2014.09.09 CC Meeting and Committee Meeting Agenda
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
_____________________________________________
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
1.Roll Call
2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 2, 2014.
4.(5 Minutes)Proclamation in honor of Bob & Janice Freeman.
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings
6.(15 Minutes)Presentation on the Traffic Calming Program
7.(10 Minutes)A Resolution Supporting Passage of Washington State Initiative 594
City Council Committee Meetings
September 9, 2014
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff. Members of the public are welcome to observe the
meeting, but public participation is limited to making comments at the end of the meeting with a 3 minute limit per person.
8.Finance Committee
Meeting Location: Jury Meeting Room
A.(10 Minutes)2014 July Monthly Budgetary Financial Report
B.(5 Minutes)Surplus Computer Equipment
Woodway Police Services Contract
Packet Page 1 of 168
C.(10 Minutes)Woodway Police Services Contract
D.(15 Minutes)Mayor's Salary Discussion
E.(10 Minutes)Redirect Traffic Calming Funds to SR 104 Crosswalk
F.(10 Minutes)Request for Additional Funding for Independent Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on Coal Dust
G.(10 Minutes)Public comments (3-minute limit per person)
9.Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee
Meeting Location: Council Chambers
A.(5 Minutes)Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Fehr & Peers for the 2015
Transportation Plan.
B.(5 Minutes)Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Fehr & Peers for the SR-104
Complete Street Corridor Analysis
C.(5 Minutes)Construction contract for the ADA Ramps Along 3rd Ave S Project.
D.(5 Minutes)Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Perteet for the 228th St. SW Corridor
Improvement project
E.(10 Minutes)Public comments (3-minute limit per person)
10.Public Safety and Personnel Committee
Meeting Location: Police Training Room
The Public Safety & Personnel Committee will not meet due to a lack of agenda items.
Packet Page 2 of 168
AM-7120 3. A.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 2, 2014.
Recommendation
Review and approve meeting minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The draft minutes are attached.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - 09-02-14 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 09/04/2014 03:28 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/04/2014
Packet Page 3 of 168
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 2, 2014
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis in the
Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Diane Buckshnis, Mayor Pro Tem
Kristiana Johnson, Council President Pro Tem
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
ALSO PRESENT
Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Gerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(10(i).
At 6:40 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis announced that the City Council would meet in executive
session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(10(i). She stated that the executive
session was scheduled to last approximately 20 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room,
located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in
executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Councilmembers Johnson,
Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Bloom and Mesaros. Councilmember Petso joined the executive
session at 7:03 p.m. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works Director Phil
Williams, Finance Director Scott James and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 7:03 p.m. City Clerk Scott
Passey announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional five minutes would be
required in executive session. At 7:07, Mr. Passey announced that an additional five minutes would be
required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:12 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:14 p.m. and led the flag
salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor
Earling.
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis introduced Student Representative Noushyal Eslami.
Packet Page 4 of 168
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis relayed staff’s request to reschedule Item 9 to a future meeting as Item 10 is a
priority.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, REMOVING ITEM 10. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Bloom requested Item A be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON,
TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda item approved is as follows:
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #210235 THROUGH #210336 DATED AUGUST 28,
2014 FOR $1,287,512.53
ITEM A: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2014
Councilmember Bloom requested the following corrections:
• Page 9, last paragraph, change 7.2 items per committee per month, to 17.2 items for all
committees per month.
• Page 10, first paragraph, change Ethics Police to ethics policy.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ITEM A AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Peter Laylin, Edmonds, representing the Train Horn Noise Advisory Committee, reviewed the
committee’s progress in creating a Train Horn Noise Quiet Zone for Edmonds. Their current campaign
began July 2013 his letter to the Edmonds Beacon that generated a great deal of interest as well as
controversy. Some opposition was due to the proposal to create a local improvement district (LID) to pay
for a quiet zone. That was proposed based on, 1) the claim by City staff that there was no money to fund
such a project, and 2) East Vancouver, Washington’s success in establishing an LID to fund their quiet
zone. A petition was circulated to property owners whose address would appear to place them within an
LID, asking for their support for a quiet zone as well as their willingness to help pay for it. At that time a
full quiet zone with additional gates, barriers and crossing arms at Main and Dayton Streets was
contemplated. Further investigation revealed a full quiet zone would be difficult due to, 1) the cost, likely
over $1million, and 2) getting an LID approved would be contentious. The committee turned their
attention to a wayside/trackside warning system as an alternative. The system benefits from the 2008
study performed for the City by Railroad Controls Limited and would be far less expensive ($250,000)
than a full quiet zone and therefore would not require an LID to fund it. Wayside horns can also perform
for the current single track and the probable second track, a clear advantage over a full quiet zone. A
wayside horn is included on the TIP; the Council only needs to provide funds for implementation. The
system has already been studied and can been done economically in the near term and will provide real
relief.
Packet Page 5 of 168
Kory KeMun, Edmonds School Board, thanked the Council for their support of the school system. He
was attending tonight’s meeting to learn more about the workings and concerns of the City Council.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, praised Councilmember Bloom for doing her own research regarding
Westgate such as similar areas, parking relationships, how businesses fit, etc. He expressed concern other
Councilmembers have not done their own research, noting it was important for Councilmembers to get
involved before making decisions that affect everyone. He provided several comments with regard to
Westgate: the proposal is too dense and there will not be enough room to develop everything that has
been described; he supports increasing the setbacks; the traffic study has nothing to do with Westgate, it is
a study of sidewalks and a waste of money; he supports increasing sidewalk widths to encourage
pedestrians; he fears the result will be residential development without good commercial on the first floor;
and without quality commercial, there will not be a Westgate a shopping area. Next, he referred to
discussion about eliminating commercial requirements in some zones and recommended the City tell the
developer what they want, just hope developers will build what the City wants.
6. PRESENTATION BY THE EDMONDS SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY MUSEUM &
HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Dave Buelow, Scarecrow Festival Project Manager, South Snohomish County Historical Society
and Museum, referred to a flyer regarding the Scarecrow Festival that was provided to the Council. The
flyer and further information can be found on the museum’s website, www.historicedmonds.org and the
scarecrow hotline, 425-774-6507. He thanked everyone who participated last year, 54 scarecrow entries
and 500 online votes; they hope to increase that this year. He thanked the Council for their support, staff
for their assistance, and citizens for their participation including Councilmembers Buckshnis and Peterson
who built and registered scarecrows last year. He invited Councilmember Petso’s grandson Gus to tell the
public about his scarecrow. Gus said his scarecrow was named No-Noggin because he does not have a
head. His head, a pumpkin, will be added by Halloween. Councilmember Petso explained the scarecrow,
constructed nearly entirely from discarded campaign sign sticks, was based on a Curious George story;
she was hopeful he would get his head prior to the contest judging. Mr. Buelow urged citizens and
businesses to register a scarecrow; registration begins October 1. The museum’s website will include a
map so that the public can tour scarecrows.
Bill Lambert, President, Edmonds South-Snohomish County Historical Society and Museum,
commented the museum is pleased to offer the Scarecrow Festival, celebrating the present and future. He
looked forward to seeing the public at other museum activities including the Saturday Market, the car
show, and the haunted museum on Trick or Treat Halloween. He invited Councilmembers and the public
to the second annual Heritage Days on October 24 at the Holy Rosary Community Center. Discounted
tickets are available until October 1 and are available for purchase tonight, online or at the museum.
Funds from last year’s Heritage Days were instrumental in funding renovation of the upstairs to its
original Carnegie Library condition; this year’s project is the outside of the museum.
7. MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
Parks & Recreation Commission/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite advised the packet
contained material she developed at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis regarding the judge’s
salary. Tonight’s presentation includes briefing on one item and consideration of a second. The first item
is related to the Citizens Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials (CCCEO) that filed its
salary recommendation in May 2012 to cover 2013 and 2014. Their recommendation was to maintain the
95% of a District Court Judge’s salary to continue receiving the court improvement funds. Attachment 2,
a letter from Washington Courts Administrative Office of the Court, calls for a 3% increase to begin on
September 1, 2014. The 3% will increase the judge’s salary by $189/month or $757 for September 1 –
Dec 31, 2014. The court has the funds in their budget.
Packet Page 6 of 168
The second item is related to the full-time equivalency for the judge. Although Judge Fair spoke to
CCCEO, the City Attorney advised the CCCEO does not make a decision on FTE, that is done via the
Mayor’s recommendation to Council. After consulting with the Judge and reviewing materials, Mayor
Earling recommends the Council consider increasing the hours for the judge from the current at .55 FTE
to .75 FTE. She noted although the .75 FTE is lower than comparison jurisdictions, Mayor Earling would
like to implement it before recommending a higher FTE. The fiscal impact is $2,358/month including the
3% increase. She reviewed a Compensation/Cases/FTE summary:
Market Hours per
Case
Caseload
per FTE
Salary per FTE Actual Salary
Edmonds/Current .55 FTE 0.15 14,198 $11,443.00 $6,293.65
Average 0.27 13,804 $11,443.00
Median 0.22 9,524 $11,659.00
Edmonds Proposed .75 FTE 0.20 10,412 $11,443.00 $8,582.25
Proposed with 3% increase per State Salary Commission $11,786.00 $8,839.00
Ms. Hite note there may be an increase in the caseload due to new laws related to the public defender.
Councilmember Bloom asked why there was a recommendation to do this now instead of considering it
during the budget process and making it effective in 2015. Ms. Hite relayed Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis
requested this be presented to the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis explained an RFQ for a new judge
is being advertised beginning next week and it was important to accurately reflect the FTE and salary.
Councilmember Bloom asked why this was not done during the 2014 budget process. Mayor Pro Tem
Buckshnis responded it was not known during the 2014 budget process that Judge Fair would be leaving.
She reiterated the RFQ was being advertised to attract a new judge and it was important to accurately
represent the FTE and compensation.
Councilmember Petso suggested advertising the .55 FTE and increasing it if necessary. Ms. Hite
answered that could be done but it was feared it would not be competitive if a candidate considered the
caseload and the salary based on the FTE and could impact the City’s ability to attract highly qualified
candidates. Councilmember Petso observed the impact is $28,000/year which would typically be done via
a decision package. She asked whether the decision would have been delayed until the budget process if
the City were not seeking a new judge. Ms. Hite answered most likely.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson pointed out the Washington State Citizen Commission on Salaries for
Elected Officials recommended increasing the judge’s salary by 3% effective September 1, 2014. The
Council does not have control over that. To receive the benefits of having the judge at 95% of that salary
range, the court improvement funds, the Council needs to authorize the 3% increase. She summarized
these are two separate actions. Ms. Hite agreed, clarifying after consulting with the City Attorney,
because the City’s CCCEO’s 2012 recommendation set the salary for 2013 and 2014, it does not require
Council authorization; it will automatically go into effect September 1, 2014.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO EXPAND THE POSITION OF MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE FROM ITS CURRENT .55 FTE
TO .75 FTE.
Councilmember Petso said she will vote against the motion because she preferred to consider it as a
decision package in the 2015 budget.
Councilmember Mesaros explained the City has an opportunity to attract someone to replace the current
Municipal Court Judge and needs to present the best possible position description.
Packet Page 7 of 168
Council President Pro Tem Johnson pointed out the packet contains a summary of the work Judge Fair
has been providing. It is clear he has been working in excess of a .55 FTE. The estimates are a .71 FTE in
2008, .93 in 2009 .96 in 2010, 1.01 in 2011, .96 in 2012 and .85 in 2013. Clearly Judge Fair has been
dedicated and has been working above his FTE. Although she understood it would be best to consider this
in the budget process, this is a unique circumstance in which Judge Fair is planning to leave and the
position needs to be filled. The increase in the FTE can be justified at this time.
If the Council approved the .75 FTE, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the hours could be
reduced in the future. She was aware the salary could not be reduced. City Attorney Jeff Taraday
responded the law is clear the salary of an elected official cannot be reduced while they are in office.
Because it is unusual to tinker with an FTE for an elected office, there is no case or statutory law. He
advised it would be at least problematic to decrease the FTE and therefore would be safe to assume at
least for the remainder of term any increase in compensation would remain in effect through that term.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the judge’s term. Judge Fair advised it was 3 more years.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed at the end of 3 years, the Council could choose to reduce or
increase the FTE. Mr. Taraday advised the salary can always be increased mid -term; it cannot be
decreased mid-term.
Councilmember Petso said she was not questioning the justification, only the process. She recognized
Judge Fair has been very forthcoming in explaining why he and Mayor Earling recommend the change.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), MAYOR PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING
YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING NO.
8. INTRODUCTION TO POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF "LOT" (ECDC 21.55.010),
DEFINING "LOT OF RECORD" (ECDC 21.55.015) AND ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR
DETERMINING "INNOCENT PURCHASER" (ECDC 20.75.180). (AMD20140001)
Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this issue came to light at the end last year and early this year when
the legal status of a number of properties came into question. The matter was discussed by the Parks,
Planning & Public Works Committee who forwarded it to the Planning Board who recommended changes
to ECDC. He provided several definitions:
• ECDC 21.55.010 – Lot
Lot means a single tract of land legally created as a separate building site with frontage on a street
or access easement. For purposes of this code, adjoining lots under common ownership, which
were created without subdivision or short subdivision approval from applicable city or county
governments, shall be considered as one lot and subject to the regulations contained herein. The
terms of this section shall apply regardless of whether the individual adjoining lots meet current
zoning requirements.
• ECDC 20.75.180 Violation – Permits
No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit, shall be issued for any lot,
tract or parcel of land divided in violation of this chapter unless the applicant for such a permit
has applied to the hearing examiner and obtained a ruling from the hearing examiner that the
public interest will be not adversely affected thereby; provided, however, the prohibition
contained in this section shall not apply to an innocent purchaser for value without actual notice.
• ECDC 17.40.030 Nonconforming Lots
Packet Page 8 of 168
No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit, shall be issued for any lot,
tract or parcel of land divided in violation of this chapter unless the applicant for such a permit
has applied to the hearing examiner and obtained a ruling from the hearing examiner that the
public interest will be not adversely affected thereby; provided, however, the prohibition
contained in this section shall not apply to an innocent purchaser for value without actual notice.
Mr. Lien displayed subdivision map identifying subdivisions that have occurred in the City from 1890 to
the present. He provided an comparison of a plat to parcels, displaying a plat originally recorded in 1915
where one short plat was recorded in 1983; other parcels were created by other means outside the
subdivision process which raised legal lot questions. He provided another example where the plat was
recorded in 1907 and identified original lots, lots created via short subdivisions, and lots created outside
the subdivision process. He displayed an example of lots in the City where there were no historic
subdivisions and parcels were created outside subdivision process
The Planning Board proposed the following amendments (Exhibit 1):
ECDC 21.55.010 – Lot Definition
• Revised definition of lot to be consistent with RCW 58.17.020
o Fractional parts of divided lands having fixed boundaries being sufficient in area to meet
minimum zoning requires with area. Term shall apply to tracts or parcels (state subdivision
regulations)
• Keep portion of definition relating to common ownership
ECDC 21.55.015 – Lot of Record (new definition)
• Create new definition for Lot of Record
• Platted Lots
o Tied to specific dates around adoption of subdivision codes
City of Edmonds
Snohomish County
• Unplatted Lots
o Specific Washington State Law exemptions
o Created prior to first City of Edmonds subdivision code (effective July 3, 1956)
He explained the City has five historic plats in the downtown area that created lots 30 feet x 110:
• City of Edmonds
• Brackett’s First Addition
• Gephart’s First Addition
• Kelloggs’s Plat
• Albert B. Lord’s Grandview Addition
These plats are within the R-6 zone which requires a 60 foot minimum lot width. The City considers two
lots in these five historic plats a lot of record. That is codified in this code update.
Councilmember Mesaros asked whether a current lot was 60 feet x 110 feet. Mr. Lien answered all the
historic subdivisions are in the R-6 zone which is single family residential and requires a 6,000 square
foot minimum lot size and 60 foot width. When these were platted, the lots were 30 feet x 110 feet. When
the lots are surveyed, the widths of 2 lots are often between 58 and 60 feet; 2 lots are considered 60 feet
wide and meet the standards.
Innocent Purchaser
• ECDC 20.75.180
Packet Page 9 of 168
• Innocent purchaser is basically someone who purchased a property that was not created via the
subdivision process but was unaware.
• Criteria established to determine innocent purchaser:
o The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property.
o The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm’s length transaction.
o The owner did not purchase the property from a relative.
o At the time of the purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the
subject parcel as a separate lot.
o The parcel has a separate tax ID parcel number
• Innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring the
applicant to make improvements to the property that would likely have been required by the City
had the property been properly subdivided unless it is determined that such improvements have
already been constructed
• Affirmative determination shall be recorded with the county auditor
• Innocent purchaser determination as Type II decision in ECDC 20.01.003
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis asked whether innocent purchaser could include a corporation. City Attorney
Jeff Taraday answered as currently drafted, a corporate entity could quality as an innocent purchaser. A
corporation would still have to meet the same standards; the criteria would be the same. The corporation
would need to have actual knowledge of the illegality of the creation of a lot.
Councilmember Petso recalled one of Mr. Lien’s slides showed a number of land-locked parcels,
however, the prior definition of a lot was that it have frontage on a street or access easement. She
questioned whether the proposal was to allow development on land-locked parcels for which there was no
street or access easement. Mr. Lien answered no, some of the land-locked parcels were created outside the
subdivision process. During the subdivision process, one of the considerations is whether there is
adequate access. He identified access easements on parcel maps, noting there were little slivers of land
that provide access, some are owned by Snohomish County and some are owned by an individual
property owner. This code update is to establish whether a lot is a lot of record. If a develop permit were
submitted for land-locked property, that is one of the review criteria for development but is not associated
with whether it is considered a lot of record.
If a lot is made a lot of record, Councilmember Petso asked whether the property owner could demand an
easement from the neighbors to develop the property. Mr. Taraday explained they would likely already
have the ability to do that. The law does not favor the creation or maintenance of land-locked parcels. He
referred to a private way of necessity, explaining any land-locked property owner has a private right of
condemnation where they can essentially condemn an access easement over their neighbor’s property to
provide access to a public street if there is no other way. This change would not affect that.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding there was no advantage to having the language in the
code regarding frontage or access easement. Mr. Taraday did not see a need to include that language in
the definition of a lot.
Councilmember Petso recalled the innocent purchaser arose as part of a land use appeal where someone
wanted to build a house in a critical area on a parcel. She questioned how these changes would have
affected that proceeding or whether creating the innocent purchaser exception would allow construction
in a critical area under reasonable use or other doctrine. Mr. Lien explained all the innocent purchaser
exception does is determine it to be a lot of record. All the City’s other regulations that apply to
development would apply to the lot of record such as the CAO, stormwater code, engineering code,
zoning code, etc. This only would provide the lot of record status.
Without a lot of record, Councilmember Petso observed there would not be an issue with the critical area;
they simply would not be allowed to develop the lot. Mr. Lien agreed, noting under the current code the
Packet Page 10 of 168
property owner could apply for innocent purchaser but the code currently does not contain any criteria or
a process for determining an innocent purchaser. The proposed update establishes the criteria and process.
Councilmember Petso observed the City may be better off without an innocent purchaser process so that
people do not try to develop wetlands. Mr. Lien commented this is an issue across the entire City whether
or not there are crucial areas.
Councilmember Petso referred to the drawing of an original plat and the same area with numerous lots.
She asked whether the actual condition on the street reflected the original plat or the numerous lots. Mr.
Lien answered it was his belief all the lots were currently developed with single family home.
Councilmember Petso referred to the Meadowdale Landslide Area, questioning whether there was risk of
doubling the density in a high risk area. Mr. Lien did not believe this change would double the density in
North Edmonds as a lot of the parcels already exist. Mr. Taraday explained this problem is often
encountered with an existing house on a lot submitting for a remodeling permit or demolition and
rebuilding; the City cannot issue a permit because there is no way to legalize the lot. Mr. Lien provided an
example of a lot that brought this issue to the City’s attention. Three properties applied for a three lot
subdivision in the early 1970s. The Planning Board approved a 2-lot subdivision; the third lot was not
approved at the time because it was a substandard lot. The property owner is now trying to sell one of the
properties to move into assisted living.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the lot if approved now would comply with the code. Mr. Lien
answered if a lot is determined to be a lot of record through the innocent purchaser process and it is a
substandard lot, development of the lot will be subject to the City’s nonconforming standards.
Councilmember Petso asked whether research would be done regarding why it was denied in the past. Mr.
Lien answered this example, denial of subdivision, would not arise often. More often the properties were
further divided at some point without applying for a subdivision; usually via transfer of deed. If it was
done before July 3, 1956, it will be a lot of record. The lots may meet the zoning requirements but did not
go through the subdivision process. One of the criteria of the innocent purchaser process is if the
subdivision would have required improvements; through the innocent purchaser process, those
improvements would be required.
Councilmember Bloom wanted to ensure the definition of innocent purchaser was very tight. She
provided an example of a property on down the street from her that was above a creek and fish ladder and
on a steep slope. The property was for sale a long time; three developers mentioned the lot could not be
built on due to the steep slope and location next to a creek. The lot was sold and an application was
submitted for a house, she believed as part of a subdivision. There was a hearing and within a few weeks
of the hearing, the lot was for sale again. Her concern was whether the next purchaser of the lot would be
considered an innocent purchaser who had a right to apply for development on a steep slope above a creek
and a fish ladder. Mr. Taraday answered the determination of lot of record is a separate determination
from the determination of whether proposed development would comply with the City’s CAO. In no way
would creating an innocent purchaser process short circuit or exempt properties from compliance with the
City’s CAO.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the next purchaser would be considered an innocent purchaser,
expressing concern with coupling innocent purchaser with reasonable use which was recently changed to
eliminate single family lot equals single family home. She asked whether the next purchaser could be
considered an innocent purchaser that had a right to develop on the lot. Mr. Taraday responded the
innocent purchaser exemption only applies to properties that were not legally subdivided in the first place.
Mr. Lien advised the property Councilmember Bloom referred to was 3-4 lots of the old City of Edmonds
plat and was already a lot of record. Councilmember Bloom asked whether it was part of the subdivision
for the houses above. Mr. Lien explained the houses above were built on two of the historic lots; they did
not go through the subdivision process. The first 8 lots are where the 4 houses were built, each on 2 of the
Packet Page 11 of 168
30-foot wide lots; they are lots of record and can apply for a building permit but still have to comply with
City’s regulations including critical area regulations.
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to a property that was purchased that was a stormwater repository and
asked whether that would be considered an innocent purchaser. Mr. Taraday that property was part of a
legal subdivision; there was no issue with the property being properly subdivided. The issue in that case
was language on the face of plat that dedicated a lot for stormwater purposes. Having been through the
subdivisions process, that lot would be considered lot of record.
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to a house on Sunset that is set back and does not have frontage on
the street. Mr. Lien advised that house has an access easement to the street.
Mr. Lien advised a public hearing has been noticed September 16.
9. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION
FOR PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES RELATED TO WESTGATE
This item was postponed to a future meeting via action taken during Agenda Item 3.
10. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND UPDATE ON THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM WITH
FOCUS ON INTERIM URBAN MIXED USE IV SHORELINE DESIGNATION
Senior Planner Kernen Lien provided an overview of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58
• Adopted in 1971
• Policies address:
o Shoreline Uses
The SMA establishes the concept of preferred uses of shoreline areas. Preferred uses
include single family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses, water dependent
industrial and commercial developments and other developments that provide public
access opportunities.
o Environmental Protection
The SMA is intended to protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its
vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic resources. One of the
requirements of the SMP update is the regulations provide for no net loss of ecological
functions.
o Public Access
Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public
access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and
enlargement of recreational opportunities
• Shoreline Master Program
o Under the SMA, each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a
SMP that is based on state laws and rules but is tailored to the specific geographic, economic
and environmental needs of the community. The local SMP is essentially a shoreline-specific
combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system.
The Department of Ecology updated their SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26) and all jurisdictions in the State
are required to update their SMP. Most jurisdictions’ SMP were from the early 1970s and only being
updated now. Edmonds had a comprehensive update of its SMP in 2000 which has been incorporated into
this update.
The SMP is comprised of several documents:
• Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
Packet Page 12 of 168
• Shoreline Restoration Plan
• Development Regulations
o Draft ECDC Title 24
o Policies, regulations and standards for shoreline uses and modifications
o Administrative provisions
• Cumulative Impact Analysis
Mr. Lien explained a comprehensive code rewrite/reorganization is also underway. The new Development
Services Director Shane Hope was not when the City when Title 24 was originally drafted and has some
ideas regarding how it could be organized. He provided a summary of the draft Shoreline Regulations
ECDC Title 24:
• Part I – Introduction
• Part II – Master Program Elements: Goals and Policies
• Part III – Shoreline Environments
• Part IV – General Policies & Regulations
• Part V – Specific Modification Policies & Regulations
• Part VI – Specific Use Policies & Regulations
• Part VII – Nonconforming Development
• Part VIII – Administration – Shoreline Permits
• Part IX – Definitions
• Part X - Appendices
Mr. Lien described the SMP’s relationship to other plans or regulations:
• SMP is adopted element in Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan
• SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC
o Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP
o SMP prevails where there are conflicts
Mr. Lien provided definitions for jurisdiction, setbacks and buffers:
• Jurisdiction – Shorelines and 200 feet from ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of shorelines
• Setback – Minimum distance between a structure or use and the shoreline OHWM
• Buffer – the area adjacent to a critical area and/or shoreline that is required for the continued
maintenance, function, and/ or structural stability of the critical area and/or shoreline.
Mr. Lien displayed an idealistic drawing of a shoreline with buffers and setbacks and an aerial image of
the Edmonds shoreline which is quite developed.
The SMP applies to shoreline jurisdictions which include:
• All marine waters
• Streams and rivers greater than 20 cfs (none in Edmonds)
• Lakes 20 acres or larger (Lake Ballinger)
• Shorelands – upland areas within 200 feet
• Associated wetlands
He described shoreline environments identified in the SMP (ECDC 24.30.000 – 24.30.080)
• Environment designations are analogous t zoning designations for areas under SMA jurisdiction
• 12 proposed shoreline environmental designations
o Aquatic I – low density
o Aquatic II – high density
Packet Page 13 of 168
o Natural– protect shoreline areas relatively free of human influence or that include intact or
minimally degraded shoreline functions
Edmonds Marsh and the historically contiguous wetland to the east of State Route 104.
