not submitted building permits and she was unsure where
Ms. Petso obtained the measurements other than from the cartoon rendering or sketch that was provided
to the ADB so that they could understand what their elevations, trim, garages, porches, etc. look like. No
floor plans or definite dimensions were presented to the ADB. Mr. Johnston pointed out that was not
required as part of the ADB process.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Ms. Petso’s comment that 50% of the homes were too large
for the lots. Ms. Petso responded the cartoon renderings that are required by the code in ECDC
20.35.070(a)(c)(3) and 20.35.070(a)(4) show one of the homes has a depth of 64 feet and another home
with a depth of 61 feet. In the plat, a typical lot depth is 100 feet. On perimeter lots such as Lot 19 which
appears to be the standard 100 x 60 foot lot, a 64-foot deep house would not fit using a 15 foot back yard
setback and a 25 foot front setback. She summarized 50% of the homes would not fit on most of the lots;
Lot 11 might be able to fit the larger home design. The lots behind the Millers and the Shelton/Ledger and
along the park are a smaller depth and will only fit the smaller houses.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the applicant the same question. Ms. Brown responded those
renderings are not to scale. When they submit for building permit, they will abide by the setbacks that are
approved on the preliminary plat and modify the floor plans to fit.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked how Ms. Petso determined the lot and house sizes. Ms. Petso
responded the code requires the applicant to submit drawings and text showing scale, bulk and
architectural character of the homes. There are four pictures of the four homes on pages 330 and 333. The
dimensions of the homes are shown in the corner of the pictures.
Council President Peterson asked if the code required that final designs must be submitted at preliminary
plat. Mr. Lien answered that is not typically done for a PRD. The record clearly showed these homes were
not meant to be the homes that would be developed. Ms. Petso objected, stating that information was not
in the record and it was also inconsistent with the hearing examiner decision. Mr. Lien referred to page
322 of the record, explaining the staff report to the ADB notes that the housing types submitted were
artistic renderings. Testimony to the ADB by Tiffiny Brown on page 341 of the record notes exhibits
were put forward of homes to give the Board an idea of what they were thinking. The ADB’s
recommendations (page 343) indicate further approvals specific to design will occur and state a variety of
materials or building forms must be used on all sides of the homes and building plans for individual lots
must be evaluated at the time of building permit application for consistency with ECDC 20.35.060.
Condition #10 of the original hearing examiner decision indicated final building design shall endeavor to
Packet Page 28 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 26
locate the residences on the southern portion of the lot (page 397). The hearing examiner’s remand
decision notes it is clear from the record that building designs were meant to be conceptual in nature and
are not binding to final design (page 19).
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the lots sizes are generally 6,000, recalling RS-8 requires 8,000
square foot lots. Mr. Lien answered a PRD allows an alteration of the lot size. Councilmember Buckshnis
observed the smallest lot was 6,000 square feet and the smallest house was 2 stories and 2,855 square feet
which seemed to fit. Mr. Lien explained if the preliminary plat is approved, at the time of building permit,
the house will be reviewed to ensure it meets the setbacks and the ADB recommendations. Four specific
houses were not approved for this development; the City would not want only four designs on twenty-
seven different lots. Councilmember Buckshnis concludes most of the lots were 6,000 square feet and the
houses ranged from 2,500 to 3,100 square feet. Ms. Brown agreed the houses would fit.
Councilmember Plunkett observed Ms. Petso seemed to be saying the code required something at this
stage above and beyond what staff and the applicant say is required. Staff and the applicant are saying
concept and ideas are required at this stage. He asked if Ms. Petso believed that more was required at this
point. Ms. Petso answered that was exactly what the code requires. This was also agreed to by the prior
hearing examiner at pages 327, 390 and 483. As the Council listens to what Mr. Lien states the current
hearing examiner said, she urged the Council to keep in mind that is the decision the appellants are
appealing. The appellants contend that the City’s code for PRDs is not to plat a lot and sell it like a
subdivision; the City’s code for a PRD is a planned development. She recalled other PRD plat maps show
the home footprint on the lot; Burnstead’s plat map does not.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what staff was seeing differently, they are reading the same language. Ms.
Petso responded the staff works for the Mayor.
AT 11:00 P.M., COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY FRALEY TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Plunkett observed Ms. Petso was saying the preliminary plat needed to be more than
concept. He asked if it was simply a different interpretation of the language. Mr. Lien responded this is
how the language has been interpreted for all PRDs that have been developed in the City. Similar to the
discussion regarding the drainage, these are preliminary home designs. The ADB looks at certain design
criteria and when they submit for a building permit, the applicant must meet the design criteria. The
specific homes are not approved by the ADB. The record at page 338 shows general placement of the
homes on the lots. What has been historically done with regard to PRDs at this stage is conceptual design.
When they submit for building permits for the individual lots, the design is reviewed to ensure it meets
the criteria, setbacks, and other conditions of the PRD.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Ms. Petso’s comment that staff works for the Mayor,
pointing out there have been 3 different mayors since 2007 when this situation began. She asked if Ms.
Petso was suggesting that three different mayors have coerced staff in some manner. Ms. Petso responded
the prior hearing examiner ruled that these were the home designs that had to be developed on the site and
that if the designs changed, during the remand process for example, she would refer this back to the ADB.
The home designs must be approved by the ADB, that is one of the differences between the PRD process
and a subdivision. The prior hearing examiner had the correct interpretation and the current hearing
examiner is interpreting it differently. She believed the interpretation of the City’s code is up to the
Council and the court will give the Council significant deference in how they choose to interpret the
requirement that the applicant submit home designs to the ADB. If the Council thought the ADB wanted
to be shown nice home designs and then the applicant builds rubbish, then renderings could be called
cartoons.
Packet Page 29 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 27
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reiterated her point that there have been 3 mayors since 2007. Ms. Petso
responded it is a matter of interpretation. Not all three mayors would have interpreted it the same way nor
is the staff the same as when the process began. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Ms.
Petso believed it was the office of the mayor that was directing staff to push this through. Ms. Petso
responded staff will always report to the office of the mayor and not to Council.
Council President Peterson suggested this line of questioning be discontinued as to whom staff reported
was not part of the record. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it was important for the Council
to understand what the appellants believe staff is being directed to do.
Ms. Morris indicated she needed to take the 11:45 p.m. ferry. Council President Peterson suggested the
Council consider continuing the hearing.
Ms. Brown stated the applicant has no comment on the open space.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to ECDC 25.35.070(b), the PRD application process, which states
description, map, site plan, topography, trees, placement, location, drawings, etc. It also states there is
flexibility and sufficient information that the development can change if necessary. She agreed it was a
matter of interpretation.
Appellant – Open Space
Ms. Petso explained the PRD ordinance also requires usable open space, recognizing that the Council
must define usable. For example Tract E is not usable because the legislative history indicates in the
record on page 1063 that it must be available to the property owners and not just a native growth
protection area. Tract E of the Burnstead development will be fenced and designated for wildlife
protection.
Ms. Petso displayed page 663, explaining her other concern about open space on Tract E is that it is
within a fish and wildlife conservation area. She displayed page 664, the SEPA checklist that according to
the record was prepared by staff that also shows Tract E is within the fish and wildlife conservation area.
She referred to a map on page 873 and 2007 finding #26. She summarized the open space is not usable;
the hearing examiner restricted it because she wanted it for wildlife preservation.
Ms. Petso referred to the plat map, explaining Tracts A and F are not usable due to lack of safety. The
tracts are fully landscaped at the entrance to the plat and occupied by a monument sign and a tiny lawn.
She asserted that any attempt to use those parcels would be dangerous. The PRD requirement is subject to
the Council’s interpretation with regard to useable open space. Her interpretation was that usable open
space cannot include dangerous areas or space unusable because it is a wildlife protection area.
Mr. Sanderlin pointed out the developer will need to take property from the landowners on the western
border of the property in order to meet their minimum requirements for open space and for the project.
The amount they plan to take from a property’s backyard ranges from 4 inches at the southwest corner to
16-18 inches. The area the developer plans to take includes mature landscaping.
Heather Marks, Edmonds, referred to text on the plat map that indicates property may be taken. She
explained critical areas in the code includes the geologic hazard area which is the steep slope in the upper
right-hand corner of the map, the wildlife habitat area and the flooded area. She referred to ECDC 23.040
regarding critical areas, B3 and 23.70 regarding frequently flooded areas, 23.80 regarding geologic hazard
area and 23.90 regarding the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. She pointed out there is a 200
foot buffer for all critical areas.
Packet Page 30 of 155
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 15, 2012
Page 28
Ms. Marks displayed a plat map over a Google map. Mr. Taraday objected, stating the map was submitted
with the appeal statement and was not part of the record.
Ms. Marks summarized the code has not been followed because all areas within the City meeting the
definition of one or more critical areas regardless of any formal identification are hereby designated
critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title. The title requires a 200 foot buffer which
would eliminate four lots in the wildlife habitat area and more houses in the slide area and in the flooded
area. No building is allowed in the 200 foot buffer without state approval. Any areas adjacent to critical
areas are subject to regulation and areas to critical areas shall be considered to be within the jurisdiction
of these requirements and regulations to support the intent of this title and ensure the protection of the
function and values of critical areas. Adjacent shall mean any activity located on a site immediately
adjoining a critical area and areas located within 200 feet of a subject parcel containing a jurisdictional
critical area.
Ms. Marks concluded taking property from the neighbors will include 30 year old trees and a fence
constructed by the school district 35 years ago. She questioned why the developer would be able to
destroy landscaping in backyards that have belonged to the property owners for 30-35 years.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the issue of taking of property. Council President Peterson
responded that is not one of the issues on remand. Ms. Marks commented it was applicable because it is
required for Burnstead to meet their open space requirement.
Following a brief discussion, the Council, applicant and appellants were agreeable to continuing the
hearing to May 21 at 6:00 p.m. Council President Peterson announced the hearing would be continued to
Monday, May 21 at 6:00 p.m.
11. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MAY 8, 2012
No report given.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
No comments provided.
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
No comments provided.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:28 p.m.
Packet Page 31 of 155
AM-4844 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:05/22/2012
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 payroll direct deposit and checks #51350 through #51364 for $438,950.90 and benefit checks
#51365 through #51372 & wire payments for $188,234.95 for the period May 1, 2012 through May 15,
2012.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
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:627,185.85
Fiscal Impact:
Payroll Employee checks & direct deposit $438,950.90
Payroll Benefit checks & wire payments $188,234.95
Attachments
Payroll 05-15-12
Benefit 05-15-12
Form Review
Packet Page 32 of 155
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 05/17/2012 11:19 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/17/2012 11:23 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 05/17/2012 11:51 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/17/2012 02:25 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 05/17/2012 08:32 AM
Final Approval Date: 05/17/2012
Packet Page 33 of 155
Packet Page 34 of 155
Packet Page 35 of 155
Packet Page 36 of 155
AM-4838 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:05/22/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Rick Colgan ($1,081.53).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
A Claim for Damages has been received from the following individual:
Rick Colgan
19412 89th Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
($1,081.53)
Attachments
Colgan Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 05/17/2012 11:50 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/17/2012 02:25 PM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 05/15/2012 11:14 AM
Final Approval Date: 05/17/2012
Packet Page 37 of 155
Packet Page 38 of 155
Packet Page 39 of 155
Packet Page 40 of 155
Packet Page 41 of 155
Packet Page 42 of 155
AM-4839 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:05/22/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Resolution thanking Councilman Michael Plunkett for His Service to the Edmonds City Council.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
A Resolution of the Edmonds City Council Thanking Councilman Michael Plunkett for His Service to
the Edmonds City Council.
Attachments
Plunkett Resolution
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/17/2012 11:23 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 05/17/2012 11:51 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/17/2012 02:25 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 05/16/2012 11:18 AM
Final Approval Date: 05/17/2012
Packet Page 43 of 155
City of Edmonds
Incorporated 1890
Resolution
No: 1276
A Resolution Of The Edmonds City Council Thanking Councilman Michael Plunkett for His Service
To The Edmonds City Council
Whereas, Michael Plunkett was sworn into office on January 6, 1998 and during his tenure as a Councilman was
elected to the Council Presidency in 2004 and 2008 and served in both roles with distinction and skill
presiding over and attending many long Council meetings both as Council President and Councilman and
dealt commendably with a number of multifaceted issues; and
Whereas, Mr. Plunkett, during his tenure, has been on numerous committees, boards, and commissions including:
Community Services (now Planning, Parks & Public Works), Public Safety (now Public Safety/Personnel),
Comprehensive Human Resources, Finance, Disability Board, Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development,
Historic Preservation Commission, Downtown Edmonds Parking (now City-Wide Parking), Port of Edmonds,
WRIA 8, Community Outreach, Highway 99 Task Force, Lodging Tax Advisory, Municipal Court Review, Levy
Work Group, Regional Fire Authority, PFD Oversight, and CTAC; and
Whereas, Councilman Plunkett in addition has accomplished the following:
Governance
• Elected by peers to be Council President 2004 and 2008
• Demonstrated accountability by audio taping City retreats
• Encourage Council to hold retreats close to our citizens in Edmonds
• Supports putting PB and ADB on TV for public viewing
• Instituted rotation of Council President to take politics out of Council business
• Voted to slash Council member benefits
• Created a Public Service Announcement portion on Council agenda
• Voted for employee merit pay
• As Council President in 2008 led Council to a 98% team work rate on Council votes
• Voted to allow citizens to appeal land-use decisions to Council in open public meetings as opposed to City staff and judges.
• Voted to repeal Mayor’s pay raise (May 25, 2010)
• Voted against a 25% increase in water/sewer rates July 6, 2010
• Voted to put the public back into land-use decisions Sept 21, 2010
• Voted to change HR Director to a Manager thereby cutting city expense and improving efficiencies
• Voted to pay off some our city debt early Dec 2012
Preserving the Charm and Character of Our Community
• Supported Adaptive Reuse for non-conforming buildings to preserve and protect older structures
• Created the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission
• Voted to oppose any expansion of casino gambling into Edmonds
• Helped lead the effort to stop taller buildings on the waterfront
• Led the effort for a strong ban on motorized scooters
• Voted to buy Marina Beach and Sherwood Park
• Voted to stabilize the library
• Led the effort to increase parking enforcement in downtown
• Fought to preserve open space on Edmonds waterfront
• Sponsored amendment to budget for lights on Main St. to improve streetscape and safety
• Voted to purchase open space in downtown at Old Mill Town
• Led the effort for public use on waterfront
• Voted to enact an anti-idle policy for cars
• Voted to preserved landmark trees in Edmonds
• Received the “Outstanding Service Award” for working with community from SENA
• Voted for a plan that reduces the cutting of trees in Edmonds.
• Voted against a Planning Board nominee who supported taller buildings in Downtown
Packet Page 44 of 155
City of Edmonds
Incorporated 1890
Resolution 1276 Page 2
• Voted to preserve park funds (Reet) from being used for other general maintenance
• Supported a public vote for a new Yost Pool
• Voted to create regulation that would encourage outdoor dining in Edmonds
• Voted for neighborhood protections when large buildings and development are proposed.
• Voted to fund traffic calming devices for our neighborhoods
• Changed to City Comprehensive Plan to reassert more local control that reflects residential community
• Voted against neighborhoods being rezoned into business-like zones
Economic Development
• Amended new Design Guidelines directing ADB to meet within 30 days of an application
• Led the effort to create an Economic Development Committee of Council
• Supported Adaptive Reuse incentives to preserve and protect older structures
• Led the effort to remove residential parkers from downtown businesses’ 3-hour zones
• Voted to insure 12-15 foot first floors in new buildings for better commercial development
• Voted to move ADB upfront in application process to reduce cost/time to applicants
• Voted to create a master plan for old Unocal lower yard as future commercial zone
• Voted to remove requirements on new business in downtown to provide excessive parking
• Repeatedly voted for enacting the broadband fiber optic cable initiative
• Voted to streamline the Architectural Designed review of signs, allowing more decisions to be made by staff thereby
removing another hurdle to locating a business in Edmonds
• Supported the Performing Arts Center when no one thought it could be done. It is now worth 2.4 million in economic impact
per year in Edmonds.
• Fought back against Enron’s ill-gotten rate hikes by voting to reduce Edmonds utility tax by 30%
• Voted to change graffiti ordinance so as to not penalize the victims: merchants/land owners
• Voted to increase funding for advertising Edmonds to attract visitors and shoppers
• Support a new Yost Pool that will result in $600,000 per year impact on economic growth
• Voted to reduce parking requirements downtown making it easier for new businesses locating to Edmonds.
• Voted to initiate redevelopment plans for Five Corners and Westgate (Eds Development Comm.
• Recommendation).
• Chaired the Citizens’ Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC)
Neighborhood Protections
• Fought for 3 years to have a spay and neuter policy in Edmonds
• Voted to allow the Lake Ballinger neighborhood to have a say on development on Hwy. 99
• Voted for Battalion Chiefs for our fire department
• Voted to reduce property taxes before Eyman
• Wrote a strong resolution in opposition to Paine Field commercial fly-overs
• ·Fought for an 11-acre park in South Edmonds
• Led the effort to ban motorized scooters in our neighborhoods
• Voted to provide walkways in North Edmonds
• Received the Tia Foundation Citizen Award for outstanding effort in raising traffic safety awareness in 2002
• Led the effort for a strong anti-graffiti law in Edmonds; and
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, that Michael Plunkett be celebrated for serving on the Council for almost 14 years and doing
so with style while always keeping the best interests of the citizens of Edmonds in all of his actions. The Council
wishes Mr. Plunkett well in all he endeavors.
Passed, Approved, and Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2012.
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilwoman
Joan Bloom, Councilwoman
Diane Buckshnis, Councilwoman
Frank Yamamoto, Councilwoman
Attest: City Clerk
Lora Petso, Councilwoman
Packet Page 45 of 155
AM-4841 2. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:05/22/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Jim Stevens
Department:Public Works
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Resolution on Food Service Ware
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of the resolution by the full Council.
Previous Council Action
On May 8, 2012, the Planning, Parks, and Public Works Committee reviewed this item and approved it
for consideration of approval by the full Council.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds has provided environmental leadership by banning retail uses of plastic bags and
encouraging shoppers to bring their own multi-use bags to local stores. This resolution offers an
opportunity to extend this environmental leadership through a policy that steers the City away from
polystyrene and other single-use items associated with food service that are both very difficult to recycle
and very persistent in the environment.
The policy derived from this resolution will direct official City operations to reduce dramatically
food-service waste that is neither compostable nor readily recyclable. Although the prohibition on the use
of such materials only extends here to functions directly managed by the City, other users of City
facilities and parks are strongly encouraged at this point to follow in these footsteps. As more effective
opportunities to recycle and compost come available, and as more environmentally friendly products
come into play, this policy is intended to be grown beyond the day-to-day operations of City government
and into the community.
Attachments
Food Service Ware
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Phil Williams 05/17/2012 06:01 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/18/2012 08:31 AM
Mayor 05/18/2012 10:35 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/18/2012 11:13 AM
Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 05/16/2012 02:26 PM
Packet Page 46 of 155
Final Approval Date: 05/18/2012
Packet Page 47 of 155
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A POLICY
REQUIRING THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF EDMONDS, ITS
TENANTS, RENTERS, AND ALL OFFICIALLY
SANCTIONED USERS OF ITS FACILITIES AND PARKS TO
EMPLOY ONLY REUSABLE OR COMPOSTABLE FOOD
SERVICE ITEMS; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds (the “City”) has a duty to protect the natural
environment, the economy and the health of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in RCW 70.95.010(8)(a) established waste
reduction as the first priority for the collection, handling, and management of solid waste; and
WHEREAS, in addition to waste reduction, the Washington State Legislature in RCW
70.95.010(8-16) also identified the following as priorities: waste reduction, recycling, avoiding
excessive and nonrecyclable packaging of products, education so that people are informed of the
need to reduce, source separate, and recycle solid waste, and government entities setting an
example by implementing aggressive waste reduction programs at their workplaces and by
purchasing products that are made from recycled materials and are recyclable; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in RCW 70.95.010(4) found that it is
"necessary to change manufacturing and purchasing practices and waste generation behaviors to
reduce the amount of waste that becomes a governmental responsibility"; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in RCW 70.95.010(6)(c) found that it is
the responsibility of city governments "to assume primary responsibility for solid waste
management and to develop and implement aggressive and effective waste reduction and source
Packet Page 48 of 155
separation strategies"; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council has continuously indentified sustainability as an
important goal for the City; and
WHEREAS, the use of polystyrene and other plastic-based, single-use, non-compostable
food packaging and foodservice items serve a limited purpose that is disproportionately
detrimental to the welfare of the environment; and
WHEREAS, although polystyrene and other plastic-based, single-use, non-compostable
food packaging and service ware are often used and disposed of in minutes or days, they take
thousands of years to decompose, and lead to devastating effects such as pollution and harm to
marine life, wildlife, and public health; and
WHEREAS, there is no meaningful and available method of recycling polystyrene and
commonly used plastic-based food packaging and service ware, however, there are alternative
multi-use or compostable products that can serve the same purpose as polystyrene and plastic-
based food packaging and service items; and
WHEREAS, polystyrene and other plastic-based, single-use, non-compostable food
packaging and service ware represent an unnecessary use of a nonrenewable resource, especially
when reusable and compostable products represent a preferable and sustainable alternative; and
WHEREAS, reusable and compostable food packaging and service ware are considerably
less damaging to the environment than polystyrene and other plastic-based and non-compostable
food packaging and service ware; and
WHEREAS, replacing the use of polystyrene and other plastic-based, non-compostable
food packaging and service ware with those that are reusable and compostable is recognized as a
sustainable option to protect the environment and to conserve resources; and
Packet Page 49 of 155
WHEREAS, reusable and compostable food packaging and service ware alternatives are
readily available for use; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Edmonds City Council to reduce the negative impacts
noted above through the implementation of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds itself needs to lead the way in the effort to eliminate
the use of polystyrene or other plastic-based, single-use, non-compostable food packaging and
service ware; and,
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council finds that reduction in use of polystyrene and
other plastic-based, single-use, non-compostable food packaging and service ware is in the best
interest of public health, safety, and welfare for the citizens of Edmonds and the environment;
and
WHEREAS, the Policy below is in accordance with the following goals of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan: Community Sustainability Element Climate Change Goal E, Community
Health Goal E, and Environmental Quality Goal A, and the Utilities Element Goal; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 2012:
Section 1. The governmental operations of City of Edmonds will no longer purchase
or provide single-use polystyrene or other plastic-based, non-compostable food service
packaging or ware for any City-sponsored function providing food and/or beverages to its
participants. This covers the full range of items for this purpose, including, but not limited to,
Packet Page 50 of 155
cups, plates, utensils, straws and stir sticks, napkins or bibs, etc. This also includes the
packaging materials covering and protecting any food or beverage provided, with the exceptions
noted below. Minor stock of any such items in City possession after this date will be consumed,
but no further purchases of such materials will be made.
Section 2. All tenants, renters, and officially-recognized users of City-owned
buildings and parks are strongly encouraged to comply with the same restrictions and are given
the same exceptions as provided in this policy for governmental operations. Any contract or
written guidelines intended for use with such an entity or group after June 1, 2012, will include
language consistent with this policy and this section.
Section 3. Exclusions:
a. Common food and beverage containers, such as aluminum and steel
cans, plastic bottles and jugs, and paper milk cartons, all of which are
readily recyclable throughout the City;
b. Typically small, single-serve items that, because of waste or food-
safety issues, are otherwise problematic to provide. These items also
generally contribute a very minor additional load to landfills. This
includes individual coffee creamer packets or cups, and small butter,
jam, syrup, condiment, etc., packets;
c. Plastic wrap intended to seal food containers in the absence of a lid or
cover that could not be used because of the shape or size of area to
cover;
d. Zip-lock and folding plastic bags meant to preserve and carry leftover
food during handling and storage for later use;
Packet Page 51 of 155
e. Single-serve food items that come prepackaged from manufacturers
and vendors, such as candy bars, gum, ice cream, etc., such as could be
purchased from vending machines or stores;
f. Finally, it is not intended that this policy be applied to what individual
City employees or facilities and parks users provide for their own
consumption, though the City strongly encourages all citizens to be
good stewards of the environment we all share.
Section 4. This policy is based on current technology, general product availability,
and service levels provided by local companies. As labeling becomes more explicit and
informative, as opportunities to recycle materials come more widely into practice, and as new
materials enter the marketplace, it is the intent of the City of Edmonds that this policy will be
reviewed and revised to enable greater sustainability and more paths to reduce, reuse, and
recycle.
Packet Page 52 of 155
AM-4840 3.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:05/22/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Jana
Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of Resolution and Plaque to Councilman Michael Plunkett.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Presentation of Resolution and Plaque to Councilman Michael Plunkett.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/17/2012 11:23 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 05/17/2012 11:51 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/17/2012 02:25 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 05/16/2012 11:23 AM
Final Approval Date: 05/17/2012
Packet Page 53 of 155
AM-4846 4.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:05/22/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Kody McConnell
Department:Public Works
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in Honor of Edmonds Public Works Week May 28, 2012 through June 1, 2012
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the Proclamation be signed designating the week of May 28, 2012, through June
1, 2012, as Edmonds Public Works Week.
Previous Council Action
For over 20 years the City of Edmonds has issued a Proclamation designating one week in May as Public
Works Week.
Narrative
The week of May 28th, 2012, through June 1st, 2012, has been selected for Edmonds Public Works
Week. This week is intended to promote public awareness and understanding of the Public Works field
and to recognize the accomplishments of Public Works employees. In the City of Edmonds, the Public
Works Department consists of the following Divisions: Street & Stormwater Utility Operations and
Maintenance, Water & Sewer Utility Operations and Maintenance, Facilities Maintenance, Fleet
Maintenance, Wasterwater Treatment Plant Operations and Maintenance, and Engineering. On Thursday
May 31, 2012, a management sponsored picnic and employee potluck will be held at the Public Works
Operation & Maintenance Center. This event is an opportunity for all of the diverse Public Works staff to
share experiences and ideas and for the Mayor of Edmonds and Director of Public Works & Utilities to
recognize staff for their dedication, skills, and contributions to the community. Members of the Edmonds
City Council are invited and welcome to attend.
Attachments
Public Works Week Proclamation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/17/2012 11:23 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 05/17/2012 11:52 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/17/2012 02:25 PM
Form Started By: Kody McConnell Started On: 05/17/2012 10:34 AM
Final Approval Date: 05/17/2012
Packet Page 54 of 155
Proclamation
CITY OF EDMONDS OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
"CELEBRATING THE PEOPLE OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS"
May 28, 2012 through June 1, 2012
WHEREAS, the many services provided to our community by the Department of Public
Works & Utilities play an integral role in the quality of life of all our citizens; and
WHEREAS, the health, safety, and comfort of all members of our community are vitally
dependent on each of these systems, programs, and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the support and understanding of an informed citizenry is vital to the
effective operation and design of quality public works systems and engineering programs for
potable water distribution, wastewater sewage collection and treatment, stormwater drainage,
public facilities, vehicle fleets, and street construction, maintenance, and traffic control; and
WHEREAS, the essential services of the City of Edmonds Public Works & Utilities
Department includes the operations, maintenance, repairs, design, and construction of all of
the aforementioned public works systems and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the quality and efficacy of these systems, programs, and facilities depend
wholly upon the team efforts and technical skills of our public works personnel; and
WHEREAS, City of Edmonds Public Works & Utility Department employees strive to
always go the extra length to provide much more than basic, routine service and readily
respond to emergencies that arise at all times of all days; and
WHEREAS, the extraordinary efforts of our diverse public works employees are
deserving of acknowledgement for their many contributions to our citizen’s quality of life.
NOW THEREFORE, I, DAVID O. EARLING, duly elected Mayor of the City of Edmonds,
wish to recognize the outstanding work of the City of Edmonds Public Works & Utilities
Department personnel who consistently provide high quality service to our citizens by
proclaiming the week of May 28th through June 1st to be Edmonds Public Works Week.
HEREBY PROCLAIMED this _____ day of May, 2012
____________________________________
Dave O. Earling
Mayor of Edmonds
Packet Page 55 of 155
AM-4845 6.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:05/22/2012
Time:2 Hours
Submitted For:Stephen Clifton Submitted By:Stephen
Clifton
Department:Community Services
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Edmonds Strategic Plan and Visioning Retreat #5 (City Council, Planning Board and Economic
Development Commission)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
-- September 14, 2011 – Strategic Planning and Visioning Retreat #1 (Kickoff)
-- January 24, 2012- Strategic Planning and Visioning Retreat #2
-- February 28, 2012 - Strategic Planning and Visioning Retreat #3
-- April 24, 2012 - Strategic Planning and Visioning Retreat #4
Narrative
Under the guidance of Beckwith Consulting Group (BCG), Edmonds citizens and representatives of
businesses and land owners, community organizations and elected officials have been collaborating to
help set the course for the city over the coming years. This set of priorities and actions is being
encompassed in what will become a Strategic Plan which serves as a road map by identifying city
priorities and possible actions to address pressing community needs, how tax dollars will/should be spent,
and what can be done to move Edmonds forward.
Many ideas, opinions and recommendations have been gathered over the past several months during
various activities which have included:
1. Interviews conducted by Tom Beckwith and Steve Price, both with BCG, of the City’s last and current
Mayors, City Council members, and department directors.
2. Stakeholder Meetings - 20 discussion groups organized around subjects of interests were held with
service clubs, young adult outreach organizations, senior center, individuals-at-large, environmental,
parks and recreation, arts – performing, arts – visual, transportation, economic development, waterfront,
downtown - retailers, downtown – property owners, business districts – Perrinville, Westgate, Firdale
Village and Highway 99, hospital and medical, developers, and governance.
Packet Page 56 of 155
3. Surveys:
a. Adult (681 responses)
b. Young Adult (119 responses)
c. Business Owner (219 responses)
d. Customer (484 responses)
e. Employee (86 responses)
4. Community Charrettes (brainstorming sessions) held at Edmonds Conference Center and Edmonds
Library Plaza Meeting Room and Frances Anderson Center (140+ attendees) – March 14 and 19, 2012.
An additional charrette focusing on youth related issues was held on April 30, 2012 at Edmonds
Woodway High School (approximately 10 high school students attended).
5. Open House held at the Edmonds Library Plaza Meeting Room (80+ attendees) – May 3, 2012
a. Tom Beckwith and his team provided the following documents to attendees during this event:
i. Actions, Responsibilities and Performance Measures (copy attached) – describes 72
potential action items that were identified from interviews, adult, young adult, employee,
customer, and business owner surveys, 20 focus group sessions, and two Charrettes. This
document lists the parties who would potentially be responsible for implementing them
along with example performance measures by which to measure progress. The document
includes examples of some of the potential actions that have been undertaken by other
jurisdictions along with graphics illustrating the areas of potential application in Edmonds.
ii. Preliminary Draft Actions Survey/Rating Sheets (hardcopies and electronic form) –
contained descriptions of the above referenced 72 potential actions. The rating sheets/survey
were/was indexed to the more detailed Actions, Responsibilities and Performance Measures.
During the Open House, attendees were provided the rating sheets/survey and asked to rate
the importance of actions within the document indicating the level of priority they would
assign each of the preliminary strategic planning actions on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is a
very low or no priority and 5 a very high or the highest priority. An identical rating
sheets/survey was created using Survey Monkey and a link to the rating sheets/survey was
posted to the City’s website. An e-mail blast to over 9,000 e-mail addresses and notification
to media entities was also used to announce the electronic method of rating the draft actions.
iii. Open House Rating Sheets/Survey Results (copy attached) - based on returns for 213
persons who either attended the open house and/or completed the web based rating
sheets/survey. The document lists the results by category for the 72 potential action items -
which are described in the original survey document and expanded Strategic Plan Actions,
Responsibilities, and Performance measures.
During Retreat #5, Tom Beckwith and his team will summarily review the above for implications to be
addressed in the upcoming phone/internet survey of 600 registered voter households during June, 2012.
Attachments
Attachments 1 - Strategic Plan Preliminary Actions, Responsibilities and Performance Measures
Attachment 2 - Preliminary Plan Actions Rating Sheets/Survey Results
Form Review
Packet Page 57 of 155
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/17/2012 04:29 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 05/17/2012 04:41 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/18/2012 08:55 AM
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 05/17/2012 10:06 AM
Final Approval Date: 05/18/2012
Packet Page 58 of 155
1
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
The preliminary strategic plan actions illustrated in this open house were identified from the results of the young adult, customer,
employee, business, and adult resident surveys; the focus group sessions; and charrettes.
Economic development - employment
Actions Participating parties Performance measures
1: Database
Inventory available properties, buildings,
and resources in Edmonds business districts
and zones to create a local database with
which to identify opportunities during
business and developer recruitment efforts.
Economic Development Department
Planning Division
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
Edmonds property owners
Edmonds brokers
% of local property owners and brokers
participating
% all available properties on local listing
# hits database receives from property owners
and brokers
# hits database receives from interested
businesses
2: Business outreach
Integrate city, Port, Chamber, Edmonds
Community College, Edmonds School
District, and private business efforts and
communications into the economic
recruitment process to maximize impacts
and allocate resources.
Economic Development Department
Port of Edmonds
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
Edmonds Community College
Edmonds School District
Edmonds property owners
Edmonds brokers
# public, property owners, businesses involved
in city strategic planning process
% to which the above involved in implementing
plans and projects
% programs or projects that receive funding
from outside sources
3: Economic incentives
Adopt reduced or deferred business license
fee, permit fee, utility connection charge,
latecomer fee, park or traffic impact fee,
property tax reduction or deferral, and/or
expedited building permit review for key
business or development recruitment
targets.
City Council
Public Works Department
Parks & Recreation Department
Planning Division
Finance Department
# new businesses locating in Edmonds who
attribute reason to incentives
# businesses on strategic recruitment list who
attribute reason to incentives
% of new businesses remaining in Edmonds
after 5 years
# new jobs created as result of incentive
programs
Packet Page 59 of 155
2
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
4: Economic sustainability
Recruit businesses that employ technical,
professional, and managerial skills offered
by Edmonds residents to facilitate live/work
sustainability in Edmonds.
Economic Development Department
Port of Edmonds
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
Edmonds Community College
Edmonds School District
Edmonds property owners
Edmonds brokers
% Edmonds residents employed within
Edmonds
% Edmonds residents who seek employment in
Edmonds who find jobs
% Edmonds businesses who seek employees
hire residents of Edmonds
% of new employees seek and find housing in
Edmonds
5: High tech industries
Retain and recruit businesses that depend on
and can take advantage of Edmonds superior
fiber optics capability on SR-104.
Economic Development Department
Port of Edmonds
Chamber of Commerce
Edmonds Community College
Edmonds School District
Edmonds property owners
Edmonds brokers
% existing businesses defined as “high tech”
% new businesses defined as “high tech”
# new businesses attracted to locate in
Edmonds as result of fiber optic service
6: Health industries
Retain and recruit businesses that support
and can expand the health related services
and products offered by Swedish Hospital’s
location in Edmonds.
Economic Development Department
Swedish Hospital
Chamber of Commerce
Edmonds Community College
Edmonds School District
Edmonds property owners
Edmonds brokers
# Swedish Hospital and related employees
# businesses who locate in Edmonds citing
Swedish Hospital
# new health related employees involved in
new businesses
% new health employees who reside in
Edmonds
% new health employees seek and find housing
in Edmonds
7: Car dealerships
Encourage development of urban auto sales
facilities involving decked display and
storage lots, multistory sales and service
facilities to retain this important source of
revenue in the city.
Economic Development Department
Highway 99 car dealers
Chamber of Commerce
$ volume of retail sales and retail sales tax
returned to Edmonds
% increase in annual car sales and tax retail
sales revenue in the city.
# building permits issued per year for auto
related facility developments
Packet Page 60 of 155
3
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Auto Row
“Auto row” – is a concentration of new and used auto
dealerships traditionally located on adjacent properties
along major arterial roadways with easy access and high
visibility from the surrounding community. When
development patterns were relatively low density and land
relatively inexpensive, the dealerships built low rise
buildings with large surface parking and display lots.
As urban development intensified and land value increased,
some dealers moved into auto parks or malls – multi-dealer
facilities organized around central access roads located
along freeway or major highway corridors.
Others, however, developed more intensive sales facilities
with multiple floors and even indoor auto display and
storage facilities – as well as diversifying their products.
Shown are some of “auto row’s” urban dealer strategies
including the Lexus Dealer in downtown Bellevue (left) and
Veterans Ford in Tampa, Florida (below).
Packet Page 61 of 155
4
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Economic development – business districts
8: Marketing
Identify and recruit retailers to fill critical
gaps in retail sales and services such as
women’s clothing downtown, professional
and dental on the waterfront, Uwajimaya and
Ikea on Highway 99, etc.
Economic Development Department
Port of Edmonds
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
International District
Edmonds property owners
Edmonds brokers
# new retail businesses established
% increase in retail sales overall
% increase in target retail sales – clothing,
hardware, housewares
% increase in sales to out-of-area residents
9: Design
Sponsor a competitive grant and low cost
loan program to enhance retail storefronts in
the downtown, in other business districts,
and in the International District on Highway
99.
Economic Development Department
DEMA
BID
Chamber of Commerce
International District
Edmonds banks and savings
# new/rehabilitated storefronts and building
projects
# new façade, sign, display window projects
% customers rate high quality appearances
% businesses rate appearances as good and
high quality
10: Promotion
Initiate and expand retail sales and other
events and activities including sidewalk
cafes and vendors on the waterfront,
downtown, in the other business districts,
and in the International District on Highway
99.
DEMA
BID
International District
Chamber of Commerce
# retail oriented events per year in each
business district
# customers participating in events
# of merchants participating in events
$ sales and sales tax revenue generated by
events
11: Organization
Institute the National Trust for Historic
Preservation’s Main Street 4-Point programs
in the downtown and business districts, and
in the International District on Highway 99.
Economic Development Department
DEMA
Edmonds BID
International District
Chamber of Commerce
@ Main Street approach adopted in each
business district
# of merchants and businesses participating in
Main Street
% of all eligible merchants and businesses
participating in Main Street
% participating members rating program and
events to be productive
Packet Page 62 of 155
5
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street Program
Main Street’s 4-Point Approach - encompasses work in 4 distinct areas – Design,
Economic Restructuring, Promotion, and Organization – that are combined to
address all of a commercial district’s needs. The philosophy behind this
methodology makes it an effective tool for community-based, grassroots
revitalization efforts.
The Main Street approach is also incremental; it is not designed to produce
immediate change. Because they often fail to address the underlying causes of
commercial district decline, expensive improvements, such as pedestrian malls do
not always generate the desired economic results. In order to succeed, a long-term
revitalization effort requires careful attention to every aspect of a business district
– a process that takes time and requires leadership and local capacity building.
The Washington State Downtown Revitalization/Main Street Program (WSMP) -
has been helping communities revitalize the economy, appearance, and image of
downtown commercial districts using the Main Street Approach since 1984.
www.mainstreet.org
www.downtown.wa.gov
Packet Page 63 of 155
6
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
12: Financing
Adopt a downtown Business Improvement
District (BID) with which to assess benefiting
properties and businesses for the cost of
instituting marketing, design, and
promotional activities in the downtown
district.
Edmonds BID
City Council
Economic Development Department
Finance Department
DEMA
International District
Chamber of Commerce
@ date 60% of businesses sign petition to adopt
BID
@ date Council adopts BID
$ raised by BID adoption first year
# programs or projects funded by BID revenue
% BID revenue leverages of other funding
sources
% businesses in BID pay on time
% businesses in BID rate effort to be effective
13: Interim storefronts
Institute temporary artist galleries or similar
uses in vacant storefronts or buildings in
order to provide visual interest and activity
while the building is being marketed for a
permanent tenant or owner.