Shell Creek wetland and lower riparian zone
o Conservancy
Brackett Landing South and North
Off-leash Dog Park
Willow Creek outlet of Edmonds Marsh
o Shoreline Residential I
North Edmonds east of railroad, RS-12 & RS-20 zoning
o Shoreline Residential II
East of railroad, RS-6 zoning
o Shoreline Residential III
Lake Ballinger, RSW-12
o Urban Railroad
Burling Northern Santa Fe Railway right-of-way
Mr. Lien explained one of big changes with the SMP update is related to Edmonds Marsh. Under the
current SMP, the Edmonds Marsh was considered an associated wetland so the shoreline jurisdiction
ended at the edge of the marsh. During the process, Ecology determined the marsh was a shoreline of the
state which meant its jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM. He provided aerial images of the historic
extent of the marsh. He displayed an aerial image as part of a survey done by WSDOT for the Edmonds
Crossing project that identified the saltwater portion of the marsh. It was decided to use a 2006 survey as
the boundary of the salt marsh, 200 feet on either side is shoreline jurisdiction. Under the current SMP the
marsh was an associated wetland and shoreline jurisdiction did not extend, there was no shoreline
jurisdiction that applied to Harbor Square or the Unocal property on the south side of the marsh. He
described the following shoreline environments:
o Urban Mixed Use I
North of fishing pier to Brackett’s landing South
o Urban Mixed Use II
Ferry terminal
Marina Beach to fishing pier
o Urban Mixed Use III
Upland areas around Edmonds Marsh
Commercial area north of ferry terminal
No access to navigable waters
Multi-family residential uses allowed
50-foot setback
The SMP update requires jurisdictions consider all plans or all plans being made. At the time, the Port
was considering a new Master Plan for Harbor Square and the SMP was delayed to allow the Port an
opportunity to apply the Harbor Square Master Plan. City Council ultimately did not adopt the Harbor
Square Master Plan. When considering the Harbor Square Master Plan, the Council discussed whether
residential uses should be allowed. During the last review of the update, the Council discussed developing
a new mixed use environment that prohibited residential uses within the shoreline jurisdiction. A new
environment was required because the Urban Mixed Use III was necessary for the office/residential
properties north of Main Street.
The direction from Council was to establish an Urban Mixed Use IV environment that would apply to the
Harbor Square property and the Unocal property on the south side of the marsh was no residential, 150
setback and 50-foot vegetative buffer. That has been incorporated into Title 24. He reviewed changes
required to incorporate the Urban Mixed Use IV environment:
Packet Page 14 of 168
• 24.30.070 Urban Mixed Use
o Designation criteria
• 24.40.080 – Shoreline Development Table
o Allowed uses and required permits
• 24.40.090 – bulk and dimensional standards
o Setbacks and height limits
He reviewed staff’s recommendation with regard to Urban Mixed Use IV:
• 50-foot setback
• Consistent with no net loss criteria
• Ecology support
• Opportunities for enhancement
• Interim designation (suggested by Ecology)
• Concern with 150-foot setback:
o Creates nonconforming situation
Makes minor expansions difficult
Difficulty obtaining financing or refinancing
Difficulty obtaining insurance
Difficulty obtaining tenants for long term leases (if building damaged beyond 75%,
reconstruction would be required to meet setbacks)
o Discourages redevelopment which would provide opportunity for enhancement
Mr. Lien expressed concern with the interim designation that Title 24 suggests be in place for two years.
This assumes the Council will review the issue during the next two years and make it permanent. When
Ecology suggested the interim designation, they assumed the City and Port were working together to
develop uses for the area which may not be on the Council or Port’s agenda. The two year timeframe was
included to ensure the interim designation be reviewed within two years and not wait until the next SMP
update. An option is to have the consultant hired for the CAO update to also consider this issue.
Otherwise, a consultant will need to be budgeted specifically to review this issue.
Mr. Lien highlighted Part IV: General Policies and Regulations (ECDC 24.40.000 – 24.40.090)
• 24.40.020 – Critical Areas
• GMA vs. SMA
• CAO Integration options
1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP
2. Reference a specific AO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP
3. Include portions of the CAO as an apprencix to CAO
• City pursued options 1 and 2
• 24.40.020.D – CAO exceptions
o General provisions
o Wetlands
At Ecology’s suggestion, the Small Jurisdictions Guidance for Wetlands have been
incorporated into the SMP wetlands section replacing the CAO wetland section.
• 24.40.020.C – CAO provisions allowed with shoreline variance
Mr. Lien provided information regarding wetlands:
• Lake Ballinger ringed by wetlands
• CAO Buffer (ECDC 23.50.040)
o Category III = 50 feet
o Category IV = 35 feet
• SMP wetland buffers (ECDC 24.40.020.F)
Packet Page 15 of 168
o Category III = 60 feet base (+ 45 to 105 feet)
o Category IV = 40 feet
• Variance required to reduce buffer more than 25%
Mr. Lien provided information regarding bluff setbacks:
• 50 feet plus 15 feet building setback
• Shoreline variance required to build closer
Mr. Lien explained another change in the updated SMP is in Part VIII: Administration – Shoreline
Permits (ECDC 24.80.000 – 24.80.170):
• Administrative Chapter largely based on WAC 173-27
• 24.80.100 – Public Hearing
o Current SMP requires all shoreline permits to be decided by Hearing Examiner
o Proposing only significant permits going to Hearing Examiner:
One or more persons request a hearing
A SEPA Determination of Significance is issued
Permit requires shoreline variance or conditional use
The project requires a public hearing for other City of Edmonds permits
• 24.80.140 – Time requirements
o Two years to start project
o Five years to complete project
o Under current SMP time requirements do not apply while other permits (local, state, and
federal) are being pursued
o Update gives applicants 5 years to get other required permits, plus a possible 1 year extension
Mr. Lien reviewed the City’s approval process:
• Assemble complete draft SMP
• Complete SEPA review and documentation
• Provide Growth Management Act 60-day notice of intent to adopt
• Hold public hearing
• Prepare a responsiveness summary
• Approve SMP and submit to Ecology
• Demonstrate compliance with Guidelines
He reviewed Ecology’s approval process:
• Approval process generally takes six months to complete
• Process for minor amendment is the same as full blown update
• Provide public notice and opportunity for comment
• Minimum 30 day comment period
• Send comments to local government within 15 days
• Local government has 45 days to prepare response to comments
• Prepare decision packet
o 30 days after receiving response to comments, Ecology prepares decision packet
• Ecology may:
o Approve the submitted SMP amendment as is
o Approve the SMP amendment subject to required changes
o Deny the SMP amendment
• Work with local government to finalize SMP amendment approval
Council President Pro Tem Johnson recalled there were issues raised in the Shoreline Restoration Plan
regarding whether the eel grass in the Brown’s Bay area was properly mapped. She asked whether there
Packet Page 16 of 168
was a plan for enhancing the eel grass in the Brown’s Bay area. She referred to a statement in the
Shoreline Restoration Plan regarding relocation of the South County Senior Center to restore beach
habitat, commenting this may raise issue related to their redevelopment. At the time the Planning Board
reviewed the SMP there was an expectation that more Best Available Science regarding sea level rise
would become available. Mr. Lien responded when sea level was discussed at the Planning Board, a
document had recently been released; that is still the latest information regarding sea level rise. The
Planning Board inserted policies into the SMP regarding sea level rise. He anticipated more information
may be available at the time of the next update.
Councilmember Petso noted the delineation of the shoreline area of the marsh was from 2006; she asked
why that was not updated. Mr. Lien answered the survey that identified the boundary of the saltmarsh was
conducted in 2008; it closely resembles the 2006 extent of the Edmonds Marsh. The aerial photos
illustrate a clear distinction in the vegetation between salt and fresh water vegetation. Ecology’s wetland
biologist surveyed the marsh and felt the 2006 delineation accurately represented the edge of the saltwater
marsh. Another question is what affect the daylighting of Willow Creek and more free flow from Puget
Sound will have on the marsh. He referred to the blue hatched area on the aerial photograph, explaining
within Edmonds the OHWM is the average high high tide or 10 feet above sea level. He identified the 10
foot elevation; if/when Willow Creek is daylighted and that flow is allowed to happen, the makeup of the
marsh will change. He identified the area of the marsh that would become a salt marsh. The 2006
boundary was verified by Ecology and generally matches the survey done in 2008; there has not been any
change in how the water is allowed to flow between Puget Sound and the marsh since that time.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the boundaries will be re-delineated after the project is completed
and the boundary changes. Mr. Lien answered maybe, maybe not; the SMP does not want to discourage
restoration projects. The SMA allows restoration projects to occur that would normally extend shoreline
jurisdiction and still retain the shoreline jurisdiction. There are three options, 1) identify in the SMP that if
that project is completed, the shoreline jurisdiction established now will remain, 2) do it in the permitting
process for the restoration project, and 3) a third option.
Councilmember Petso noted when this was reviewed previously, the Edmonds Crossing project was taken
into account in the designations. New ideas have been raised since then such as the train trench, the
wayside horns; she asked whether the designations have enough flexibility to allow those projects to
proceed under the SMP. Mr. Lien answered yes.
Councilmember Petso recalled Mr. Lien saying smaller setbacks could offer an opportunity for
enhancement through redevelopment, noting enhancement could occur independent of redevelopment
such as funded by a grant. Mr. Lien agreed.
Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Lien’s statement that retaining the 150-foot setback in the Harbor
Square area would be problematic because the structures would be nonconforming. She asked which
buildings would be affected and what was in the buildings. Mr. Lien identified the tennis courts, the
Harbor Square Athletic Court, Blue Kennel Dogs, and American Brewery. From the audience, Port
Executive Director Bob McChesney advised another building is a combination of warehouses and
professional office spaces.
Councilmember Bloom asked about the difficulty obtaining insurance. Community Services/Economic
Development Director Patrick Doherty explained nonconforming status creates a clouded title for
property owners and tenants. As users, tenants and/or owners change during the time a property is
nonconforming, things may arise that are problematic. For example, if a change in insurance is desired,
the new insurance company may inquire about the nonconforming status. Some insurance companies will
deny coverage if a building is nonconforming, others require an explanation regarding reconstruction.
Similar problems may arise if refinancing is sought. The Port owns those building now but they could sell
Packet Page 17 of 168
properties if they wish and a future purchaser may be concerned about the nonconforming status. He
summarized insurance is the most common issue because insurance coverage changes a lot.
Councilmember Bloom inquired about the percentage a building can be damaged and still reconstructed.
Mr. Doherty answered 75% of the value of a building; if a small percentage of a building were damaged,
it could be rebuilt. There are two issues, 1) the actual physical issue of what can be rebuilt, and 2) the
difficulties that can arise when an insurance company will not provide coverage because they do not want
to deal with the nonconforming status.
Councilmember Bloom understood the difficulty with obtaining financing or refinancing. She questioned
why it would be difficult to obtain tenants for long term leases. Mr. Doherty answered a tenants would
have the same issue obtaining insurance or financing for a tenant improvement. Observing the Harbor
Square Athletic Club has a 29-year lease, Councilmember Bloom asked whether a long term lease
protected a tenant. Mr. Doherty said Mr. Lien’s point was in regard to re-leasing a space that becomes
vacant. A cloud on the title due to nonconformity may not be an issue depending on the broker, the
insurance company and the financing. He agreed long term leases were the safest for the Port.
Councilmember Bloom inquired about minor expansions. Mr. Lien explained the setback is the distance
that a use or a structure from the OHWM. If there is a 150 setback and a tenant wanted to do minor
expansion, it would be within the setback and expanding the nonconformity would not be allowed. Any
minor additions would need to be outside the 150-foot setback. With a 50-foot setback there would be
some opportunity for minor improvements to the building on the marsh side. With a 150-foot setback
there no minor expansion would be allowed without going through the process which is very difficult and
highly unlikely.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether any of the tenants have suggested improvements. Mr. Lien said he
was not he was aware of any current proposals; two that happened in the last few years were American
Brewery’s silo which was in the setback and would not have been allowed and the life raft practice area.
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis asked whether the purpose of the interim designation was the daylighting of
Willow Creek. Mr. Lien explained at the time Ecology proposed the interim designation, the Council was
reviewing uses in that area, the Port had submitted the Harbor Square Master Plan and removal of
residential zoning was being considered. The shoreline environment is in regard to the type of uses the
City wants to have in the shoreline jurisdiction. Daylighting Willow Creek will not change the uses within
shoreline jurisdictions around the marsh. Dayligthting Willow Creek will not change the boundaries of
the marsh; the saltwater portion of the marsh will expand. The boundaries of Willow Creek are
established by the historic fill and the only way it will expand is if the fill is removed.
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis commented WRIA8 considers buffers in grants requests and 150 feet is a
standard buffer. She referred to language in Ecology’s letter that states within this designation the Council
also approved a 50-foot buffer with a 100-foot setback. The purpose of the interim designation is to give
the Port and the City time to negotiate development plans for the Harbor Square property. Ecology agrees
with the concept of an interim designation for this property. Given that the Harbor Square Plan is in flux,
Ecology has no problem with the City not finalizing specific buffers and setback for the marsh. Her
concern was someone needs to “beat the drum for the environment;” the marsh is a gem that needs to be
protected and it will not restore itself.
Councilmember Mesaros asked Ecology’s stance on the 50-foot setback versus a 150-foot setback. Mr.
Lien answered the same letter Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis referenced states Ecology has previously
indicated to the City and the Port that a 50-foot enhanced buffer would be adequate under the Port’s initial
Harbor Square redevelopment plan. He noted an enhanced buffer is establishing a vegetated buffer that is
currently lacking in some places around the marsh. It is not the daylighting of Willow Creek that Ecology
Packet Page 18 of 168
is considering, it is the intensity of adjacent land uses. Ecology suggested the interim designation to allow
the City and the Port to determine reach agreement on development in Urban Mixed Use IV environment.
The Port has expressed support for a 50-foot buffer. Ecology’s letter recommends the Council consider
changing the proposed marsh buffer to a 50-foot minimum width with an interim designation and add
additional language that recognizes the final buffer and setback will be determined within the Harbor
Square redevelopment process.
Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the setback had to be 50 feet or 150 feet or could it be 75 feet.
Mr. Lien answered it can be whatever the Council sets. The 50-foot setback recommended by the
Planning Board was considered to be consistent with the no net loss requirement. The 150-foot setback
originally came from Small Jurisdiction Wetlands Guidance where Category 1 wetlands such as the
Edmonds Marsh have a 150-foot buffer. Ecology noted through their SMP handbook that a setback alone
without a buffer requirement would meet the SMA requirement. Setting the setback at 50 feet is wider
than the current 25-foot open space requirement in the current contract rezone. Councilmember Mesaros
pointed out this proposal doubles the existing requirement. Mr. Lien agreed.
Councilmember Peterson expressed concern with the 150-foot setback particularly with the
redevelopment that is occurring at the Antique Mall property. He asked whether the Port could do any
stormwater mitigation in the Antique Mall parking lot with a 150-foot setback. Mr. Lien answered that
would be considered a restoration project and would be allowed with the 150-foot setback.
Councilmember Peterson commented if a restaurant moved in, a view of the marsh would be
advantageous. He asked whether a deck could be constructed on the back of one of the buildings. Mr.
Lien answered not within the 150-foot setback. Councilmember Peterson referred to one of the building
where 3/4th of the buildings was in the setback and asked whether a roof penetration could be done to
install a hood. Mr. Lien answered improvements can be made within the existing building footprint but
the nonconformity cannot be expanded by adding anything in the setback area.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to language in the letter from Ecology that states within this
designation the Council has approved a 50-foot buffer with a 100-foot setback. The purpose of the interim
designation is to give the Port and the City time to negotiate development plans for the Harbor Square
property. Ecology agrees with the concept of an interim designation for this property. Ecology is available
to help reach agreement on this important decision. Mr. Lien responded that was the reason for his
concern with the interim designation; Ecology suggested the interim designation assuming the City and
the Port are working together. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the City and Port have not been
working together. Ecology’s offer to help reach an agreement is an important step in determining the best
setback and buffer. Mr. Lien agreed that could be worked on during the next two years.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson raised an issue that was discussed at the Planning Board; an area of
the 25-foot open space area between Harbor Square and the marsh that has been graveled and used for
temporary parking. She asked what steps have been/will be taken to restore that to open space and remove
the temporary parking. Mr. Lien answered no steps have been taken to remove the gravel parking next to
Harbor Square Athletic Club.
Councilmember Petso observed the letter from Ecology was dated spring 2014, the decision on the Port
plan was fall 2013. Mr. Lien answered the decision on the Port Master Plan was the end of 2013; he
acknowledged it has been awhile since this was discussed.
Mr. Lien advised a public hearing is scheduled on September 16.
11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT
Packet Page 19 of 168
Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the Council’s discussion last week as a follow up to
discussion at a retreat regarding ways for the Council to work together better and options for dialogue
without voting. The proposal is to alternate study sessions and business meetings and not have
committees other than a Finance Committee to address routine or designated business. Not having
committee meetings would allow all Councilmembers to hear presentations and Q&A and not have it
done twice, once at a committee meeting and again at a Council meeting.
Councilmember Mesaros reiterated he was in favor of this format. However, if the Finance Committee
continued to meet, he recommended the other two committees also continue to meet. If the purpose is to
allow the full Council to discuss items, he recommended not having any committee meetings. If finance is
such an important topic, the full Council should be provided the information at a study session that would
have been provided at a Finance Committee meeting.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Mesaros’ suggestion. If the intent was for the
Finance Committee to meet at 6 p.m. and have the regular Council meeting start at 7 p.m., the Council
meeting could simply start early and all Councilmembers could attend. Her primary concern with
eliminating all the committees is her research found an average of 17.2 committee meeting agenda items
per month. The committees screen items that come to the Council on a regular basis and schedule them on
the Consent Agenda which she felt was very efficient; Councilmembers have the option of pulling an item
from Consent. Some items reviewed by committee should go to the Council such as the Public Works
Quarterly Report. Rather than eliminating all the committees, she suggested the Council decide what
items should regularly come to the Council to prevent them from being reviewed in committee and by the
full Council. She was inclined not to change the Council meeting format unless all the committees were
eliminated.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CREATE AN
ORDINANCE TO BRING BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE STUDY SESSIONS
FOR THE COUNCIL’S FUTURE FORMAT SO THAT THERE WOULD BE TWO BUSINESS
SESSIONS AND TWO STUDY SESSIONS PER MONTH.
Councilmember Petso asked for clarification regarding what would happen with the committees under
Council President Pro Tem Johnson’s motion. Council President Pro Tem Johnson answered time will tell
what works best. She wanted the Council to have better dialogue with staff in the study session. She
recalled Finance Director Scott James said the Finance Committee meeting does not necessarily have to
be held Tuesday at 6 p.m.; it could be held at any time. Mr. James’ interest in retaining the Finance
Committee was not to do the regular work the committee is doing now but to have a long term strategy.
That could include all or some of the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE ALL COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested starting without committee meetings and add them if
necessary. With regard to the Finance Committee, she felt it would be beneficial for all Councilmembers
to hear what occurs in the Finance Committee meetings. She suggested 15-30 minutes could be spent
during a study session to discuss Finance Committee meeting topics. She supported the study
session/business meeting format because she liked to hear why items were scheduled on the Consent
Agenda or the full agenda, noting it seemed to differ based on the Councilmembers on the committee or
even staff assigned to the committee; there was no consistency. She anticipated the Council may be able
to review agenda items more quickly with this format.
Councilmember Peterson suggested the first half hour of the first study session of the month consider
Finance Committee meeting topics.
Packet Page 20 of 168
In response to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ concern with why some items are scheduled on the
Consent Agenda and others are schedule for full Council, Councilmember Bloom relayed her
understanding that items that would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda would not be presented to the
full Council. The Council President would determine which items would be scheduled on the Consent
Agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested that could be worked out, perhaps by a smaller
subgroup; she supported abolishing the committees. Councilmember Bloom referred to the average of
17.2 items per month discussed by committee which equated to 8 items per study session in addition to
regular agenda items.
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis commented there are some routine things that are always scheduled on
Consent. Each meeting will have an agenda that includes a Consent Agenda each meeting.
Councilmembers can pull items from the Consent Agenda.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO.
For Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained the motion directed him to prepare an ordinance.
The Council did not need to wait until the effective date of the ordinance to implement the new process.
Under the current code, the Council has four meetings per month; the Council can decide to the two of the
meetings be study sessions and two be business meetings.
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested the first study session be held on October 14.
12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 12, 2014
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on items discussed by the committee and action taken:
A. Liquor/Recreational Marijuana License Review Process – Full Council
B. Lead Court Clerk job description – Full Council
C. No public comment
Finance Committee
Council President Pro Tem Johnson reported on items discussed by the committee and action taken:
A. 2014 June Quarterly Budgetary Financial Report – Consent Agenda
B. Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and Reimbursements Policy – Discussion only
C. IT Update – Discussion only
D. PFD Quarterly Report – Consent Agenda
E. Business License Fees Discussion – Consent Agenda
F. Public comment from Judge Fair regarding the salary which was discussed on tonight’s agenda,
and from Port Commissioner David Preston regarding the Port’s tiered late fee
Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee
Councilmember Mesaros reported on items discussed by the committee and action taken:
A. Public Works Quarterly Project Report – Full Council
B. Report and Project Close Out for the WWTP Switchgear Upgrade Project – Full Council
C. Phase 4 - Energy Improvement Project – Consent Agenda
D. Proof-of-Concept Proposal for the Sunset Avenue Sidewalk Project – Full Council
E. Authorization to Award a Construction Contract for the 2014 Citywide Storm Drainage
Improvement Project to D&G Backhoe, Inc. in the Amount of $337,759.43 – Consent Agenda
Packet Page 21 of 168
F. Authorization for Mayor to Approve Acceptance and Recording of a Quit Claim Deed for 740
15th St SW – Consent Agenda
G. Report on Final Construction Costs for the 220 7th Ave Curb Ramp and Curb/Gutter Project and
Acceptance of Project – Consent Agenda
H. Authorization to award a construction contract for the 15th St SW Walkway Project – Information
only
I. Update on Edmonds Arts Commission Temporary Art Projects on 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
– postponed to a future meeting due to unavailability of staff member to present
J. No public comment
13. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Councilmember Mesaros reported he will be attending the SeaShore Transportation Forum on Friday.
Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board’s July meeting did not have quorum. The Tree Board’s
open house the following week to introduce the tree code was well attended and included lively
discussion. The Port Commission’s August 1 meeting included an update on their website as well as
several quarterly reports including Harbor Square, Marina, Finance, financial statements and the 2015
budget schedule. The Port’s August 25 meeting included discussion regarding replacement of the HVAC
in Building 1 and the purchase of two modular restroom buildings to replace the marina restrooms that are
in disrepair.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson reported meetings she attended in August included:
• The Solar Workshop where she learned her house was not eligible because there was too much
shade. She urged those whose homes had at least 65% solar access to investigate the reduced cost
solar project available in South Snohomish County.
• Two strategic planning meetings
• Historic Preservation Commission meeting
• Perrinville Creek Study
• Highway 99 Task Force meeting
• Economic Development Commission
• SCC Dinner
• Chamber luncheon regard economic development and the story of place
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis reported the Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting was cancelled and WRIA
8 will meet next Thursday.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis had no report.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Student Representative Noushyal Eslami reported he is a senior at Edmonds-Woodway. He is interested
in chemistry and is considering chemical engineering. He runs cross-country and track and was born in
Iran.
Councilmember Petso welcomed the Student Representative Eslami, commenting he was one of the few
students who knew her grandson Gus.
Councilmember Mesaros welcomed the new Student Representative and was glad he was here.
Packet Page 22 of 168
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented two student representatives ago, the student ended up
attending MIT to pursue civil engineering.
Councilmember Bloom welcomed the new Student Representative. She noted in emails the Council
received today regarding the Westgate plan, a citizen requested a Town Hall meeting at PCC or
somewhere at Westgate that would include a tour of the area. She found this a fabulous idea and asked
how that could be set up. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis answered a Councilmember can set up a Town Hall
meeting anytime. Councilmember Bloom observed Mayor Earling’s Town Hall meetings are noticed as
public meetings in the event more than three Councilmembers attend. She asked Mayor Pro Tem
Buckshnis to email her a step-by-step process so that Councilmember Petso and she could set that up.
Councilmember Petso suggested Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis set it up. If City does not want to schedule a
Town Hall meeting, she will work with Councilmember Bloom to set it up. Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis
said there is no procedure in the code regarding Town Hall meetings. Councilmember Petso commented it
may not need to be called a Town Hall meeting; she has attended public meetings recently regarding a
sidewalk project and a storm drainage projects. Mr. Taraday said if it was a Council meeting, it should be
noticed as any other Council meeting; he did not want to create a system whereby one Councilmember
could announce a Council meeting.
Councilmember Petso advised it would be a public meeting where the public can interact and ask
questions rather than a three minute comment at a public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
recalled she and Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis notified the media and secured the location; the City did a
public meeting notice. Councilmember Peterson suggested it be an open house rather than a Town Hall.
Council President Pro Tem Johnson thanked everyone who attended the Volunteer Appreciation Picnic on
August 24. She also thanked everyone including Teresa Wippel who participated in ALS bucket
challenge.
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis reported on the tree vandalism in Hutt Park. A GoFundMe account has been
set up to establish a reward for information leading to an arrest.
Mayor Pro Tem Buckshnis advised that Bob Freeman passed away today. She offered prayers for him and
his family.
16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
18. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
Packet Page 23 of 168
AM-7115 4.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Committee: Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of Bob & Janice Freeman.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
For their many hours of dedicated work in the Edmonds community with various groups on the issues of sustainability and
climate change, Mayor Earling will read a proclamation in honor of Bob & Janice Freeman.
Attachments
Freeman_Proclamation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/04/2014 03:19 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:49 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/05/2014 10:21 AM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 09/04/2014 11:42 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 24 of 168
Packet Page 25 of 168
AM-7117 6.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Committee: Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation on the Traffic Calming Program
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Staff will make a presentation on the City's Traffic Calming Program.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/04/2014 02:08 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/04/2014 05:15 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/05/2014 07:54 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:49 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/05/2014 10:21 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 09/04/2014 02:03 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 26 of 168
AM-7113 7.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilmember Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
A Resolution Supporting Passage of Washington State Initiative 594
Recommendation
N/A
Previous Council Action
January 29, 2013 Council Meeting : The Edmonds City Council added support of gun control legislation to the Edmonds City
Council legislative agenda (minutes attached).
Narrative
The Citizens of Edmonds and the State of Washington will have an opportunity to vote on Initiative 594 in the November,
2014 general election. Initiative 594 is an act Relating to requiring criminal and public safety background checks for gun sales
and transfers; amending RCW 9.41.010, 9.41.090, 9.41.122, 9.41.124, and 82.12.040; adding new sections to chapter 9.41
RCW; adding a new section to chapter 82.08 RCW; creating a new section; and prescribing penalties.
Attachments
ATTACH 1 - I594Resolution
ATTACH 2 - FinalTextI594
ATTACH 3 - Council Minutes 1-29-13.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/04/2014 10:00 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:51 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/05/2014 10:21 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/04/2014 09:44 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 27 of 168
RESOLUTION NO.
A Resolution Supporting Passage of Washington Initiative 594
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF INITIATIVE
594, WHICH SEEKS TO CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES IN THE EXISTING STATE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
SYSTEM USED TO PURCHASE A FIREARM, BY EXPANDING OUR CURRENT SYSTEM TO INCLUDE PRIVATE
SALES.
WHEREAS. in 1993, the US Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, requiring all federally licensed
firearm dealers to perform a background check on every firearm purchaser; and
WHEREAS. under current federal and state law, criminal background checks are not required for the purchase of firearms
through private transactions at gun shows, over the internet, and in parking lots; and
WHEREAS, the incidence of yearly gun murders has increased to over 31,000 nationally; and
WHEREAS, states with required criminal background checks on private firearm sales, have been shown to have 38%
fewer women murdered by intimate partners; 49% fewer suicides by gun; 39% fewer of law enforcement
officers killed by handguns, and a 64% fewer crime guns trafficked to other states; and
WHEREAS, Since 1998, the background check system has blocked more than 2 million sales to prohibited purchasers,
including more than 40,000 in Washington State alone; and
WHEREAS, 98% of Washingtonians live within 10 miles of a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer who can conduct a
background check in Washington State; and
WHEREAS, Initiative 594 will use the same background check system currently in use in Washington state; and
WHEREAS, Initiative 594 makes no changes to Washington State hunting or shooting laws; and makes reasonable
exceptions for gifts between family members, antiques and relics, temporary transfers and loans for hunting
or sporting, and personal defense; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds supports policies that keep guns out of dangerous hands while
respecting the rights of responsible gun owners, and strongly believes that the State of Washington should
take action to close the loophole in our existing background check system and keep guns out of the hands of
felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council supports the passage of Initiative 594, which makes sure guns sold in Washington State go
through the same background check system.
Section 2. The City Council authorizes the City Clerk to forward this Resolution to the City’s delegation to the Washington
State Legislature and the Chief of Police.
RESOLVED THIS 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014.
DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR
ATTEST:
SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO:
Packet Page 28 of 168
Initiative Measure No. 594 filed June 17, 2013
_____________________________________________
BILL REQUEST - CODE REVISER'S OFFICE
_____________________________________________
BILL REQ. #: I-2745.1/13
ATTY/TYPIST: AI:eab
BRIEF DESCRIPTION:
Packet Page 29 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 1 I-2745.1/13
Initiative Measure No. 594 filed June 17, 2013
AN ACT Relating to requiring criminal and public safety background
checks for gun sales and transfers; amending RCW 9.41.010, 9.41.090,
9.41.122, 9.41.124, and 82.12.040; adding new sections to chapter 9.41
RCW; adding a new section to chapter 82.08 RCW; creating a new
section; and prescribing penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. There is broad consensus that felons,
persons convicted of domestic violence crimes, and persons dangerously
mentally ill as determined by a court should not be eligible to
possess guns for public safety reasons. Criminal and public safety
background checks are an effective and easy mechanism to ensure that
guns are not purchased by or transferred to those who are prohibited
from possessing them. Criminal and public safety background checks
also reduce illegal gun trafficking. Because Washington's current
background check requirements apply only to sales or transfers by
licensed firearms dealers, many guns are sold or transferred without a
Packet Page 30 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 2 I-2745.1/13
criminal and public safety background check, allowing criminals and
dangerously mentally ill individuals to gain access to guns.
Conducting criminal and public safety background checks will help
ensure that all persons buying guns are legally eligible to do so.
The people find that it is in the public interest to strengthen our
background check system by extending the requirement for a background
check to apply to all gun sales and transfers in the state, except as
permitted herein. To encourage compliance with background check
requirements, the sales tax imposed by RCW 82.08.020 would not apply
to the sale or transfer of any firearms between two unlicensed persons
if the unlicensed persons have complied with all background check
requirements.
This measure would extend criminal and public safety background
checks to all gun sales or transfers. Background checks would not be
required for gifts between immediate family members or for antiques.
Sec. 2. RCW 9.41.010 and 2013 c 183 s 2 are each amended to read
as follows:
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in
this section apply throughout this chapter.
(1) "Antique firearm" means a firearm or replica of a firearm not
designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire
ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898,
including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of
ignition system and also any firearm using fixed ammunition
manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer
manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the
ordinary channels of commercial trade.
(2) "Barrel length" means the distance from the bolt face of a
closed action down the length of the axis of the bore to the crown of
the muzzle, or in the case of a barrel with attachments to the end of
any legal device permanently attached to the end of the muzzle.
(3) "Crime of violence" means:
(a) Any of the following felonies, as now existing or hereafter
amended: Any felony defined under any law as a class A felony or an
Packet Page 31 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 3 I-2745.1/13
attempt to commit a class A felony, criminal solicitation of or
criminal conspiracy to commit a class A felony, manslaughter in the
first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, indecent liberties if
committed by forcible compulsion, kidnapping in the second degree,
arson in the second degree, assault in the second degree, assault of a
child in the second degree, extortion in the first degree, burglary in
the second degree, residential burglary, and robbery in the second
degree;
(b) Any conviction for a felony offense in effect at any time
prior to June 6, 1996, which is comparable to a felony classified as a
crime of violence in (a) of this subsection; and
(c) Any federal or out-of-state conviction for an offense
comparable to a felony classified as a crime of violence under (a) or
(b) of this subsection.
(4) "Dealer" means a person engaged in the business of selling
firearms at wholesale or retail who has, or is required to have, a
federal firearms license under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a). A person who
does not have, and is not required to have, a federal firearms license
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a), is not a dealer if that person makes only
occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the
enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or sells all or
part of his or her personal collection of firearms.
(5) "Family or household member" means "family" or "household
member" as used in RCW 10.99.020.
(6) "Felony" means any felony offense under the laws of this state
or any federal or out-of-state offense comparable to a felony offense
under the laws of this state.
(7) "Felony firearm offender" means a person who has previously
been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state
of any felony firearm offense. A person is not a felony firearm
offender under this chapter if any and all qualifying offenses have
been the subject of an expungement, pardon, annulment, certificate, or
rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of
the rehabilitation of the person convicted or a pardon, annulment, or
other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.
Packet Page 32 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 4 I-2745.1/13
(8) "Felony firearm offense" means:
(a) Any felony offense that is a violation of this chapter ((9.41
RCW));
(b) A violation of RCW 9A.36.045;
(c) A violation of RCW 9A.56.300;
(d) A violation of RCW 9A.56.310;
(e) Any felony offense if the offender was armed with a firearm in
the commission of the offense.
(9) "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or
projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.
(10) "Gun" has the same meaning as firearm.
(11) "Law enforcement officer" includes a general authority
Washington peace officer as defined in RCW 10.93.020, or a specially
commissioned Washington peace officer as defined in RCW 10.93.020.
"Law enforcement officer" also includes a limited authority Washington
peace officer as defined in RCW 10.93.020 if such officer is duly
authorized by his or her employer to carry a concealed pistol.
(((11))) (12) "Lawful permanent resident" has the same meaning
afforded a person "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" in 8
U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(20).
(((12))) (13) "Licensed dealer" means a person who is federally
licensed under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a).
(14) "Loaded" means:
(a) There is a cartridge in the chamber of the firearm;
(b) Cartridges are in a clip that is locked in place in the
firearm;
(c) There is a cartridge in the cylinder of the firearm, if the
firearm is a revolver;
(d) There is a cartridge in the tube or magazine that is inserted
in the action; or
(e) There is a ball in the barrel and the firearm is capped or
primed if the firearm is a muzzle loader.
(((13))) (15) "Machine gun" means any firearm known as a machine
gun, mechanical rifle, submachine gun, or any other mechanism or
instrument not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot and
Packet Page 33 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 5 I-2745.1/13
having a reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable
mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which
can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired
therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second.
(((14))) (16) "Nonimmigrant alien" means a person defined as such
in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(15).
(((15))) (17) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company,
association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint
stock company, or other legal entity.
(18) "Pistol" means any firearm with a barrel less than sixteen
inches in length, or is designed to be held and fired by the use of a
single hand.
(((16))) (19) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made
or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the
explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single
projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
(((17))) (20) "Sale" and "sell" ((refers to)) mean the actual
approval of the delivery of a firearm in consideration of payment or
promise of payment ((of a certain price in money)).
(((18))) (21) "Serious offense" means any of the following
felonies or a felony attempt to commit any of the following felonies,
as now existing or hereafter amended:
(a) Any crime of violence;
(b) Any felony violation of the uniform controlled substances act,
chapter 69.50 RCW, that is classified as a class B felony or that has
a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years;
(c) Child molestation in the second degree;
(d) Incest when committed against a child under age fourteen;
(e) Indecent liberties;
(f) Leading organized crime;
(g) Promoting prostitution in the first degree;
(h) Rape in the third degree;
(i) Drive-by shooting;
(j) Sexual exploitation;
Packet Page 34 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 6 I-2745.1/13
(k) Vehicular assault, when caused by the operation or driving of
a vehicle by a person while under the influence of intoxicating liquor
or any drug or by the operation or driving of a vehicle in a reckless
manner;
(l) Vehicular homicide, when proximately caused by the driving of
any vehicle by any person while under the influence of intoxicating
liquor or any drug as defined by RCW 46.61.502, or by the operation of
any vehicle in a reckless manner;
(m) Any other class B felony offense with a finding of sexual
motivation, as "sexual motivation" is defined under RCW 9.94A.030;
(n) Any other felony with a deadly weapon verdict under RCW
9.94A.825; ((or))
(o) Any felony offense in effect at any time prior to June 6,
1996, that is comparable to a serious offense, or any federal or out-
of-state conviction for an offense that under the laws of this state
would be a felony classified as a serious offense; or
(p) Any felony conviction under section 9 of this act.
(((19))) (22) "Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or
more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made
from a rifle by any means of modification if such modified weapon has
an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
(((20))) (23) "Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one
or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length and any weapon
made from a shotgun by any means of modification if such modified
weapon has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
(((21))) (24) "Shotgun" means a weapon with one or more barrels,
designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from
the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended
to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire
through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single
projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to
another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment
including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.
Packet Page 35 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 7 I-2745.1/13
(26) "Unlicensed person" means any person who is not a licensed
dealer under this chapter.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
to read as follows:
(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state
including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the
purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington,
shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by
state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all
sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers
through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between
unlicensed persons.
(2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:
(a) The person is a licensed dealer;
(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer; or
(c) The requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met.
(3) Where neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a
licensed dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the
sale or transfer through a licensed dealer as follows:
(a) The seller or transferor shall deliver the firearm to a
licensed dealer to process the sale or transfer as if it is selling or
transferring the firearm from its inventory to the purchaser or
transferee, except that the unlicensed seller or transferor may remove
the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer while
the background check is being conducted. If the seller or transferor
removes the firearm from the business premises of the licensed dealer
while the background check is being conducted, the purchaser or
transferee and the seller or transferor shall return to the business
premises of the licensed dealer and the seller or transferor shall
again deliver the firearm to the licensed dealer prior to completing
the sale or transfer.
(b) Except as provided in (a) of this subsection, the licensed
dealer shall comply with all requirements of federal and state law
that would apply if the licensed dealer were selling or transferring
Packet Page 36 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 8 I-2745.1/13
the firearm from its inventory to the purchaser or transferee,
including but not limited to conducting a background check on the
prospective purchaser or transferee in accordance with federal and
state law requirements and fulfilling all federal and state
recordkeeping requirements.
(c) The purchaser or transferee must complete, sign, and submit
all federal, state, and local forms necessary to process the required
background check to the licensed dealer conducting the background
check.
(d) If the results of the background check indicate that the
purchaser or transferee is ineligible to possess a firearm, then the
licensed dealer shall return the firearm to the seller or transferor.
(e) The licensed dealer may charge a fee that reflects the fair
market value of the administrative costs and efforts incurred by the
licensed dealer for facilitating the sale or transfer of the firearm.
(4) This section does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this
subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents,
children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews,
first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
(b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;
(c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such
transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm
to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if:
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately
necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not
prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
(d) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent
the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her
employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections
officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the
United States or the national guard, or federal official;
Packet Page 37 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 9 I-2745.1/13
(e) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely
for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to
its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith;
(f) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or
domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the
firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range
authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such
range is located; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the
transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful
organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while
participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group
that uses firearms as a part of the performance; (iv) to a person who
is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or
educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of
a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the
person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and
the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all
training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting,
provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is
permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not
prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; or
(g) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by
operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or
(ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the
former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the
end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully
transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of
licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of
the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in
compliance with all federal and state laws.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
to read as follows:
Packet Page 38 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 10 I-2745.1/13
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a licensed dealer
may not deliver any firearm to a purchaser or transferee until the
earlier of:
(1) The results of all required background checks are known and
the purchaser or transferee is not prohibited from owning or
possessing a firearm under federal or state law; or
(2) Ten business days have elapsed from the date the licensed
dealer requested the background check. However, for sales and
transfers of pistols if the purchaser or transferee does not have a
valid permanent Washington driver's license or state identification
card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous
consecutive ninety days, then the time period in this subsection shall
be extended from ten business days to sixty days.
Sec. 5. RCW 9.41.090 and 1996 c 295 s 8 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no
dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and
the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and
issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as
provided in subsection (5) of this section. For purposes of this
subsection (1)(a), a "valid concealed pistol license" does not include
a temporary emergency license, and does not include any license issued
before July 1, 1996, unless the issuing agency conducted a records
search for disqualifying crimes under RCW 9.41.070 at the time of
issuance;
(b) The dealer is notified in writing by the chief of police or
the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that
the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040 and
that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or
sheriff; or
(c) The requirements or time periods in section 4 of this act have
been satisfied((Five business days, meaning days on which state
offices are open, have elapsed from the time of receipt of the
Packet Page 39 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 11 I-2745.1/13
application for the purchase thereof as provided herein by the chief
of police or sheriff designated in subsection (5) of this section,
and, when delivered, the pistol shall be securely wrapped and shall be
unloaded. However, if the purchaser does not have a valid permanent
Washington driver's license or state identification card or has not
been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days,
the waiting period under this subsection (1)(c) shall be up to sixty
days)).
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, in
determining whether the purchaser meets the requirements of RCW
9.41.040, the chief of police or sheriff, or the designee of either,
shall check with the national crime information center, the Washington
state patrol electronic database, the department of social and health
services electronic database, and with other agencies or resources as
appropriate, to determine whether the applicant is ineligible under
RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm.
(b) Once the system is established, a dealer shall use the state
system and national instant criminal background check system, provided
for by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 921
et seq.), to make criminal background checks of applicants to purchase
firearms. However, a chief of police or sheriff, or a designee of
either, shall continue to check the department of social and health
services' electronic database and with other agencies or resources as
appropriate, to determine whether applicants are ineligible under RCW
9.41.040 to possess a firearm.
(3) In any case under ((subsection (1)(c) of)) this section where
the applicant has an outstanding warrant for his or her arrest from
any court of competent jurisdiction for a felony or misdemeanor, the
dealer shall hold the delivery of the pistol until the warrant for
arrest is served and satisfied by appropriate court appearance. The
local jurisdiction for purposes of the sale shall confirm the
existence of outstanding warrants within seventy-two hours after
notification of the application to purchase a pistol is received. The
local jurisdiction shall also immediately confirm the satisfaction of
the warrant on request of the dealer so that the hold may be released
Packet Page 40 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 12 I-2745.1/13
if the warrant was for an offense other than an offense making a
person ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a pistol.
(4) In any case where the chief or sheriff of the local
jurisdiction has reasonable grounds based on the following
circumstances: (a) Open criminal charges, (b) pending criminal
proceedings, (c) pending commitment proceedings, (d) an outstanding
warrant for an offense making a person ineligible under RCW 9.41.040
to possess a pistol, or (e) an arrest for an offense making a person
ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a pistol, if the records of
disposition have not yet been reported or entered sufficiently to
determine eligibility to purchase a pistol, the local jurisdiction may
hold the sale and delivery of the pistol ((beyond five days)) up to
thirty days in order to confirm existing records in this state or
elsewhere. After thirty days, the hold will be lifted unless an
extension of the thirty days is approved by a local district court or
municipal court for good cause shown. A dealer shall be notified of
each hold placed on the sale by local law enforcement and of any
application to the court for additional hold period to confirm records
or confirm the identity of the applicant.
(5) At the time of applying for the purchase of a pistol, the
purchaser shall sign in triplicate and deliver to the dealer an
application containing his or her full name, residential address, date
and place of birth, race, and gender; the date and hour of the
application; the applicant's driver's license number or state
identification card number; a description of the pistol including the
make, model, caliber and manufacturer's number if available at the
time of applying for the purchase of a pistol. If the manufacturer's
number is not available, the application may be processed, but
delivery of the pistol to the purchaser may not occur unless the
manufacturer's number is recorded on the application by the dealer and
transmitted to the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff
of the county in which the purchaser resides; and a statement that the
purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040.
The application shall contain a warning substantially as follows:
Packet Page 41 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 13 I-2745.1/13
CAUTION: Although state and local laws do not differ, federal
law and state law on the possession of firearms differ. If
you are prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm,
you may be prosecuted in federal court. State permission to
purchase a firearm is not a defense to a federal prosecution.
The purchaser shall be given a copy of the department of fish and
wildlife pamphlet on the legal limits of the use of firearms, firearms
safety, and the fact that local laws and ordinances on firearms are
preempted by state law and must be consistent with state law.
The dealer shall, by the end of the business day, sign and attach
his or her address and deliver a copy of the application and such
other documentation as required under subsection (1) of this section
to the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the
county of which the purchaser is a resident. The triplicate shall be
retained by the dealer for six years. The dealer shall deliver the
pistol to the purchaser following the period of time specified in this
((section)) chapter unless the dealer is notified of an investigative
hold under subsection (4) of this section in writing by the chief of
police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county, whichever is
applicable, denying the purchaser's application to purchase and the
grounds thereof. The application shall not be denied unless the
purchaser is not eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040 or
9.41.045, or federal law.
The chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the
county shall retain or destroy applications to purchase a pistol in
accordance with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922.
(6) A person who knowingly makes a false statement regarding
identity or eligibility requirements on the application to purchase a
pistol is guilty of false swearing under RCW 9A.72.040.
(7) This section does not apply to sales to licensed dealers for
resale or to the sale of antique firearms.
Packet Page 42 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 14 I-2745.1/13
Sec. 6. RCW 9.41.122 and 1970 ex.s. c 74 s 1 are each amended to
read as follows:
Residents of Washington may purchase rifles and shotguns in a
state other than Washington: PROVIDED, That such residents conform to
the applicable provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968,
Title IV, Pub. L. 90-351 as administered by the United States
secretary of the treasury: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That such residents
are eligible to purchase or possess such weapons in Washington and in
the state in which such purchase is made: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That
when any part of the transaction takes place in Washington, including,
but not limited to, internet sales, such residents are subject to the
procedures and background checks required by this chapter.
Sec. 7. RCW 9.41.124 and 1970 ex.s. c 74 s 2 are each amended to
read as follows:
Residents of a state other than Washington may purchase rifles and
shotguns in Washington: PROVIDED, That such residents conform to the
applicable provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, Title
IV, Pub. L. 90-351 as administered by the United States secretary of
the treasury: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That such residents are eligible
to purchase or possess such weapons in Washington and in the state in
which such persons reside: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That such residents
are subject to the procedures and background checks required by this
chapter.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
to read as follows:
The department of licensing shall have the authority to adopt
rules for the implementation of this chapter as amended. In addition,
the department of licensing shall report any violation of this chapter
by a licensed dealer to the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and
explosives within the United States department of justice and shall
have the authority, after notice and a hearing, to revoke the license
of any licensed dealer found to be in violation of this chapter.
Packet Page 43 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 15 I-2745.1/13
NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
to read as follows:
Notwithstanding the penalty provisions in this chapter, any person
knowingly violating section 3 of this act is guilty of a gross
misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW. If a person
previously has been found guilty under this section, then the person
is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for
each subsequent knowing violation of section 3 of this act. A person
is guilty of a separate offense for each and every gun sold or
transferred without complying with the background check requirements
of section 3 of this act. It is an affirmative defense to any
prosecution brought under this section that the sale or transfer
satisfied one of the exceptions in section 3(4) of this act.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 82.08
RCW to read as follows:
The tax imposed by RCW 82.08.020 does not apply to the sale or
transfer of any firearms between two unlicensed persons if the
unlicensed persons have complied with all background check
requirements of chapter 9.41 RCW.
Sec. 11. RCW 82.12.040 and 2011 1st sp.s. c 20 s 103 are each
amended to read as follows:
(1) Every person who maintains in this state a place of business
or a stock of goods, or engages in business activities within this
state, shall obtain from the department a certificate of registration,
and shall, at the time of making sales of tangible personal property,
digital goods, digital codes, digital automated services, extended
warranties, or sales of any service defined as a retail sale in RCW
82.04.050 (2) (a) or (g), (3)(a), or (6)(b), or making transfers of
either possession or title, or both, of tangible personal property for
use in this state, collect from the purchasers or transferees the tax
imposed under this chapter. The tax to be collected under this
section must be in an amount equal to the purchase price multiplied by
the rate in effect for the retail sales tax under RCW 82.08.020. For
Packet Page 44 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 16 I-2745.1/13
the purposes of this chapter, the phrase "maintains in this state a
place of business" shall include the solicitation of sales and/or
taking of orders by sales agents or traveling representatives. For
the purposes of this chapter, "engages in business activity within
this state" includes every activity which is sufficient under the
Constitution of the United States for this state to require collection
of tax under this chapter. The department must in rules specify
activities which constitute engaging in business activity within this
state, and must keep the rules current with future court
interpretations of the Constitution of the United States.
(2) Every person who engages in this state in the business of
acting as an independent selling agent for persons who do not hold a
valid certificate of registration, and who receives compensation by
reason of sales of tangible personal property, digital goods, digital
codes, digital automated services, extended warranties, or sales of
any service defined as a retail sale in RCW 82.04.050 (2) (a) or (g),
(3)(a), or (6)(b), of his or her principals for use in this state,
must, at the time such sales are made, collect from the purchasers the
tax imposed on the purchase price under this chapter, and for that
purpose is deemed a retailer as defined in this chapter.
(3) The tax required to be collected by this chapter is deemed to
be held in trust by the retailer until paid to the department, and any
retailer who appropriates or converts the tax collected to the
retailer's own use or to any use other than the payment of the tax
provided herein to the extent that the money required to be collected
is not available for payment on the due date as prescribed is guilty
of a misdemeanor. In case any seller fails to collect the tax herein
imposed or having collected the tax, fails to pay the same to the
department in the manner prescribed, whether such failure is the
result of the seller's own acts or the result of acts or conditions
beyond the seller's control, the seller is nevertheless personally
liable to the state for the amount of such tax, unless the seller has
taken from the buyer a copy of a direct pay permit issued under RCW
82.32.087.
Packet Page 45 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 17 I-2745.1/13
(4) Any retailer who refunds, remits, or rebates to a purchaser,
or transferee, either directly or indirectly, and by whatever means,
all or any part of the tax levied by this chapter is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(5) Notwithstanding subsections (1) through (4) of this section,
any person making sales is not obligated to collect the tax imposed by
this chapter if:
(a) The person's activities in this state, whether conducted
directly or through another person, are limited to:
(i) The storage, dissemination, or display of advertising;
(ii) The taking of orders; or
(iii) The processing of payments; and
(b) The activities are conducted electronically via a web site on
a server or other computer equipment located in Washington that is not
owned or operated by the person making sales into this state nor owned
or operated by an affiliated person. "Affiliated persons" has the
same meaning as provided in RCW 82.04.424.
(6) Subsection (5) of this section expires when: (a) The United
States congress grants individual states the authority to impose sales
and use tax collection duties on remote sellers; or (b) it is
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, in a judgment not
subject to review, that a state can impose sales and use tax
collection duties on remote sellers.
(7) Notwithstanding subsections (1) through (4) of this section,
any person making sales is not obligated to collect the tax imposed by
this chapter if the person would have been obligated to collect retail
sales tax on the sale absent a specific exemption provided in chapter
82.08 RCW, and there is no corresponding use tax exemption in this
chapter. Nothing in this subsection (7) may be construed as relieving
purchasers from liability for reporting and remitting the tax due
under this chapter directly to the department.
(8) Notwithstanding subsections (1) through (4) of this section,
any person making sales is not obligated to collect the tax imposed by
this chapter if the state is prohibited under the Constitution or laws
Packet Page 46 of 168
Code Rev/AI:eab 18 I-2745.1/13
of the United States from requiring the person to collect the tax
imposed by this chapter.
(9) Notwithstanding subsections (1) through (4) of this section,
any licensed dealer facilitating a firearm sale or transfer between
two unlicensed persons by conducting background checks under chapter
9.41 RCW is not obligated to collect the tax imposed by this chapter.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. If any provision of this act or its
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other
persons or circumstances is not affected.
Packet Page 47 of 168
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 29, 2013
Page 23
Mayor Earling: Six to one, then. Okay, we’ll take that up again. We then have, next on our agenda,
Audience Comments.
(Councilmember Bloom left the meeting at approximately 10:30 p.m.)
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Kevin Morrison, Edmonds, commented following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the
federal and state government talking about gun control issue, he was concerned the City may take action
to affect the rights of citizens. He commented the Second Amendment is not about being able to hunt or
have a six shooter to protect one’s home; the Second Amendment was put in place due to a tyrannical
king and to give citizens the ability to protect themselves from the government. If the City is considering
gun control legislation, he urged the Council to hold a public hearing to allow citizens to provide input.
With regard to high capacity magazines, he relayed a story where a woman had to shoot more than seven
times to protect herself and child from an armed intruder.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to his suggestion to develop a taxpayer alternate plan for Harbor
Square, suggesting the Port could sell pieces of Harbor Square as private enterprises such as the hotel and
athletic club. Selling the property in pieces would also allow development to occur sooner and had heard
of people interested in buying the buildings. Next, he suggested the Council retreat include discussion
regarding moving the ferry terminal to the Unocal property. He recalled in 1989 the Council decided not
to allow a second slip, dock expansion, overhead loading or commercial facilities at the existing location.
As Mayor Earling has demonstrated the ability to obtain funds for a tunnel, he should be able to lobby the
state and other agencies for funds for the ferry dock and over-track loading. Once the ferry was relocated,
tourist busses could park in the ferry holding lanes, the dock could be reused for cruise and tourist boats,
and the remaining space could be used for other activities such as a year-round market.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on training provided by the school district regarding emergency
rescue. He suggested the City have similar training.