Economic Development Department
Cultural Service Division
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
Edmonds BID
International District
# empty storefronts filled with temporary
exhibits per year
% temporary tenants become permanent
tenants
$ retail sales raised by temporary tenants or
exhibits
% other businesses rate program to be
successful
Community development – young adult
14: Employment
Create a young adult job placement service
offering part and full-time employment
opportunities with Edmonds businesses and
organizations for young adults that want
them.
Economic Development Department
Parks & Recreation Department
Cultural Service Division
Public Works Department
Edmonds School District
Edmonds Community College
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
Port of Edmonds
Swedish Hospital
International District
% of all young adult employed in part or full-
time positions
% of young adult that can find work that want
work
% of employers that can find young adult to
hire than want young adult employees
% of all employers who have hired young adults
# of young adults participating in workforce
# of employers who have hired young adults
Packet Page 64 of 155
7
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Spaceworks Tacoma
Spaceworks Tacoma is a creative, maybe even
utopian response to economic hard times. The
goal of Spaceworks is to transform empty
storefronts and vacant space into dynamic
points of interest through artistic energy and
enterprise, making Tacoma a stronger, more
active city.
Spaceworks is a joint initiative of the City of
Tacoma, Shunpike, and the Tacoma-Pierce
County Chamber of Commerce. In exchange for
creatively activating unused spaces, artists are
temporarily provided no- and low-cost rent,
exposure and business consultation.
http://spaceworkstacoma.wordpress.com/
Packet Page 65 of 155
8
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
15: Civic participation
Create young adult civic opportunities to
mentor children or adults, promote events or
social outreach, construct projects or
enhance the environment, network careers or
occupations, and create fine and
performance art with Edmonds public and
private organizations.
Parks & Recreation Department
Cultural Service Division
Edmonds School District
Edmonds Community College
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
Port of Edmonds
Swedish Hospital
Kiwanis Club
Rotary Club
Exchange Club
Edmonds Senior Center
Edmonds Library
Edmonds Arts Festival
Summer Market
% of all young adults that participate in
community events and organizations
% of all young adults that participate that
indicate they want to participate
% of community organizations that can find
young adults to participate that want young
adults to participate
# of young adults participating
# of service programs young adults are
involved in
# of community projects young adults have
completed
16: Activities
Create young adult social and recreation
oriented activities and facilities that offer
evening and after school peer group
interactions and events.
Parks & Recreation Department
Edmonds School District
Edmonds Community College
Edmonds Boys & Girls Club
SnoKing Youth Association
Young Life Edmonds
Jeremiah Center
% of all young adults that participate in
activities
# of young adults that participate
# of activities or events for young adults per
year
% of young adults that indicate they are
satisfied with social activities
Community development – housing
17: Diversify housing
Increase housing choice by type, price,
tenure, and location to house current and
potential employees in or near employment
centers, transit corridors, and recreational
sites to provide live/work/play sustenance in
Edmonds.
Planning Division ,
Port of Edmonds
Community Transit
Edmonds property owners
Developers
# new urban housing starts by type, price,
location
# days new products are on the market
compared to conventional products
% vacancy and occupancy rate of new urban
housing products
18: Affordable housing
Permit additional density, reduce parking
requirements, reduce permit fees, and/or
other measures to promote rental and sale
workforce housing for moderate income
working households employed within
Edmonds.
City Council
Edmonds Planning Division
Snohomish County Housing Authority
Edmonds property owners
Developers
# new housing starts affordable to Edmonds
households at 80% of Family Median Income
(FMI)
% of all new housing projects participating in
affordable housing
% of occupants that work in Edmonds
Packet Page 66 of 155
9
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Skagit Young Professionals
Young professionals are vital to every city by giving time,
money, and energy that supports local charitable and civic
activities. They are the local community’s entrepreneurs
innovating and bringing new ideas into the marketplace. They
are, however, the most likely age group able and willing to move
away.
The Mount Vernon Chamber of Commerce recognized that young
professionals are valuable for their social, civic, and tax
contributions to the local community but are easily lost to other
areas that provide more jobs, more pay, or more fun. To
encourage young professionals to stay, the Chamber realized it
needed get young professionals involved with Mount Vernon.
The Chamber provided financial and administrative support to
start the Skagit Young Professionals (SYP). The purpose of SYP is
to build the business relationships and friendships that will help
this age group become the leaders of Skagit County. The SYP
realized this age group responds more easily to like-minded
peers using internet and other tools to initiate contacts and
network relationships.
SYP’s goal is to develop and guide events and projects that
young professionals find engaging and worthwhile. SYP
programs events to include civic programs, professional
networking, career development, social mixers, and public
service.
SYP also encourages its members to take advantage of the great
programs the Mount Vernon Chamber of Commerce has to offer –
though SYP members can participate in any of the other Skagit
County chambers as well.
In addition, the Chamber works with corporate sponsors to
recruit young professionals for job openings and start-up
business opportunities.
www.mountvernonchamber.com
www.skagityoungprofessionals.com
Packet Page 67 of 155
10
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Community development – catalytic projects
19: Shoreline/waterfront
Develop a subarea plan and strategy for the
combined shoreline from the Port to the
Underwater Park, and from the OLAE, Marina
Beach to the Sunset Avenue Overlook to the
downtown that increases public access and
recreational opportunities.
Economic Development Department
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Parks & Recreation Department
Port of Edmonds
WSF
DOE
BNSF
Edmonds Senior Center
Edmonds Yacht Club
Waterfront property and business owners
@ date shoreline/waterfront planning process
initiated
% property and business owners participating
in plan
# residents participating in plan development
# catalytic projects identified – that are
accomplished
% property, business, residents indicating plan
priorities have been accomplished annually
and within 5 years
20: Harbor Square
Review and approve a final site development
plan and agreement for the property that
enhances views of and the waterfront
environment and realizes economic
feasibilities and potentials for mixed u se
developments on the Port property.
Port of Edmonds
City Council
Economic Development Department
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Parks & Recreation Department
Community Transit
Sound Transit
Friends of Edmonds Marsh
Waterfront property and business owners
@ date Port submits proposed development
plan to Council
@ date Council approves a site development
agreement
# developers recruited from Port’s RFP
# residents participating in RFP submittal
reviews
@ date Port selects/initiates first phase
development
% public indicating Port plan is successful
21: Antique Mall
Package the Safeway/Antique Mall properties,
determine reuse opportunities and desires,
conduct a competitive development Request-
for-Proposal (RFP) process, and initiate
redevelopment of this significant gateway
site.
City Council
Economic Development Department
Cultural Service Division
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Parks & Recreation Department
Port of Edmonds
Mall property owners
Edmonds Senior Center
Community Transit
Sound Transit
SF and BNSF
Developers
@ date city successfully packages properties
@ date city initiates master planning process
# residents and organizations involved in
planning process
@ Council adopts development criteria
@ city initiates competitive RFP
# quality developers recruited
@ date Council selects proposal and developer
team
% public indicating process is successful
Packet Page 68 of 155
11
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Top right – frontage of Antique Mall
Bottom right – south end of Antique Mall
Left – aerial view of waterfront, ferry landing,
Antique Mall, and Harbor Square
Edmonds Senior Center
Safeway/Antique Mall
Ferry terminal
Harbor Square
Amtrak/Sounder Train
i
Packet Page 69 of 155
12
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
22: International District
Create a subarea plan and design theme for
this unique area, initiate promotional events
and activities, and recruit an anchor or
destination store such as Uwajimaya.
International District
Swedish Hospital
Car dealers
City Council
Economic Development Department
Cultural Service Division
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Parks & Recreation Department
Community Transit
WSDOT
Developers
@ International District property and business
owner organization established
@ planning process initiated
# residents and organizations involved in
process
@ Council adopts plan
# plans projects completed within 1-5 years of
adoption
% property and business owners satisfied with
results
$ increase in retail sales and retail sales tax
revenues
% increase in property values and property tax
revenue
23: Swedish Hospital
Update the Stevens Hospital District master
plan to meet hospital functional
requirements and to mitigate impacts to
adjacent nonmedical land uses, parking and
stormwater requirements, and access and a
presence on Highway 99.
Swedish Hospital
Health & Wellness Center
Aldercrest Health & Rehab Center
City Council
Economic Development Department
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Community Transit
WSDOT
Adjacent property owners and residents
@ master planning process initiated
# adjacent property owners and residents
involved in process
@ Council adopts plan
# plan projects completed within 1-5 years of
adoption
% adjacent property owners and residents
satisfied with results
% Swedish and affiliates satisfied with results
Packet Page 70 of 155
13
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Top – current conditions on Auto Row
Top left – approach to Swedish Hospital from Highway 99
Top right – business signage at Ranch Market 99 in
International District on Highway 99
Left – current development pattern on Highway 99 in
Ed d
Swedish Hospital
International District Auto Row
Packet Page 71 of 155
14
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Arts and culture
24: Marketing
Conduct market surveys of out-of-area and
tourist attendees to the Arts Festival, Car
Show, Taste of Edmonds, ECA, and other
venues to determine their characteristics,
expenditure patterns, sources of
information, and other behavior with which
to maximize their attraction to Edmonds and
their beneficial economic impact on city
businesses.
Economic Development Department
Cultural Service Division
ECA
Summer Market
Edmonds Art Festival
Edmonds Historical Museum
Artworks
Gallery North – Artist Cooperative
Seaview Weavers
Cascade Symphony Orchestra
Olympic Ballet Theatre
Cascade Youth Symphony
Driftwood Players
Phoenix Theatre
Seattle Jazz Singers
Ballet Academy of Performing Arts
Write on the Sound
# events involved in outreach events
# survey responses received from outreach
events
% determination of most successful form of
outreach
% determination of average expenditures by
participants
% of expenditures tracked to local Edmonds
businesses
# new email addresses added to outreach list
% survey respondents indicating will increase
participation as result of outreach proposals
% art organizations indicate market results
useful
25: Design
Continue to further include arts and
historical based themes in the Edmonds
brand and install artworks, gateways,
wayfinding signage, and streetscape at the
entrances into Edmonds at the waterfront,
downtown, Highway 99 and SR-104, and
other business districts.
Economic Development Department
Cultural Service Division
Arts Commission
Historic Preservation Commission
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
International District
@ new comprehensive branding ideas revealed
% organizations, public validate new brand
approach
@ gateways and wayfinding signs installed
throughout city
% cost funded by business and art related
organizations
% customers rate brand unique and successful
26: Promotion
Create an Edmonds arts website and utilize
social media including Google maps, Face
book, and Twitter to announce, promote, and
attract out-of-area residents and tourists to
an expanded year-round calendar of events
and festivals for performing, literary,
culinary, fine, and other arts interests.
Economic Development Department
Cultural Service Division
ECA
Summer Market
Edmonds Art Festival
Edmonds Historical Museum
# art and culture events conducted per year
# new or additional events introduced
# new event participants who did not
participate before
# new vendors or exhibitions included in new
events
# hits to central arts website
% outreach survey participants indicating
website to be source of info
Packet Page 72 of 155
15
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Downtown Elgin Association (DNA)
DNA of Elgin, Illinois has developed an
interactive website that employs low-cost
and no-cost tools to provide online
services to provide promotional
information, directories, schedules, and
other materials to interested downtown
residents, customers, and tourists.
DNA redesigned their website to rely on
free and inexpensive online
communications to connect with as many
people as possible. Blogs, online
calendars, Facebook, Flickr, and others are
tools that young adults use to
communicate every day.
By incorporating these tools into the DNA
website, the downtown reached a
generation of customers that it would not
effectively reach otherwise. And, DNA
found that as young adults became
knowledgeable of what the downtown had
to offer, they also became interested in
working the DNA on downtown
development and promotional issues.
www.downtownelgin.org
Packet Page 73 of 155
16
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
27: Organization
Create a central clearinghouse with which to
coordinate schedules, advertisements,
events, productions, and other theatrical,
literary, culinary, fine, and other promotions
in order to maximize arts potential.
Chamber of Commerce
Cultural Service Division
Edmonds Arts Commission
ECA
Summer Market
Edmonds Art Festival
Edmonds Historical Museum
Gallery North – Artist Cooperative
Seaview Weavers
Cascade Symphony Orchestra
Olympic Ballet Theatre
Cascade Youth Symphony
Driftwood Players
Phoenix Theatre
Seattle Jazz Singers
Ballet Academy of Performing Arts
% art related organizations participating in
clearinghouse
% all local artists participating in clearinghouse
# coordinated promotions conducted by
clearinghouse
% outreach participants indicating
clearinghouse successful and useful
Arts and culture – catalytic projects
28: ECA
Complete an update to the Edmonds Center
for the Arts (ECA) master and strategic plan
identifying necessary financial strategies to
complete redevelopment and reuse of the
remaining school facility and parking lot or
garage.
ECA
City Council
Economic Development Department
Cultural Service Division
Parks & Recreation Department
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Adjacent property owners and residents
@ ECA strategic and master planning effort
initiated
@ Council adopts plan
% of required funding obtained to implement
plan
# programs or projects completed within 1-5
years of adoption
% ECA Board indicates plan and improvements
successful
% ECA attendees rate improvements successful
29: 4th Avenue Corridor
Fund and complete construction of the
streetscape from the downtown to ECA in
order to preserve the historical character of
the street, promote retail/art potentials, and
create a pedestrian friendly and walkable
corridor.
City Council
Economic Development Department
Cultural Service Division
Public Works Department
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
Adjacent property owners and residents
@ project funded in phases or full
@ construction initiated in phases or full
% adjacent property owners indicate result
successful
% public indicates result successful
# new galleries or businesses locate onto
corridor
Packet Page 74 of 155
17
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Top right – historical landmarks map
Bottom right – 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Packet Page 75 of 155
18
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
30: Walking tours
Identify, sign, and create audio and phone
apps and web based information to build on
existing art and history for walking tours of
waterfront and downtown historical sites and
buildings, artworks, and other visually
interesting and significant landmarks.
Cultural Service Division
Parks & Recreation Department
Art Commission
Historic Preservation Commission
Edmonds Historical Museum
Chamber of Commerce
Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation
Edmonds Community College
# historical buildings located on tour
# historical buildings open to public during
annual event
# tourists requesting maps or apps for tour
% historical property owners indicating tours
successful
31: Artist live/work
Sponsor an affordable artist live-work-teach-
display-sell center to attract young and
emerging talent similar to the Schack Center
in Everett possibly on the Safeway/Antique
Mall site or the 4th Avenue Corridor.
City Council
Economic Development Department
Cultural Service Division
Arts Commission
Snohomish County Housing Authority
Port of Edmonds
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
Artspace - developers
# artists desiring to be on waiting list for
live/work in Edmonds
@ site selected and project initiated
# live/work units created
# persons attend art exhibitions at site
# persons attend art classes at site
% of funding achieved by nonprofit or private
sources
32: Fine Arts Museum
Sponsor development of a museum to exhibit
local, emerging, and traveling fine arts
possibly in combination with ECA and/or the
proposed artist live/work project.
Edmonds Historical Museum
Gallery North – Artist Cooperative
Economic Development Department
Cultural Service Division
Arts Commission
Edmonds Arts Festival/Foundation
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
@ sponsor group established to
develop/operate museum
@ site/project selected and museum
constructed
# exhibitions conducted per year
# persons visiting museum
$ sales attributed to museum store and
exhibited art
33: Farmers’/Public Market
Expand the market into a year-round activity
with all-weather structures, available
parking, and increased visibility to out-of-
area customers and tourists possibly
redeveloping the Antique Mall for this
purpose.
Edmonds Summer Market
Economic Development Department
Cultural Service Division
Parks & Recreation Department
Public Works Department
Edmonds Historical Museum
@ permanent site selected and all-weather
shelter built
# new vendors added to market
# market days conducted year-round
# market customers per year
$sales achieved per year
% public indicating results successful
Packet Page 76 of 155
19
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Artspace
Finding and retaining affordable live/work
space is an age-old problem for artists,
painters, sculptors, dancers, and others who
require an abundance of well-lit space in
which to work. Many artists gravitate to old
warehouses and other industrial buildings,
but their very presence in an industrial
neighborhood often acts as a catalyst, setting
in motion a process of gentrification that
drives rents up and forces the artists out.
Artspace is America’s leading nonprofit real
estate developer for the arts. In the last few
years, Artspace has further expanded its
mission to incorporate the planning and
development of performing arts center, other
arts facilities, and entire arts districts
throughout the country.
Artspace’s mission is to create, foster, and
preserve affordable space for artists and arts
organizations. Artspace pursues this mission
through development projects, asset
management activities, consulting services,
and community-building activities that serve
artists and arts organizations of all
disciplines, cultures, and economic
circumstances. By creating this space,
Artspace supports the continued professional
growth of artists and enhances the cultural
and economic vitality of the surrounding
community.
Tashiro Kaplan Artist Lofts
115 Prefontaine Place South, SeattleStatus:
Opened 2004
www.artspace.org
Packet Page 77 of 155
20
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Parks and recreation
34: Fiscal sustainability
Create an alternative funding source other
than the General Fund with which to finance
programs, development, and maintenance of
the parks system such as a Metro Park
District.
City Council
Parks & Recreation Department
Finance Department
Port of Edmonds
@ levy or bond referendum successful for park
project
@ Metro Park District approved by voters
$ raised by above over current funding
amounts
% cost recovery of recreational programs
% life cycle facility requirements funded per
year
% capital projects funded in 6-20 year planning
period
35: Greenways
Develop a system of coordinated open
spaces, conservation corridors, and
greenways with trail access along the
shoreline, waterfront, wetlands, hillsides,
and parks to preserve the natural setting and
increase public awareness and access.
Parks & Recreation Department
Planning Division
Friends of Edmonds Marsh
Sustainable Edmonds
Edmonds in Bloom
Pilchuck Audubon Society
Floretum Garden Club
acres in protected critical area or conservation
status
protected acres represent of critical areas and
habitat total in Edmonds
miles of extended greenway or corridors in city
accessible by trail or walkway
public indicates greenways are sufficient
36: Dog park
Identify suitable relocation site and develop
a dedicated dog park consisting of fenced
social yards with spectator seating and
amenities, and off-leash exercise areas and
trails.
OLAE Stewardship
Parks & Recreation Department
@ site selected and park constructed
# persons with dogs who use park
% using persons are Edmonds versus out-of-
area residents
% dog park users indicate park is successful
37: Downtown restrooms
Develop a public restroom facility possibly
in conjunction with retail or other activity
including City Hall to serve pedestrians,
customers, and tourists in the downtown
district.
City Council
Economic Development Department
DEMA
Chamber of Commerce
BID
Downtown businesses and property
owners
@ site selected and restrooms constructed
# persons who use facility
# annual complaints about restroom conditions
or misuse
% downtown businesses indicate restrooms
successful
% downtown customers indicate restrooms
successful
Packet Page 78 of 155
21
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Parks and recreation – catalytic projects
38: Yost Pool
Implement a long term financial and
operational strategy for the refurbishment,
retrofit, and expansion of the facility to
include outdoor and indoor leisure pool
elements, therapy pool, party rooms and
concessions, and possibly other recreational
physical conditioning, courts, and
gymnasium uses.
Parks & Recreation Department
Edmonds School District
Edmonds Boys & Girls Club
Edmonds Senior Center
Swedish Hospital
Health & Wellness Center
Aldercrest Health & Rehab Center
@ funding strategy resolved for Pool upgrade
and expansion
% funding provided by non-city sources
% operating costs recovered by user fees and
schedules
# annual pool users
% increase in pool utilization
# school and swim team related events at pool
# persons receiving swimming instruction
% of public using Yost facilities
39: Civic/Woodway Fields
Resolve long term property ownership and
upgrade field, stadium, lighting, and other
features to support competitive play
including tournaments for out-of-area teams.