7. CONSIDERATION OF ADDING SUPPORT OF GUN CONTROL TO THE EDMONDS CITY
COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Councilmember Peterson explained every year the Council approves a legislative agenda identifying
issues the Council wants elected officials to support/endorse. The Council passed the original 2013
legislative agenda on December 4, 2013. In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, and other shootings
across the United States, he requested the Council approve the addition of the following language to its
2013 legislative agenda: “The Edmonds City Council supports legislation in favor of gun safety laws and
regulations that reduce violence and result in safe, responsible gun ownership, including: a ban on all
assault weapons; a ban on large capacity (greater than 10) ammunition magazines; universal background
checks, including at gun shows; trigger locks and safe storage requirements; and micro-stamping
technology in all firearms sold, purchased or delivered in the State to improve the capability of police to
trace fired bullets.” He was unaware if any legislation that has been introduced.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE TO THE 2013 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, “THE
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTS LEGISLATION IN FAVOR OF GUN SAFETY LAWS
AND REGULATIONS THAT REDUCE VIOLENCE AND RESULT IN SAFE, RESPONSIBLE
GUN OWNERSHIP, INCLUDING: A BAN ON ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS; A BAN ON LARGE
CAPACITY (GREATER THAN 10) AMMUNITION MAGAZINES; UNIVERSAL
BACKGROUND CHECKS, INCLUDING AT GUN SHOWS; TRIGGER LOCKS AND SAFE
STORAGE REQUIREMENTS; AND MICRO-STAMPING TECHNOLOGY IN ALL FIREARMS
Packet Page 48 of 168
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 29, 2013
Page 24
SOLD, PURCHASED OR DELIVERED IN THE STATE TO IMPROVE THE CAPABILITY OF
POLICE TO TRACE FIRED BULLETS.”
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised there is a bill in the House and Senate regarding a safe
environment for weapons. She suggested adding an item to the legislative agenda, “Edmonds commits to
supporting efforts to reduce gun violence by supporting a strong mental health system which includes
prevention and early intervention services.” She explained it has been determined that as mental health
services are cut, the lack of services attributes to some of the violence.” She agreed to add this as a
separate amendment to the legislative agenda.
Council President Petso advised although she was sympathetic to the cause, she would abstain as she had
not had an opportunity to talk with many people about it.
MOTION CARRIED (4-0-2), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETSO ABSTAINING. (Councilmember Bloom was not present for the vote.)
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO ADD TO THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT EDMONDS COMMITS TO
SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE BY SUPPORTING A STRONG
MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM WHICH INCLUDES PREVENTION AND EARLY
INTERVENTION SERVICES.
Council President Petso advised she would abstain from the vote.
MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO ABSTAINING. (Councilmember
Bloom was not present for the vote.)
8. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Earling relayed there was no action as a result of meeting in executive session.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling had no report.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmembers had no reports.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m.
Packet Page 49 of 168
AM-7100 8. A.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Sarah Mager
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
2014 July Monthly Budgetary Financial Report
Recommendation
N.A. For informational purposes only.
Previous Council Action
N.A.
Narrative
Attachments
2014 July Monthly Financial Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Scott James 08/29/2014 10:12 AM
City Clerk Scott Passey 08/29/2014 10:13 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:46 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/05/2014 10:21 AM
Form Started By: Sarah Mager Started On: 08/27/2014 01:39 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 50 of 168
CITY OF EDMONDS
MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
JULY 2014
Packet Page 51 of 168
1
Page 1 of 1
Fund
No.Title
2014 Amended
Budget
7/31/2013
Revenues
7/31/2014
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
001 GENERAL FUND 39,027,697$ 20,092,359$ 23,438,395$ 15,589,302$ 60%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 594,946 175,164 298,015 296,931 50%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 903,858 417,029 394 903,464 0%
012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 527,115 64,224 11,881 515,234 2%
013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - - 57 (57) 0%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 8,000 714 2 7,998 0%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 679,800 28,411 187,646 492,154 28%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 20,075 17,259 19,816 259 99%
111 STREET FUND 1,712,100 848,416 1,118,002 594,098 65%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 9,231,407 1,134,242 1,211,193 8,020,214 13%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 102,823 11,946 31,170 71,653 30%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 25 9 35 (10) 141%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 54,140 29,414 32,934 21,206 61%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 20,308 6,505 10,866 9,442 54%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,623 354 71 1,552 4%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 18,200 16,904 11,259 6,941 62%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 904,343 535,694 562,444 341,899 62%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 904,243 535,338 560,797 343,446 62%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 43,708 30,118 23,204 20,504 53%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 4,000 291,992 48,580 (44,580) 1214%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 160,136 60,041 98,183 61,953 61%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,552,517 297,361 211,074 1,341,443 14%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 186 252 375 (189) 202%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 12,970 6,961 9,836 3,134 76%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,519 7,905 3,766 753 83%
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 391,807 408,857 236,143 63%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 28,600 5,916 10,148 18,452 35%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 28,626 13 47 28,579 0%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,022,689 92,264 84,010 938,679 8%
232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 966,286 - 9,211 957,075 1%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 142,051 157,558 (157,558) 0%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 6,249,596 3,320,210 3,978,322 2,271,274 64%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3,630,158 1,938,383 2,116,231 1,513,927 58%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 8,347,200 4,551,016 5,241,203 3,105,997 63%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 840,816 - 340,408 500,409 40%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,478,108 830,694 875,396 602,712 59%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 45,379 49,595 50,105 (4,726) 110%
627 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 41,177 65,660 (65,660) 0%
79,771,197$ 35,971,739$ 41,227,148$ 38,544,049$ 52%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Packet Page 52 of 168
2
Page 1 of 1
Fund
No.Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 41,200,664$ 19,021,598$ 20,853,841$ 20,346,823$ 51%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 503,361 186,289 180,599 322,762 36%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 300,000 555,907 - 300,000 0%
014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 8,000 800 - 8,000 0%
016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 720,200 17,798 66,030 654,170 9%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 81,033 24,915 15,989 65,044 20%
111 STREET FUND 1,658,810 789,644 907,881 750,929 55%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 9,634,666 616,371 1,734,948 7,899,718 18%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 149,349 33,243 29,973 119,376 20%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 0%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 54,000 31,295 17,669 36,331 33%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,786 13,972 - 26,786 0%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,600 2,206 1,218 2,382 34%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 5,188 5,096 13,904 27%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,582,712 86,655 75,162 1,507,550 5%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 1,199,841 32,108 30,693 1,169,148 3%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 18,200 20,594 3,429 14,771 19%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND *4,000 142,187 17,469 (13,469) 437%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 175,435 73,504 83,237 92,198 47%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,270,517 24,946 157,098 2,113,419 7%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - - 0%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,500 278 4,051 449 90%
139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 391,807 408,857 236,143 63%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 28,600 - - 28,600 0%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - - 0%
231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,022,690 92,264 84,614 938,076 8%
232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 966,286 - 9,211 957,075 1%
421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,145,476 3,531,979 3,400,994 6,744,482 34%
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 7,233,213 1,677,139 1,731,711 5,501,502 24%
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 14,746,399 6,614,628 5,929,906 8,816,493 40%
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 840,816 - 340,408 500,409 40%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,093,279 433,842 571,906 521,373 52%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 89,615 56,550 32,086 57,529 36%
627 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRCIT - - 25,868 (25,868) 0%
96,426,048$ 34,477,708$ 36,719,942$ 59,731,974$ 38%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
*A budget amendment will be completed for this carryforward expense for the SR99 International District Enhancement Project
Packet Page 53 of 168
3
Page 1 of 3
Title
2014 Amended
Budget
7/31/2013
Revenues
7/31/2014
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 1 9,857,161$ 5,618,173$ 5,234,709$ 4,622,452$ 53%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 2 3,105,938 1,740,842 1,624,953 1,480,985 52%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 3 946,303 553,904 504,344 441,959 53%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4 5,525,609 2,994,986 3,276,565 2,249,044 59%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 8,793 6,167 7,057 1,736 80%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 590,174 324,210 343,737 246,437 58%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,490,394 997,566 1,055,702 434,692 71%
GAS UTILITY TAX 819,286 505,954 504,520 314,766 62%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 297,972 175,158 175,890 122,082 59%
WATER UTILITY TAX 920,882 510,809 561,662 359,220 61%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 479,750 215,418 306,891 172,859 64%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 295,972 226,822 171,509 124,464 58%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 738,219 462,036 482,963 255,256 65%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 5 1,544,793 823,494 803,786 741,007 52%
PULLTABS TAX 62,613 37,689 31,872 30,741 51%
AMUSEMENT GAMES 746 100 37 709 5%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 232,528 110,074 113,029 119,499 49%
26,917,133 15,303,403 15,199,227 11,717,906 56%
LICENSES AND PERMITS:
FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,666 4,990 190 5,476 3%
PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 700 630 630 70 90%
AMUSEMENTS 4,500 4,350 4,675 (175) 104%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 659,488 497,805 517,702 141,786 79%
FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT - - 25,514 (25,514) 0%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 115,219 64,900 69,611 45,608 60%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 14,299 8,556 13,232 1,067 93%
FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO - 5,000 - - 0%
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 233,162 176,782 184,576 48,586 79%
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 107,360 99,933 99,831 7,529 93%
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 38,500 14,640 26,070 12,430 68%
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 53,963 34,250 35,050 18,913 65%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 9,000 9,773 - 9,000 0%
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 503,000 241,697 289,475 213,525 58%
ANIMAL LICENSES 53,040 5,644 8,056 44,984 15%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT 151,045 23,299 63,425 87,620 42%
OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 18,467 6,569 9,392 9,075 51%
1,967,409 1,198,817 1,347,429 619,980 68%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 3,176 3,969 794 2,382 25%
ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT - 34,000 - - 0%
TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 7,500 4,828 2,652 4,848 35%
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 3,000 776 3,560 (560) 119%
DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE - - 1,834 (1,834) 0%
NORTHWEST SOLAR COMMUNITIES GRANT 22,000 - 7,000 15,000 32%
SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - 600 - - 0%
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 187,033 - - 187,033 0%
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 8,916 7,067 7,646 1,270 86%
JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 12,600 6,268 9,332 3,268 74%
CRIMINAL JUSTICE-SPECIAL PROGRAMS 34,300 26,360 28,360 5,940 83%
DUI - CITIES 7,900 5,364 5,414 2,486 69%
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 64,675 - 55,499 9,176 86%
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 360,879 178,874 177,640 183,239 49%
VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 39,513 - 41,513 (2,000) 105%
751,492 268,107 341,244 410,248 45%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
1 Real Personal/Property Tax is down $383,464 from 2013
2 EMS Property Tax is down $115,890 from 2013
3 Voted Property Tax is down $49,560 from 2013
5 Telephone Utility Tax is down $19,708 from 2013
4 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax is up $281,579 from 2013
Packet Page 54 of 168
4
Page 2 of 3
Title
2014 Amended
Budget
7/31/2013
Revenues
7/31/2014
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,200 818 1,128 73 94%
COURT RECORD SERVICES 50 - - 50 0%
D/M COURT REC SER 50 47 13 37 27%
SHARED COURT COSTS 3,700 - - 3,700 0%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 200 112 392 (192) 196%
SALE MAPS & BOOKS 73 123 20 53 28%
CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 25,086 - - 25,086 0%
PHOTOCOPIES 4,618 1,324 1,268 3,350 27%
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,000 2,896 2,326 1,674 58%
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 6 267,630 122,684 221,003 46,627 83%
ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,036 - - 1,036 0%
SNO-ISLE 58,667 58,636 42,991 15,676 73%
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 11,000 7,375 12,400 (1,400) 113%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 12,190 11,485 14,515 44%
OCDETF OVERTIME - 2,350 9,060 (9,060) 0%
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.12,300 2,146 3,011 9,289 24%
WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 36,000 21,295 30,750 5,250 85%
DRE REIMBURSEABLE - 709 - - 0%
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 1,500 - 3,657 (2,157) 244%
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 275 125 400 (125) 145%
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 700 447 120 580 17%
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 28,503 40,768 42,733 (14,230) 150%
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 64,000 41,241 38,874 25,126 61%
ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 590 - - 0%
BOOKING FEES 6,300 3,892 3,904 2,396 62%
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 5,716 3,305 10,596 (4,880) 185%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 24,575 10,474 9,494 15,081 39%
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 800,000 412,963 439,657 360,343 55%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI - 402 - - 0%
CRIM CONV FEE CT 5,700 2,891 1,993 3,707 35%
CRIM CONV FEE CN 2,000 1,105 725 1,275 36%
FIBER SERVICES 7 37,349 19,180 6,370 30,979 17%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,454 4,200 4,200 3,254 56%
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 218 528 714 (496) 328%
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,616 3,890 2,080 4,536 31%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 95,950 47,320 30,618 65,332 32%
PLAN CHECKING FEES 6 310,000 154,882 343,365 (33,365) 111%
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,984 975 5,135 (2,151) 172%
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 1,630 966 415 1,215 25%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW 6,980 4,365 1,705 5,275 24%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY 16,530 11,315 11,315 5,215 68%
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 8,600 6,459 5,066 3,534 59%
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 61,000 44,673 42,676 18,324 70%
GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 5,500 3,637 2,987 2,513 54%
LOCKER FEES 350 213 - 350 0%
SWIM CLASS FEES 32,000 24,735 22,809 9,191 71%
PROGRAM FEES 757,000 511,071 573,962 183,038 76%
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 120,000 78,921 72,897 47,103 61%
SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 32,500 30,365 34,266 (1,766) 105%
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 825 - 230 595 28%
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 8 1,902,614 983,519 1,175,404 727,210 62%
4,796,979 2,682,117 3,224,214 1,572,765 67%
7 Fiber Services are down $12,810 from 2013
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
8 Engineering has provided a larger amount of services to other departments from 2013 to 2014
6 Development Services has collected a larger amount of fees in 2014 versus 2013
Packet Page 55 of 168
5
Page 3 of 3
Title
2014 Amended
Budget
7/31/2013
Revenues
7/31/2014
Revenues
Amount
Remaining % Received
FINES AND FORFEITURES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 11,000 7,783 4,845 6,155 44%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 38,000 20,501 16,453 21,547 43%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 310,000 180,439 158,507 151,493 51%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)25,000 15,259 12,879 12,121 52%
SPEEDING DOUBLE 330 297 - 330 0%
NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 2,085 298 1,201 884 58%
OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 2,300 1,201 497 1,803 22%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 52,000 29,686 32,146 19,854 62%
PARK/INDDISZONE - 1,620 419 (419) 0%
DWI PENALTIES 3,000 2,042 4,431 (1,431) 148%
DUI - DP ACCT 3,700 1,539 1,406 2,294 38%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI 700 - 407 293 58%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN - - 64 (64) 0%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 38,000 22,311 21,170 16,830 56%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT - 363 1,114 (1,114) 0%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 100 61 16 84 16%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 - 126 4,392 (4,392) 0%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,900 1,061 812 1,088 43%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN - 189 599 (599) 0%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 120,000 67,122 51,562 68,438 43%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 35,000 17,534 18,849 16,151 54%
COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 50 55 117 (67) 234%
BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 4,000 3,855 4,685 (685) 117%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 3,600 1,510 250 3,350 7%
650,765 374,852 336,824 313,941 52%
MISCELLANEOUS:
INVESTMENT INTEREST 88,200 1,324 10,181 78,019 12%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,281 1,060 190 1,091 15%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 4,000 2,187 4,547 (547) 114%
PARKING 12,804 6,319 6,920 5,884 54%
SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 9 153,200 92,301 73,001 80,199 48%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 4,817 3,740 4,320 497 90%
LEASES LONG-TERM 159,335 98,191 99,198 60,137 62%
VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 5,500 3,011 4,450 1,050 81%
OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 8,400 6,481 3,535 4,865 42%
PARKS DONATIONS 9,100 9,100 10,895 (1,795) 120%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,300 1,200 950 350 73%
PARKS GRANTS - PRIVATE SOURCES - 1,235 - - 0%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 1,200 - 110 1,090 9%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 4,000 2,542 2,356 1,644 59%
CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY - 358 - - 0%
OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT - 6,367 - - 0%
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 477 55 984 (507) 206%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES 45 (8) 161 (116) 359%
OTHER MISC REVENUES 725,427 2,572 2,331 723,096 0%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT 68 30 25 43 37%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 150 120 90 60 60%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 1,300 550 341 959 26%
NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - 120 - - -
FLEX-PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES - 1,368 - - -
US BANK REBATE - - 1,557 (1,557) 0%
1,180,604 240,222 226,143 954,461 19%
TRANSFERS-IN:
PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT 2,763,315 - 2,763,314 1 100%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 121 - 12,543 - - 0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 - 12,297 - - 0%
2,763,315 24,840 2,763,314 1 0%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 39,027,697$ 20,092,359$ 23,438,395$ 15,589,302$ 60%
9 Space/Facilities Rentals are down $19,300 from 2013
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 56 of 168
6
Page 1 of 6
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
SALARIES AND WAGES 13,018,152$ 6,928,844$ 7,068,916$ 5,949,236$ 54%
OVERTIME 425,123 227,901 238,293 186,830 56%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK 201,026 3,481 858 200,168 0%
BENEFITS 4,669,407 2,385,594 2,646,997 2,022,410 57%
UNIFORMS 65,210 29,753 30,335 34,875 47%
SUPPLIES 370,948 171,922 238,754 132,194 64%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 150,733 58,633 175,871 (25,138) 117%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,403,874 857,534 959,749 1,444,125 40%
COMMUNICATIONS 203,230 100,259 82,320 120,910 41%
TRAVEL 33,685 11,352 13,038 20,647 39%
ADVERTISING 57,375 17,249 16,635 40,740 29%
RENTAL/LEASE 933,815 485,543 545,787 388,028 58%
INSURANCE 379,784 397,566 383,906 (4,122) 101%
UTILITIES 457,800 253,210 240,629 217,171 53%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 348,835 158,557 192,298 156,537 55%
MISCELLANEOUS 354,066 179,805 149,256 204,810 42%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 8,316,935 5,780,158 4,304,574 4,012,361 52%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 180,000 - - 180,000 0%
EXCISE TAXES 6,452 3,178 2,931 3,521 45%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 5,137,373 762,056 650,145 4,487,228 13%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 262,721 22,735 55,918 206,803 21%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 2,874,066 - 2,720,000 154,066 95%
CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,654 64,014 64,654 0 100%
OTHER DEBT - 478 479 (479) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 85,400 93,776 55,016 30,384 64%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - 16,481 (16,481) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 200,000 - - 200,000 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL - 28,000 - - 0%
41,200,664$ 19,021,598$ 20,853,841$ 20,346,823$ 51%
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009)
BENEFITS 312,774$ 119,532$ 124,030$ 188,744$ 40%
IN HOME LTC CLAIMS 183,337 60,427 56,294 127,044 31%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 6,081 - 7,000 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 250 250 275 (25) 110%
503,361$ 186,289$ 180,599$ 322,762$ 36%
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011)
MISCELLANEOUS 300,000$ 555,907$ -$ 300,000$ 0%
300,000$ 555,907$ -$ 300,000$ 0%
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014)
SUPPLIES 100$ -$ -$ 100$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100 - - 100 0%
ADVERTISING 100 - - 100 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 7,700 800 - 7,700 0%
8,000$ 800$ -$ 8,000$ 0%
BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016)
SUPPLIES -$ 919$ 914$ (914)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10 20,000 11,116 54,992 (34,992) 275%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE 668,200 3,898 10,123 658,077 2%
MISCELLANEOUS - 1,865 - - 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 32,000 - - 32,000 0%
720,200$ 17,798$ 66,030$ 622,170$ 9%
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND (104)
FUEL CONSUMED 3,000$ 2,818$ 4,505$ (1,505)$ 150%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 5,048 - 5,000 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 1,979 1,744 489 78%
REPAIR/MAINT 800 10 - 800 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 5,000 - 20,000 0%
INTERGOVTL SVC 50,000 10,061 9,740 40,260 19%
81,033$ 24,915$ 15,989$ 65,044$ 20%
10 Difference do to a payment of $39,517 for HVAC Conversion
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 57 of 168
7
Page 2 of 6
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
STREET FUND (111)
SALARIES AND WAGES 481,344$ 257,872$ 303,932$ 177,412$ 63%
OVERTIME 21,400 11,452 14,842 6,558 69%
BENEFITS 239,311 112,994 145,077 94,234 61%
UNIFORMS 6,000 3,674 3,910 2,090 65%
SUPPLIES 240,000 77,125 98,386 141,614 41%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 - 5,659 20,341 22%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13,700 4,199 5,583 8,117 41%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,500 1,595 2,761 (261) 110%
TRAVEL 1,000 210 110 890 11%
ADVERTISING 350 - - 350 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 180,104 93,615 108,117 71,987 60%
INSURANCE 82,400 87,201 74,683 7,717 91%
UTILITIES 275,783 126,058 128,198 147,585 46%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 11,331 13,494 31,506 30%
MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 490 60 7,940 1%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,000 232 1,806 194 90%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,805 558 282 28,523 1%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,149 - - 3,149 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1,964 1,037 982 982 50%
1,658,810$ 789,644$ 907,881$ 750,929$ 55%
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE (112)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,022,300$ 336,473$ 343,281$ 1,679,019$ 17%
MISCELLANEOUS - 26,427 - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT 387,043 41,498 41,301 345,742 11%
LAND 373,000 - 157,707 215,293 42%
CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 6,274,297 75,590 947,331 5,326,966 15%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,203 72,201 72,201 2 100%
INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 4,120 4,479 4,118 2 100%
INTERFUND SERVICES 501,703 59,703 169,009 332,694 34%
9,634,666$ 616,371$ 1,734,948$ 7,899,718$ 18%
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117)
SUPPLIES 4,200$ 2,635$ 39$ 4,161$ 1%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 - 130 870 13%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 130,950 15,404 25,082 105,868 19%
TRAVEL 75 54 11 65 14%
ADVERTISING 4,000 5,550 2,355 1,645 59%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 4,281 - 2,000 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 5,318 2,357 3,643 39%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 824 - - 824 0%
149,349$ 33,243$ 29,973$ 119,376$ 20%
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,000$ 8,182$ 4,545$ 11,455$ 28%
ADVERTISING 33,500 11,013 11,124 22,376 33%
MISCELLANEOUS 500 100 - 500 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 4,000 12,000 2,000 2,000 50%
54,000$ 31,295$ 17,669$ 36,331$ 33%
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121)
SUPPLIES 1,700$ 874$ -$ 1,700$ 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - 555 - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS - 12,543 - - 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,086 - - 25,086 0%
26,786$ 13,972$ -$ 26,786$ 0%
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122)
MISCELLANEOUS 3,600$ 2,206$ 1,218$ 2,382$ 34%
3,600$ 2,206$ 1,218$ 2,382$ 34%
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123)
PROFESSIONAL SVC 10,500$ 1,697$ -$ 10,500$ 0%
ADVERTISING 4,500 605 1,525 2,975 34%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,887 3,571 429 89%
19,000$ 5,188$ 5,096$ 13,904$ 27%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 58 of 168
8
Page 3 of 6
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 (125)
SUPPLIES 30,000$ 45,693$ 43,131$ (13,131)$ 144%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 400,000 18,948 6,801 393,199 2%
ADVERTISING - 148 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE - 2,243 11,492 (11,492) 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 152,712 19,622 13,737 138,975 9%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 800,000 - - 800,000 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 200,000 - - 200,000 0%
1,582,712$ 86,655$ 75,162$ 1,507,550$ 5%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126)
MISCELLANEOUS 200,000$ -$ 2,500$ 197,500$ 1%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 959,528 26,071 22,204 937,324 2%
LAND 10,550 - 273 10,277 3%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 18,330 - - 18,330 0%
INTEREST 11,433 6,037 5,717 5,716 50%
1,199,841$ 32,108$ 30,693$ 1,169,148$ 3%
GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127)
SUPPLIES 11,700$ 1,743$ 929$ 10,771$ 8%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,000 6,553 - 4,000 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 2,500 12,297 2,500 - 100%
18,200$ 20,594$ 3,429$ 14,771$ 19%
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) *
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000$ 5,386 -$ 2,000$ 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - 114,251 17,469 (17,469) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 2,000 22,549 - 2,000 0%
4,000$ 142,187$ 17,469$ (13,469)$ 437%
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT (130)
SALARIES AND WAGES 81,251$ 40,209$ 40,770$ 40,481$ 50%
OVERTIME 3,500 1,600 2,650 850 76%
BENEFITS 39,056 18,648 18,673 20,383 48%
UNIFORMS 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
SUPPLIES 7,000 464 1,379 5,621 20%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 6,205 10,100 9,900 51%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 200 200 800 20%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 822 839 573 59%
TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0%
ADVERTISING 3,200 839 1,048 2,152 33%
RENTAL/LEASE 9,216 3,066 5,376 3,840 58%
UTILITIES 3,800 - 417 3,383 11%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 1,451 1,786 2,214 45%
175,435$ 73,504$ 83,237$ 92,198$ 47%
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132)
SUPPLIES -$ -$ 427$ (427)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (188,483) 23,832 67,608 (256,091) 0%
LAND 700,000 - - 700,000 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,759,000 - 89,064 1,669,936 5%
INTERFUND SERVICES - 1,114 - - 0%
2,270,517$ 24,946$ 157,098$ 2,113,419$ 7%
SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138)
SUPPLIES 500$ 144$ 99$ 401$ 20%
TRAVEL 3,000 - 3,256 (256) 109%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 135 697 303 70%
4,500$ 278$ 4,051$ 449$ 90%
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ 1,756$ -$ -$ 0%
INSURANCE 5,000 5,000 2,500 2,500 50%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - 385,051 - - 0%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 640,000 - 406,357 233,643 63%
645,000$ 391,807$ 408,857$ 236,143$ 63%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
*A budget amendment will be completed for this carryforward expense for the SR99 International District Enhancement Project
Packet Page 59 of 168
9
Page 4 of 6
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
LID FUND CONTROL (211)
INTERFUND TRANSFER 28,600$ -$ -$ 28,600$ 0%
28,600$ -$ -$ 28,600$ 0%
2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 854,667$ -$ -$ 854,667$ 0%
INTEREST 168,023 92,264 84,010 84,013 50%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - - 604 (604) 0%
1,022,690$ 92,264$ 84,614$ 938,076$ 8%
2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND (232)
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 923,199$ -$ -$ 923,199$ 0%
INTEREST 23,105 - 9,211 13,894 40%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 19,982 - - 19,982 0%
966,286$ -$ 9,211$ 957,075$ 1%
WATER FUND (421)
SALARIES AND WAGES 677,172$ 420,370$ 426,597$ 250,575$ 63%
OVERTIME 24,180 11,631 9,576 14,604 40%
BENEFITS 326,137 174,336 195,409 130,728 60%
UNIFORMS 6,800 3,735 2,745 4,055 40%
SUPPLIES 151,838 55,249 75,953 75,885 50%
FUEL CONSUMED - - - - 0%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,600,000 664,921 663,956 936,044 41%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 130,816 54,814 71,591 59,225 55%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 25,161 5,432 14,851 10,310 59%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 575,468 165,375 117,742 457,726 20%
COMMUNICATIONS 35,000 19,363 16,345 18,655 47%
TRAVEL 2,600 - - 2,600 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - - 500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 104,820 53,544 63,607 41,213 61%
INSURANCE 66,869 67,607 74,689 (7,820) 112%
UTILITIES 40,000 20,507 19,550 20,450 49%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,600 1,675 10,083 7,517 57%
MISCELLANEOUS 307,880 180,793 200,771 107,109 65%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 30,000 15,448 21,234 8,766 71%
INTERFUND TAXES 920,881 510,809 561,662 359,219 61%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 292,830 - 120,415 172,415 41%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 49,849 - - 49,849 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,614,973 661,018 270,338 3,344,635 7%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 2,115 - - 2,115 0%
REVENUE BONDS 306,140 - - 306,140 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 45,839 45,839 45,839 0 100%
INTEREST 275,912 140,928 138,667 137,245 50%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 175 175 (175) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 514,096 258,362 279,199 234,897 54%
INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT - 48 - - 0%
10,145,476$ 3,531,979$ 3,400,994$ 6,744,482$ 34%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 60 of 168
10
Page 5 of 6
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
STORM FUND (422)
SALARIES AND WAGES 594,775$ 304,470$ 286,264$ 308,511$ 48%
OVERTIME 6,000 6,584 7,598 (1,598) 127%
BENEFITS 258,745 125,969 131,187 127,558 51%
UNIFORMS 6,500 4,568 4,357 2,143 67%
SUPPLIES 58,333 22,398 22,510 35,823 39%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 164 560 3,440 14%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,548,909 388,525 304,826 1,244,083 20%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 945 2,078 1,122 65%
TRAVEL 4,300 864 - 4,300 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - - 500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 213,612 126,418 121,713 91,899 57%
INSURANCE 8,089 8,407 36,035 (27,946) 445%
UTILITES 10,500 5,358 5,294 5,206 50%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 13,000 5,962 7,301 5,699 56%
MISCELLANEOUS 112,100 57,353 57,241 54,859 51%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 75,000 21,255 82,647 (7,647) 110%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 295,973 164,034 171,509 124,465 58%
INTERFUND TRANSFER 54,291 - 20,354 33,937 37%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,881,712 - - 2,881,712 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 105,461 - - 105,461 0%
REVENUE BONDS 149,691 - - 149,691 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,063 32,063 32,063 1 100%
INTEREST 182,178 94,584 91,970 90,208 50%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 83 84 (84) 0%
INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 614,281 307,136 346,122 268,159 56%
7,233,213$ 1,677,139$ 1,731,711$ 5,501,502$ 24%
SEWER FUND (423)
SALARIES AND WAGES 1,650,330$ 894,211$ 951,959$ 698,371$ 58%
OVERTIME 73,000 57,118 45,437 27,563 62%
BENEFITS 760,694 371,627 437,002 323,692 57%
UNIFORMS 11,400 7,511 6,360 5,040 56%
SUPPLIES 399,333 136,050 127,498 271,835 32%
FUEL CONSUMED 90,000 91,846 64,022 25,978 71%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE - - 3,600 (3,600) 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 9,663 27,488 (1,488) 106%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,065,500 699,034 329,866 735,634 31%
COMMUNICATIONS 40,000 21,134 22,163 17,837 55%
TRAVEL 7,400 - - 7,400 0%
ADVERTISING 2,500 - - 2,500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 149,968 77,046 86,376 63,592 58%
INSURANCE 155,006 156,092 128,145 26,861 83%
UTILITIES 1,170,600 566,564 648,752 521,848 55%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 175,000 76,120 86,283 88,717 49%
MISCELLANEOUS 217,935 118,636 110,704 107,231 51%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 408,889 82,726 90,780 318,109 22%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 479,750 278,206 306,891 172,859 64%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 1,168,346 - 384,394 783,952 33%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 449,500 - 6,504 442,996 1%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4,837,535 2,420,546 1,470,203 3,367,332 30%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 120,529 - - 120,529 0%
REVENUE BONDS 69,169 - - 69,169 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 203,621 143,620 143,620 60,001 71%
INTEREST 149,971 69,705 64,958 85,013 43%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 41 41 (41) 0%
INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 864,423 337,132 386,862 477,561 45%
14,746,399$ 6,614,628$ 5,929,906$ 8,816,493$ 40%
BOND RESERVE FUND (424)
REVENUE BONDS 160,000$ -$ -$ 160,000$ 0%
INTEREST 680,816 - 340,408 340,409 50%
840,816 - 340,408 500,409 40%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 61 of 168
11
Page 6 of 6
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511)
SALARIES AND WAGES 203,962$ 96,425$ 119,560$ 84,402$ 59%
OVERTIME 1,000 886 815 185 82%
BENEFITS 89,965 44,265 54,817 35,148 61%
UNIFORMS 1,000 502 779 221 78%
SUPPLIES 96,500 58,028 47,152 49,348 49%
FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - 360 640 36%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 361,700 102,387 116,914 244,786 32%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,000 3,064 11,112 (3,112) 139%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 1,343 550 450 55%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 745 1,133 1,867 38%
RENTAL/LEASE 14,484 5,419 7,971 6,513 55%
INSURANCE 32,701 34,153 37,376 (4,675) 114%
UTILITIES 14,000 7,244 7,050 6,950 50%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 28,180 27,815 32,185 46%
MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 3,965 3,659 2,341 61%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 310 2,408 92 96%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 186,467 46,927 126,344 60,123 68%
INTERFUND RENTAL 10,000 - 6,089 3,911 61%
1,093,279$ 433,842$ 571,906$ 521,373$ 52%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
BENEFITS 49,619$ 16,527$ 17,456$ 32,163$ 35%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 38,796 38,854 14,630 24,166 38%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 1,169 - 1,200 0%
89,615$ 56,550$ 32,086$ 57,529$ 36%
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (627)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES -$ -$ 24,638$ (24,638)$ 0%
MISCELLANEOUS - - 1,229 (1,229) 0%
-$ -$ 25,868$ (25,868)$ 0%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 96,426,048$ 34,477,708$ 36,719,942$ 59,191,565$ 38%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 62 of 168
12
Page 1 of 1
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL 238,644$ 152,370$ 129,296$ 109,348$ 54%
OFFICE OF MAYOR 251,085 136,909 143,210 107,875 57%
HUMAN RESOURCES 349,938 148,360 199,033 150,905 57%
MUNICIPAL COURT 801,872 408,529 451,412 350,460 56%
CITY CLERK 537,273 299,585 290,408 246,865 54%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,774,220 814,507 896,106 878,114 51%
CITY ATTORNEY 557,900 284,215 325,422 232,478 58%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 11 17,816,558 7,050,688 8,424,155 9,392,403 47%
POLICE SERVICES 8,824,364 4,972,804 4,897,465 3,926,899 55%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV.508,024 204,034 227,071 280,953 45%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,219,366 905,148 997,833 1,221,533 45%
PARKS & RECREATION 3,826,916 1,896,279 1,921,487 1,905,429 50%
PUBLIC WORKS 2,088,677 985,709 1,125,422 963,255 54%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,405,827 762,458 825,520 580,307 59%
41,200,664$ 19,021,598$ 20,853,841$ 20,346,823$ 51%
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
WATER UTILITY FUND 10,145,476$ 3,531,979$ 3,400,994$ 6,744,482$ 34%
STORM UTILITY FUND 7,233,213 1,677,139 1,731,711 5,501,502 24%
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 14,746,399 6,614,628 5,929,906 8,816,493 40%
BOND RESERVE FUND 840,816 - 340,408 500,409 40%
32,965,904$ 11,823,746$ 11,403,018$ 21,562,886$ 35%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY OF EDMONDS
11 Bond payment of $2.7 million was made in April of 2014
No Department is over budget and General Fund Expenses are tracking at 51% when 58% of the year is completed
Packet Page 63 of 168
13
Page 1 of 4
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES 117,615$ 68,787$ 74,067$ 43,548$ 63%
OVERTIME 2,000 344 124 1,876 6%
BENEFITS 72,271 40,663 43,573 28,698 60%
SUPPLIES 2,000 151 407 1,593 20%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 1,005 (1,005) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000 34,427 521 9,479 5%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,561 1,798 1,202 60%
TRAVEL 2,500 436 1,186 1,314 47%
RENTAL/LEASE 490 266 289 201 59%
REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 1,500 55 - 1,500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 27,268 5,681 6,326 20,942 23%
238,644$ 152,370$ 129,296$ 109,348$ 54%
OFFICE OF MAYOR
SALARIES 192,115$ 108,492$ 111,875$ 80,240$ 58%
BENEFITS 46,170 24,517 26,173 19,997 57%
SUPPLIES 2,000 927 216 1,784 11%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,500 59 1,088 412 73%
COMMUNICATION 1,400 510 445 955 32%
TRAVEL 2,000 481 438 1,562 22%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 1,319 1,383 1,017 58%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 605 1,591 1,409 53%
251,085$ 136,909$ 143,210$ 107,875$ 57%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES 194,389$ 94,419$ 111,990$ 82,399$ 58%
BENEFITS 59,339 28,333 38,181 21,158 64%
SUPPLIES 2,300 2,294 2,035 265 88%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - 223 (123) 223%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 71,000 11,351 34,149 36,851 48%
COMMUNICATIONS 700 266 478 222 68%
TRAVEL 500 572 - 500 0%
ADVERTISING 5,000 1,642 2,726 2,275 55%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 1,300 1,384 816 63%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 6,000 5,349 6,119 (119) 102%
MISCELLANEOUS 8,410 2,836 1,747 6,663 21%
349,938$ 148,360$ 199,033$ 150,905$ 57%
MUNICIPAL COURT
SALARIES 500,048$ 265,607$ 302,373$ 197,675$ 60%
OVERTIME - - 2,027 (2,027) 0%
BENEFITS 177,004 88,240 96,146 80,858 54%
SUPPLIES 9,400 4,852 6,936 2,464 74%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,500 1,003 240 2,260 10%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 69,000 38,761 32,409 36,591 47%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 1,183 1,507 1,093 58%
TRAVEL 2,390 1,652 760 1,630 32%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,070 556 869 201 81%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 610 409 2,621 (2,011) 430%
MISCELLANEOUS 37,250 6,267 5,525 31,725 15%
801,872$ 408,529$ 451,412$ 350,460$ 56%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 64 of 168
14
Page 2 of 4
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES 307,596$ 179,313$ 170,599$ 136,997$ 55%
OVERTIME - - 762 (762) 0%
BENEFITS 101,833 54,705 61,055 40,778 60%
SUPPLIES 10,237 3,721 3,496 6,741 34%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 24,107 11,595 13,611 10,496 56%
COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 27,866 17,032 32,968 34%
TRAVEL 1,000 36 - 1,000 0%
ADVERTISING 4,200 2,287 901 3,299 21%
RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 9,351 10,294 9,706 51%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 14,300 8,210 10,344 3,956 72%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 2,500 2,314 1,686 58%
537,273$ 299,585$ 290,408$ 246,865$ 54%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES 771,709$ 385,701$ 422,384$ 349,326$ 55%
OVERTIME 6,667 5,837 4,757 1,910 71%
BENEFITS 255,363 120,719 146,833 108,530 57%
SUPPLIES 30,371 10,707 47,924 (17,553) 158%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 73,654 51,299 104,065 (30,411) 141%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 129,356 94,187 5,073 124,283 4%
COMMUNICATIONS 58,960 29,930 22,327 36,633 38%
TRAVEL 1,750 279 348 1,402 20%
RENTAL/LEASE 8,904 5,027 4,978 3,926 56%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 179,986 76,406 92,160 87,826 51%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,500 11,683 5,060 5,441 48%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 247,000 22,735 40,197 206,803 16%
1,774,220$ 814,507$ 896,106$ 878,114$ 51%
CITY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 557,900$ 284,215$ 325,372$ 232,528$ 58%
MISC PROSECUTOR - - 50 (50) 0%
557,900$ 284,215$ 325,422$ 232,478$ 58%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES 278,171$ -$ -$ 278,171$ 0%
BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 25,000 16,680 11,858 13,142 47%
SUPPLIES 3,000 - 1,429 1,571 48%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 287,347 118,624 176,277 111,070 61%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 100%
INSURANCE 379,784 397,566 383,906 (4,122) 101%
MISCELLANEOUS 55,708 40,065 42,924 12,784 77%
INTERGOVT SERVICES 8,236,003 5,550,650 4,294,456 3,941,547 52%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT 180,000 - - 180,000 0%
EXCISE TAXES 6,452 3,178 2,931 3,521 45%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 5,137,373 762,056 650,145 4,487,228 13%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 2,874,066 - 2,720,000 154,066 95%
INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,654 64,014 64,654 0 100%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 85,400 93,776 55,016 30,384 64%
DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS - - 16,481 (16,481) 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 478 479 (479) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 200,000 - - 200,000 0%
17,816,558$ 7,050,688$ 8,424,155$ 9,392,403$ 47%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 65 of 168
15
Page 3 of 4
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
POLICE SERVICES
SALARIES 5,263,948$ 2,982,988$ 2,975,772$ 2,288,177$ 57%
OVERTIME 402,456 216,547 214,225 188,231 53%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK 201,026 3,481 858 200,168 0%
BENEFITS 1,962,070 1,044,850 1,151,968 810,102 59%
UNIFORMS 56,910 26,416 25,217 31,693 44%
SUPPLIES 87,500 35,761 49,781 37,719 57%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 15,900 2,639 15,652 248 98%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,287 55,470 55,356 58,931 48%
COMMUNICATIONS 25,592 12,395 13,381 12,211 52%
TRAVEL 14,300 6,640 8,195 6,105 57%
ADVERTISING 375 36 40 335 11%
RENTAL/LEASE 608,688 312,531 353,724 254,964 58%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 16,115 5,139 4,229 11,886 26%
MISCELLANEOUS 44,960 15,402 23,949 21,011 53%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,237 224,508 5,119 5,119 50%
INTERFUND RENTAL - 28,000 - - 0%
8,824,364$ 4,972,804$ 4,897,465$ 3,926,899$ 55%
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV.
SALARIES 216,742$ 124,646$ 137,387$ 79,355$ 63%
BENEFITS 68,668 36,795 33,248 35,420 48%
SUPPLIES 1,500 338 470 1,030 31%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - - 800 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 145,824 35,704 46,112 99,712 32%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,490 907 321 1,169 22%
TRAVEL 2,000 17 6 1,994 0%
ADVERTISING 39,500 1,950 6,322 33,178 16%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,510 1,384 616 69%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 29,000 2,169 1,819 27,181 6%
508,024$ 204,034$ 227,071$ 280,953$ 45%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES 1,273,306$ 619,435$ 649,304$ 624,002$ 51%
OVERTIME 1,300 25 4,347 (3,047) 334%
BENEFITS 465,402 212,949 234,169 231,233 50%
UNIFORMS 100 - - 100 0%
SUPPLIES 13,100 6,172 8,766 4,334 67%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,650 - 6,907 1,743 80%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 383,256 30,697 52,581 330,675 14%
COMMUNICATIONS 4,600 2,627 2,427 2,173 53%
TRAVEL 1,600 45 1,303 297 81%
ADVERTISING 4,000 2,370 3,474 526 87%
RENTAL/LEASE 38,152 19,152 21,893 16,259 57%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - 620 (120) 124%
MISCELLANEOUS 25,400 11,675 12,043 13,357 47%
2,219,366$ 905,148$ 997,833$ 1,221,533$ 45%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES 1,203,904$ 568,927$ 626,713$ 577,191$ 52%
OVERTIME 5,000 1,199 - 5,000 0%
BENEFITS 423,053 207,267 246,424 176,629 58%
UNIFORMS 360 - 109 251 30%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 403 1,663 537 76%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 52,950 840 27,692 25,259 52%
COMMUNICATIONS 11,220 3,147 3,590 7,630 32%
TRAVEL 600 10 86 514 14%
ADVERTISING - 264 - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 18,492 7,819 10,787 7,705 58%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,800 38 699 1,101 39%
MISCELLANEOUS 15,000 5,655 8,344 6,656 56%
1,734,579$ 795,569$ 926,107$ 808,472$ 53%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 66 of 168
16
Page 4 of 4
Title
2014 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2013
Expenditures
7/31/2014
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining % Spent
PARKS & RECREATION
SALARIES 1,823,252$ 1,024,886$ 973,221$ 850,031$ 53%
OVERTIME 5,000 3,844 10,747 (5,747) 215%
BENEFITS 668,116 338,271 356,174 311,942 53%
UNIFORMS 5,340 2,415 2,898 2,442 54%
SUPPLIES 114,940 66,732 71,541 43,399 62%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 43,929 1,820 42,474 1,455 97%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 557,147 141,574 189,051 368,096 34%
COMMUNICATIONS 28,818 11,104 10,129 18,689 35%
TRAVEL 4,545 1,183 717 3,828 16%
ADVERTISING 4,300 8,698 3,172 1,128 74%
RENTAL/LEASE 170,019 94,081 102,727 67,292 60%
PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 92,154 72,294 102,706 41%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 52,524 30,887 31,242 21,282 59%
MISCELLANEOUS 87,570 73,631 34,378 53,192 39%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 15,721 - 15,721 0 100%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,695 5,000 5,000 65,695 7%
3,826,916$ 1,896,279$ 1,921,487$ 1,905,429$ 50%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES 250,358$ 142,769$ 145,430$ 104,928$ 58%
OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0%
BENEFITS 78,450 38,869 43,710 34,740 56%
SUPPLIES 7,600 3,139 3,102 4,498 41%
SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 583 (583) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 30 31 169 15%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 956 444 906 33%
TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,740 2,542 3,565 4,175 46%
PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 1,410 1,393 1,407 50%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - - 1,000 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,900 424 1,057 2,843 27%
354,098$ 190,140$ 199,315$ 154,783$ 56%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES 624,999$ 362,875$ 367,801$ 257,198$ 59%
OVERTIME 2,500 105 1,304 1,196 52%
BENEFITS 266,668 132,735 157,485 109,183 59%
UNIFORMS 2,500 921 2,110 390 84%
SUPPLIES 87,000 37,131 42,651 44,349 49%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 1,469 3,060 (60) 102%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - - 426 (426) 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 13,500 7,808 8,439 5,061 63%
RENTAL/LEASE 50,060 26,490 28,910 21,150 58%
PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 159,646 166,942 113,058 60%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 73,500 32,065 44,263 29,237 60%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 1,214 2,129 (29) 101%
1,405,827$ 762,458$ 825,520$ 580,307$ 59%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 41,200,664$ 19,021,598$ 20,853,841$ 20,346,823$ 51%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 67 of 168
17
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 1,923,425$ 1,923,425$ 1,704,062$ -11.40%
February 4,016,229 2,092,803 6,617,557 64.77%
March 6,287,135 2,270,906 8,899,880 41.56%
April 9,630,968 3,343,834 12,575,092 30.57%
May 18,195,151 8,564,183 19,617,376 7.82%
June 20,107,912 1,912,761 21,270,138 5.78%
July 22,334,628 2,226,716 23,438,395 4.94%
August 24,282,814 1,948,186 25,482,859 4.94%
September 26,192,139 1,909,324 27,486,542 4.94%
October 29,332,410 3,140,271 30,782,003 4.94%
November 37,045,071 7,712,661 38,875,820 4.94%
December 39,027,697 1,982,626 40,956,427 4.94%
*The difference between budget and actual shown is due to proceeds from refunding the 2003 UTGO Bonds. Proceeds were $2.8 million.