Parks & Recreation Department
Edmonds School District
Edmonds Boys & Girls Club
Snohomish County Sports Tourism
@ ownership status resolved for properties
@ improvement projects completed for sites
% funding provided by non-city sources
# annual events conducted at fields
% use by out-of-area visitors or tourists
$ expenditure at local businesses by users
40: Anderson Center
Establish a long range plan to retrofit and
continue to refurbish the facility to resolve
life cycle maintenance and repair
requirements and functional program needs.
Parks & Recreation Department
@ facility renovation and retrofit accomplished
% funding provided by non-city sources
# life cycle years added to facility as result of
project
# increased programs and events possible
# increased center users
% public use facility
% users indicate upgrade successful
% public indicates upgrade successful
41: Senior Center
Resolve a long term solution to fixing the
buildings settlement and life cycle problems,
and/or relocating the center to another
location possibly including the Antique Mall
site.
Edmonds Senior Center
Parks & Recreation Department
Planning Division
@ long range plan/project completed for center
% funding provided by non-city sources
# new programs realized as result of
plan/project
# new users added by project
% users indicate project success
% public indicate project success
Packet Page 79 of 155
22
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Environment
42: Coordination
Establish a central clearinghouse function to
coordinate environmental education and
sustainability funding, programs, and
volunteer efforts.
Parks & Recreation Department
Sustainable Edmonds
Friends of Edmonds Marsh
Pilchuck Audubon Society
Edmonds in Bloom
Floretum Garden Club
Tree Board
% environmental organizations participating
in clearinghouse
% clearinghouse funded by non-city sources or
volunteers
# programs conducted per year
# persons participating in clearinghouse
activities
% users indicate success
% public indicates success
43: Native habitat
Plant street trees, reforest open spaces,
remove invasive species, update the
landscape ordinance to promote use of
native and drought resistant plants to restore
plant and wildlife habitat.
Parks & Recreation Department
Public Works Department
Tree Board
Backyard Wildlife Habitat
Frog Watch
Sustainable Edmonds
Friends of Edmonds Marsh
Pilchuck Audubon Society
Edmonds in Bloom
Floretum Garden Club
% acreage impacted by invasive species
# acres cleared of invasive species per year
# volunteers involved
# new planting projects completed
# new trees planted per year
44: Food production
Increase community gardens and pea
patches, plant fruit tree orchards, harvest
and deliver food products to food banks and
other sources to promote natural systems in
Edmonds.
Parks & Recreation Department
Sustainable Edmonds
Foretum Garden Club
# acreage committed to community gardens
# persons involved in gardens
# food grown and donated per year
# persons served by food donations per year
45: Stormwater
Daylight Willow Creek, resolve on-going
flooding and water quality issues in Lake
Ballinger, restore saltwater access to
Edmonds Marsh, resolve flooding on SR-104
and Dayton, develop rain gardens, green
roofs and walls, bio-filtration swales, and
other green development features in
Edmonds projects and development codes.
Public Works Department
Olympic Water District
Salmon Recovery Board
DOE and DFW
People for Puget Sound
Friends of Edmonds Marsh
Sustainable Edmonds
@ Willow Creek daylighted
% Edmonds Marsh natural flow restored
# demonstration rain gardens, bio-swales
installed
% stormwater volume treatable by green
methods
% realized by green methods
@ green incorporated into Edmonds
development code
Packet Page 80 of 155
23
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Green/Smart Development
Stormwater management - green roofing
systems have been shown to retain 60-100%
of the rainfall they receive. Stormwater
retention relieves excess volume from
overburdened sewer systems and filters
stormwater pollutants. By replacing the
footprint of vegetation that was removed by
buildings and associated impermeable
pavement surfaces, green roofs mitigate the
impacts of stormwater runoff from urban
development.
Reduce energy costs - green roofs provide
the ecologically and economically
important benefit of rooftop insulation to
reduce the amount of energy used for
building air conditioning. Green roofing
acts as a barrier to thermal transfer of the
sun's energy through the roof. Plants re-
circulate water from the root zone, cooling
the air above the roof and absorb or deflect
incoming solar radiation.
Reduced urban heat island effect - cities
can be up to 5-7º C hotter than their
surrounding rural areas. Living green roofs
help mitigate this effect by cooling the air
over congested urban environments.
Improved air quality - tests show that
increased urban vegetation habitats helps
reduce atmospheric pollutants and the
levels of CO, NO2, O3, PM10, SO2.
Green walls - the benefits of green walls
are similar to green roofs in that green
walls covered in vegetation can be 25%
cooler than regular buildings walls in
summer, remove air pollutants, and look
great.
Packet Page 81 of 155
24
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Solar applications
Solar panels work by harnessing the energy
of the sun, converting it into energy that
can be stored and used by humans. The
type of solar panel known as a solar thermal
collector works by absorbing the energy into
a liquid medium, such as water, to later use
as heat energy. The type of solar panel
known as a photovoltaic module converts
this energy into electricity, which can then
be stored in battery bays to be used at a
later date.
Most commonly, solar roof panels are of the
solar thermal collector variety. Many
buildings will line their roofs with hot water
panels to collect heat energy. These panels
contain a liquid which runs through pipes
that are attached to an absorber panel. This
absorber panel will be coated with a deep
black coloring, to help it absorb as much
sunlight as is possible. The sunlight strikes
this panel, and heats it up, in turn heating
up the liquid, which can then be pumped
elsewhere for use.
For home applications, solar roof panels
may be used to provide hot water for
showers, laundry, and sinks, or may be used
as part of a forced-water heating system to
heat the entire building.
Packet Page 82 of 155
25
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
46: Energy
Reduce the human footprint in Edmonds
incorporating carbon reductions, solar
installations, and other energy conservation
practices in current city operations and
development codes and projects utilizing
Sustainable Works energy audits and
retrofits.
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Puget Power & Light
Community Transit
Sound Transit
WSDOT
Sustainable Edmonds
% city energy reduced at WWTP, city buildings,
and city fleet
# energy audits/retrofits completed per year
# solar projects completed in Edmonds
% power consumption provided by alternative
methods
% power consumption reduced per household
in Edmonds
# miles driven per household
% miles reduced per year
47: Recycling
Continue and expand reuse and recycling
programs in current city operations and in
waste management outreach activities by
Edmonds households and business practices.
Public Works Department
Waste Management
Sound Disposal
Sustainable Edmonds
# garbage and waste picked up per household
per year
% reduced per household per year
# recycled materials picked up per year in city
% recycled pickup increased per year per
household
Transportation - pedestrian
48: Trails
Complete an off-road multipurpose trail
network linking the shoreline and waterfront,
Edmonds Marsh, downtown, business
districts, parks and open spaces, bus and rail
transit connections, and the Interurban Trail
in Edmonds.
Park & Recreation Department
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Community Transit
Edmonds Bike Group
# miles of off-road trail in Edmonds
# sites and facilities connected to or by off-
road trails
% of population within 0.25 miles of an off-
road trail
# persons on trails during peak summer
weekend
% public indicating trails success
49: Walkways
Institute on-street sidewalk maintenance and
construction program to complete key
connections to the waterfront, downtown,
business districts, schools, parks, and other
major walking destinations including the
Safe Routes to School program.
Public Works Department
Community Transit
WSDOT
Edmonds School District
% of Edmonds streets with at least 1 sidewalk
% of Edmonds street lane miles with at least 1
sidewalk
% of all Edmonds residents that walk to work
% of all Edmonds residents that walk to transit
# of pedestrians on major walkways during
peak commuting times
# of pedestrians on major walkways during
peak retail hours
Packet Page 83 of 155
26
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Bicycles – Portland’s Yellow Bike Project
Bicycles are being used more frequently for commuting as well as
recreational pursuits by residents of urban areas. Portland, for
example, has the highest rate of bicycle commuting to work of
any major American city with 4.2% of workers commuting to work
by bicycle in 2006.
Portland's reputation as a bike-friendly city was enhanced by The
Yellow Bike Project, a 1994 civic engagement action that donated
bikes - repaired by at-risk-youth served by the Portland based
Community Cycling Center - bright yellow, and deploying them
for free use around Portland.
The project was one of the first community bicycle programs in
the United States. The Community Cycling Center, which helped
to operate the Yellow Bike Project, has since developed its Create-
a-Commuter program, which provides 375 free bicycles per year
to individuals.
Portland is developing a network of bicycle boulevards to make
cycling easier and safer. The east side of Portland is particularly
well-suited for this technique due to its consistent grid of
north/south and east/west streets. The boulevards are defined
with a combination of street markings, signs, and better signals
for crossing busy intersections.
In addition, the city has painted sections of hazardous bike lanes
blue, in order to try to prevent car-bike crashes. More recently,
the city has installed experimental bike boxes that allow
bicyclists to wait ahead of motorized traffic at red lights.
Overall, bicycle use in Portland has been growing rapidly, having
nearly tripled since 2001. Bicycle traffic on four of the Willamette
River bridges has increased from 2,855 before 1992 to over
16,000 in 2008, partly due to improved facilities.
Pedicabs - Portland Pedicab, and PDX Pedicab, operate pedicabs
in the downtown area. Portland Pedicabs operated 35 pedicabs,
and PDX operated 8 pedicabs in 2008. Pedicabs offer safe, fun,
and environmental transportation. Pedicabs are also used for
special events and weddings. Weddingpedicab.com offers bridal
wedding pedicab service in Portland. Pedicabs also collaborate
with local public agencies such as the Portland office of
Transportation, the Portland Old Town Arts & Culture Foundation,
and the Old Town Chinatown Neighborhood Association to
provide pedicab-led audio tours.
Packet Page 84 of 155
27
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
50: Crosswalks
Install special paving materials, flashing light
crossing strips, pedestrian activated signals,
median and curb extensions as appropriate
to improve pedestrian safety, increase
visibility, and calm traffic at major
intersections on SR-104 and Highway 99.
Public Works Department
Police Department
Community Transit
WSDOT
# crosswalks improved on SR-104 and
Highway 99
% major crosswalks provided improvements
# persons counted in crosswalks during peak
periods
# pedestrian/vehicle accidents in crossing of
highways
% reduction in accident rate
% users, customers indicating improvement
51: Waterfront connection
Resolve an emergency and everyday access
over the railroad tracks and ferry terminal
lanes for pedestrians bound for shoreline
and waterfront attractions from Harbor
Square, Antique Mall, and the downtown.
Public Works Department
Sound Transit
Amtrak
BNSF
Community Transit
WSDOT and WSF
Port of Edmonds
@ agreement reached with BNSF and WSDOT
@ crossing constructed over railroad tracks
and ferry lanes
# persons counted on overcrossing during
peak summer periods
% waterfront users indicating improvement
success
Transportation - bicycle
52: Bikeway network
Institute on-street network of bike lanes,
shoulders, and sharrows to complete key
connections to the waterfront, downtown,
business districts, schools, parks, and other
major commuter and recreational
destinations.
Public Works Department
Planning Division work
Edmonds Bike Group
Edmonds School District
WSDOT and WSF
Community Transit
Sound Transit
% of all Edmonds residents that ride bikes to
work
% of all Edmonds school students that ride
bikes to school
# of bike riders on major roads and trails
Transportation - vehicle
53: Street maintenance
Create a financing strategy with which to
maintain life cycle pavement conditions on
city streets that is capable of generating
approximately $1,400,000 per year.
City Council
Public Works Department
WDOT
Snohomish County ICC
Community Transit
Chamber of Commerce
@ funding strategy resolved and approved by
Council and/or voters
# complaints pavement or pot holes per year
# street miles pavement overlaid per year
% street pavement life cycle met
% all street pavement rated as good or better
% public indicating success
Packet Page 85 of 155
28
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Top – existing conditions on Highway 99 in Edmonds
Center – completed Highway 99 improvements in Tukwila
Bottom – completed Highway 99 improvements in Des Moines
Wayfinding signage Gateways
Interurban Trail
Packet Page 86 of 155
29
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
54: Highway 99
Institute a subarea plan and transportation
improvement program and project to
improve traffic flow, transit connections,
pedestrian streetscape, and mixed use
project developments similar to what has
been recently completed in Shoreline and is
planned in Everett and Lynnwood.
Economic Development Department
Public Works Department
Police Department
Cultural Service Division
WSDOT
Community Transit
International District
Swedish Hospital
Car dealers
Highway 99 property and business owners
@ planning process initiated
% affected property, business owners and
residents participate in planning
% traffic flow LOS improved
% transit ridership increased
# new pedestrians counted on sidewalks and
walkways
# new projects attributed to corridor
improvement
% increase in property value and property tax
revenue
% increase in retail sales and retail sales tax
revenue
% public indicates success
Transportation - transit
55: Trolley
Instigate a seasonal or possibly year-round
rubber-tired trolley service between the
waterfront and downtown, and possibly from
the downtown to Community Transit’s Swift
BRT transit connections in the International
District on Highway 99.
DEMA
Chamber of Commerce
Community Transit
International District
@ trolley service initiated
% trolley operating funds provided by non-city
sources
% trolley cost recovered from fares
# trolley riders per year
# trolley riders during peak events
% businesses indicate trolley success
56: Swift BRT
Enhance Community Transit’s Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) route on Highway 99 from
Everett to the King County Metro transfer
station at Aurora Village by designating
transit lanes and pull-outs, transit traffic
signal activation, all-weather shelters, and
other improvements.
Community Transit
DEMA
Chamber of Commerce
International District
# riders on Swift from Highway 99 corridor
% rider increase due to improvements project
and mixed use developments
# time reduced on headway thorough
Edmonds corridor
% public indicating use of transit over vehicles
due to route improvements
% new residents indicating sought to live on
Highway 99 due to BRT service
Packet Page 87 of 155
30
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
57: SR-104 Transit
Expand Community Transit’s schedule to
include hours that support Edmonds
employees and residents, particularly at the
waterfront, downtown, Westgate, and
Highway 99 connections in the International
District.
Community Transit
DEMA
Chamber of Commerce
International District
Port of Edmonds
# riders on SR-104 from ferry terminal to
Highway 99
% rider increase due to mixed use
development on waterfront, Westgate,
Highway 99
% public indicating use of transit over vehicles
due to schedule improvements
58: Sounder Train
Increase the schedule and number of Sound
Transit heavy rail trains between downtown
Seattle and Edmonds to promote
development of transit oriented development
(TOD) at Harbor Square, the waterfront, and
downtown.
Sound Transit
Port of Edmonds
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
Community Transit
WSDOT and WSF
# riders on Sounder Edmonds-Seattle
% increase in Edmonds ridership due to
Sounder service increase
% new residents indicating sought to live in
Edmonds due to Sounder service
% public indicating use of Sounder over
vehicles due to schedule improvements
59: Sound Transit LINK
Develop rubber-tired Community Transit
links with the proposed Sound Transit LINK
light rail corridor alignment along Interstate
5.
Sound Transit
Community Transit
Chamber of Commerce
# riders forecast to use transit as result of
LINK corridor development
# new mixed use and transit-oriented
development (TOD) likely in Highway 99
corridor due to LINK connection
60: Ferry Terminal
Pending funding and development of the
long range terminal at Point Edwards, create
an interim ferry waiting and loading strategy
that reduces conflicts with local traffic and
encourages ferry rider access to the
waterfront and downtown services and
amenities.
WSDOT and WSF
Sound Transit
Amtrak
BNSF
Port of Edmonds
Community Transit
Public Works Department
# new customers in waterfront and downtown
businesses due to staging improvement
$ spent in retail businesses as result of
staging improvement
% ferry riders indicating success of staging
improvement
% local businesses indicating staging success
61: Intermodal Station
Develop an integrated Amtrak, Sounder,
Community Transit, trolley, ferry, bike, and
pedestrian transfer facility on the waterfront
to promote access to Edmonds.
Sound Transit
Community Transit
WSDOT and WSF
Amtrak
Port of Edmonds
Public Works Department
BNSF
@ intermodal station funded and developed
on waterfront
# new riders identified on train, transit, ferry
as result of intermodal transfer
% new riders indicating use of transit over
vehicles as result of station
% new residents indicating sought to live in
Edmonds due to station development
% residents walk to ride bikes to station as
result
Packet Page 88 of 155
31
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Transportation - railroad
62: BNSF
Join the environmental impact assessment
process in Whatcom County concerning the
additional trains to the proposed coal
terminal at Blaine and identify improvements
in Edmonds to mitigate extra tracks, train
volumes, dust, noise, and potential conflicts
with ferry terminal and waterfront
pedestrian, bike, and vehicular traffic.
City Council
Economic Development Department
Planning Division
Public Works Department
WSDOT and WSF
Port of Edmonds
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
# increased trains through Edmonds as result
of increased Sounder, Amtrak, and coal
trains
% coal trains routed during evening hours to
avoid rail congestion
# ferry loading/unloading delayed due to train
traffic
# complaints filed due to dust, noise, horns
$ mitigation provided to construct railroad
overpass, install quiet rail, etc
Governance – fiscal sustainability
64: Fiscal sustainability
Implement Budgeting for Objectives (BFO)
process that incorporates public input to
establishing community priorities, resolves a
balance between revenues and expenditures,
and encourages innovative and alternative
delivery methods.
City Council
Finance Department
Economic Development Department
Public Works Department
Parks & Recreation Department
Police Department
% of priorities accomplished annually
% completed within budget parameters
$ set aside in rainy day reserve
% of public rating BFO results to be
satisfactory
# rating by bond agencies of city solvency
% of programs or projects funded from
outside sources
$ leveraged ratio of city funds to state and
federal grants
64: NGO participation
Integrate nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) such as the Chamber of Commerce,
DEMA, BID, and others into the operation and
implementation of BFO and Strategic Plan
actions.
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
BID
ECA
Sustainable Edmonds
Edmonds School District
% organizations who feel city government is
giving good service
% organizations who feel city government is
listening to them and keeping them
involved
% organizations involved in policy
development and implementation
Packet Page 89 of 155
32
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO)
How is BFO different?
Traditional budgeting Budgeting for Outcomes
Budget begins with Last year’s budget Community priorities
Focuses on Cost of services Value of services
Is organized by Department Priority
Encourages Low risk “same as before” approach New ideas, innovation, cooperation, and
improvement
Motivation Be fair to all, avoid pain Get the best results that match priorities
BFO is also called Priority-Driven Budgeting (PDB) or Budgeting by Priority (BP) or Performance Based Budgeting (PBB)
Packet Page 90 of 155
33
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Governance – development regulations
66: View preservation
Identify public and private view corridors
and viewsheds in the Bowl and create
appropriate view protection overlay districts,
ordinances, and other measures to preserve
and protect them.
Planning Division
Planning Board
Architectural Design Board
Port of Edmonds
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
Bowl property owners and residents
% of Bowl field surveyed and mapped for
viewscapes
@ viewscape maps developed as part of city
GIS system
@ view overlay zones and ordinances adopted
by Council
% residents indicate success of view
preservation efforts
% developers indicate success of view
preservation efforts
67: Development code
Amend mixed use development standards to
require higher, mixed use density in
proposed urban districts, but reduce ground
floor retail and people-oriented requirements
to reflect market capability and desired retail
corridor locations.
Planning Division
Planning Board
Architectural Design Board
Port of Edmonds
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
International District
Swedish Hospital
Car dealers
Property owners
Developers
# days required to process a building permit
% participants rating the process to be
understandable and fair
% participants rating requirements, standards
to be relevant
# variances sought since code update
# issues taken to Hearing Examiner, Council,
courts since code update
67: Design standards
Illustrate site, building, landscape, and
signage design objectives using examples
and form-based products to indicate public
quality objectives but within a flexible
procedure that recognizes innovation.
Planning Division
Planning Board
Architectural Design Board
Property owners
Architects
Developers
@ design standards updated to include
illustrations and form-based examples
% developers rating standards to be
understandable and fair
% Architectural Design Board rating standards
effective
# variances sought since standards update
Packet Page 91 of 155
34
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Form-based code – mixed use
Flex Block is a vertical mixed-use building
typically of a single massing element, designed for
occupancy by retail, service, or office uses on the
ground floor, with upper floors configured for
retail, service, office, and/or residential uses.