Real Estate Excise Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 74,651$ 74,651$ 92,868$ 24.40%
February 120,737 46,087 149,163 23.54%
March 181,397 60,660 204,533 12.75%
April 256,711 75,314 261,931 2.03%
May 323,837 67,125 326,172 0.72%
June 398,387 74,550 410,270 2.98%
July 483,191 84,805 559,760 15.85%
August 578,011 94,819 669,605 15.85%
September 666,060 88,049 771,606 15.85%
October 768,001 101,941 889,701 15.85%
November 837,495 69,494 970,207 15.85%
December 902,243 64,748 1,045,216 15.85%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax
0
8000000
16000000
24000000
32000000
40000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Real Estate Excise Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 68 of 168
18
($80,000)($40,000)$0 $40,000 $80,000 $120,000 $160,000 $200,000 $240,000 $280,000
Amusement & Recreation
Clothing and Accessories
Automotive Repair
Health & Personal Care
Wholesale Trade
Accommodation
Communications
Business Services
Retail Food Stores
Misc Retail Trade
Retail Eating & Drinking
Others
Contractors
Retail Automotive/Gas
Total
($71,247)
($9,163)
$435
$849
$2,165
$2,217
$4,441
$15,698
$26,587
$31,485
$36,966
$39,186
$41,766
$160,198
$281,583
Change in Sales Tax Revenue:
July 2014 compared to
July 2013
Retail Eating & Drinking
403,232
Contractors 427,096
Wholesale Trade 136,986
Communications 126,853
Misc Retail Trade 397,255
Accommodation 18,968
Business Services 225,412
Health & Personal Care
54,966
Automotive Repair 89,805
Amusement & Recreation
42,016
Retail Food Stores 158,992
Others 172,234
Retail Automotive/Gas
903,671
Clothing and Accessories
119,077
Sales Tax Analysis By Category
Current Period: July 2014
Year-to-Date
Total $3,276,565
Packet Page 69 of 168
19
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 428,831$ 428,831$ 444,169$ 3.58%
February 963,323 534,493 998,510 3.65%
March 1,363,952 400,629 1,477,603 8.33%
April 1,763,418 399,466 1,870,619 6.08%
May 2,251,403 487,985 2,371,435 5.33%
June 2,687,897 436,495 2,812,288 4.63%
July 3,127,170 439,272 3,276,565 4.78%
August 3,623,461 496,291 3,796,566 4.78%
September 4,086,398 462,937 4,281,619 4.78%
October 4,563,331 476,933 4,781,337 4.78%
November 5,078,747 515,416 5,321,376 4.78%
December 5,525,609 446,862 5,789,586 4.78%
Gas Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 113,876$ 113,876$ 103,199$ -9.38%
February 239,319 125,442 198,165 -17.20%
March 342,980 103,661 298,299 -13.03%
April 436,459 93,479 376,839 -13.66%
May 512,262 75,803 435,966 -14.89%
June 565,759 53,498 474,528 -16.13%
July 607,696 41,937 504,520 -16.98%
August 638,725 31,029 530,281 -16.98%
September 666,716 27,990 553,519 -16.98%
October 696,005 29,289 577,836 -16.98%
November 746,459 50,453 619,723 -16.98%
December 819,286 72,827 680,186 -16.98%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Gas Utility Tax
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Sales and Use Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Gas Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 70 of 168
20
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 126,925$ 126,925$ 120,158$ -5.33%
February 249,682 122,757 248,366 -0.53%
March 386,065 136,384 359,490 -6.88%
April 499,602 113,536 470,135 -5.90%
May 645,057 145,456 581,203 -9.90%
June 768,223 123,165 692,449 -9.86%
July 895,235 127,013 803,786 -10.22%
August 1,037,189 141,953 931,239 -10.22%
September 1,143,101 105,912 1,026,332 -10.22%
October 1,286,698 143,597 1,155,261 -10.22%
November 1,381,314 94,616 1,240,212 -10.22%
December 1,544,793 163,479 1,386,991 -10.22%
Electric Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 158,918$ 158,918$ 175,072$ 10.16%
February 320,172 161,254 352,390 10.06%
March 475,954 155,782 534,485 12.30%
April 631,990 156,035 690,245 9.22%
May 774,898 142,908 839,998 8.40%
June 885,438 110,541 948,700 7.14%
July 991,385 105,947 1,055,702 6.49%
August 1,087,004 95,619 1,157,524 6.49%
September 1,187,503 100,499 1,264,543 6.49%
October 1,274,792 87,289 1,357,495 6.49%
November 1,383,012 108,220 1,472,736 6.49%
December 1,490,394 107,382 1,587,084 6.49%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Electric Utility Tax
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Telephone Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Electric Utility Tax
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 71 of 168
21
Meter Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 429,754$ 429,754$ 489,005$ 13.79%
February 729,586 299,832 828,145 13.51%
March 1,147,622 418,036 1,294,140 12.77%
April 1,435,683 288,061 1,607,107 11.94%
May 1,858,183 422,500 2,073,689 11.60%
June 2,169,885 311,702 2,434,321 12.19%
July 2,657,881 487,996 3,003,419 13.00%
August 3,086,188 428,307 3,487,408 13.00%
September 3,680,575 594,387 4,159,068 13.00%
October 4,108,457 427,882 4,642,577 13.00%
November 4,610,786 502,330 5,210,212 13.00%
December 4,924,500 313,714 5,564,710 13.00%
Storm Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 210,362$ 210,362$ 216,037$ 10.16%
February 663,443 453,081 680,744 10.06%
March 874,097 210,654 896,910 12.30%
April 1,061,161 187,064 1,089,565 9.22%
May 1,272,188 211,026 1,305,756 8.40%
June 1,459,452 187,265 1,498,017 7.14%
July 1,671,872 212,419 1,716,475 2.67%
August 2,138,683 466,812 2,195,740 2.67%
September 2,356,833 218,149 2,419,709 2.67%
October 2,549,604 192,771 2,617,623 2.67%
November 2,766,495 216,890 2,840,300 2.67%
December 2,959,725 193,230 3,038,686 2.67%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Meter Water Sales
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Storm Water Sales
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Meter Water Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Storm Water Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 72 of 168
22
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 434,795$ 434,795$ 479,087$ 10.19%
February 786,497 351,702 860,724 9.44%
March 1,218,216 431,719 1,335,216 9.60%
April 1,568,380 350,165 1,717,700 9.52%
May 2,004,398 436,018 2,195,896 9.55%
June 2,358,600 354,202 2,584,030 9.56%
July 2,803,274 444,674 3,069,159 9.48%
August 3,161,173 357,899 3,461,004 9.48%
September 3,614,263 453,090 3,957,068 9.48%
October 3,973,096 358,833 4,349,936 9.48%
November 4,416,998 443,903 4,835,941 9.48%
December 4,773,750 356,752 5,226,530 9.48%
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales
2014
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 73 of 168
23
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 4,342,738$ 4,342,738$ 4,116,199$ -5.22%
February 7,273,314 2,930,576 5,980,774 -17.77%
March 10,373,710 3,100,396 9,514,450 -8.28%
April 14,046,348 3,672,638 14,163,986 0.84%
May 16,394,689 2,348,341 16,009,991 -2.35%
June 20,180,422 3,785,734 18,147,195 -10.08%
July 23,897,639 3,717,217 20,853,841 -12.74%
August 26,837,435 2,939,796 23,419,201 -12.74%
September 30,675,167 3,837,732 26,768,128 -12.74%
October 33,407,197 2,732,030 29,152,184 -12.74%
November 36,447,336 3,040,139 31,805,106 -12.74%
December 41,200,664 4,753,328 35,953,012 -12.74%
Non-Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 3,068,401$ 3,068,401$ 2,396,214$ -21.91%
February 3,846,233 777,832 2,563,640 -33.35%
March 4,950,102 1,103,869 4,388,210 -11.35%
April 6,682,580 1,732,478 7,277,792 8.91%
May 6,906,919 224,339 7,363,650 6.61%
June 9,057,540 2,150,621 7,709,624 -14.88%
July 10,731,894 1,674,353 8,424,155 -21.50%
August 11,362,211 630,317 8,918,931 -21.50%
September 13,308,539 1,946,329 10,446,730 -21.50%
October 13,878,772 570,233 10,894,343 -21.50%
November 14,484,996 606,224 11,370,207 -21.50%
December 17,816,558 3,331,562 13,985,365 -21.50%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-General Fund
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Non-Departmental
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
40000000
45000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
16000000
18000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Non-Departmental
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 74 of 168
24
City Council
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 17,436$ 17,436$ 14,710$ -15.64%
February 37,196 19,760 29,242 -21.38%
March 56,930 19,734 46,539 -18.25%
April 74,661 17,731 65,481 -12.29%
May 91,717 17,056 85,284 -7.01%
June 111,368 19,651 110,659 -0.64%
July 133,849 22,481 129,296 -3.40%
August 154,203 20,355 148,959 -3.40%
September 171,728 17,524 165,887 -3.40%
October 193,996 22,268 187,398 -3.40%
November 214,250 20,254 206,963 -3.40%
December 238,644 24,394 230,528 -3.40%
Office of Mayor
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 21,493$ 21,493$ 19,866$ -7.57%
February 42,845$ 21,353$ 40,990 -4.33%
March 63,933$ 21,088$ 61,132 -4.38%
April 84,211$ 20,278$ 82,041 -2.58%
May 104,565$ 20,354$ 102,277 -2.19%
June 125,279$ 20,714$ 122,235 -2.43%
July 146,686$ 21,408$ 143,210 -2.37%
August 167,273$ 20,586$ 163,308 -2.37%
September 187,312$ 20,039$ 182,872 -2.37%
October 209,955$ 22,643$ 204,979 -2.37%
November 231,093$ 21,138$ 225,616 -2.37%
December 251,085$ 19,992$ 245,134 -2.37%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Council
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Office of Mayor
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Council
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Office of Mayor
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 75 of 168
25
Human Resources
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 25,798$ 25,798$ 27,275$ 5.72%
February 52,555 26,756 60,853 15.79%
March 84,843 32,288 88,106 3.85%
April 114,019 29,176 112,767 -1.10%
May 143,795 29,775 142,206 -1.10%
June 171,136 27,342 172,043 0.53%
July 199,812 28,676 199,033 -0.39%
August 225,905 26,093 225,024 -0.39%
September 257,927 32,022 256,921 -0.39%
October 285,341 27,413 284,228 -0.39%
November 310,098 24,757 308,888 -0.39%
December 349,938 39,840 348,573 -0.39%
Municipal Court
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 59,240$ 59,240$ 58,367$ -1.47%
February 125,452 66,212 116,841 -6.86%
March 193,525 68,074 198,204 2.42%
April 262,436 68,911 257,767 -1.78%
May 327,513 65,077 320,047 -2.28%
June 396,410 68,897 384,624 -2.97%
July 459,812 63,402 451,412 -1.83%
August 527,281 67,468 517,648 -1.83%
September 590,660 63,379 579,869 -1.83%
October 658,527 67,868 646,497 -1.83%
November 725,443 66,915 712,190 -1.83%
December 801,872 76,429 787,223 -1.83%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Municipal Court
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Human Resources
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Municipal Court
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 76 of 168
26
Community Services/Economic Development
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 31,471$ 31,471$ 24,299$ -22.79%
February 80,480 49,009 54,146 -32.72%
March 121,436 40,956 83,578 -31.18%
April 161,422 39,986 160,955 -0.29%
May 203,742 42,320 177,081 -13.09%
June 240,317 36,574 200,183 -16.70%
July 291,509 51,193 227,071 -22.11%
August 327,786 36,277 255,329 -22.11%
September 366,394 38,607 285,402 -22.11%
October 408,391 41,998 318,116 -22.11%
November 444,482 36,090 346,228 -22.11%
December 508,024 63,542 395,724 -22.11%
City Clerk
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 39,751$ 39,751$ 40,227$ 1.20%
February 81,417 41,666 85,455 4.96%
March 128,867 47,450 127,044 -1.41%
April 170,636 41,769 164,667 -3.50%
May 217,171 46,535 209,795 -3.40%
June 257,997 40,826 246,693 -4.38%
July 303,101 45,105 290,408 -4.19%
August 347,896 44,795 333,327 -4.19%
September 395,264 47,368 378,711 -4.19%
October 442,040 46,776 423,528 -4.19%
November 489,440 47,400 468,943 -4.19%
December 537,273 47,833 514,773 -4.19%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Community Services/Economic Development
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Community Services/Economic Development
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Clerk
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 77 of 168
27
Information Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 74,247$ 74,247$ 58,589$ -21.09%
February 166,823 92,577 139,016 -16.67%
March 242,406 75,582 181,347 -25.19%
April 312,265 69,859 227,941 -27.00%
May 382,435 70,170 256,132 -33.03%
June 445,798 63,363 291,238 -34.67%
July 502,085 56,287 443,744 -11.62%
August 553,875 51,790 489,516 -11.62%
September 614,928 61,053 543,475 -11.62%
October 688,034 73,106 608,087 -11.62%
November 778,774 90,740 688,283 -11.62%
December 965,791 187,017 853,569 -11.62%
Finance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 76,488$ 76,488$ 130,464$ 70.57%
February 146,752 70,263 153,899 4.87%
March 212,713 65,961 209,473 -1.52%
April 274,608 61,895 271,170 -1.25%
May 335,512 60,905 332,822 -0.80%
June 406,136 70,624 392,246 -3.42%
July 470,869 64,733 452,362 -3.93%
August 528,622 57,753 507,845 -3.93%
September 592,790 64,168 569,491 -3.93%
October 665,109 72,319 638,968 -3.93%
November 735,415 70,306 706,510 -3.93%
December 808,429 73,014 776,654 -3.93%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Information Services
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Finance
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Information Services
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Finance
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 78 of 168
28
City Attorney
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 46,492$ 46,492$ 32,000$ -31.17%
February 92,983 46,492 91,366 -1.74%
March 139,475 46,492 123,381 -11.54%
April 185,967 46,492 186,128 0.09%
May 232,458 46,492 231,890 -0.24%
June 278,950 46,492 279,764 0.29%
July 325,442 46,492 325,422 -0.01%
August 371,933 46,492 371,911 -0.01%
September 418,425 46,492 418,399 -0.01%
October 464,916 46,492 464,888 -0.01%
November 511,408 46,492 511,377 -0.01%
December 557,900 46,492 557,866 -0.01%
Police
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 694,934$ 694,934$ 681,573$ -1.92%
February 1,396,727 701,792 1,369,842 -1.92%
March 2,108,550 711,824 2,062,997 -2.16%
April 2,804,359 695,808 2,754,778 -1.77%
May 3,483,663 679,305 3,458,116 -0.73%
June 4,223,782 740,119 4,215,558 -0.19%
July 4,932,717 708,934 4,897,465 -0.71%
August 5,641,058 708,341 5,600,744 -0.71%
September 6,384,074 743,016 6,338,450 -0.71%
October 7,087,171 703,097 7,036,523 -0.71%
November 8,045,281 958,110 7,987,786 -0.71%
December 8,824,364 779,083 8,761,301 -0.71%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Police
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Attorney
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Police
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 79 of 168
29
Development Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 182,478$ 182,478$ 126,887$ -30.46%
February 364,463 181,986 257,352 -29.39%
March 569,107 204,643 387,354 -31.94%
April 747,348 178,241 523,426 -29.96%
May 923,916 176,568 678,695 -26.54%
June 1,094,697 170,781 826,994 -24.45%
July 1,273,462 178,765 997,833 -21.64%
August 1,462,616 189,154 1,146,047 -21.64%
September 1,646,105 183,489 1,289,822 -21.64%
October 1,844,010 197,905 1,444,892 -21.64%
November 2,028,039 184,029 1,589,090 -21.64%
December 2,219,366 191,327 1,739,006 -21.64%
Parks & Recreation
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 244,774$ 244,774$ 237,608$ -2.93%
February 514,038 269,264 486,587 -5.34%
March 801,588 287,550 732,519 -8.62%
April 1,080,098 278,510 977,642 -9.49%
May 1,372,430 292,332 1,271,826 -7.33%
June 1,717,333 344,903 1,534,299 -10.66%
July 2,157,762 440,430 1,921,487 -10.95%
August 2,594,645 436,883 2,310,532 -10.95%
September 2,924,625 329,980 2,604,379 -10.95%
October 3,213,467 288,842 2,861,592 -10.95%
November 3,478,070 264,603 3,097,221 -10.95%
December 3,826,916 348,846 3,407,869 -10.95%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Development Services
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Parks & Recreation
0
400000
800000
1200000
1600000
2000000
2400000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Development Services
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
4000000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Parks & Recreation
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 80 of 168
30
Public Works
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 29,205$ 29,205$ 27,811$ -4.77%
February 57,374 28,169 55,607 -3.08%
March 85,998 28,624 84,738 -1.47%
April 113,676 27,678 114,745 0.94%
May 142,297 28,621 142,879 0.41%
June 171,373 29,077 171,032 -0.20%
July 210,538 39,164 199,315 -5.33%
August 238,755 28,217 226,028 -5.33%
September 266,891 28,136 252,665 -5.33%
October 296,178 29,287 280,391 -5.33%
November 322,670 26,492 305,470 -5.33%
December 354,098 31,428 335,223 -5.33%
Facilities Maintenance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 109,761$ 109,761$ 118,162$ 7.65%
February 228,319 118,558 229,255 0.41%
March 356,501 128,182 363,708 2.02%
April 468,975 112,475 481,545 2.68%
May 583,345 114,370 588,147 0.82%
June 696,280 112,934 696,472 0.03%
July 809,237 112,957 825,520 2.01%
August 918,038 108,802 936,511 2.01%
September 1,038,936 120,897 1,059,841 2.01%
October 1,145,093 106,158 1,168,135 2.01%
November 1,265,760 120,666 1,291,229 2.01%
December 1,405,827 140,067 1,434,115 2.01%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Public Works
2014
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Facilities Maintenance
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Public Works
Current Year Budget Prior Year
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Facilities Maintenance
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 81 of 168
31
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 145,346$ 145,346$ 122,149$ -15.96%
February 292,949 147,603 246,682 -15.79%
March 437,616 144,667 376,122 -14.05%
April 582,646 145,030 505,140 -13.30%
May 725,109 142,463 649,144 -10.48%
June 866,319 141,210 793,532 -8.40%
July 1,007,948 141,630 926,107 -8.12%
August 1,150,544 142,595 1,057,124 -8.12%
September 1,298,303 147,759 1,192,886 -8.12%
October 1,452,811 154,508 1,334,848 -8.12%
November 1,596,130 143,319 1,466,530 -8.12%
December 1,734,579 138,449 1,593,738 -8.12%
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Engineering
2014
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Engineering
Current Year Budget Prior Year
Packet Page 82 of 168
32
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
(a)
Term Purchase Purchase Maturity Yield to Weighted
Agency / Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average
Washington State Local
Government Investment Pool
Investment Pool Various 26,446,727$ Various 0.10% 0.059%
Snohomish County
Investment Pool
Investment Pool Various 15,037,329$ Various 0.70% 0.235%
Opus Bank Certificate of
Deposit
24 9/17/2012 500,000 9/17/2014 0.60% 0.007%
FHLMC Bonds 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 12/28/2017 0.90% 0.020%
FHLMC Bonds 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2017 0.75% 0.017%
FFCB Bonds 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 9/19/2016 0.54% 0.012%
TOTAL 44,984,056$ 0.35%0.349%
Investment Mix % of Total
State Investment Pool 58.8% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.05%
Certificate of Deposit 1.1% Current State Pool rate 0.10%
Bonds 6.7% Blended Edmonds rate 0.35%
Snohomish County
Investment Pool 33.4%
100.0%
(a) To maturity.
Rate Comparison
City of Edmonds
Investment Portfolio Summary
As of July 31, 2014
Packet Page 83 of 168
33
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
12/31/2013 6/30/2014 7/31/2014 Q2 YTD
001-General Fund 6,834,380$ 9,957,323$ 9,418,934$ 3,737,513$ 2,584,554$
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 440,744 279,334 558,160 (62,036) 117,416
011-Risk Management Fund 387,195 387,503 387,589 308 394
012 - Contingency Reserve Fund 5,376,796 5,387,471 5,388,677 4,310 11,881
013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 55,859 55,903 55,916 44 57
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,062 1,064 1,064 1 2
016-Building Maintenance 64,762 195,879 186,378 (43,857) 121,616
Total General Fund 13,160,798$ 16,264,476$ 15,996,718$ 3,636,283$ 2,835,920$
GENERAL
FUND
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$13.16
$16.26 $16.00
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Dec 2013 June 2014 July 2014
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General Fund
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 84 of 168
34
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2013 6/30/2014 7/31/2014 Q2 YTD
General Fund 13,160,798$ 16,264,476$ 15,996,718$ 3,636,283$ 2,835,920$
Special Revenue 5,373,323 6,160,031 6,243,014 (378,461) 869,691
Debt Service 57,161 57,541 66,752 (1,075) 9,591
Total Governmental Funds 18,591,283$ 22,482,049$ 22,306,484$ 3,256,747$ 3,715,202$
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$13.16
$16.26 $16.00
$5.37
$6.16 $6.24
$0.06 $0.06 $0.07 -
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Dec 2013 June 2014 July 2014
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General
Fund
Special
Revenue
Debt
Service
Governmental Fund Balances-By Fund GroupGovernmental Fund Balances-By Fund Group
$18.59
$22.48 $22.31
-
6
12
18
24
Dec 2013 June 2014 July 2014
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Governmental Fund Balances
-Combined
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 85 of 168
35
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2013 6/30/2014 7/31/2014 Q2 YTD
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 91,432$ 96,001$ 95,259$ (11,334)$ 3,827$
111 - Street Fund 215,200 109,281 425,320 (62,820) 210,120
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 481,154 569,751 (42,601) (661,906) (523,755)
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 431,932 427,425 433,128 (6,649) 1,197
118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,703 17,734 17,738 14 35
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 106,735 118,342 122,001 (1,667) 15,265
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 61,719 71,944 72,585 1,557 10,866
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 13,858 12,919 12,711 (495) (1,147)
123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 70,429 77,709 76,592 3,300 6,163
125 - Real Estate Tax 2 1,101,453 1,450,052 1,588,735 190,282 487,283
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 760,453 1,140,808 1,290,557 178,323 530,104
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 225,677 247,909 245,452 2,432 19,775
129 - Special Projects Fund 15,289 46,392 46,400 6,674 31,111
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 70,203 65,975 85,149 (6,713) 14,946
132 - Parks Construction Fund 718,446 707,475 772,421 (13,804) 53,976
136 - Parks Trust Fund 150,334 150,676 150,710 195 375
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 839,292 847,898 849,128 4,151 9,836
138 - Sister City Commission 2,014 1,742 1,729 (1) (286)
Total Special Revenue 5,373,323$ 6,160,031$ 6,243,014$ (378,461)$ 869,691$
GOVERNMENTAL
Special Revenue
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$5.37
$6.16 $6.24
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dec 2013 June 2014 July 2014
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Special
Revenue
Special Revenue Funds
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 86 of 168
36
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2013 6/30/2014 7/31/2014 Q2 YTD
421 - Water Utility Fund 15,244,015$ 15,591,456$ 15,821,344$ (143,447)$ 577,329$
422 - Storm Utility Fund 9,184,099 9,534,131 9,568,619 (214,263) 384,520
423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 43,359,087 42,916,883 42,670,384 (1,080,129) (688,703)
424 - Bond Reserve Fund 787,224 446,817 787,224 (397,143) -
411 - Combined Utility Operation - 132,280 157,558 63,081 157,558
Total Enterprise Funds 68,574,425$ 68,621,567$ 69,005,129$ (1,771,901)$ 430,704$
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$157,558
$15,821,344
$9,568,619
$42,670,384
$787,224
$-
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
Combined Utility Water Utility Storm Utility Sewer/WWTP Utility Bond Reserve
Enterprise Fund Balances as of July 31, 2014
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycle
Packet Page 87 of 168
37
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
12/31/2013 6/30/2014 7/31/2014 Q2 YTD
Governmental Funds 18,591,283$ 22,482,049$ 22,306,484$ 3,256,747$ 3,715,202$
Enterprise Funds 68,574,425 68,621,567 69,005,129 (1,771,901) 430,704
Internal Services Fund 6,847,165 7,110,620 7,150,655 2,827 303,490
Agency Funds 247,178 296,620 304,989 44,589 57,811
Total City-wide Total 94,260,051$ 98,510,856$ 98,767,258$ 1,532,262$ 4,507,207$
CITY-WIDE
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$95,956
$209,033
$7,150,655
$47,968
$18,892
$1,729
$849,128
$150,710
$772,421
$85,149
$46,400
$245,452
$1,290,557
$1,588,735
$76,592
$12,711
$72,585
$122,001
$17,738
$433,128
$425,320
$95,259
$15,996,718
$1 $20,000,000
Business Improvement District
Firemen's Pension Fund
Equipment Rental Fund
2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund $(108)
L.I.D. Guaranty Fund
L.I.D. Fund Control
Sister City Commission
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
Parks Trust Fund
Parks Construction Fund
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
Special Projects Fund
Gifts Catalog Fund
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
Youth Scholarship Fund
Employee Parking Permit Fund
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
Memorial Street Fund
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
Combined Street Const/Improve $(42,601)
Street Fund
Drug Enforcement Fund
General Fund
Governmental Fund Balances as of July 31, 2014
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 88 of 168
38
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
12/31/2013 6/30/2014 7/31/2014 Q2 YTD
511 - Equipment Rental Fund 6,847,165$ 7,110,620$ 7,150,655$ 2,827$ 303,490$
Total Internal Service Funds 6,847,165$ 7,110,620$ 7,150,655$ 2,827$ 303,490$
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$6.85 $7.11 $7.15
-
2
4
6
8
Dec 2013 June 2014 July 2014
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
511 - Equipment Rental Fund
Internal Service Fund Balances
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
Packet Page 89 of 168
AM-7107 8. B.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Brian Tuley
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Surplus Computer Equipment
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Staff will provide information regarding surplus computer equipment.
Attachments
surplus_list
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/04/2014 10:00 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:47 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/05/2014 10:21 AM
Form Started By: Brian Tuley Started On: 09/03/2014 11:23 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 90 of 168
Mfr.Model #Serial #Form factor
IBM Intellistation M Pro 1S622912U78D9796 Tower
HP EQ167US#ABA 2UA61302YK Tower
HP EQ167US#ABA 2UA61302YL Tower
HP RS352US#ABA 2UA7010DG3 Tower
HP RS352US#ABA 2UA7010DG5 Tower
HP RS352US#ABA 2UA7010DG7 Tower
HP RS352US#ABA 2UA7010DGB Tower
HP RS352US#ABA 2UA7010DGD Tower
HP RS352US#ABA 2UA7010DGK Tower
HP RS352US#ABA 2UA7010DGN Tower
HP RS352US#ABA 2UA7010DH1 Tower
HP DZ216AV 2UB505086N Tower
HP DZ216AV 2UB505086V Tower
HP DZ216AV 2UB5050873 Tower
HP DZ216AV 2UB505087D Tower
HP DZ216AV 2UB51204X5 Tower
HP DZ216AV 2UB51801ZQ Tower
HP GN553AA CNH6400VN9 Tower
DELL OPTIPLEX GX60 FV3YR41 Tower
IBM 8189D7U KCRA20G Tower
IBM 830725U KLGPM7P Tower
HP PZ583UA#ABA MXL5420392 Tower
HP PZ583UA#ABA MXL54206JX Tower
HP PZ583UA#ABA MXL602093V Tower
HP PZ583UA#ABA MXL6020B46 Tower
HP PZ583UA#ABA MXL6020B4B Tower
HP PZ583UA#ABA MXL6020B4G Tower
HP AJ408AV MXL81917QS Tower
HP AJ408AV MXL81917R9 Tower
HP AJ408AV MXL81917RB Tower
HP AJ408AV MXL81917RG Tower
HP AJ408AV MXL81917RH Tower
HP AJ408AV MXL8501HB2 Tower
HP AJ408AV MXL8501HB3 Tower
HP DD522AV 2UA51503N5 Laptop
HP RM164UT#ABA CND7130C9G Laptop
HP DN837A CNF3311YCQ Laptop
HP PZ254UA#ABA CNU5310K1T Laptop
HP PZ269UA#ABA CNU54304GB Laptop
HP PZ439UA#ABA CNU6210L52 Laptop
HP PZ439UA#ABA CNU6210L59 Laptop
HP AK589US#ABA CNU8212J5H Laptop
Packet Page 91 of 168
AM-7106 8. C.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Al Compaan
Department:Police Department
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Woodway Police Services Contract
Recommendation
Approve for Consent Agenda
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The current contract between the city of Edmonds and the town of Woodway for police services expires on December 31,
2014. Administration of the two cities are in agreement on a proposed contract with a three year term beginning January 1,
2015 through December 31, 2017. The only changes between the present contract and the proposed contract are in the
provisions for amount of monthly base rate to be paid to Edmonds by Woodway for services ($3060/month proposed versus
$3000/month currently), a CPI escalator applied to the monthly base rate for years 2016 and 2017, and a change to the 15
minute incremental rate in excess of the first 15 minutes ($100/15 minutes proposed versus $75/15 minutes currently).
Attachments
Woodway Police Services Contract Proposed - Highlighted
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/04/2014 09:59 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:46 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/05/2014 10:21 AM
Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 09/03/2014 08:54 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 92 of 168
1
AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES
PURSUANT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT
CHAPTER 39.34 RCW
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington is an optional code city constituted in
accordance with the provisions of Title 35A of the Revised Code of Washington; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Woodway is a Town organized pursuant to certain provisions
of Title 35 of the Revised Code of Washington; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act authorizes public agencies,
including municipal corporations, to exercise their respective powers and any power capable of
being exercised by either party pursuant to an interlocal agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds and the Town Council of the Town
of Woodway deem it to be in the public interest to enter into an interlocal agreement for the
provision of police services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises set forth in this interlocal
agreement and the mutual benefits to be derived, the City of Edmonds, Washington, (hereinafter
"Edmonds") and the Town of Woodway, (hereinafter "Woodway") have entered into this
interlocal agreement in accordance with the provisions set forth below:
I. TERM
THIS AGREEMENT for Police Services (“Agreement”) shall have a three (3) year term
commencing on January 1, 2015 and expiring on December 31, 2017.
1.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause by the provision
of ninety (90) days written notice addressed to the respective City or Town Clerk, at his/her
regular business address.
1.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party for cause if, but only if:
1.2.1 Prior written notice of an alleged breach of the terms of the Agreement is
provided to City or Town Clerk; and
1.2.2 The breach is not cured within 48 hours of the actual receipt of the written
notification of breach.
II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
THIS AGREEMENT does not create a separate entity for the provision of services.
Rather it is the intent of the parties that Edmonds shall provide back-up police services as
Packet Page 93 of 168
2
described herein when a Woodway officer is not on duty or is otherwise unavailable to respond
to the call. In such event, the Southwest Snohomish County Communications Agency
(“SNOCOM”) shall dispatch an Edmonds officer in or on an appropriate vehicle and with
appropriate back-up when needed for:
2.1 All priority one (1) in-progress calls, which currently include, but are not limited
to, abduction, bank alarm, robbery hold-up alarm, assault, assault with weapon, burglary, fight
with weapon, hostage situation, prowler, rape, robbery and strong-arm robbery; and/or
2.2 Priority two (2) in-progress calls, which currently include, but are not limited to,
theft, threats to life or property, residential alarms, panic alarms, suspicious persons, suspicious
circumstances, traffic accidents, and 911 hang-up calls.
2.3 Priority one and priority two calls shall be defined in accordance with the
definition established for such calls by SNOCOM, such definitions to be incorporated by this
reference as fully as if herein set forth. The determination of SNOCOM regarding the
characterization of any call shall be final and determinative.
2.4 If a Woodway police officer is on regular scheduled duty and back-up is required,
the Edmonds police department will continue to assist, if an officer is available, at no charge, in
accordance with other existing mutual aid agreements.
III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
3.1 The Edmonds Police Department shall:
3.1.1 Conduct an initial investigation of incidents;
3.1.2 Assist victims and witnesses at the crime scene;
3.1.3 Preserve crime scenes;
3.1.4 Take reports on minor incidents;
3.1.5 Provide a written report on every dispatched call; and
3.1.6 As required, attend and testify at any prosecution arising from the call.
3.2 The Woodway Police Department shall:
3.2.1 Provide any follow-up investigation, report or action required relative to
an assault, burglary or crime with possible suspects by call-out of a Woodway police officer.
3.2.2 Provide any crime scene investigation regarding burglaries, multiple
property crimes, serious accidents, or similar events of a serious or felonious nature.
Packet Page 94 of 168
3
3.2.3 Call out an officer to provide service in the event that arrest and booking
of a suspect is required. Woodway police department citation forms shall be used and an "assist
other agency" report and statement prepared. If no Woodway police department officer is
reasonably available, an Edmonds citation form may be used. In such event, the Edmonds police
department policy regarding issuance of citations on state charges shall be followed.
3.2.4 Retain evidence at the Woodway police department.
3.2.5 Refer juveniles to the Woodway police department for processing,
including appropriate report and referral.
IV. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING
4.1 The Edmonds and Woodway Police Departments’ Chiefs of Police, or their
designees, shall act as administrators of this Agreement for purposes of RCW 39.34.030.
4.2 A written report shall be provided by Edmonds regarding all calls to which an
Edmonds officer is dispatched.
4.3 The original shall remain with the Edmonds police department.
4.4 Copies shall be sent immediately to the Woodway police department.
V. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
No Special Duty or Third Party Right Created. The parties understand and agree that in
the event of an emergent situation in Edmonds, services under this Agreement may be delayed or
suspended. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create any third party right, nor is any special
duty to any third party, private party, person or entity created as a result of this Agreement.
VI. BILLING PROCESS
6.1 Woodway shall pay to Edmonds the sum of $3,060.00 per month for the services
provided by Edmonds under the terms of this Agreement, which sum shall include a maximum
of ten (10) calls, for the first year of this Agreement. For the second and third years, this
monthly amount will be adjusted yearly by 100% of the CPI-U June to June Index for Seattle-
Tacoma-Bremerton. Services for additional calls beyond the first ten shall be assessed at a flat
rate of $100.00 per fifteen (15) minute increment for the Edmonds officer’s time based on the
nearest 15 minute increment of time spent on the call. This flat rate shall be in effect for the
entire term of the Agreement.
6.2 If a call requires more than one Edmonds officer to respond, and that additional
officer(s) is on the Woodway call in excess of 15 minutes from time of arrival, an additional cost
will be assessed for police services at the flat rate of $100.00 per fifteen (15) minute increment
for each additional officer(s) time based on the nearest 15 minute increment. The individual
officer’s unit history will be used for the record for time spent in Woodway.