Second floor units may be directly accessed from
the street through a stair. Upper floors are
accessed through a street level lobby.
This building type is typically found in town
centers and neighborhood main streets. The
building can be owned by one entity, or divided
into several individually owned commercial and
residential condos.
Shown are examples of mixed use developments
around Puget Sound
Packet Page 92 of 155
35
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
68: Review process
Consolidate and simplify the review process
to incorporate electronic application
procedures, pre-submittal workshops, and
concurrent reviews.
City Council
Planning Division
Planning Board
Architectural Design Board
Chamber of Commerce
Property owners
Architects
Developers
@ on-line applications available
# on-line applications filed annually
% users indicating on-line applications useful
% review process developers indicating new
process predictable and fair
% public indicating new process provides
adequate input and review
Governance – communications
69: Communication
Establish effective public information and
feedback methods including websites, blogs,
Facebook, Twitter, and other social media
outreach.
City Council
Economic Development Department
IT Department
Finance Department
Parks & Recreation Department
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Police Department
# webpage hits on city, chamber business
sites
# email addresses in notification lists
# comments on city blog, Facebook, and
Twitter accounts
% residents connected to city by social media
% residents who feel that Edmonds listens to
them, keeps them informed, and seeks
their involvement
70: Access
Conduct frequent town halls, public open
houses, and other events at locations
throughout the city to encourage public
access and facilitate dialogue on policies,
programs, projects, and budgets.
City Council
Economic Development Department
Finance Department
Parks & Recreation Department
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Police Department
# outreach events per year
% outreach events conducted outside of the
bowl
# persons participating in outreach events
# persons on outreach contact lists
% eligible voters who participated in last
general election
Packet Page 93 of 155
36
Actions, responsibilities, and performance measures
Edmonds Strategic Plan
71: Strategy development
Extend and coordinate the implementation
resources of the Edmonds Economic
Development Department and Committee
with other public and nonprofit
organizations in the city to continue
strategizing and implementing the strategic
plan.
City Council
Economic Development Department
Port of Edmonds
Swedish Hospital
Edmonds School District
Edmonds Community College
International District
Sound Transit
Community Transit
WSDOT and WSF
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
BID
# of organizations involved in strategic plan
implementation actions
$ combined to fund marketing, promotion
actions
72: Performance results
Conduct annual State of the City program,
project, and budget assessments including
public, customer, and business surveys to
determine the effectiveness, performance,
and priority of Strategic Plan actions.
City Council
Economic Development Department
Port of Edmonds
Swedish Hospital
Edmonds School District
Edmonds Community College
International District
Chamber of Commerce
DEMA
BID
Sustainable Edmonds
ACE
% businesses satisfied with strategic plan
results
% public satisfied with strategic plan results
% young adults satisfied with strategic plan
results
% of Council satisfied with strategic plan
results
Packet Page 94 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
13%11%37%21%19%100%
7%9%22%37%25%100%
10%20%24%21%23%100%
3%7%17%40%32%100%
2%8%23%36%31%100%
4%10%27%33%25%100%
28%18%25%16%14%100%
204
9skipped question
1: Database?
6: Medical and health industries?
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
3: Economic incentives?
answered question
Answer Options
5: High tech industries?
2: Business outreach?
7: Car dealerships?
Economic development - employment
4: Economic sustainability?
19%
25%
23%
32%
31%
25%
14%
21%
37%
21%
40%
36%
33%
16%
37%
22%
24%
17%
23%
27%
25%
11%
9%
20%
7%
8%
10%
18%
13%
7%
10%
3%
2%
4%
28%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1: Database?
2: Business
outreach?
3: Economic
incentives?
4: Economic
sustainability?
5: High tech
industries?
6: Medical and
health …
7: Car
dealerships?
Economic development - employment
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
1
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 95 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
7%11%19%35%29%100%
13%12%27%29%20%100%
6%9%16%36%32%100%
11%22%32%16%18%100%
12%12%22%31%23%100%
9%7%28%27%28%100%
201
12
Economic development - business districts
11: Organization?
8: Marketing?
13: Interim storefront uses?
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
10: Promotion?
skipped question
Answer Options
12: Financing?
9: Design?
answered question
29%
20%
32%
18%
23%
28%
35%
29%
36%
16%
31%
27%
19%
27%
16%
32%
22%
28%
11%
12%
9%
22%
12%
7%
7%
13%
6%
11%
12%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
8: Marketing?
9: Design?
10: Promotion?
11:
Organization?
12: Financing?
13: Interim
storefront …
Economic development - business districts
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
2
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 96 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
8%15%26%31%20%100%
6%13%26%37%18%100%
6%12%28%33%22%100%
200
13
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
16: Activities?
Answer Options
skipped question
15: Participation?
Community development - young adults
answered question
14: Employment?
20%
18%
22%
31%
37%
33%
26%
26%
28%
15%
13%
12%
8%
6%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
14:
Employment?
15:
Participation?
16: Activities?
Community development - young adults
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
3
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 97 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
12%17%28%26%17%100%
20%19%24%21%18%100%
200
13
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
skipped question
Community development - housing
Answer Options
17: Diversity housing options?
18: Incentivize affordable housing?
answered question
17%
18%
26%
21%
28%
24%
17%
19%
12%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
17: Diversity
housing
options?
18: Incentivize
affordable
housing?
Community development - housing
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
4
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 98 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
6%10%14%29%41%100%
12%8%16%24%40%100%
8%8%17%21%46%100%
9%14%30%30%16%100%
8%12%26%32%21%100%
198
15
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
21: Antique Mall?
Answer Options
23: Swedish Hospital?
20: Harbor Square?
skipped question
Community development - catalytic projects
22: International District?
19: Shoreline/Waterfront?
answered question
41%
40%
46%
16%
21%
29%
24%
21%
30%
32%
14%
16%
17%
30%
26%
10%
8%
8%
14%
12%
6%
12%
8%
9%
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
19:
Shoreline/Wa…
20: Harbor
Square?
21: Antique
Mall?
22:
International …
23: Swedish
Hospital?
Community development - catalytic projects
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
5
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 99 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
14%18%28%19%21%100%
6%14%22%30%28%100%
7%7%24%30%33%100%
10%9%28%25%27%100%
197
16
Arts and culture
27: Organization?
24: Marketing?
skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
26: Promotion?
Answer Options
answered question
25: Design?
21%
28%
33%
27%
19%
30%
30%
25%
28%
22%
24%
28%
18%
14%
7%
9%
14%
6%
7%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
24: Marketing?
25: Design?
26: Promotion?
27:
Organization?
Arts and culture
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
6
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 100 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
12%10%25%30%23%100%
12%15%25%27%21%100%
16%24%28%18%14%100%
17%20%25%23%16%100%
23%23%25%17%13%100%
13%13%17%21%38%100%
199
14
Arts and culture - catalytic projects
31: Artist live/work?
28: Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA)?
33: Farmers/Public Market?
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
30: Art and history walking tours?
skipped question
Answer Options
32: Fine Arts Museum?
29: 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor?
answered question
23%
21%
14%
16%
13%
38%
30%
27%
18%
23%
17%
21%
25%
25%
28%
25%
25%
17%
10%
15%
24%
20%
23%
13%
12%
12%
16%
17%
23%
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
28: Edmonds
Center for …
29: 4th Avenue
Cultural …
30: Art and
history …
31: Artist
live/work?
32: Fine Arts
Museum?
33:
Farmers/Publ…
Arts and culture - catalytic projects
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
7
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 101 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
17%8%24%33%17%100%
8%10%21%25%35%100%
30%20%27%10%12%100%
10%9%18%32%30%100%
198
15
Parks and recreation
37: Downtown restrooms?
34: Fiscal sustainability?
skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
36: Dog Park?
Answer Options
answered question
35: Greenways?
17%
35%
12%
30%
33%
25%
10%
32%
24%
21%
27%
18%
8%
10%
20%
9%
17%
8%
30%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
34: Fiscal
sustainability?
35: Greenways?
36: Dog Park?
37: Downtown
restrooms?
Parks and recreation
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
8
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 102 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
14%10%20%27%28%100%
10%16%30%25%20%100%
4%6%22%41%27%100%
7%11%23%33%26%100%
199
14
Parks and recreation - catalytic projects
41: Senior Center?
38: Yost Pool?
skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
40: Francis Anderson Center?
Answer Options
answered question
39: Civic and Woodway Fields?
28%
20%
27%
26%
27%
25%
41%
33%
20%
30%
22%
23%
10%
16%
6%
11%
14%
10%
4%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
38: Yost Pool?
39: Civic and
Woodway
Fields?
40: Francis
Anderson
Center?
41: Senior
Center?
Parks and recreation - catalytic projects
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
9
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 103 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
19%14%37%16%14%100%
12%10%25%25%29%100%
13%11%29%21%25%100%
10%9%23%29%29%100%
16%8%31%22%23%100%
5%8%21%31%35%100%
195
18
Environment - sustainability
45: Stormwater?
42: Coordination?
47: Recycling?
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
44: Food production?
skipped question
Answer Options
46: Energy?
43: Native habitat?
answered question
14%
29%
25%
29%
23%
35%
16%
25%
21%
29%
22%
31%
37%
25%
29%
23%
31%
21%
14%
10%
11%
9%
8%
8%
19%
12%
13%
10%
16%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
42:
Coordination?
43: Native
habitat?
44: Food
production?
45:
Stormwater?
46: Energy?
47: Recycling?
Environment - sustainability
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
10
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 104 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
8%8%25%27%32%100%
6%5%22%35%32%100%
12%12%30%24%21%100%
11%13%25%21%30%100%
20%17%18%26%19%100%
196
17
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
50: Crosswalks?
Answer Options
52: Bikeway network?
49: Walkways?
skipped question
Transportation - pedestrian and bicycle
51: Waterfront connection?
48: Trails?
answered question
32%
32%
21%
30%
19%
27%
35%
24%
21%
26%
25%
22%
30%
25%
18%
8%
5%
12%
13%
17%
8%
6%
12%
11%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
48: Trails?
49: Walkways?
50:
Crosswalks?
51: Waterfront
connection?
52: Bikeway
network?
Transportation - pedestrian and bicycle
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
11
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 105 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
6%8%29%37%19%100%
8%10%30%23%29%100%
192
21
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
skipped question
Transportation - vehicle
Answer Options
53: Street maintenance?
54: Highway 99?
answered question
19%
29%
37%
23%
29%
30%
8%
10%
6%
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
53: Street
maintenance?
54: Highway
99?
Transportation - vehicle
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
12
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 106 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - moderate 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
39%20%16%13%12%100%
24%14%29%22%11%100%
15%6%23%41%15%100%
10%8%17%33%31%100%
13%11%26%29%21%100%
20%14%29%19%17%100%
15%7%23%26%29%100%
192
21skipped question
55: Trolley?
60: Ferry Terminal?
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
57: SR-104 Transit?
answered question
Answer Options
59: Sound Transit?
56: Swift Bus Transit (BRT)?
61: Intermodal Station?
Transportation - transit
58: Sounder?
12%
11%
15%
31%
21%
17%
29%
13%
22%
41%
33%
29%
19%
26%
16%
29%
23%
17%
26%
29%
23%
20%
14%
6%
8%
11%
14%
7%
39%
24%
15%
10%
13%
20%
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
55: Trolley?
56: Swift Bus
Transit (BRT)?
57: SR-104
Transit?
58: Sounder?
59: Sound
Transit?
60: Ferry
Terminal?
61: Intermodal
Station?
Transportation - transit
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - moderate 2 - low 1 - very low
13
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 107 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - moderate 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
24%4%14%18%39%100%
188
25skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
Transportation - railroad
Answer Options
62: BNSF - coal trains?
answered question
39% 18% 14% 4% 24%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
62: BNSF - coal
trains?
Transportation - railroad
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - moderate 2 - low 1 - very low
14
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 108 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - average 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
7%4%27%27%35%100%
11%8%30%27%24%100%
183
30
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
skipped question
Governance - fiscal sustainability
Answer Options
63: Fiscal sustainability - BFO?
64: NGO participation?
answered question
35%
24%
27%
27%
27%
30%
4%
8%
7%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
63: Fiscal
sustainability -
BFO?
64: NGO
participation?
Governance - fiscal sustainability
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - average 2 - low 1 - very low
15
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 109 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - moderate 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
14%15%28%20%24%100%
15%14%20%27%24%100%
11%11%31%30%18%100%
6%8%21%34%31%100%
186
27
Governance - development regulations
68: Review and approval processes?
65: View corridors?
skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
67: Design standards?
Answer Options
answered question
66: Development regulations?
24%
24%
18%
31%
20%
27%
30%
34%
28%
20%
31%
21%
15%
14%
11%
8%
14%
15%
11%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
65: View
corridors?
66:
Development
regulations?
67: Design
standards?
68: Review and
approval
processes?
Governance - development regulations
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - moderate 2 - low 1 - very low
16
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 110 of 155
1 - very low 2 - low 3 - moderate 4 - high 5 - very high Response
Count
4%9%23%34%30%100%
7%8%28%30%27%100%
7%9%30%27%26%100%
4%9%24%33%30%100%
186
27
Governance - communications
72: Assess performance?
69: Communication?
skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
71: Strategy development?
Answer Options
answered question
70: Access?
30%
27%
26%
30%
34%
30%
27%
33%
23%
28%
30%
24%
9%
8%
9%
9%
4%
7%
7%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
69:
Communication
?
70: Access?
71: Strategy
development?
72: Assess
performance?
Governance - communications
5 - very high 4 - high 3 - moderate 2 - low 1 - very low
17
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 111 of 155
No Yes Response
Count
45%55%100%
192
21skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
Did you complete any of the surveys or participate in the focus group or charrettes?
Answer Options
Participate?
answered question
55% 45%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Participat
e?
Did you complete any of the surveys or participate in the
focus group or charrettes?
Yes No
18
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 112 of 155
Response
Percent
36%
38%
7%
14%
2%
2%
193
20
Where do you work?
Elsewhere Sno Co?
Retired?
Elsewhere?
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
Seattle?
skipped question
Answer Options
King County?
Edmonds?
answered question
Retired?, 36%
Edmonds?,
38%
Seattle?, 7%
Elsewhere
Sno Co?,
14%
King County?,
2%
Elsewhere?,
2%
19
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 113 of 155
0 1 2 3 4 5+Response
Count
0%20%46%15%14%6%100%
197
16skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
How many people in your household?
Answer Options
Number household members?
answered question
6% 14% 15% 46% 20% 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Number
household
members?
How many people in your household?
5+ 4 3 2 1 0
20
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 114 of 155
North Puget
Dr?196th-220th?Bowl west 9th?South 220th?Response
Count
22%23%28%26%100%
190
23skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
Where do you live?
Answer Options
Survey Zone?
answered question
26% 28% 23% 22%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Survey Zone?
Where do you live?
South 220th? Bowl west 9th? 196th-220th? North Puget Dr?
21
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 115 of 155
0-1 2-5 6-10 11-20 21+Response
Count
5%12%19%22%43%100%
189
24skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
How many years have you lived in the Edmonds area?
Answer Options
Years?
answered question
43% 22% 19% 12% 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Years?
How many years have you lived in the Edmonds area?
21+ 11-20 6-10 2-5 0-1
22
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 116 of 155
Own Rent Response
Count
93%7%100%
190
23skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
What type of housing do you live in?
Answer Options
Current residence?
answered question
7% 93%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Current
residence
?
What type of housing do you live in?
Rent Own
23
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 117 of 155
Male Female Response
Count
41%59%100%
189
24skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
What is your gender?
Answer Options
Gender?
answered question
59% 41%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Gender?
What is your gender?
Female Male
24
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 118 of 155
<18 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+Response
Count
0%1%5%24%34%35%100%
192
21skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
In which age group are you in?
Answer Options
Age group?
answered question
35% 34% 24% 5% 1% 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Age group?
In which age group are you in?
65+ 50-64 35-49 25-34 18-24 <18
25
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 119 of 155
$0-20,000 $21-30,000 $31-40,000 $41-50,000 $51-75,000 $76-100,000 $100,000+Response
Count
5%3%7%8%13%21%42%100%
163
50skipped question
Edmonds Strategic Plan Open House
What is your household income range?
Answer Options
Income range?
answered question
42% 21% 13% 8% 7% 3% 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Income range?
What is your household income range?
$100,000+ $76-100,000 $51-75,000 $41-50,000 $31-40,000 $21-30,000 $0-20,000
26
Survey - Strategic Plan Open House
Edmonds Strategic PlanPacket Page 120 of 155
27
Survey open house comments
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Comments or suggestions
Willing to pay more taxes for quality community.
Allow taller buildings in some areas (5 stories) to spur growth, increase tax revenue.
Most of my 1 and 2 ratings were given not because the actions are unimportant but because there is
not money to do them.
Sidewalks. 7th Avenue north needs sidewalks on both sides of the street for safety reasons. It is a
very busy street at times - used by the fire trucks, aid units, police, also school children, fireworks
observers, Taste of Edmonds participants, and sports teams. It is not possible to get on a sidewalk
at 7th and Casper and walk to Main Street without having to walk in the street or switch back and
forth across 7th to find a sidewalk. Try it and you'll see what I mean. People walk in the street on
7th North all of the time.
Establish Edmonds brand, compromise old work charm with contemporary class and ecotourism,
shine and enhance, promote! Try to real all potential economic groups - multiethnic, ages,
capacities - the future lies with youthful perspectives and energy.
Thank you for all the effort you are putting toward making our town great.
With all due respect, I do not believe the City Council really cares what residents want. Waste of
funds on a roundabout is an example. And proposing Sunset Drive, great idea - but poor timing
until economy recovers.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate with this questionnaire.
I don't want bulky, blocks of mixed-used buildings in Edmonds.
Not sure in #66 what the proposed urban districts are.
Are there any plans to have the owner of the BCA and house that is dilapidated on 76th, clean up
the eyesore? Nice were park with ugly view doesn't make sense.
Height limit needs to be increased in downtown area to at least 30 feet.
Based upon focus group and resident survey results and comments previously received, the city
should note that virtually 100% of the desired/expressed action plan suggestions for each group or
individual require additional funding $$$$ in order to effect such actions. Sources of such funding
are not addressed in any fashion within this study.
Move the dog park - really?
I'd like to hear how you plan on prioritizing what will happen. Will you have a meeting after these
items are reduced to the ones that have the potential of being implemented? How will this
information be disseminated to the public? Well done on collecting this information.
Best way to encourage development and redevelopment is to:
1) streamline permitting process to avoid excessive permit costs and time to obtain a permit no
matter how small or large the project.
2) Adopt codes that respond to modern retail and business operations and practices.
What of cost?
Thank you for your work and efforts to improve Edmonds as a wonderful place to live and work.
Build a world class boutique community/senior center on the waterfront and tie it to a redeveloped.
The Antique Mall, the Senior Center desire more and better discussions.
Having initiated this excellent process - strategic, data based, comprehensive, professional - you
have properly initiated an informed and empowering approach.
Continue to practice open, informing communications, progress reports, added relevant
information to bring this engaged community in the ongoing effort. Collective impact - this is not a
sterile, but a living process as it succeeds.
Keep engaging with a broad cross section of community not just the noisy few. Could you bring this
to not for profit groups prior to the all person surveys?
It appears you needed to group many items together in order to keep this survey as short as
possible. One or two items could easily be the cause for your audience to lower the value of any of
these questions. This could give a false lower level of any one item. (e.g., #41 I support fixing the
ESC but not moving it!)
Loads and loads. But I'll email them. Thanks.
The Senior Center could become a source of the volunteer labor to sell tickets to excursions and a
snack bar for city visitors. Using the Argosy or other boat source to get visitors from Seattle to
Edmonds and taking the train back would be a great way to increase tourism.