Packet Page 95 of 168
4
6.3 Edmonds shall provide a detailed quarterly billing which shall include at a
minimum the Edmonds police department case number and the date of the incident. Payment
shall be remitted within 30 days of billing. In the event of a dispute regarding billing, the parties
agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration or such other form of alternative dispute
resolution (mediation) as the parties shall approve.
VII. SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
Edmonds shall provide services through use of its own vehicles and equipment and be
responsible for all costs associated therewith, including but not limited to damage from any kind
or nature and normal wear and tear. Edmonds shall also utilize its own reports and forms with
the exception of citations as herein provided. Edmonds citations shall only be used when no
Woodway citations are reasonably available.
VIII. LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY
8.1 Edmonds shall indemnify and hold harmless Woodway, its officers, agents and
employees from any claim, cause or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from or
out of the negligence or wrongful tortious act of an Edmonds officer or employee in the
provision of services under this Agreement by Edmonds officers. This promise to indemnify and
hold harmless shall include a waiver of the immunity provided by Title 51 RCW, to, but only to
the extent necessary to fully effectuate its promise.
8.2 Woodway shall indemnify and hold harmless Edmonds, its officers, agents and
employees from any claim, cause or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from or
out of the negligence or wrongful tortious act of a Woodway officer or employee in the provision
of services under this Agreement by Woodway officers. This promise to indemnify and hold
harmless shall include a waiver of the immunity provided by Title 51 RCW, to, but only to the
extent necessary to fully effectuate its promise.
8.3 In the event of a claim, loss or liability based upon the alleged concurrent or joint
negligence or tortious act of the parties, the parties shall bear their respective liability, including
costs, in accordance with an assignment of their respective liability established in accordance
with the laws of the State of Washington.
IX. INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENTS
Edmonds and Woodway recognize and agree that each is an independent governmental
entity. Except for the specific terms herein, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the
discretion of the governing bodies of each party. Specifically and without limiting the foregoing,
Edmonds shall have the sole discretion and the obligation to determine the exact method by
which the services are to be provided unless otherwise stipulated within this Agreement. Neither
Edmonds nor Woodway, except as expressly set forth herein or as required by law, shall be liable
for any debts or obligations of the other party.
Packet Page 96 of 168
5
X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
10.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals
which may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder, shall be in
writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally, sent by facsimile,
sent by nationally recognized overnight delivery service, or if mailed or deposited in the United
States mail, sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to:
For the City of Edmonds:
City Clerk AND Chief of Police
City of Edmonds City of Edmonds Police Department
121 5th Avenue North 250 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
For the Town of Woodway:
Clerk Treasurer AND Chief of Police
Town of Woodway Town of Woodway Police Department
23920 113 Pl. W 23920 113 Pl. W.
Woodway, WA 98020 Woodway, WA 98020
Or, to such other address as the parties may from time to time designate in writing and
deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be deemed complete upon actual receipt or refusal to
accept delivery. Facsimile or electronic mail transmission of any signed original document and
retransmission of any signed facsimile or electronic mail transmission shall be the same as
delivery of an original document.
10.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the
parties from entering into contracts for services in support of this Agreement.
10.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Agreement shall not be construed to provide any
benefits to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this Agreement
shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the Public Duty Doctrine. The parties
shall cooperate in good faith and execute such documents as necessary to effectuate the purposes
and intent of this Agreement.
10.4 Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties. Any prior
understanding, written or oral, shall be deemed merged with its provisions. This Agreement
shall not be amended except in writing with the express written consent of the City Council and
Town Council of the respective parties.
Packet Page 97 of 168
6
10.5 Jurisdiction and Venue. Jurisdiction and venue for this Agreement lies
exclusively in Snohomish County, Washington.
EXECUTED this ______ day of _____________________, 2014.
CITY OF EDMONDS TOWN OF WOODWAY
By: By:
Mayor David O. Earling Mayor Carla A. Nichols
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED
By: By:
Scott Passey, City Clerk Joyce Bielefeld, Clerk Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY:
By: By:
Packet Page 98 of 168
AM-7114 8. D.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Diane Buckshnis Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:City Council
Committee: Finance Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Mayor's Salary Discussion
Recommendation
Finance Committee review materials, discuss, and prepare a recommendation for full Council.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
Since the ECC 10.80 was repealed, and the Citizen's Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials does not currently
exist, the Council has requested the opportunity to review and discuss the Mayor's salary.
Attached are two documents that demonstrate comparisons for the Mayor’s salary.
1. The first document is a three tab spreadsheet comparing various cities, salaries and benefits for Greater Puget Sound cities.
The first tab includes the cities with a strong Mayor that fit the criteria adopted by Council in 2011 for the non- represented
employees: Cities with plus or minus 10,000 population in the greater Puget Sound area. There are only three other cities in
this comparison. Often in completing salary comparisons, it is often more relevant and competitive to have at least 8-10
comparisons with which to compare data.
The second tab include a range of four cities above and four cities below Edmonds in population, having a strong Mayor, and
in the Greater Puget Sound region, including Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston and Kitsap Counties. This includes 8 other
cities, or 9 total.
The third tab includes all Mayor strong cities in the Greater Puget Sound Region, including Snohomish, King, Pierce,
Thurston, and Kitsap Counties.
2. The second document takes these comparisons and breaks them down to compare the data. Each tab has its own table that is
labeled. In addition, a comparison of Edmonds to both the average and the median of the represented cities is provided.
This data is meant to start the discussion with Council. If Council would like additional information, please advise and HR can
provide it.
Attachments
Mayor Salary Comparisons
Mayor Summary Table
Form Review
Packet Page 99 of 168
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/04/2014 11:17 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:50 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/05/2014 10:21 AM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 09/04/2014 10:51 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 100 of 168
MAYOR
MGMT
BENEFIT
S
HOUSING
ALLOWA
NCE
VACATIO
N/MGMT
LEAVE
CAR
ALLOWA
NCE
CELL
PHONE DCP VEBA
Health
Savings
Account
MEDICAL DENTAL VISION BENEFITS
TOTAL
EDMONDS 39,950 $9,623
Eligible to participate in 457.
No employer match.Premium
cost sharing: 90/10 on health
--------$1,832 $155 $19 $2,006 $11,629
Bremerton 37,850 $10,202
$300/mo. car allowance,
$408/mo -4% Dcp
contribution. Premium cost
---$300 -$408 --$2,346 $170 $21 $3,245 $13,447
Lynnwood 35,960 $8,087
City car at disposal but not
being used. Premium cost
sharing: 100% of health
--$622 -----$1,812 $140 $8 $2,582 $10,669
Issaquah 32,130 $8,974
$25/mo cell phone
reimbursement, $350/mo.
DCP contribution. Premium
-$350 $2,358 $11,332
Kent 120,500 $8,516
Management benefits of
$2,692/yr.($224/mo.).
Premium cost sharing: 94%
$224 -------$1,932 $10,448
Renton 95,540 $11,480
City car available for use, 2%
def comp ($230/mo);
Premium cost share: 93%
---$230 ----$1,559 $1,985 $13,465
Federal Way 89,720 $9,400
Premium cost sharing: 100%
employee, 90% spouse &
dependents (medical, dental,
--------$1,627 $186 $17 $1,831 $11,231
Auburn 73,225 $10,800
Premium cost sharing:
100%for health insurance
benefits, 90% for spouse &
dependents (medical dental
------$216 -$1,812 $170 $21 $2,220 $13,020
Marysville 62,100 $10,246
Mayor - $450/mo. car
allowance. Premium cost
sharing: City pays 100%
---$450 ----$1,812 $170 $17 $2,449 $12,695
Redmond 55,840 $10,417
$500/mo. car allowance,
$50/mo.phone allowance.
Premium cost sharing: 100%
$50 --$500 ----$1,482 $361 $60 $2,452 $12,869
Shoreline 53,670 $15,000
Premium cost sharing:
cafeteria style benefits.M:
Same cafeteria style benefits.
--------$876 $15,876
Everett 104,200 $13,019
$325/mo. Car allowance, Life
and AD & D insurance (2x
annual salary), max $150,000,
--$2,402 $325 ----$1,529 $141 $24 $4,421 $17,440
Tukwila 19,160 $8,279
PERS eligibility, Premium cost
sharing: 100% for family for
medical, dental and vision.
--------$1,542 $9,821
These cities are the only ones with a strong Mayor that fit the criteria adopted by Council in 2011 for the nonrepresented employees: Cities with plus or minus 10,000 population in the greater Puget Sound area,
including Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston and Kitsap Counties.
$1,542
$1,708
$2,008
MAYOR
2014 Salary Survey
$876
TOTAL
OTHER BENEFITS
CITY OPULATIO BENEFITS DESCRIPTION
$196
Packet Page 101 of 168
MAYOR MGMT
BENEFITS
HOUSING
ALLOWAN
CE
EDMONDS 39,950 $9,623
Eligible to
participate in 457.
No employer
--
Bremerton 37,850 $10,202
$300/mo. car
allowance, $408/mo
-4% Dcp
--
Lynnwood 35,960 $8,087
City car at disposal
but not being used.
Premium cost
--
Issaquah 32,130 $8,974
$25/mo cell phone
reimbursement,
$350/mo DCP
-
Kent 120,500 $8,516
Management
benefits of
$2 692/yr ($224/mo
$224 -
Renton 95,540 $11,480
City car available for
use, 2% def comp
($230/mo);
--
Federal Way 89,720 $9,400
Premium cost
sharing: 100%
employee, 90%
--
Auburn 73,225 $10,800
Premium cost
sharing: 100%for
health insurance
--
Marysville 62,100 $10,246
Mayor - $450/mo.
car allowance.
Premium cost
--
Redmond 55,840 $10,417
$500/mo. car
allowance,
$50/mo phone
$50 -
Everett 104,200 $13,019
$325/mo. Car
allowance, Life and
AD & D insurance (2x
--
Tukwila 19,160 $8,279
PERS eligibility,
Premium cost
sharing: 100% for --
These cities include a range of four cities above and four cities below Edmonds in population
Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston and Kitsap Counties.
CITY POPULATION ENEFITS DESCRIPTIO
Packet Page 102 of 168
VACATION/
MGMT
LEAVE
CAR
ALLOWAN
CE
CELL
PHONE DCP VEBA
Health
Savings
Account
MEDICAL DENTAL
------$1,832 $155
-$300 -$408 --$2,346 $170
$622 -----$1,812 $140
$350
------
-$230 ----$1,559
------$1,627 $186
----$216 -$1,812 $170
-$450 ----$1,812 $170
-$500 ----$1,482 $361
$2,402 $325 ----$1,529 $141
------
, having a strong Mayor, and in the Greater Puget Sound region, including
$1,542
MAYOR
2014 Salary Survey
OTHER BENEFITS
$2,008
$1,708
$1
Packet Page 103 of 168
VISION BENEFITS
TOTAL
$19 $2,006 $11,629
$21 $3,245 $13,447
$8 $2,582 $10,669
$2,358 $11,332
$1,932 $10,448
$1,985 $13,465
$17 $1,831 $11,231
$21 $2,220 $13,020
$17 $2,449 $12,695
$60 $2,452 $12,869
$24 $4,421 $17,440
$1,542 $9,821
TOTAL
96
Packet Page 104 of 168
MAYOR MGMT
BENEFITS
HOUSING
ALLOWANCE
EDMONDS 39,950 $9,623
Eligible to
participate in
457. No
--
Bremerton 37,850 $10,202
$300/mo. car
allowance,
$408/mo -4%
--
Lynnwood 35,960 $8,087
City car at
disposal but
not being used.
--
Issaquah 32,130 $8,974
$25/mo cell
phone
reimbursement
-
Kent 120,500 $8,516
Management
benefits of
$2,692/yr.($22
$224 -
Renton 95,540 $11,480
City car
available for
use, 2% def
--
Federal Way 89,720 $9,400
Premium cost
sharing: 100%
employee,
--
Auburn 73,225 $10,800
Premium cost
sharing:
100%for health
--
Marysville 62,100 $10,246
Mayor -
$450/mo. car
allowance.
--
Redmond 55,840 $10,417
$500/mo. car
allowance,
$50/mo.phone
$50 -
Everett 104,200 $13,019
$325/mo. Car
allowance, Life
and AD & D
--
Tukwila 19,160 $8,279
PERS eligibility,
Premium cost
sharing: 100% --
These cities include all Mayor strong cities in the Greater Puget Sound Region, including Snohom
CITY POPULATION EFITS DESCRIP
Packet Page 105 of 168
VACATION/M
GMT LEAVE
CAR
ALLOWANCE CELL PHONE DCP VEBA
Health
Savings
Account
MEDICAL
------$1,832
-$300 -$408 --$2,346
$622 -----$1,812
$350
------
-$230 ----$1,559
------$1,627
----$216 -$1,812
-$450 ----$1,812
-$500 ----$1,482
$2,402 $325 ----$1,529
------
mish, King, Pierce, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties.
MAYOR
2014 Salary Survey
OTHER BENEFITS
Packet Page 106 of 168
DENTAL VISION BENEFITS
TOTAL
$155 $19 $2,006 $11,629
$170 $21 $3,245 $13,447
$140 $8 $2,582 $10,669
$2,358 $11,332
$1,932 $10,448
$1,985 $13,465
$186 $17 $1,831 $11,231
$170 $21 $2,220 $13,020
$170 $17 $2,449 $12,695
$361 $60 $2,452 $12,869
$141 $24 $4,421 $17,440
$1,542 $9,821$1,542
TOTAL
$2,008
$1,708
$196
Packet Page 107 of 168
Mayor Strong – 4
Edmonds Average Median Difference with
Average
Difference with
Median
Salary Only $9,623 $9,221 $9298 $402 $325
Salary and Benefits $11,629 $11,796 $11,480 -$167 $149
*These cities are the only ones with a strong Mayor that fit the criteria adopted by Council in 2011 for the non-represented employees:
Cities with plus or minus 10,000 population in the greater Puget Sound area, including Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston and Kitsap Counties.
This includes Bremerton, Lynnwood, and Issaquah.
Mayor Strong – 9
Edmonds Average Median Difference with
Average
Difference with
Median
Salary Only $9623 $9559 $9623 $64 0
Salary and Benefits $11,629 $11,857 $11,629 -$228 0
*These cities include a range of four cities above and four cities below Edmonds in population, having a strong Mayor, and in the
Greater Puget Sound region, including Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston and Kitsap Counties.
This includes Bremerton, Lynnwood, Issaquah, Auburn, Federal Way, Marysville, Redmond, and Tukwila
Mayor Strong – All
Edmonds Average Median Difference with
Average
Difference with
Median
Salary Only $9623 $9,920 $9,913 -$297 -$290
Salary and Benefits $11,629 $12,339 $12,162 -$710 -$533
*These cities include all Mayor strong cities in the Greater Puget Sound Region, including Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties.
This includes Bremerton, Lynnwood, Issaquah, Kent, Renton, Federal Way, Auburn, Marysville, Redmond, Everett, and Tukwila
Packet Page 108 of 168
AM-7118 8. E.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Lora Petso Submitted By:Scott James
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type:
Information
Subject Title
Redirect Traffic Calming Funds to SR 104 Crosswalk
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Finance Committee will review funding of SR 104 Crosswalk project with the possibility of redirecting funds from traffic
calming projects.
Attachments
08-19-14 Council Meeting minutes excerpt
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/04/2014 03:19 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:48 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/05/2014 10:21 AM
Form Started By: Scott James Started On: 09/04/2014 02:46 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 109 of 168
Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Williams saying Mayor Earling and Councilmember Peterson
advocated with the legislature for the funding for that project. Mr. Williams did not recall saying the
Mayor Earling or Councilmember Peterson lobbied the legislature for the funding but the City actively
worked the process through WSDOT.
Councilmember Bloom indicated she had several concerns with this. She recalled when the Council
reviewed the Sunset Avenue project in June, it was stated $16,000 was allocated in 2011 from the traffic
calming program. At that time she inquired about the criteria for the traffic calming program and did not
receive an answer. In conducting her own researching, she found approximately 19 pages on the traffic
calming program in the Transportation Comprehensive Plan which includes three phases. Phase 1,
resident’s petition for local street traffic concerns and eight households are supposed to be on the petition.
She pointed out this is not a local street traffic concern; it is a state highway concern. The 19 pages
include a list of 23 prioritized traffic calming project; this crosswalk in not on that list. In addition, this
project is not on the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). She summarized this had not gone through
the proper public process and she did not support allocating $10,000 from the traffic calming program to a
major $300,000 project.
Councilmember Bloom asked who prioritized this project, commenting it did not seem to be a priority of
anyone except perhaps the residents at Pt. Edwards. She questioned why $10,000 from the 2014 traffic
calming program would be allocated to a $300,000 project which had not been vetted by the public, how
it became a priority when it did not meet the criteria of the traffic calming program and it was not on the
TIP. Mr. Williams explained the City was contacted by many more than eight citizens who live west of
SR-104. It arose as an emergent issue, it was related to traffic calming and he made the decision.
Councilmember Bloom clarified Mr. Williams made the decision to allocated $10,000 to the project. Mr.
Williams agreed he had. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the forms in the traffic calming program
were completed by those citizens and were the other phases were completed such the second phase, staff
and residents develop education and enforcement solutions or the third phase, staff reviews traffic
calming devices for funding, priority and technical feasibility. She observed none of these phases seem to
have been followed and none of the public process has happened.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the Council had jurisdiction over the funds in the
traffic calming program. Mayor Earling explained opportunities arise that may not be on a list. There has
been considerable comment from the public, including people on the hill, looking for a safe way to cross
the street. He did not go to Olympia to advocate for the crosswalk; he did meet with WSDOT. This is a
rare opportunity; $10,000 for traffic calming that, although it may not be on the list, leverages a $300,000
project that will create safety for motorists and pedestrians.
Councilmember Petso asked if the project was on the Comprehensive Plan, TIP or CFP. Mr. Williams
answered he would need to check the CFP, it is possible. Councilmember Petso suggested putting this on
the Finance Committee agenda instead of continuing this discussion. She recalled parameters when funds
are budgeted for a certain purpose; sometimes the funds must be used for that purpose, other times if it
within the same fund, it can be used for another purpose. If it is not appropriate to take the funds from the
traffic calming program, she suggested allocating the funds from ending cash instead and it was likely the
Council would still approve it. She suggested referring it to the Finance Committee to allow her and
Councilmember Johnson to discuss with Mr. James the extent of Council’s and staff’s authority with
regard to the budget.
Councilmember Bloom agreed and requested a presentation regarding the traffic calming program to
inform citizens how to access those funds. Mr. Williams responded he was happy to provide that
presentation; he did not recall a previous request for that information.
Packet Page 110 of 168
Councilmember Bloom referred to a letter in the Beacon regarding many near accidents involving
children at City Park that has been observed by the residents in the nearby condominiums. She noted that
could potentially be a priority, also it was also not among the 23 priorities in the traffic calming program.
She did not support allocating that $10,000 to the SR-104 crosswalk when there are so many other traffic
safety issues throughout the City. She spoke in favor of following the public process and reiterated her
request for a presentation to inform citizens about the process. That would allow residents near City Park
to learn about the process and for funds to be allocated to small projects as was intended rather than major
projects.
Mr. Williams assured this major project is a traffic calming project. It was an emergent issue; WSDOT
contacted the City in search of City funds to obtain their construction funding. That was the only place he
had to get the funds. It was used for a very legitimate purpose related to traffic calming. The issue on 3rd
was called to staff’s attention and staff is working on it. He had a conversation with Ms. Hite recently; the
problem has gotten worse as a result of increased pedestrian traffic crossing 3rd Avenue due to the new
play equipment in City Park. They are trying to determine a solution that could be included in the project.
He was uncertain whether that would be funded by future traffic calming funds. He agreed it was a
legitimate need and assured staff is working on.
Council President Buckshnis said she will schedule a presentation regarding the traffic calming program
on August 23. She referred to the Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Retrofit Study, and asked about the
public meeting scheduled on the draft plan. Councilmember Johnson advised it was held last week.
Council President Buckshnis referred to the Willow Creek Daylighting Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study,
and asked whether it included the $155,000 grant. Mr. English answered it did not. Council President
Buckshnis relayed she has asked Keely O’Connell, Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry
Shuster and Development Services Director Shane Hope to make a presentation regarding Willow Creek.
There is a great deal of interest in that project including by WRIA 8.
Councilmember Peterson commended staff for finding a way to get the Pine Street crosswalk funded and
budgeted. He did not lobby in Olympia; he called his State Representative and encouraged Pt. Edwards
residents and others who were interested in the project to call their State Representatives. This is an
incredibly important project especially as Pt. Edwards grows. There is often talk about increasing
walkability and what that means for citizens’ health as well as economic development and making
Edmonds a great community to live in. This safety project is a key element to connect the one of the
major developments constructed in the past 15 years to the rest of the City. He commended staff for
working on this, noting this project was pointed out to him in his early days on Council. It will be a great
safety improvement as well as a community asset.
As the only Councilmember impacted by the crosswalk, Councilmember Mesaros expressed his pleasure
at its installation. He often walks to Council meetings and especially in the evening it is risky to cross SR-
104, requiring “ready, set, run.” He noted government does not have good reputation for well managed
projects, he was impressed when staff reports on projects, how well project have been managed. He
thanked staff, especially Mr. Williams and Mr. English.
10. ACTION ON ORDINANCE REPEALING ECC 10.80 CITIZENS COMMISSION ON THE
COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
Council President Buckshnis commented the Council can consider initiating a citizens commission in
future. On August 26 the Council will have a work session on the Judge’s salary and the Finance
Committee will discuss the Mayor’s salary at their September meeting. There was little impact on the
Council’s salary from the commission’s recommendation other than the addition of $2,000 for training.
Packet Page 111 of 168
AM-7126 8. F.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Mayor and City Council Submitted By:Scott Passey
Department:City Council
Committee: Finance Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Request for Additional Funding for Independent Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on Coal Dust
Recommendation
The Mayor and staff recommend approval of a $2,500 expenditure for this study.
Previous Council Action
Council approved funding for this study in 2013. Additional funding is requested to complete the study.
Narrative
WSU Spokane are overseeing the conduct of three Health Impact Assessment (HIA) field studies related to potential health
impacts of increases in coal rail traffic in Washington State (see attachments). Their work is completely independent of the
EIS process currently taking place, and is being overseen by experts in academia and public health. The field studies relate to
potential health impacts associated with key rail traffic issues: noise, traffic, and air pollution. The studies will be submitted
during the draft EIS/HIA stage for GPT. They are designed to contribute to ensuring high quality standards of analyses related
key coal transport issues.
Two of their field studies (noise and traffic) are already in process, and are being conducted with funds already received from
seven cities in Washington State, as well as from Multnomah County in Oregon.
However, they need to raise an additional $20,000 to complete these important independent field studies. In particular, in terms
of the air pollution study, Dr. Jaffe (UW Bothell) needs to extend his current work by adding two additional sites along the
rail route, enabling more robust data analyses. This study will be important in measuring actual air pollution data along
representative segments of the rail route, including both diesel particulate and coal dust. Coal dust is not only a potential air
pollutant, but can also impact derailment risk.
They need to raise these funds as soon as possible in order to enable timely completion of the studies for submission into the
EIS/HIA process for the proposed GPT coal terminal. They are requesting contributions of $2,500, $5,000, or $10,000 from
interested cities along the rail route. They have invited the City of Edmonds to make an additional contribution that would
enable completion of the air pollution study. They appreciate the contribution they received last year, and are hoping we will
be able to assist them with the remaining funding, which they need as soon as possible.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2014 Revenue:Expenditure:$2,500
Fiscal Impact:
$2,500 contribution toward the HIA on Coal Dust
Attachments
Attachment 1 - HIA Field Studies
Attachment 2 - HIA Field Studies Components
Packet Page 112 of 168
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/05/2014 09:28 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:48 AM
Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 09/05/2014 09:22 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 113 of 168
Independent Coal Terminal Health Impact Assessment:
A Focus on Key Coal Rail Transport Issues and Public Education
Background. The coal terminal Health Impact Assessment (HIA) proposed by scientists at WSU
Spokane, the Oregon Public Health Institute, and the University of Washington (hereafter referred to as
the “Independent HIA”) was originally conceptualized to conduct a cumulative health impact assessment
encompassing the coal train route from mine to ports. However, the Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT)
EIS/HIA scope specified a full Health Impact Assessment encompassing the coal transportation route in
Washington. In the interest of avoiding duplication, fund-raising for the Independent HIA (with $70,000
in hand) was put on hold. Project staff in consultation with HIA expertise began working to develop an
approach that would ensure clear value added.
Proposed Strategic Research and Education HIA. Because no precedent or best practice exists
for a comprehensive rail freight transport health impact assessment, our goal is to positively impact the
scope and quality of the GPT HIA, to advance the field of transport HIAs, and to facilitate public
understanding of associated potential health impacts.
Baseline Study. Public health project staff will conduct a baseline demographic analysis of the
current population living along the coal rail route.
Field Studies. Field studies will be conducted for localized well-established environmental
health pathways related to coal rail traffic, potentially including (1) diesel particulates, (2) noise, and (3)
traffic injury hazards (depending on funding). These field studies will conduct model analyses that
spatially focus on a few specific segments of the rail line proximate to population centers with significant
anticipated increases in rail traffic. Locations will include Whatcom County, Seattle, and Spokane. Data
on current conditions will be used to create and validate a quantitative cumulative effects model for
each environmental health pathway identified. Model simulations will be run for alternative future
scenarios. These model analyses will be developed to serve as prototypes of best practices for the
required regulatory analyses conducted by the Department of Ecology.
Public Education Component. The goals of the public education component include: (1)
educate decision makers, agencies, media and the public about the potential health impacts of
increased coal train traffic; and (2) engage people who would be most affected (along the rail line) to
share their own perspectives and experiences through crowd-sharing as a way to build qualitatively on
the study findings.
Funding. To complete all three of the specified field-study components (noise, air pollution, traffic), as
well as the baseline study and public education component, we will need an additional $30K in funding.
Contact: Melissa Ahern, MBA, Ph.D., WSU Spokane, ahernm@wsu.edu; 509-358-7982.
Packet Page 114 of 168
Baseline Demographic Analysis
Baseline Demographic Analysis
A baseline demographic analysis of the characteristics of the Washington state population living near
the rail routes will be conducted.
Populations
Census population data are available to describe demographically vulnerable subpopulations along the
rail route. These include youth (aged <20 years), seniors (aged 65 years or more) non-White, and low
socio-economic status subpopulations.
Catchment area
Analysis will include populations within one-quarter mile (1/2 mile total corridor) of the rail route. If
analysis is too limited, distance may need to be expanded to either one-half mile (1 mile total corridor)
or one mile of the rail route (2 miles total corridor).
Geography
Analysis will include Washington State only.
Comparisons
Estimates of affected populations (within ¼ or ½ mile of rail route) will be compared when possible to
state level population estimates for the subpopulations of interest described above.