Good participation. Thanks. Obviously there will be highest priorities that deal with basic services
and safety, roads, utilities. Think big and out of the box about how to fund priorities (tax revenue,
Packet Page 121 of 155
28
Survey open house comments
Edmonds Strategic Plan
consolidations, philanthropy, government grants, and initiatives). The city staff are outstanding
public servants. Need to ensure highest level of customer service to citizens. Government should
make it easy for people/community to achieve goals. Make sure Council executes the public
collective will, not just the loudest voices. Good work all - carpe diem!
Excellent start of getting the citizens involved.
If #52 was part of #48 it would be a 3 as well.
There are trails that could be labeled and used for bike paths.
Pro
Maintain current zoning requirements and height limits.
Not sure how long this strategic vision is intended for. I based my answers on more immediate
future, but if this was for 10-20 years from now, then my answers would be different.
#13 - This could work between landlord and local businesses without incurring major $ or heavy
volunteer support. Example - a 6 week art exhibit in the windows of an empty storefront that
announces upcoming classes or exhibits elsewhere. Example - short term sales area around a
special time of year - as is done in malls with a small area focusing on celebrations.
Thank you.
Please work with surrounding communities to provide safe and convenient bike route to Seattle
from Edmonds bowl and to Mukilteo and Everett.
1. A meat market does not belong on Main Street in Edmonds.
2. The proposed redevelopment of Harbor Square should include buffers around Edmonds Marsh.
Connecting with adjacent communities, community organizations such as food banks, Boy Scout
troops, churches, etc needs to be done. Issues such as transportation, scheduling, and prioritizing
projects can be subjects for communication. Whenever a broader network is acting, good things
happened.
#65 views - this is very important. Views are a key component of Edmonds and need to be treated
as enhancing value (tax base) for all. Should not be ad hoc preservation to land owners whim.
I think there will be lots of opportunities to partner with private businesses, local foundations to
help bring many of these ideas to life. Please, no taller buildings in the bowl.
Survey all properties owned by the City of Edmonds. Examine/evaluate revenue generated for
benefit of the city. Assure all properties generate revenue for economic benefit of the city or
replace.
So many of these areas are of high importance. The survey might be improved by asking the
respondents to rank items that are rated as 5. That would force each respondent to deeply think
about his/her priorities. In a perfect world, a great number of these ideas could be implemented.
But we are in a recessionary period.
PS. it might be a nice idea to create a volunteer database so that the people of Edmonds could share
their talents and time in helping achieve these goals.
Thank you.
Good job Beckwith et al. No discussions about lack of parking in downtown/waterfront area and
why not charge fees? Water taxis and Argosy Cruises.
We don't need a year round market unless work with Edmonds Museum.
How much dust comes from a coal train?
1) We need community buy-in for a vision for downtown and the waterfront. With a vision and a
plan there is more likely to be donations/funding forthcoming for designated projects and land
acquisition.
2) Remove the barriers to building green! Our code does not encourage an integrated sustainable
design approach to development. Without that we will continue to build single use buildings
conventionally and do it piece meal. We are not progressive enough and will continue to fail to
attract the creative class unless we update our code, streamline the permitting process, and offer
incentives.
Covered swimming pool year round at old Woodway High. Needs to be on Parks Comprehensive
Plan. Change School District Directors attitude of one of cooperation in regard to park expansion on
surplus school property. Maintain current building height regulation in waterfront area.
#3 In our group we discussed encouraging local banks to provide incentive funding of small
businesses operating in Edmonds. At this time who would a business owner talk to concerning
business loans? This is a void in economic development. Involve local banks!
I really enjoyed participating in the focus group last month. The material you came up with is very
helpful and thought provoking.
Catalytic development section community development will have "huge" issues with coal trains if
Packet Page 122 of 155
29
Survey open house comments
Edmonds Strategic Plan
terminal is built - $$$.
Parking needed for train users - #58.
#22 challenge for Uwajimaya with Ranch 99 and Buo Han! I don't know how to answer 31 -
intriguing idea but I'm not sure how that would work in competition with #29 and 32 and current
galleries.
If coal trains roll through Edmonds or anywhere it will be devastating for all!
The answers are SO important to me. Keep it up Edmonds.
The questions are difficult to answer, because they include more than one idea. Sometimes I agree
with one part of the question but disagree with another part. Therefore, may answers are not really
reliable or reflective of the key question. Please try to limit compound questions or allow more than
one answer i.e., yes or no to a. b. c.
Keep Yost outdoors. Extend BRT to Edmonds, train, ferry.
Keep dog park.
No 99 International District = downtown.
Fire current Planning Director.
Slow down Public Works Department on spending.
Vehicle replacement schedule is extravagant.
Quit spending.
#36 - move away from the beach.
Ned a process to prioritize quantitatively when determine priorities (and inform public).
What has worked in other cities (like Edmonds)?
The survey is too long - too many questions.
For business development focus on branch offices and arts.
No.
No.
Priority is economic development and Antique Mall redevelopment for revenue producing sources
without rigid requirements including building height variation
Many if not most of these programs sound very good, but if implementing them depends on
continuously increasing city revenues then I would not support them. I believe city revenues will
be decreasing indefinitely, and there is nothing that can or should be done about it. Only cancer
cells try to grow indefinitely, and they eventually kill their host. Increasing levels of bureaucracy
(complexity) eventually runs into the law of diminishing returns.
Good process. Lots of these suggestions are not substantive with respect to priority budgeting and
the city's current and future ability to fund core services. Too many wants while the focus should
be on needs.
Thanks for the opportunity to participate.
I am also a business owner in downtown Edmonds. I would like to suggest that a year round market
would best be located at the old Safeway/Detroit Auto Sales site at the corner of highway 99 and
212th if that is an Edmonds address. This is an area that can service not only Edmonds but so
much of the outlying areas.
Sidewalks for the kids!
We have more and more committees, surveys, etc. and no progress.
Decisions have to be made.
GOOD WORK!!
82 questions is a bit long...but look good.
To me it seems that in the past the "City" has to often not taken care of what it has, (road overlays,
building up-keep, utilities) and continues to throw money at studies, the pool is a great example.
Also cost over runs has been more common than one would expect. The new park, the skate park,
220th street.
Expanding bus transit and building bike trails/bike lanes might seem like it's simply new expense
burden on the budget, but these type of infrastructure improvements fund themselves over time by
encouraging expanded access to the city by employers/employees and tourists, thereby
contributing more revenue to the city.
The state of bicycle infrastructure in the city is abysmal, and is especially embarrassing compared
to neighboring Lynnwood and Shoreline...
Reduce the redundant Government agencies and cut the extortion - no taxes.
This is a lot of list-making and prioritizing...a lot of categories. Will this plan be another to sit on
the shelf or do we have a mechanism in place to make sure it actually is used and easy to read? In
Packet Page 123 of 155
30
Survey open house comments
Edmonds Strategic Plan
other words, can it be consolidated in 3-5 pages so someone actually knows what our priorities are?
Privilege the public in public areas--the restricted waterfront walkway and beach use in front of one
condominium next to the Senior Center is very inconvenient for anyone wanting to walk along the
waterfront, especially elderly and families.
Encourage diversity.
Edmonds & Lynnwood area are severely short of turf community fields (none!?) as compared to
neighboring Shoreline. This large population of families is ignored and lots of year-round business
from families coming in for soccer tournaments and other weekend-long events is lost to other
communities that have the fields to draw large populations and then also get their business. These
are the areas that should be turf: Old Edmonds Woodway, Civic Center, Meadowdale Playfields.
They could then sponsor more tournaments that would bring family business into Edmonds.
Adults who play soccer would also be a CONSTANT source of revenue & they would meet in
Edmonds for a brew & food afterwards, too. Also promotes that "healthy" reputation. Thanks.
Do something! How many studies, committees does the council majority need to hear from before
they get it? We are going broke. The Edmonds City Council majority has been sitting on its hands
for years and ignored all studies that suggest the city needs to take a new direction to be fiscally
viable. City Council majority has also been very anti development and anti business and pretty
much anti everything that would entail changes other than adding more banks to the downtown
area.
Though I don't live in Edmonds any more I am one of the dealers at the Antique Mall. What happens
in Edmonds is important to my business
This survey was hard to take because I think it relied on a thorough understanding of the overly
detailed info put out by the Beckwith Group. Most of it seemed to be important work and I fear
people will have the same reaction to it I did; most very important and you will not glean a starting
point.
Plus FYI there is no real category for those of us having lived in Edmonds for 1-1/2 years. There
was a 0-1 and a 2-5.
Why increase population density? If Edmonds maintains its current density property values will
increase more than if you willy-nilly add more housing units that will decrease overall property
values.
These disparate questions were confusing as to any schema related to timing considerations.
Therefore I could not reply too many questions as there was no detailed interrelationship allowing
prioritization. Additionally, I would suggest that each page include the same information as to
schema. Interrelationship can be determined by grouping. That must be spelled out if you want
real responses from which you can plan. - signed:
Edmonds Citizen and Retired disabled Project Planner
Thanks for asking for community input
A map or other images would have provided much needed clarity. References to the
Safeway/Antique Mall properties are not clear and often cause confusion. Some assume the
waterfront location; others assume the Hwy 99 location. My answers to this survey assumed that
the Antique Mall at Hwy99 and 104 (shared with Burlington Coat Factory) and the nearby Safeway at
Hwy 99 were NOT the properties in question.
I think the survey is way too long with wording that confuses the voter leading many to not vote.
While all areas are very important to us living in Edmonds, I believe something simpler would get
more response. Similar to the plan to revamp the one way waterfront roadway. Once you know
what the idea is, you can make a better decision. Many people use Facebook or read the Beacon, My
Edmonds News or Edmonds Patch. Maybe by outlining 4-5 specific questions a week with a little
more detail we could all make a better opinion. Just an idea.
The planning department is exceedingly difficult to work with. Slow, inconsistent, not responsive.
Thank you for including me in this survey-while I do not technically live in the city of Edmonds, I
live near enough to enjoy visiting your beautiful city on a regular basis. Your city is setting a great
example of a model for others to strive for!
My husband and I are very much interested in the future of Edmonds.
The questionnaire was not worded well to understand exactly what each project or idea really
entails, the cost involved or how it would be funded.
Government issues are, in my opinion, a) change to a City Manager form of Government, and b)
realize that we are primarily a residential community that desires low level architecture with
inherent revenue limitations (our current and potential future business centers develop minimal tax
contributions), and develop a sustainable budget structure using that assumption.
Packet Page 124 of 155
31
Survey open house comments
Edmonds Strategic Plan
Would be very resistant to taking away the Senior Center, where it is. Everyone will get old
someday. That is uplifting and inspirational to folks who suffer loss, pain, health problems etc. To
grab that for greed/monetary reasons is NOT RIGHT. That peaceful ambiance helps soothe those
who have contributed all their lives, perhaps now using the center as their main social network.
Many of the members could not afford to frequent the fine seafood dining establishments very
often. There is solace and comfort in gazing out those windows.
Many things are very good about Edmonds. Almost every suggestion sounded good, but with our
current situation, I'd want to keep what we have repaired and in good shape. Change will come;
funding will loosen up in good time. We all have to be patient and support each other.
Please get more parking for the train ASAP.
Thanks!
Neighborhood meetings to discuss usage and landscaping upkeep of small parks i.e..Pineridge Park
I think the City should look into getting a resident to volunteer as a "volunteer coordinator"... we
need FREE volunteer help for the CITY/STAFF needs...
Keep the building height limit, and reduce the intensity of the proposed Harbor Square
development.
Let's not repeat the past again and again and expect different results .The public is more informed
now than ever and pulling bonehead deals like the PFD's is useless (Let us hope!!) The library, fire
department, Arts Center, Give us a break before we all have to move.
This survey was too long for me to finish. Some items could have been consolidated.
Prioritize non-profit rental space available for non-profit early childhood education programs.
Keep the dog beach. Promote Edmonds as an arts/tourist destination.
Bravo! Good effort to communicate your vision to improve and grow. Many of us have lived here for
more than 40 years because of the great care and love for Edmonds. I want to see progress while
keeping the qualities of Edmonds that make it what it is to so many, , , a beautiful place to live,
bring families, enjoy the culture and art of our city. Thanks for caring.
I would like to see something done about the intersection of 196th/Puget Drive & 88th Ave W.
Thank you for encouraging participation in our community!
There was no question about the roundabout at Five Corners. I am very opposed to this
construction. I don't want my tax dollars to go for this unneeded construction.
Turn on traffic light on 104th by new apartments!!
As a small business owner in Edmonds at Kimberley and co. In harbor square I am interested in the
development and the timing and where the businesses are supposed to go should the Port go
through with their plan to redevelop? Rent on Edmonds is high and there are a lot of vacancies in
downtown.
I would like to see the Yost pool updated but not over expanded to include slides, etc. I love the
pool and it's setting the way it is.
Edmonds needs a very large park/open space where residents can get away from noise/technology,
etc. and take long, long walks. For this, you need at least 200-250 acres. Seattle has several such
parks (Discovery Park, Seward Park, etc.), so you'd think Edmonds could come up with just one!
Some of the questions were not answered because I wasn't sure what they meant. I am very much
against the BID and anything else that is developed that put more taxes on business. Times are hard
enough without paying more.
More online opportunities for feedback. This was an excellent opportunity to voice my opinion!
There were no comments/questions about parks and play equipment. I feel these are important to
maintaining families, and replacing quite a few of them with updated equipment is necessary.
I am also FOR almost anything Yost Pool. Except expanding the facility. Update it, refurbish it. I
would like to see an indoor pool in Edmonds, simply because I go to Shoreline to swim, but I'm not
sure the surrounding area can handle the traffic from a larger facility.
Edmonds is a great city, to live in and to visit. We need more business's to come to Edmonds and
know that they will be treated with a high level of a commitment by city officials that we can work
together to help their business grow. I notice the meat market is still in the process of getting
permits and the store to open, that should have been opened months ago.
It would have been helpful for opportunity to comment on each question, because in some cases
more specific and useful rationale or caveat could have been provided.
Packet Page 125 of 155
AM-4848 7.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:05/22/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert
English
Department:Engineering
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign Proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with Parametrix for design
services on the Main St. (5th Ave - 6th Ave) Improvement Project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 1
Previous Council Action
On December 6, 2011, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Parametrix for
design services on the Main Street (5th Ave - 6th Ave) Improvement Project.
On November 7, 2011, the CSDS Committee reviewed and recommended approval of a Professional
Services Agreement with Parametrix for design services on the Main Street (5th Ave - 6th Ave)
Improvement Project.
Narrative
In December 2011, the City executed a professional services agreement with Parametrix to complete the
final design and contract documents for the Main Street Improvement project between 5th and 6th
Avenues. The scope of services included preparing the final design plans, contract specifications, cost
estimates, geotechnical report, environmental documents and acquisition of temporary construction
easements. The consultant's fee for the agreement was $188,957 with a management reserve of $15,000
for unexpected design issues and changes.
During the design phase, additional work was required to design and detail a screen wall in front of the
vacant lot next to Starbuck's, develop and evaluate three street light configurations, perform additional
coordination for streetscape elements and design and detail foundations for the street lights and flower
poles. The $15,000 management reserve will be used to pay for these additional services.
The proposed Supplemental Agreement No. 1 will modify the current contract documents and add a bid
alternate to remove the infiltration system. This provides flexibility to award a project if the City receives
construction bids that are more than the available budget. The Supplement also provides $5,000 of
additional management reserve for minor changes or modifications that may be required during the
bidding phase or to finalize the construction documents. The total cost of the Supplemental Agreement is
$8,500 ($3,500 for the bid alternate and $5,000 management reserve) and the current project funds will be
Packet Page 126 of 155
used to pay for these services.
Background:
In 2010, the City was successful in securing a $725,000 grant to add historic decorative street lighting and
replace sidewalks, curb and gutter on Main Street between 5th and 6th Avenues. The grant is funded by
the federal transportation enhancement program and a local match is not required. The project will install
new light poles and decorative poles for planter baskets and artist made elements. The new sidewalk will
improve pedestrian safety by replacing sidewalk that has been displaced by existing street trees along the
corridor. The existing street trees will be removed due to the damage they are causing to the surrounding
infrastructure and replaced with new street trees that are better suited for this location.
In addition to the federal grant, the City received a direct appropriation of $500,000 from the State
Legislature in April 2012 to add more improvements and enhance the project. These improvements
include street furniture, a mid-block pedestrian crossing, relocation of overhead power to an adjacent
alley, street pavement reconstruction and use of low impact stormwater devices and materials.
The project will be advertised for construction bids in June and it is anticipated that the contract will be
awarded in July. Construction is expected to begin in September of this year and be completed by
mid-November, prior to the holiday shopping season.
Attachments
Supplemental Agreement No. 1
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 05/17/2012 05:40 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 05/17/2012 06:02 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/18/2012 08:31 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 05/18/2012 10:35 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/18/2012 11:13 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 05/17/2012 11:23 AM
Final Approval Date: 05/18/2012
Packet Page 127 of 155
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
8
o
f
1
5
5
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
2
9
o
f
1
5
5
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
0
o
f
1
5
5
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
3
1
o
f
1
5
5
AM-4847 8.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:05/22/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Shawn Hunstock
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
2012 First Quarter Financials
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N.A. For information only.
Previous Council Action
N.A.
Narrative
Staff will review the results of operations for the first quarter of 2012. The General Fund will be
reviewed in some detail and significant items in other funds will be addressed.
Attachments
2012 First Quarter Financials
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/17/2012 11:23 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 05/17/2012 11:52 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/17/2012 02:25 PM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 05/17/2012 11:18 AM
Final Approval Date: 05/17/2012
Packet Page 132 of 155
Fund
No.Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
001 GENERAL FUND 33,006,588$ 5,372,339$ (27,634,249)$ 16%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 600,550 79 (600,471) 0%
010 PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY RESERVE 2,200 398 (1,802) 18%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 28,200 42,002 13,802 149%
111 STREET FUND 1,313,650 314,715 (998,935) 24%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,006,864 356,842 (1,650,022) 18%
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. - - - 0%
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 56,860 63 (56,797) 0%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 58,325 3,977 (54,348) 7%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 28 5 (23) 19%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 69,200 14,827 (54,373) 21%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 20,140 5,387 (14,753) 27%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,525 50 (2,475) 2%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 18 (18,982) 0%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 590,850 145,963 (444,887) 25%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 590,800 145,902 (444,898) 25%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 10,759 5,058 (5,701) 47%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 313,004 - (313,004) 0%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 119,850 32,462 (87,388) 27%
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - 0%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,185,000 416,651 (768,349) 35%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 177 44 (133) 25%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 14,600 3,843 (10,757) 26%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 5,230 1,703 (3,527) 33%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 46,700 - (46,700) 0%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 46,725 41 (46,684) 0%
234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,478,573 - (478,573) 0%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 15,306,920 4,120,621 (11,186,299) 27%
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 7,888,400 4,683 (7,883,717) 0%
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,126,377 70,868 (1,055,509) 6%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,076,456 266,677 (809,779) 25%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 94,423 60 (94,363) 0%
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 600,000 146,540 (453,460) 24%
66,678,974$ 11,471,818$ (55,207,156)$ 17%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Packet Page 133 of 155
Fund
No.Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 32,949,288$ 7,666,998$ (25,282,290)$ 23%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 619,811 155,491 (464,320) 25%
010 PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY RESERVE - - - 0%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 80,233 1,039 (79,194) 1%
111 STREET FUND 1,604,948 422,258 (1,182,690) 26%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,075,625 161,059 (1,914,566) 8%
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. - - - 0%
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 245,000 - (245,000) 0%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 134,550 3,632 (130,918) 3%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - 0%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 73,750 199 (73,551) 0%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,086 - (26,086) 0%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 725 (3,275) 18%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 2,013 (16,987) 11%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 875,000 16,908 (858,092) 2%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 697,717 - (697,717) 0%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 12,275 250 (12,025) 2%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 313,000 - (313,000) 0%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 172,005 38,425 (133,580) 22%
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - 0%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,187,000 112,067 (1,074,933) 9%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - 0%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD - - - 0%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,600 - (4,600) 0%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 46,500 - (46,500) 0%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - 0%
234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,478,573 - (478,573) 0%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 15,598,246 2,750,453 (12,847,793) 18%
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 10,465,068 909,398 (9,555,670) 9%
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,126,376 81,908 (1,044,468) 7%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,321,334 210,788 (1,110,546) 16%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 123,515 28,983 (94,532) 23%
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 600,000 151,540 (448,460) 25%
70,853,500$ 12,714,134$ (58,139,366)$ 18%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Packet Page 134 of 155
Fund
No.Title
1/1/2012
Beg. Balance
2012
Revenues
2012
Expenditures Difference
3/31/2012
End. Balance
001 GENERAL FUND 5,705,633$ 5,372,339$ 7,666,998$ (2,294,659)$ 3,410,974$
004 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS FUND 2,500 - - - 2,500
006 EMERGENCY FINANCIAL RESERVE FUND 1,927,600 - - - 1,927,600
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 320,656 79 155,491 (155,412) 165,244
010 PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY RESERVE 1,338,178 398 - 398 1,338,576
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 55,859 - - - 55,859
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 212,212 63 - 63 212,275
TOTAL GENERAL FUND PER CAFR 9,562,638 5,372,880 7,822,490 (2,449,610) 7,113,028
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 124,661 42,002 1,039 40,962 165,623
111 STREET FUND 392,049 314,715 422,258 (107,543) 284,506
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 423,449 356,842 161,059 195,783 619,232
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 401,698 3,977 3,632 345 402,043
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,646 5 - 5 17,651
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 93,895 14,827 199 14,628 108,523
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 77,577 5,387 - 5,387 82,964
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 16,534 50 725 (675) 15,858
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 60,250 18 2,013 (1,995) 58,255
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 436,640 145,963 16,908 129,055 565,696
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ 225,937 145,902 - 145,902 371,840
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 193,985 5,058 250 4,808 198,794
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 5,841 - - - 5,841
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 85,714 32,462 38,425 (5,963) 79,750
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - - -
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 86,794 416,651 112,067 304,584 391,378
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 156,611 44 - 44 156,655
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 801,079 3,843 - 3,843 804,922
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,261 1,703 - 1,703 11,964
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 104,869 - - - 104,869
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 137,896 41 - 41 137,937
234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,1 - - - 1
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 48,998,030 4,120,621 2,750,453 1,370,168 50,368,197
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 18,605,638 4,683 909,398 (904,715) 17,700,923
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE (2,044,841) 70,868 81,908 (11,040) (2,055,881)
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 6,662,893 266,677 210,788 55,889 6,718,782
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 213,210 60 28,983 (28,923) 184,287
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 146,540 151,540 (5,000) (5,000)
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 85,850,951$ 11,471,818$ 12,714,134$ (1,242,315)$ 84,608,636$
CITY OF EDMONDS
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - SUMMARY
Packet Page 135 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,629,986$ 383,914$ (9,246,072)$ 4%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 2,908,944 121,922 (2,787,022) 4%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 895,640 36,464 (859,176) 4%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,724,183 1,236,580 (3,487,603) 26%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 13,244 3,024 (10,220) 23%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 514,898 133,152 (381,746) 26%
GAS UTILITY TAX 892,381 329,885 (562,496) 37%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 750,682 185,269 (565,413) 25%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,390,242 353,214 (1,037,028) 25%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,473,880 489,585 (984,295) 33%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 294,601 53,225 (241,376) 18%
WATER UTILITY TAX 824,935 201,735 (623,200) 24%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 120,041 (349,959) 26%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 254,061 79,490 (174,571) 31%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 221,162 50,860 (170,302) 23%
PULLTABS TAX 60,257 13,614 (46,643) 23%
25,319,096 3,791,974 (21,527,122) 15%
LICENSES AND PERMITS:
FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,000 4,643 (357) 93%
PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 1,000 510 (490) 51%
AMUSEMENTS 6,000 4,675 (1,325) 78%
BUS. LICENCE PERMIT PENALTY 5,000 1,380 (3,620) 28%
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 105,245 79,799 (25,446) 76%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 588,008 155,865 (432,143) 27%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 106,930 21,993 (84,937)
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 6,901 2,042 (4,859) 30%
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 212,292 49,443 (162,849) 23%
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 21,000 4,110 (16,890) 20%
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 38,885 14,300 (24,585) 37%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 10,000 9,308 (692) 93%
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 420,000 53,157 (366,844) 13%
ANIMAL LICENSES 11,000 5,300 (5,700) 48%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT 42,000 7,015 (34,985) 17%
OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 7,000 2,467 (4,534) 35%
DIVE PARK PERMIT FEE - - - 0%
1,586,261 416,007 (1,170,254) 26%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - Bullet Proof Vest 3,969 - (3,969) 0%
EECBG Grant - - - 0%
WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT - - - 0%
TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 10,000 1,055 (8,945) 11%
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 6,000 406 (5,594) 7%
Puget Drive Walkway HLP-PB07(009) - - - 0%
SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - - - 0%
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 183,348 - (183,348) 0%
JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 13,000 3,112 (9,888) 24%
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 9,100 2,186 (6,914) 24%
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - SPECIAL PROGRAMS 33,827 8,251 (25,576) 24%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 136 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
DUI - CITIES 9,500 1,908 (7,593) 20%
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 200,666 46,863 (153,803) 23%
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 310,835 52,904 (257,931) 17%
SHARED COURT COSTS 6,300 2,500 (3,800) 40%
MUNICIPAL COURT AGREEMENT W/LYNNWOO 1,050 750 (300) 71%
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 55,080 15,813 (39,267) 29%
POLICE FBI CONTRACTS - - - 0%
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,760 2,690 (8,070) 25%
OCDETF OVERTIME - - - 0%
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 11,500 - (11,500) 0%
WOODWAY - LAW PROTECTION 10,000 3,526 (6,474) 35%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE-SSCCFH 69,300 - (69,300) 0%
SNOCOM FIBER OPTIC SERVICE INTERLOCAL - 1,800 1,800 0%
SNO-ISLE 69,418 13,384 (56,034) 19%
1,013,653 157,148 (856,505) 16%
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,050 129 (921) 12%
COURT RECORD SERVICES 100 - (100) 0%
D/M COURT REC SER 950 54 (896) 6%
SALE MAPS & BOOKS - 9 9 0%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 150 32 (118) 21%
PHOTOCOPIES 4,000 1,434 (2,566) 36%
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 5,000 1,326 (3,674) 27%
ASSESSMENT SEARCH - 5 5 0%
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 10,500 1,975 (8,525) 19%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 - (26,000) 0%
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES - 93 93 0%
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 68,300 10,319 (57,981) 15%
ELECTRONIC MONITORING 150 - (150) 0%
ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 700 56 (644) 8%
BOOKING FEES 6,300 870 (5,430) 14%
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 6,060 1,390 (4,670) 23%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 21,210 3,435 (17,775) 16%
DUI EMERGENCY AID 200 33 (167) 17%
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 848,500 172,405 (676,095) 20%
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 300 110 (190) 37%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI 700 146 (554) 21%
CRIM CONV FEE CT 5,900 839 (5,061) 14%
CRIM CONV FEE CN 2,100 299 (1,801) 14%
POLICE TRAINING CLASSES - - - 0%
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 102,010 12,936 (89,074) 13%
FIBER SERVICES - 2,189 2,189 0%
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 4,000 1,495 (2,505) 37%
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS - 88 88 0%
ANNUAL VEHICLE FEE (TBD) - (40) (40) 0%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 55,000 4,595 (50,405) 8%
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 3,300 313 (2,988) 9%
PLAN CHECKING FEES 235,000 45,585 (189,415) 19%
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 4,500 - (4,500) 0%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW 6,000 - (6,000) 0%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY 15,000 2,635 (12,365) 18%
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 52,471 - (52,471) 0%
Packet Page 137 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
LOCKER FEES 300 - (300) 0%
SWIM CLASS FEES 45,520 88 (45,432) 0%
PROGRAM FEES 800,000 171,751 (628,249) 21%
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 120,000 48,203 (71,797) 40%
SWIM TEAM / DIVE TEAM 31,150 - (31,150) 0%
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 620 - (620) 0%
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVC 1,582,061 331,993 (1,250,068) 21%
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES - - - 0%
4,065,102 816,789 (3,248,313) 20%
FINES AND FORFEITURES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,500 2,307 (8,193) 22%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 51,472 6,706 (44,766) 13%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 285,000 58,825 (226,175) 21%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 15,000 4,332 (10,668) 29%
SPEEDING DOUBLE - 38 38 0%
NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES - - - 0%
OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 1,250 129 (1,121) 10%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 33,000 5,497 (27,503) 17%
PR - HANDICAPPED 800 - (800) 0%
PARKING INFRACTION LOC 600 40 (560) 7%
PARK / INDDISZONE 600 397 (203) 66%
DWI PENALTIES 9,500 1,041 (8,459) 11%
DUI - DP ACCT - 232 232 0%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 50 7 (43) 14%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 40,000 6,621 (33,379) 17%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 600 138 (462) 23%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 11,500 3,687 (7,813) 32%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 950 208 (742) 22%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 120,000 22,363 (97,637) 19%
JURY DEMAND COST 100 - (100) 0%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 37,000 6,073 (30,927) 16%
COURT INTERPRETER COST 300 69 (231) 23%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,050 480 (570) 46%
619,272 119,187 (500,085) 19%
MISCELLANEOUS:
INVESTMENT INTEREST - 1,327 1,327 0%
INVESTMENT SERVICE FEES 9,800 - (9,800) 0%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 2,000 865 (1,135) 43%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 3,150 1,079 (2,071) 34%
PARKING 10,000 1,805 (8,195) 18%
SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 140,000 14,521 (125,479) 10%
GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 7,800 1,472 (6,328) 19%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 1,000 1,305 305 131%
LEASES LONG-TERM 173,465 38,868 (134,597) 22%
VENDING MACHINE CONCESSION 4,700 425 (4,275) 9%
OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 10,078 - (10,078) 0%
PARKS DONATIONS 4,800 4,843 43 101%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,500 400 (1,100) 27%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 200 (10) (210) -5%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 4,000 107 (3,893) 3%
OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 200 - (200) 0%
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 100 120 20 120%
Packet Page 138 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES (200) 3 203 0%
OTHER MISC REVENUES 3,000 3,820 820 127%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT - 44 44 0%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC - 30 30 0%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 525 211 (314) 40%
NSF FEES - DEVEL SERV DEPT - - - 0%
PLANNING SIGN REVENUE 2,000 - (2,000) 0%
378,118 71,235 (306,883) 19%
TRANSFERS-IN:
INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER-IN - - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - In 25,086 - (25,086) 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - - - 0%
25,086 - (25,086) 0%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 33,006,588$ 5,372,339$ (27,634,249)$ 16%
Packet Page 139 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES:
SALARIES AND WAGES 12,319,931$ 2,871,854$ (9,448,077)$ 23%
OVERTIME 458,540 108,342 (350,198) 24%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK 179,687 - (179,687) 0%
BENEFITS 4,241,300 1,017,542 (3,223,758) 24%
UNIFORMS 63,880 12,714 (51,166) 20%
SUPPLIES 434,011 74,136 (359,875) 17%
FUEL CONSUMED 700 - (700) 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 115,669 13,850 (101,819) 12%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,822,327 313,204 (1,509,123) 17%
COMMUNICATIONS 210,037 38,529 (171,508) 18%
TRAVEL 51,060 2,614 (48,446) 5%
ADVERTISING 71,667 3,864 (67,803) 5%
RENTAL/LEASE 139,281 28,353 (110,928) 20%
INSURANCE 444,962 420,109 (24,853) 94%
UTILITIES 454,500 116,291 (338,209) 26%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 331,397 95,481 (235,916) 29%
MISCELLANEOUS 322,242 95,855 (226,387) 30%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 8,218,704 2,345,961 (5,872,743) 29%
ECA CONTINGENCY RESERVE 250,000 - (250,000) 0%
EXCISE TAXES 5,200 733 (4,467) 14%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 719,623 - (719,623) 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 17,144 - (17,144) 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 1,084,062 - (1,084,062) 0%
CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASE 63,380 - (63,380) 0%
OTHER DEBT - - - 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 296,838 - (296,838) 0%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 5,000 - (5,000) 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 197,900 - (197,900) 0%
INTERFUND FUEL - - - 0%
INTERFUND SUPPLIES - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 430,246 107,565 (322,681) 25%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - - - 0%
32,949,288$ 7,666,998$ (25,282,290)$ 23%
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE:
BENEFITS 462,886$ 121,294$ (341,592)$ 26%
In-Home LTC Claims 140,425 34,198 (106,228) 24%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,500 - (16,500) 0%
619,811$ 155,491$ (464,320)$ 25%
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND:
SUPPLIES 200$ -$ (200)$ 0%
FUEL CONSUMED 2,000 632 (1,368) 32%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - (5,000) 0%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 140 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 408 (1,825) 18%
REPAIR/MAINT 800 - (800) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 - (20,000) 0%
INTERGOVTL SVC 50,000 - (50,000) 0%
80,233$ 1,039$ (79,194)$ 1%
STREET FUND:
SALARIES AND WAGES 474,924$ 114,244$ (360,680)$ 24%
OVERTIME 18,400 14,901 (3,499) 81%
BENEFITS 191,707 51,892 (139,815) 27%
UNIFORMS 7,000 3,975 (3,025) 57%
SUPPLIES 242,500 23,402 (219,098) 10%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 24,000 5,895 (18,105) 25%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,500 16,354 3,854 131%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 743 (2,257) 25%
TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 - (1,500) 0%
INSURANCE 93,719 93,305 (414) 100%
UTILITIES 261,100 43,474 (217,626) 17%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 25,500 526 (24,974) 2%
MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 5,769 (232) 96%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 6,000 44 (5,956) 1%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 38,954 - (38,954) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 6,200 - (6,200) 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 190,944 47,736 (143,208) 25%
1,604,948$ 422,258$ (1,182,690)$ 26%
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 843,780$ 138,570$ (705,210)$ 16%
INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT 41,694 - (41,694) 0%
LAND 231,022 - (231,022) 0%
CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 763,300 - (763,300) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,202 - (72,202) 0%
INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 4,841 - (4,841) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 118,786 22,489 (96,297) 19%
2,075,625$ 161,059$ (1,914,566)$ 8%
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD:
PROFESSIONAL SVC -$ -$ -$ 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - - - 0%
-$ -$ -$ 0%
BUILDING MAINTENANCE:
SUPPLIES 10,000$ -$ (10,000)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40,000 - (40,000) 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 195,000 - (195,000) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS - - - 0%
Packet Page 141 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
INTERFUND TRANSFER - - - 0%
245,000$ -$ (245,000)$ 0%
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND:
SUPPLIES 4,200$ 10$ (4,190)$ 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 523 (477) 52%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 110,500 1,956 (108,544) 2%
TRAVEL 50 10 (40) 20%
ADVERTISING 4,000 - (4,000) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - (300) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,500 1,133 (9,367) 11%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 3,000 - (3,000) 0%
134,550$ 3,632$ (130,918)$ 3%
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000$ -$ (10,000)$ 0%
ADVERTISING 35,000 199 (34,801) 1%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 - (2,500) 0%
TRANSFER TO FUND 623 26,250 - (26,250) 0%
73,750$ 199$ (73,551)$ 0%
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND:
SUPPLIES 1,000$ -$ (1,000)$ 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 25,086 - (25,086) 0%
26,086$ -$ (26,086)$ 0%
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND:
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000$ 725$ (3,275)$ 18%
4,000$ 725$ (3,275)$ 18%
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS:
PROFESSIONAL SVC 10,500$ 33$ (10,467)$ 0%
ADVERTISING 4,500 1,980 (2,520) 44%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 - (4,000) 0%
19,000$ 2,013$ (16,987)$ 11%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2:
SUPPLIES 36,000$ 6,381$ (29,619)$ 18%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 540,000 10,527 (529,473) 2%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 100,000 - (100,000) 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 199,000 - (199,000) 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - - - 0%
875,000$ 16,908$ (858,092)$ 2%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ:
Packet Page 142 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
MISCELLANEOUS -$ -$ -$ 0%
TRANSFER TO FUND 234 68,080 - (68,080) 0%
1998 REF BOND PRINCIPAL 502,163 - (502,163) 0%
2001 BONDS, B - INTEREST 127,474 - (127,474) 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
697,717$ -$ (697,717)$ 0%
GIFTS CATALOG FUND:
SUPPLIES 6,275$ 250$ (6,025)$ 4%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,000 - (4,000) 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 2,000 - (2,000) 0%
12,275$ 250$ (12,025)$ 2%
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 33,000$ -$ (33,000)$ 0%
CONSTRUCTION 280,000 - (280,000) 0%
313,000$ -$ (313,000)$ 0%
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT:
SALARIES AND WAGES 71,107$ 17,001$ (54,106)$ 24%
OVERTIME 3,500 509 (2,991) 15%
BENEFITS 32,926 8,019 (24,907) 24%
UNIFORMS 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
SUPPLIES 7,000 649 (6,351) 9%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 7,650 (12,350) 38%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 232 (1,180) 16%
TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
ADVERTISING 3,000 637 (2,363) 21%
UTILITIES 3,800 627 (3,173) 17%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - (500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 1,285 285 129%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 17,500 - (17,500) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 7,260 1,815 (5,445) 25%
172,005$ 38,425$ (133,580)$ 22%
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND:
SUPPLIES -$ 21,967$ 21,967$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 63,000 19,035 (43,965) 30%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,114,000 59,660 (1,054,340) 5%
INTERFUND SERVICES 10,000 11,406 1,406 114%
1,187,000$ 112,067$ (1,074,933)$ 9%
SISTER CITY COMMISSION:
SUPPLIES 500$ -$ (500)$ 0%
STUDENT TRIP 2,600 - (2,600) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,500 - (1,500) 0%
Packet Page 143 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
4,600$ -$ (4,600)$ 0%
LID FUND CONTROL
INTERFUND TRANSFER 46,500$ -$ (46,500)$ 0%
46,500$ -$ (46,500)$ 0%
LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND:
2002 BOND PRINCIPAL 205,000$ -$ (205,000)$ 0%
2002 BOND INTEREST 273,573 - (273,573) 0%
478,573$ -$ (478,573)$ 0%
COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION:
SALARIES AND WAGES 2,791,123$ 672,598$ (2,118,525)$ 24%
OVERTIME 102,180 32,139 (70,041) 31%
BENEFITS 1,113,707 286,333 (827,374) 26%
UNIFORMS 28,650 8,342 (20,308) 29%
SUPPLIES 675,015 136,108 (538,907) 20%
FUEL CONSUMED 100,000 47,095 (52,905) 47%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,410,000 186,663 (1,223,337) 13%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 143,000 3,074 (139,926) 2%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 25,500 1,511 (23,989) 6%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 203,808 17,895 (185,913) 9%
COMMUNICATIONS 72,200 13,667 (58,533) 19%
TRAVEL 18,600 97 (18,503) 1%
ADVERTISING 3,560 200 (3,360) 6%
RENTAL/LEASE 16,300 2,920 (13,380) 18%
INSURANCE 288,211 241,526 (46,685) 84%
UTILITIES 999,853 137,598 (862,255) 14%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 111,930 34,651 (77,279) 31%
MISCELLANEOUS 592,880 150,303 (442,577) 25%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 667,900 62,539 (605,361) 9%
INTERFUND TAXES 1,548,996 401,266 (1,147,730) 26%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,772,053 16,495 (1,755,558) 1%
LAND - - - 0%
BUILDINGS - - - 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 111,862 - (111,862) 0%
REVENUE BOND PRINCIPAL 1,202,102 - (1,202,102) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 180,398 - (180,398) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 159,710 31 (159,679) 0%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 33,104 2,759 (30,345) 8%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 818,454 192,855 (625,599) 24%
INTERFUND RENTAL 407,150 101,787 (305,363) 25%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - - - 0%
15,598,246$ 2,750,453$ (12,847,793)$ 18%
COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE:
Packet Page 144 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,774,861$ 85,512$ (1,689,349)$ 5%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 403,500 - (403,500) 0%
LAND 3,500 - (3,500) 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 7,712,386 718,313 (6,994,073) 9%
INTERFUND SERVICES 570,821 105,572 (465,249) 18%
10,465,068$ 909,398$ (9,555,670)$ 9%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ 73,487$ 73,487$ 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 854,000 8,382 (845,618) 1%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 85,888 - (85,888) 0%
REVENUE BONDS 52,626 - (52,626) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 34,875 - (34,875) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 98,987 39 (98,948) 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
1,126,376$ 81,908$ (1,044,468)$ 7%
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND:
SALARIES AND WAGES 218,537$ 54,109$ (164,428)$ 25%
OVERTIME 2,000 91 (1,909) 5%
BENEFITS 100,670 25,700 (74,970) 26%
UNIFORMS 1,000 343 (657) 34%
SUPPLIES 76,000 13,735 (62,265) 18%
FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 55 (945) 6%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 320,510 66,857 (253,653) 21%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,000 2,022 (7,978) 20%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 220 (780) 22%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 323 (3,177) 9%
TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,500 - (3,500) 0%
INSURANCE 23,261 32,530 9,269 140%
UTILITIES 14,000 4,168 (9,832) 30%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 85,000 5,842 (79,158) 7%
MISCELLANEOUS 7,500 515 (6,985) 7%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 59 (2,441) 2%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 420,000 1,632 (418,368) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 20,000 - (20,000) 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 10,356 2,589 (7,767) 25%
1,321,334$ 210,788$ (1,110,546)$ 16%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND:
BENEFITS 66,515$ 17,007$ (49,508)$ 26%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 52,500 11,976 (40,524) 23%
PROF SERVICES 4,500 - (4,500) 0%
123,515$ 28,983$ (94,532)$ 23%
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT:
Packet Page 145 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
INSURANCE 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ 100%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 595,000 146,540 (448,460) 25%
600,000$ 151,540$ (448,460)$ 25%
Total Expenditures All Funds 70,853,500$ 12,714,134$ (58,139,366)$ 18%
Packet Page 146 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
CITY COUNCIL 269,812$ 62,230$ (207,582)$ 23%
OFFICE OF MAYOR 253,184 58,059 (195,125) 23%
HUMAN RESOURCES 193,616 56,071 (137,545) 29%
MUNICIPAL COURT 779,038 183,959 (595,079) 24%
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 125,700 15,362 (110,338) 12%
CITY CLERK 609,840 119,740 (490,100) 20%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,412,575 352,861 (1,059,714) 25%
CITY ATTORNEY 495,000 125,330 (369,670) 25%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 11,214,538 2,771,981 (8,442,557) 25%
POLICE SERVICES 9,165,244 2,037,833 (7,127,411) 22%
COMMUNITY SERVICES 323,006 77,316 (245,690) 24%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1,654,862 387,213 (1,267,649) 23%
PARKS & RECREATION 3,488,509 681,137 (2,807,372) 20%
PUBLIC WORKS 1,612,816 400,533 (1,212,283) 25%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,351,548 337,372 (1,014,176) 25%
32,949,288$ 7,666,997$ (25,282,291)$ 23%
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY 2,277,822$ 446,725$ (1,831,097)$ 20%
WATER 5,387,537 925,838 (4,461,699) 17%
SEWER 4,485,269 575,171 (3,910,098) 13%
TREATMENT PLANT 3,447,618 802,719 (2,644,899) 23%
15,598,246$ 2,750,453$ (12,847,793)$ 18%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 147 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES 105,665$ 27,164$ (78,501)$ 26%
OVERTIME 7,240 1,054 (6,186) 15%
BENEFITS 69,902 19,162 (50,740) 27%
SUPPLIES 1,525 276 (1,249) 18%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 50,000 12,081 (37,919) 24%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 520 (2,480) 17%
TRAVEL 2,500 840 (1,660) 34%
RENTAL/LEASE 480 126 (354) 26%
REPAIRS/MAINT 1,500 - (1,500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 28,000 1,007 (26,993) 4%
269,812$ 62,230$ (207,582)$ 23%
OFFICE OF MAYOR
SALARIES 193,896$ 44,965$ (148,931)$ 23%
OVERTIME - - - 0%
BENEFITS 49,188 10,893 (38,295) 22%
SUPPLIES 2,000 288 (1,712) 14%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
COMMUNICATION 1,400 289 (1,111) 21%
TRAVEL 700 85 (615) 12%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 470 (1,030) 31%
REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,068 (1,932) 36%
253,184$ 58,059$ (195,125)$ 23%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES 63,882$ 21,309$ (42,573)$ 33%
OVERTIME - -
BENEFITS 29,224 8,087 (21,137) 28%
SUPPLIES 2,500 609 (1,891) 24%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - (100) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 67,500 19,502 (47,998) 29%
COMMUNICATIONS 500 145 (355) 29%
TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0%
ADVERTISING 9,000 195 (8,805) 2%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 456 (1,544) 23%
REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 4,820 (1,180) 80%
MISCELLANEOUS 12,410 948 (11,462) 8%
193,616$ 56,071$ (137,545)$ 29%
MUNICIPAL COURT
SALARIES 486,685$ 119,623$ (367,062)$ 25%
OVERTIME 1,400 341 (1,059) 24%
BENEFITS 172,053 44,624 (127,429) 26%
SUPPLIES 14,500 2,547 (11,953) 18%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,500 - (6,500) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 66,600 10,146 (56,454) 15%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 429 (2,171) 17%
TRAVEL 2,500 311 (2,190) 12%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,300 121 (1,179) 9%
REPAIR/MAINT 2,200 156 (2,044) 7%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 148 of 155
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
MISCELLANEOUS 22,350 5,661 (16,689) 25%
INTERGOVTL SVC 350 - (350) 0%
779,038$ 183,959$ (595,079)$ 24%
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SUPPLIES 500$ -$ (500)$ 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 - (300) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 90,500 14,100 (76,400) 16%
COMMUNICATIONS 400 13 (387) 3%
TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
ADVERTISING 30,000 - (30,000) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,249 (1,751) 42%
125,700$ 15,362$ (110,338)$ 12%
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES 302,054$ 68,474$ (233,580)$ 23%
BENEFITS 90,045 21,952 (68,093) 24%
SUPPLIES 13,760 3,109 (10,651) 23%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 89,377 3,482 (85,895) 4%
COMMUNICATIONS 52,067 10,569 (41,498) 20%
TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
ADVERTISING 23,690 2,493 (21,197) 11%
RENTAL/LEASE 27,310 4,215 (23,095) 15%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 4,363 (3,674) 54%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 1,084 (1,416) 43%
609,840$ 119,740$ (490,100)$ 20%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES 741,281$ 180,267$ (561,014)$ 24%
OVERTIME 8,100 4,116 (3,984) 51%
BENEFITS 222,830 53,311 (169,519) 24%
SUPPLIES 60,690 21,649 (39,041) 36%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 63,500 8,429 (55,071) 13%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 71,842 10,024 (61,818) 14%
COMMUNICATIONS 60,220 13,793 (46,427) 23%
TRAVEL 4,800 221 (4,579) 5%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,300 821 (2,479) 25%
REPAIR/MAINT 164,720 51,013 (113,707) 31%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,500 9,017 (1,483) 86%
INTERFUND RENTAL 792 198 (594) 25%
1,412,575$ 352,861$ (1,059,714)$ 25%
CITY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL SVC 495,000$ 125,130$ (369,870)$ 25%
MISC PROSECUTOR - 200 200 0%
495,000$ 125,330$ (369,670)$ 25%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES 100,000$ -$ (100,000)$ 0%
BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 70,000 13,956 (56,044) 20%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 294,962 46,070 (248,892) 16%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,700 3,600 (100) 97%
INSURANCE 444,962 420,109 (24,853) 94%
MISCELLANEOUS 67,300 40,023 (27,277) 59%
INTERGOVT SVC 7,611,611 2,247,490 (5,364,121) 30%
Packet Page 149 of 155
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
ECA LOAN PAYMENT 250,000 - (250,000) 0%
EXCISE TAXES 5,200 733 (4,467) 14%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 719,623 - (719,623) 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 1,084,062 - (1,084,062) 0%
INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 63,380 - (63,380) 0%
OTHER DEBT - - - 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 296,838 - (296,838) 0%
DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS 5,000 - (5,000) 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 197,900 - (197,900) 0%
11,214,538$ 2,771,981$ (8,442,557)$ 25%
POLICE SERVICES
SALARIES 5,400,738$ 1,265,945$ (4,134,794)$ 23%
OVERTIME 420,000 99,245 (320,755) 24%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK 179,687 - (179,687) 0%
BENEFITS 1,899,147 439,204 (1,459,943) 23%
UNIFORMS 53,570 11,959 (41,611) 22%
SUPPLIES 95,900 7,110 (88,790) 7%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 14,300 2,218 (12,082) 16%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 95,200 14,808 (80,392) 16%
COMMUNICATIONS 33,592 5,282 (28,310) 16%
TRAVEL 26,300 976 (25,324) 4%
ADVERTISING 375 29 (346) 8%
RENTAL/LEASE 18,000 3,805 (14,195) 21%
REPAIR/MAINT 16,115 781 (15,334) 5%
MISCELLANEOUS 55,512 12,810 (42,702) 23%
INTERGOVTL SVC 536,048 93,471 (442,577) 17%
INTERFUND RENTAL 320,760 80,190 (240,570) 25%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - - - 0%
9,165,244$ 2,037,833$ (7,127,411)$ 22%
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN
SALARIES 212,854$ 52,308$ (160,546)$ 25%
BENEFITS 60,622 15,559 (45,063) 26%
SUPPLIES 1,000 82 (918) 8%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 500 - (500) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 42,000 8,270 (33,730) 20%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,090 155 (935) 14%
TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,320 462 (858) 35%
REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 325 (675) 33%
INTERFUND RENTAL 620 156 (464) 25%
323,006$ 77,316$ (245,690)$ 24%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES 1,071,681$ 255,448$ (816,233)$ 24%
OVERTIME 2,800 1,083 (1,717) 39%
BENEFITS 374,639 91,193 (283,446) 24%
UNIFORMS 320 - (320) 0%
SUPPLIES 17,510 2,936 (14,574) 17%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 2,300 8 (2,292) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 113,480 23,840 (89,640) 21%
COMMUNICATIONS 4,630 923 (3,707) 20%
Packet Page 150 of 155
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
TRAVEL 3,500 60 (3,440) 2%
ADVERTISING 4,250 463 (3,787) 11%
RENTAL/LEASE 22,500 4,925 (17,575) 22%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 2,000 - (2,000) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 27,600 4,420 (23,180) 16%
INTERFUND RENTAL 7,652 1,914 (5,738) 25%
1,654,862$ 387,213$ (1,267,649)$ 23%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES 958,860$ 235,210$ (723,650)$ 25%
OVERTIME 5,000 260 (4,740) 5%
BENEFITS 321,636 83,613 (238,023) 26%
UNIFORMS 450 - (450) 0%
SUPPLIES - - - 0%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 2,500 106 (2,394) 4%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 5,000 2,596 (2,404) 52%
COMMUNICATIONS 6,500 1,172 (5,328) 18%
TRAVEL 620 86 (534) 14%
ADVERTISING - - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE - - - 0%
REPAIR/MAINT 1,800 147 (1,653) 8%
MISCELLANEOUS 9,600 4,798 (4,802) 50%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 6,740 1,686 (5,054) 25%
1,318,706$ 329,676$ (989,030)$ 25%
PARKS & RECREATION
SALARIES 1,880,905$ 395,857$ (1,485,048)$ 21%
OVERTIME 5,300 1,638 (3,662) 31%
BENEFITS 571,640 138,045 (433,595) 24%
UNIFORMS 6,540 408 (6,132) 6%
SUPPLIES 144,026 17,298 (126,728) 12%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 17,669 2,028 (15,641) 11%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 339,666 23,146 (316,520) 7%
COMMUNICATIONS 28,938 1,770 (27,168) 6%
TRAVEL 6,140 35 (6,106) 1%
ADVERTISING 3,852 683 (3,169) 18%
RENTAL/LEASE 50,471 9,351 (41,120) 19%
PUBLIC UTILITY 150,000 35,182 (114,818) 23%
REPAIR/MAINT 52,025 22,013 (30,012) 42%
MISCELLANEOUS 76,370 11,901 (64,469) 16%
INTERGOVTL SVC 70,695 5,000 (65,695) 7%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 17,144 - (17,144) 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 67,128 16,782 (50,346) 25%
3,488,509$ 681,137$ (2,807,372)$ 20%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES 208,578$ 52,600$ (155,978)$ 25%
OVERTIME 200 - (200) 0%
BENEFITS 64,638 16,089 (48,549) 25%
SUPPLIES 5,100 712 (4,388) 14%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 9 (191) 4%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,100 277 (823) 25%
TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,400 - (7,400) 0%
PUBLIC UTILITY 2,500 696 (1,804) 28%
Packet Page 151 of 155
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 1,894 474 (1,420) 25%
294,110$ 70,857$ (223,253)$ 24%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES 592,852$ 152,685$ (440,167)$ 26%
OVERTIME 8,500 606 (7,894) 7%
BENEFITS 245,736 61,853 (183,883) 25%
UNIFORMS 3,000 347 (2,653) 12%
SUPPLIES 75,000 17,519 (57,481) 23%
FUEL CONSUMED 700 - (700) 0%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 8,000 1,061 (6,939) 13%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - - - 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 14,000 3,192 (10,808) 23%
PUBLIC UTILITY 302,000 80,413 (221,587) 27%
REPAIR/MAINT 75,000 12,186 (62,814) 16%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 1,345 (755) 64%
INTERFUND RENTAL 24,660 6,165 (18,495) 25%
1,351,548$ 337,372$ (1,014,176)$ 25%
Totals General Fund Expenditures 32,949,288$ 7,666,997$ (25,282,291)$ 23%
Packet Page 152 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
STORM DRAINAGE
SALARIES 477,207$ 130,830$ (346,377)$ 27%
OVERTIME 6,000 1,277 (4,723) 21%
BENEFITS 195,826 53,357 (142,469) 27%
UNIFORMS 6,500 3,762 (2,738) 58%
SUPPLIES 58,005 7,262 (50,743) 13%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 4,000 - (4,000) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,836 2,914 (15,922) 15%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 358 (2,842) 11%
TRAVEL 4,300 - (4,300) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,500 407 (7,093) 5%
INSURANCE 9,302 8,889 (413) 96%
UTILITIES 10,000 2,645 (7,355) 26%
REPAIR/MAINT 12,860 5,005 (7,855) 39%
MISCELLANEOUS 78,500 29,973 (48,527) 38%
INTERGOVT SERVICE 40,000 24,899 (15,101) 62%
STORMWATER TAX 254,061 79,490 (174,571) 31%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 200,000 - (200,000) 0%
LAND - - - 0%
BUILDINGS - - - 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 108,298 - (108,298) 0%
REVENUE BOND 274,182 - (274,182) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOAN 32,063 - (32,063) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 81,478 31 (81,447) 0%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 228,092 53,849 (174,243) 24%
INTERFUND RENTAL 167,112 41,778 (125,334) 25%
2,277,822$ 446,725$ (1,831,097)$ 20%
WATER
SALARIES 715,880$ 162,842$ (553,038)$ 23%
OVERTIME 24,180 5,258 (18,922) 22%
BENEFITS 267,990 74,824 (193,166) 28%
UNIFORMS 6,800 220 (6,580) 3%
SUPPLIES 143,505 33,304 (110,201) 23%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,410,000 186,663 (1,223,337) 13%
SUPPLIES FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 140,000 3,074 (136,926) 2%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,000 - (10,000) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 77,136 3,789 (73,347) 5%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 5,619 (24,381) 19%
TRAVEL 3,400 - (3,400) 0%
ADVERTISING 560 - (560) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 1,245 (255) 83%
INSURANCE 84,030 70,440 (13,590) 84%
PUBLIC UTILITY 28,000 8,292 (19,708) 30%
REPAIR/MAINT 24,160 5,042 (19,118) 21%
RCP - MISCELLANEOUS 301,630 71,702 (229,928) 24%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 153 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
INTERGOVTL SVC 30,000 10,161 (19,839) 34%
WATER TAX 824,935 201,735 (623,200) 24%
INTERFUND TRANSFER-OUT 200,000 - (200,000) 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 1,980 - (1,980) 0%
REVENUE BOND 623,007 - (623,007) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 44,270 - (44,270) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 48,565 - (48,565) 0%
AMORTIZED DEBT ISSUE COSTS 16,553 1,379 (15,174) 8%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
INTERFUND SVC 224,970 54,128 (170,843) 24%
INTERFUND RENTAL 104,486 26,121 (78,365) 25%
5,387,537$ 925,838$ (4,461,699)$ 17%
SEWER
SALARIES 434,516$ 111,069$ (323,447)$ 26%
OVERTIME 17,000 4,846 (12,154) 29%
BENEFITS 206,345 52,642 (153,703) 26%
UNIFORMS 5,100 1,035 (4,065) 20%
SUPPLIES 61,005 19,351 (41,654) 32%
SEWER INVENTORY 3,000 - (3,000) 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,000 1,511 (4,489) 25%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 53,836 2,300 (51,536) 4%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 5,673 (24,327) 19%
TRAVEL 2,400 - (2,400) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,800 805 (995) 45%
INSURANCE 104,574 94,658 (9,916) 91%
PUBLIC UTILITY 533,813 39,214 (494,599) 7%
REPAIR/MAINT 16,860 4,738 (12,122) 28%
MISCELLANEOUS 130,000 31,839 (98,161) 24%
INTERGOVTL SVS 393,900 (5,130) (399,030) -1%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 120,041 (349,959) 26%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,372,053 16,495 (1,355,558) 1%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 1,584 - (1,584) 0%
REVENUE BONDS 196,535 - (196,535) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 104,065 - (104,065) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 19,017 - (19,017) 0%
AMORTIZED DEBT ISSUE COSTS 16,551 1,379 (15,172) 8%
INTERFUND SVC 176,571 40,645 (135,926) 23%
INTERFUND RENTAL 128,244 32,061 (96,183) 25%
INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT - - - 0%
4,485,269$ 575,171$ (3,910,098)$ 13%
TREATMENT PLANT
SALARIES 1,163,520$ 267,857$ (895,663)$ 23%
OVERTIME 55,000 20,759 (34,241) 38%
BENEFITS 443,546 105,510 (338,036) 24%
UNIFORMS 10,250 3,324 (6,926) 32%
SUPPLIES 412,500 76,191 (336,309) 18%
FUEL CONSUMED 100,000 47,095 (52,905) 47%
Packet Page 154 of 155
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
3/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,500 - (5,500) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 54,000 8,891 (45,109) 16%
COMMUNICATIONS 9,000 2,017 (6,983) 22%
TRAVEL 8,500 97 (8,403) 1%
ADVERTISING 2,000 200 (1,800) 10%
RENTAL/LEASE 5,500 464 (5,036) 8%
INSURANCE 90,305 67,539 (22,766) 75%
UTILITIES 428,040 87,448 (340,592) 20%
REPAIR/MAINT 58,050 19,866 (38,184) 34%
MISCELLANEOUS 82,750 16,790 (65,960) 20%
INTERGOVTL SVS 204,000 32,610 (171,390) 16%
REVENUE BOND 108,378 - (108,378) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 10,650 - (10,650) 0%
INTERFUND SVC 188,821 44,234 (144,588) 23%
INTERFUND RENTAL 7,308 1,827 (5,481) 25%
3,447,618$ 802,719$ (2,644,899)$ 23%
Total Combined Utility Fund Expenditures 15,598,246$ 2,750,453$ (12,847,793)$ 18%
Packet Page 155 of 155