Packet Page 115 of 168
PM exposure due to trains in Whatcom County for the HIA
Dan Jaffe, Principal Investigator
University of Washington
Background:
Diesel particulate matter (PM) is emitted from nearly all trains in Washington. Coal dust may also blow
off trains carrying coal, even when empty. There is a proposal to significantly increase the number of
trains carrying coal thru the Puget Sound region, but at present little is known about the likely health
impacts from this plan. While there are many important facets to this problem, our first task should be
to examine the concentrations of PM in the population of residents living near the rail lines.
During 2013, we made measurements at two sites in Washington State and found considerable
concentrations of PM due to diesel PM from coal and other train types. This study is now
published in a peer reviewed journal and available at:
http://www.atmospolres.com/accepted.html
(Jaffe, D.A., Hof, G., Malashanka, S., Putz, J., Thayer, J., Fry, J.L., Ayres, B., Pierce, J.R., 2014.
Diesel particulate matter emission factors and air quality implications from in-service rail in
Washington State, USA. Atmospheric Pollution Research, doi: 10.5094/APR.2014.040.)
For this work we will expand on this first set of data, by examining the size segregated Particulate
Matter and Black Carbon (BC) from diesel exhaust. The best study design would do this at two sites,
one at a home near the rail lines and one further away. These data can be compared to the existing air
quality station in Bellingham which is a long ways from the rail lines. This will allow us to clearly identify
the contribution from diesel exhaust to the observed PM levels. If funding levels are limited, we could
do this at just one site near the rail lines. I have shown a budget for both options. The advantage of the
second site is it allows us to compare the exact same measurements during the same time period at the
impacted and less impacted site. We assume that local help will be available to help us identify a home
owner willing to host the instrumentation.
Goals:
Quantify current PM concentrations, size distribution and black carbon due to trains in an urban
neighborhood for 1 month. Our target time period is November 2014. We will conduct identical
measurements at one impacted site and one less impacted/background site. Use observed size
distribution to examine whether coal trains emit larger particles in addition to diesel exhaust. Use these
data to estimate PM exposure for a variety of future scenarios. Prior to train observations, we will
calibrate the TSI Dusttrak sensors by co-locating at an existing air quality site for 2-4 weeks.
Deliverables: Measurements would begin approximately 2 months after the project start date. A final
report on the observations and the data would be completed 6 months after the start of the project.
Packet Page 116 of 168
Budget:
Bare bones: One site Better study: Two sites
Personnel: Cost Options
PI 0 0
Technician (1 month w/benefits) 6,200 6,200
Student assistants 6000 8000
Equipment:
Aeth Labs AE 51 ($6600 each) 6600 13200
Met station 0 0
Laptop 0 1000
Cell phone modem (2@400) 0 400
Supplies:
AE 51 filter strips (2/4 boxes@150) 250 500
Monthly cell fees for data download 200 400
Transportation for site visits (weekly) 600 600
Total 19,850 30,300
Notes on budget:
1) While the UW Indirect cost rate (ICR, 54%) applies to most projects, if funding is obtained by
direct donation to the University, indirect costs are not charged.
Packet Page 117 of 168
Transportation-Related Health Effects from Rail Transport of Coal:
Crashes and Emergency Response Times Pilot Study
Steve White, MURP, Oregon Public Health Institute, PI
Objectives
• Estimate increased collision risks resulting from increased rail traffic.
• Estimate changes in health impacts resulting from increased likelihood of emergency response
travel time delays that result from increased coal train traffic.
Scope of work Estimated Total Cost $23,500
Crashes
• Determine coal train routes.
• Gather data to populate and run Federal Railway Administration’s Accident
Prediction Model for current and future train traffic levels.
• Write report.
$7,500
Emergency Response Times
Task 1: Identify case study area
• Determine coal train routes in Washington and Oregon, current train
volumes, and additional train traffic volumes resulting from full operation of
the Cherry Point, Longview and Port of Morrow coal export terminals.
• Identify all at-grade and grade separated crossings along the Cherry Point
train route(s) in Washington and Oregon.
• Identify all “isolated” at-grade crossings along the Washington segment of
the Cherry Point route that are more than ½ mile (street network distance)
away from a grade-separated crossing.
• Select a city or county with multiple “isolated” at-grade crossings that could
potentially separate communities from emergency medical response vehicles.
$6,000
Task 2: Emergency Response Travel Time Case Study
• For the chosen city or county, calculate increase in average train-induced
delay times and incidences at isolated crossings resulting from train
traffic based on ICC methodology
• For the chosen city or county, determine locations of emergency rooms,
response vehicles, and population to determine the dimensions of the
sub-population impacted by train-induced delays.
• For chosen city or county, determine average numbers of different types
of time-sensitive medical issues typically encountered through emergency
responses, project to sub-populations, and estimate possible impacts
resulting from additional train-induced delay.
• For the chosen city or county, estimate number and type of medical
emergencies that will be impacted by train-induced delays.
• Write report.
$10,000
• Crash analysis will be conducted by Steve White, MURP (OPHI).
Packet Page 118 of 168
• Emergency Response Time analysis will be conducted by a Portland State University civil
engineering graduate student under the direction of Chris Monsere, PhD, Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, and director of PSU’s Intelligent Transportation Lab. Dr. Monsere is
also the co-chair of the Transportation Research Board's Safety Data, Analysis, and Evaluation
committee, and serves on the editorial board of Journal of Transportation Safety and Security.
Final report will be written by Steve White.
Packet Page 119 of 168
Proposal: Noise Exposure and Health Effects from Rail Transport of Coal
The Civic Engine, Updated July 24, 2014
Purpose: Estimate noise exposure and health effects attributable to coal transport in 3 cities along proposed coal rail routes in Washington State.
Scope of Work: Prototype, test, and develop community sound measurement and data logging kits and protocol for collecting sound measures. (Kit will include a calibrated type II data logging sound monitor, needed equipment to secure and protect the noise monitor in an outdoor location, a step-by-step written protocol for collecting and uploading data, and any needed software.)
• Produce 9 kits for deployment
o Implement training in Seattle for volunteer teams who will deploy on monitoring kits (Securing facilities for training is not included in the budget). Each participating city (Seattle, Bellingham, Spokane) should provide a team of 2-4 volunteers for the training (Volunteer expenses are not included in the budget). At the training, 3 sound kits will be provided to each team.
• Coordinate and support field sound monitoring by trainees:
o In each city, 3 sets of three 48 hour measures will be taken along 3 transects along the rail route in each of 3 cities. Recordings will measure sound for 48 hours. Monitors will be placed at a height of 5-6 feet in secured locations at variable distances between 100 and 5000 feet from the rail line. The exact location will be determined at the training based on rail route, topography, community significance, and accessibility of backyards!
o Instructions for monitoring and data management will be provided.
• Manage and analyze community-monitoring data:
o Verify and check data quality; Request volunteers to repeat measurements as indicated; Create a 24 noise profile for each monitoring site; Estimate noise exposure measures (LDN, LHour, and SEL) for each site; Estimate number of significant noise events;
o Estimate rail freight noise effects on community noise annoyance, subjective sleep disturbance, and nighttime awakening continuously as a function of distance from the rail line.
• Create a web-accessible inter-active map visualization of noise exposure and health effects results
• Provide quality-checked sound monitoring data to steering committee for additional analysis and use.
• Document and summarize study methods and results
Packet Page 120 of 168
Tentative Noise Monitoring Protocol
• Select three different secured points (backyards) for noise monitoring approximately along a single transect of the rail line. Points should be at varying distances and directions from the rail line and selected for feasibility and community significance.
• Identify days without expected precipitation for sound measurement.
• Set up and activate sound data loggers at three points in the evening or morning using the equipment provided.
• Place sound data loggers in outdoor locations, protected from disturbances and at least 4 feet away from walls.
• Once placed and activated, leave the sound data loggers in place without disturbance for 48 hours
• After the 48-hour monitoring period, retrieve the data loggers
• Download the data on the sound data logger to a PC using the software provided
• Email a data file to the study team
• Get a confirmation from the study team on data quality
• Repeat this procedure twice for two additional transects.
Budget Overall Study Design and Coordination 4000 Prototype and test sound monitoring kits 2000 Acquire components for and produce 9 sound monitoring kits for volunteer use 3000
Training for volunteers 2000 Travel for training (airfare, 1 night hotel, 2 people) 1200 Data Analysis, Health Effect Estimation, and Data Visualization 6000 Fiscal management fees (overhead) 1800
Total 20,000
Packet Page 121 of 168
Public Education Component for Independent HIA of Coal Export Rail Traffic
Goals
• Educate decision makers, agencies, media and the public about the potential health impacts of
increased coal train traffic.
• Engage people who would be most affected (along the rail line) to share their own perspectives
and experiences through crowd-sharing as a way to build qualitatively on the study findings.
Options
Based on available funding and in-kind resources, following is a basic (minimum) scenario, and then
enhancements that would cost more and/or require more in-kind resources.
Basic
• Simple website presenting the “topline” findings for each study parameter (pollution, noise,
safety) through text and simple graphs. Provide written explanation of other important findings,
including demographic data of the rail line. Post pdf of study on website.
• Link to Crowdmap on website where people can go to post text, images and videos.
• Press release and follow-up phone calls to regional and select national media outlets.
• Study partner outreach to their networks via email, social media and other means drive traffic to
website and encourage people to post to Crowdmap.
Cost: Website design $3,000 - $5,000 for building it onto a platform like Wordpress. Resource Media
(RM) has built basic websites for $3,000. The cost to build the site does not include cost or time to
produce content, including writing copy and procuring photos, videos and sound recordings. Writing
copy and researching existing photos, videos and other content is something RM will seek independent
funding to do. RM will also seek funding to lead and coordinate the public release of the study. Setting
up Crowdmap could be done through in-kind donations from students and other interested parties with
technical skills and may also be something RM can do.
Comprehensive
One, multiple, or all of these enhancements could be added
• Integrate the Crowdmap into the website. (Cost unknown, but possibly in-kind)
• Static infographic options: if data lends itself, one infographic could be designed to include the
topline findings from all three parameters; a second option is to create three separate
infographics, one for each parameter. A minimalist option would be a single infographic on just
one of the three parameters Infographics should be designed to stand alone as social shares,
which is a very effective way to stimulate the kind of viral social sharing needed to extend the
reach of the study and populate the Crowdmap. Here’s are an example of a simple, effective
infographic and another one that landed in the New York Times. (Cost: $2,000 – $5,000 for
single infographic, $5,000 - $8,000 for series of three each with same look and feel).
• Animated infographic: an animated infographic, that tells the story of the data, could be a
highly-effective way to present the well-defined, interrelated parameters of the HIA. Here’s an
example from World Wildlife Fund. Here’s an interactive map-based infographic. An
animated/interactive infographic could serve as the home page for the website. An animated
option would not necessarily supplant a static infographic for use in social media, though a static
infographic based on the animated design could likely be produced for low-cost, or be included
in the cost of producing the animated infographic. (Cost: $10,000 - $15,000)
Packet Page 122 of 168
• Hold telephone press conference with primary study authors/partners and one or more well-
known and respected outside reviewers or validators to lend credibility and help draw media
interest. (Cost: minimal on the technical end, significant time from study team or in-kind
resource. RM intends to raise funds to support the public release).
• Produce factsheets that provide a more in-depth distillation of the study findings with graphs
and other data visualizations for reporters and others who want to go deeper. (Cost = time, and
something RM intends to raise funds for)
• Enlist community leaders/entities in key rail corridor communities to help populate the
Crowdmap in advance of the study release, which would help generate momentum to
encourage people to join them in posting their own stories, images etc. (Cost: study team time).
Dan Jaffe could enlist the people who donated money to crowdshare funded study to
participate in the Crowdmap and help spread the word.
• Use Facebook promotions and/or online banner ads, targeted by interests and geography
targeting people living along the rail lines: this would be appropriate for entities outside the
study acting independently.
Other Considerations
• Producing original video and sound recordings would require additional funds.
• Any updating of the website will require additional resources, whether time of funding
• The Crowdmap would be most effective with initial “seeding” by early participants to model
participation for uninitiated members of the public and communicate that their participation
would contribute to something significant and meaningful.
• A well-designed infographic can be highly effective at generating the kind of viral social media
activity that would vastly extend the reach of the study and participation in the Crowdmap.
• Getting off to a good start with a highly-visible public release will be paramount to meet public
education goals. Traditional media interest and coverage will be highest when the study is
initially release. Traditional media can help kick-start the kind of initial strong pulse of viral social
media activity that gives it staying power.
Packet Page 123 of 168
AM-7111 9. A.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Fehr & Peers for the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Recommendation
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the September 16, 2014 City Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Under the Growth Management
Act (GMA), the City is required to perform a major update to the plan and the latest update was completed in 2009. The plan
will consist of the following sections:
Goals & Policies
Existing conditions for various modes of transportation (vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists, transit, ferry…)
Proposed Improvements along with their Prioritization
Financial Plan
Multi-modal Concurrency System
Updated Traffic Impact Fee
Planning in Development of Transition Plan
The main objective of the Plan is to identify short-range and long-range strategies that lead to the development of an integrated
multimodal transportation system that facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods while addressing current
and future transportation demand and land use.
On July 14, 2014 a Selection Committee met and interviewed four project teams. Following completion of the interviews, the
project team from Fehr & Peers was chosen by the Committee to prepare the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Staff and the consultant have agreed on a scope of services and budget for the project. The 2014 adopted Capital Budget
includes $180,000 in Fund 112 for the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (2014 / 2015 expenditure). The negotiated
fee for the professional services agreement is $165,000. The project is scheduled to be completed by June 2015.
Attachments
Fehr & Peers Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Megan Luttrell 09/04/2014 02:02 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/04/2014 05:15 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/05/2014 07:54 AM
Packet Page 124 of 168
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:52 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/05/2014 10:21 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/03/2014 05:13 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 125 of 168
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter
referred to as the "City", and Fehr & Peers hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant";
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a
consulting firm to provide transportation consulting services with respect to the 2015
Transportation Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and
between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material
necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of
Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for
services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full
compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies,
equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work.
A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be
on a time and expense basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, provided, in no
event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of
$165,000.
B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each
voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the
progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed
in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that
has not been submitted to the City Engineer three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such
late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment
cycle.
C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final
payment. Copies shall be made available upon request.
Packet Page 126 of 168
3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data
and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the
services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the
Consultant, provided, however, that:
A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant
shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and
shall at that date become the property of the City.
B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review
and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this
agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and
release under Chapter 42.56 RCW.
C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the
event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work
product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination,
shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a
prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at
no additional cost.
4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this
Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals.
5. Indemnification / Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall defend,
indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any
and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or equity arising from the
negligent acts, errors or omissions, and willful misconduct, of the Consultant in the performance
of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW
4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or
damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and
the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant’s liability, including the
duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant’s negligence.
The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including
RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers.
The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant’s
own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense,
the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51
RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section
shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and
keep in force during the terms of the Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following
insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner
pursuant to Title 48 RCW.
Packet Page 127 of 168
Insurance Coverage
A. Worker’s compensation and employer’s liability insurance as required by the State.
B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not
less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property
damage. The per occurrence amount shall be written with limits no less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000).
C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one
million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit.
D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000).
Excepting the Worker’s Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by
the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant
shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the
Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies at any time.
All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State
of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within
fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City.
No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty days prior notice to the
City.
The Consultant’s professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under
this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified
elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant’s professional liability to third
parties be limited in any way.
7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex,
sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the
United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any
other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.
8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an
independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or
representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of
the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents,
employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract.
9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's
status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must
meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this agreement, the Consultant shall not
perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or
for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written
notification to the City and the City’s prior written consent.
Packet Page 128 of 168
10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party
may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such
termination no fewer than ten days in advance of the effective date of said termination.
11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document,
the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Fee Schedule attached hereto as
Exibit B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended
except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written
Agreement and any provision of Exhibits A or B, this Agreement shall control.
12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform
services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to
additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be
liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation
is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are
encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a
revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in
this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for
services rendered in excess of the Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment
to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties.
13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary
knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and
any persons employed by Consultant shall perform the work in a professional manner consistent
with sound engineering practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with
the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope
of Services.
14. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time
limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any
other provision.
15. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be
assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City.
16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not
employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for
the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or
resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the
City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from
the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement
shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including
Packet Page 129 of 168
regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and
licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to
assure quality of services.
The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes
which may be due on account of this Agreement.
18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address:
City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
Fehr & Peers
1001 4th Ave, Suite 4120
Seattle, WA 98154-1155
Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the
U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed.
DATED THIS _______ DAY OF __________________, 20_____.
CITY OF EDMONDS FEHR & PEERS
By By
David O. Earling, Mayor
Its
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Page 130 of 168
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn,
personally appeared , to me known to be the
of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said
instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above
written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
Packet Page 131 of 168
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
SCOPE OF WORK – FINAL September 4, 2014
Task 1: Project Management
Project management will be coordinated between the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and SR 104
Analysis.
1.1 – Project Management
The Consultant will provide continuous project management for the project duration (9months).
The Consultant and City project managers will schedule a weekly call and meet in person at least
monthly.
1.2 – Progress Reports and Invoicing
The Consultant will prepare monthly progress reports identifying work completed in the previous
month, work in progress, upcoming work elements, and reporting of any delays, problems, or
additional information needs. These reports will be submitted with the Consultant invoices.
1.3 – Coordination and Issues Workshop
The Consultant will prepare a workshop agenda and needed materials. The workshop objectives
include: project expectations, issues and opportunities, guiding principles, and desired outcomes.
Deliverables
• Master Project Schedule
• Workshop notes
• Monthly progress reports and invoices
Task 2: Community Outreach
Community Outreach will be coordinated between the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and SR 104
Analysis. Unique activities are identified as applicable below.
2.1 – Stakeholder Interviews
At the outset of the project, the Consultant will conduct up to 5 interviews with stakeholders in
the Edmonds area, targeting those with an interest in the transportation master plan update and
the SR 104 corridor analysis. These interviews may identify additional stakeholders or audiences
who should be engaged throughout the project, inform next steps in public involvement and
inform the technical analysis on issues to be considered. Specific tasks include:
• One planning meeting with City of Edmonds staff to:
o Identify stakeholders
Packet Page 132 of 168
o Review stakeholder interview questions
• Develop interview questions
• Conduct up to 5 stakeholder interviews, with City of Edmonds staff (if desired)
• Compilation of key takeaways and recommendations, as well as brief individual interview summaries
Deliverables
• Stakeholder interview question set (one draft, one final)
• Compilation of interview takeaways and recommendations
• Individual interview summaries
2.2 – Open House Support
The Consultant will support two open houses in order to update the public on both the
transportation master plan update and SR 104 corridor analysis, at key milestones throughout
the project. The first open house is anticipated in fall 2014 (late October/early November 2014)
and will be an opportunity to inform the public on these projects and gather initial input. The
second open house is anticipated to be a mid-project update in spring 2015 (March 2015). The
City will prepare open house mailings and announcements and determine the meeting locations
and agendas. The Consultant’s support of these two open houses will include:
• Development, in close coordination with City staff and the technical team, of meeting materials, to
include:
o Up to 10 display boards per meeting (20 boards total)
o Up to two meeting fact sheets/supplemental hand-out materials per meeting (four total)
o One comment form per meeting (two total)
• Logistics support, including meeting support materials (easels, pens, comment boxes, etc.), comment
collection, meeting support materials (easels, supplies), sign-in sheets, directional signage, staff name
tags, etc.
• Up to two staff to set-up and participate in the open house, and take-down.
• Summary of each open house.
Deliverables
• Open house summaries (one draft, one final)
2.3 Transportation Plan Advisory Committee Meetings
The Consultant will prepare for and attend up to two meetings with City Transportation Plan
advisory committees to provide information about the Transportation Plan process and goals,
and to solicit community input on the key issues and potential solutions to consider. Support will
include developing talking points, providing the appropriate project materials and documenting
input received during the meetings.
Deliverables
• Up to two sets of meeting materials
• Summary of meeting actions
Packet Page 133 of 168
2.4 City Council and Planning Board Meetings
The Consultant will support the City with up to 2 Planning Board and 4 City Council meetings.
Support will include developing talking points, preparing appropriate project materials and
attending the briefings.
Deliverables
• Up to six sets of meeting materials
• Summary of meeting actions
Task 2 Assumptions
• The City and consultant will share responsibilities community outreach activities for the Corridor
Study and Transportation Plan update.
• Both the City and Consultant will provide staff to support the public outreach events, including
community and/or neighborhood briefings, public meetings, and informational booths.
• The City will maintain a stakeholder email list of interested parties and send any electronic
communications about the Corridor Study and Transportation Plan update directly to interested
parties.
• The City will manage and respond to all public inquiries received via phone, email or in-person
about the Corridor Study and Transportation Plan update.
• The City will print and/or mail community outreach materials or utilize other existing local
avenues for communication to distribute project information.
Task 3 - Goals and Policies
The Consultant will review and synthesize material from various City sources (including the Complete
Streets policy) as well as Vision 2040, Transportation 2040, Multicounty and countywide planning
polices and the transportation plans of adjacent agencies. Review the expanded Comprehensive Plan
Checklist. We will also use information gathered in the stakeholder interviews conducted under Task 2
to ensure that important stakeholder’s perspectives are captured. Based on the plan review and
interviews with key stakeholders, identify Goals for the Transportation Plan.
Deliverable
• A streamlined list of Goals and Policies for the Transportation Plan. These goals and policies will be
accompanied by a memorandum summarizing the stakeholder outreach findings and describing
the process used to arrive at goals and policies recommended for inclusion in the plan.
Task 4- Transportation Profile
The Consultant will update the previous transportation plan inventory and analysis, utilizing as much of
the prior work (e.g. maps, data, written text) as possible. Below is a description of the analysis to be
performed for each mode:
• Auto Mode
o Document Existing Functional Class and Roadway System
Review and note any changes in functional classification
Packet Page 134 of 168
Summarize key arterials, including those that connect to the freeway, key north-south
routes, and those serving commercial/high density multi-family areas
Summarize miles of roadways, by classification; by number of lanes
o Document and Analyze Traffic volumes
Document existing traffic volumes from City, County, and WSDOT sources
Collect new PM peak period traffic counts (including pedestrians) at up to 25 intersections.
The City will also provide 24-hour tube counts at up to 5 locations.
Provide overview of locations with highest volumes (daily/ PM peak volumes)
Summarize growth trends in different parts of the City
Identify any significant changes in volumes over last 5-10 years and assess why they
changed
o Prepare Operations Analyses
Document existing traffic controls ( number of signals, all-way stops, etc.); Summarize who
operates the signals (City, WSDOT, and adjacent jurisdictions)
Evaluate existing PM intersection operations
• Approximately 25 intersections.
• Review and refine any traffic analysis files provided by the City (for example, a Synchro
model); meet with City to identify potential updates that may be needed
• Summarize intersection LOS and any significant queue impacts
o Parking
Inventory existing on- and off-street public parking supply using data from the city
Conduct a visual inspection of parking facilities to determine order-of-magnitude parking
utilization, focusing on identifying where high parking demand occurs.
Additional parking evaluation for the SR 104 Corridor (see Task 15)
o Safety
Summarize/map collision data from last five years as available from the City, County and/or
WSDOT
• Calculate rates for highest per MVM, per MEV, as appropriate
• Summarize collisions resulting in fatalities and significant injuries
• Document collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists
Analysis will focus on key locations showing high collision rates, particularly injuries and
fatalities
o Freight system
Document existing truck routes
• Transit
o Document existing service levels, including routes, headway, and major stops. Identify locations
of transit amenities (e.g. shelters, benches, bicycle parking) using data available from Community
Transit.
o Review Community Transit and Sound Transit plans for service modifications in planning area
• Bicycle
o Review available city data/documents to document facilities, including bike lanes, trails, and
parking. Document any updates to the system which have put in place since the data/documents
were published.
o Summarize current city education and encouragement efforts to promote bicycle usage.
Packet Page 135 of 168
• Pedestrian
o Review the available data to document facilities, including sidewalks, crosswalks, and trails.
Document any updates to the system which have put in place since these data were developed.
o Summarize current city education and encouragement efforts to promote walking.
• Transportation Demand Management
o Document current actions within the city to promote demand management through education
and encouragement programs. Include summary of existing Commute Trip Reduction programs.
At the end of this process, the Consultant will meet with City Staff to discuss the highlights of the
transportation profile, the goals (as developed in Task 2), and what the implications are for the plan.
This meeting will be a key opportunity to provide feedback on findings and priorities for the balance of
the plan.
Deliverables:
• Text, figures and maps for the Transportation Profile section of the Transportation Plan. Meeting
with City staff and Advisory Committees to present existing conditions, goals, and implications for
the overall plan.
Task 5- Travel Demand
Develop travel demand forecasts that can be used to evaluate vehicular level of service. Forecasts will
be developed for a specified land use plan provided by the City. Land use data will be provided by TAZ
from the City. The PM peak hour will be used for auto volume demand.
Below is more definition of how the forecasts would be developed:
• Update the City’s travel model
o Upgrade the City’s model using the Snohomish County model.
o Include assumptions for regional transit service to be provided by Sound Transit or other
providers
o Include Point Wells proposed land use
• Auto Mode
o Prepare and Evaluate Forecast Volumes
Coordinate with City on any potential model refinements (zones, network, parameters)
Prepare model link and intersection forecasts with City model
Review and refine post-processing method for intersection turn movement forecasts
Summarize forecast traffic volumes and compare to existing counts
• Trip Generation Effects of Mixed Use and Transit Oriented Development
o Run Fehr & Peers’ MXD model for up to four subareas (typically at an activity-center level,
including Westgate) to determine impacts of land use mix on vehicle trip generation. Make
adjustments to travel model origins and destination volumes as appropriate.
Deliverables:
• Model plots and graphics reporting traffic volumes for existing and future conditions. This task will
result in a memorandum that describes the process by which the model was updated, the
Packet Page 136 of 168
forecasts were developed, and highlight major finding of the modeling. Graphic representations
of demand.
Task 6 – Transportation Workshop
The Consultant will facilitate a Transportation Plan workshop that would include staff from Planning,
Public Works, and Finance, as well as any other representatives that the City feels would be beneficial.
This workshop would last two to three hours and would cover the following topics:
• Transportation System Priorities – This would be an aerial mapping exercise in which staff would identify
components of the City’s transportation system that work well, components that are not performing well,
and fixes they would like to see included in the Transportation Plan. To inform the discussion, the
Consultant will provide the current set of Goals and Policies (Task 3), results from Transportation Profile
(Task 4) and the Travel Demand Modeling (Task 5).
• Level of Service and GMA Requirements—The Consultant will provide a high-level overview of level of
service (LOS) – what it is, how it’s measured, and what the GMA requires. The Consultant will provide
examples of alternative LOS policies and measurement approaches, including the relative benefits and
tradeoffs of each approach.
• Financial Picture – Leveraging the financial work performed in Task 8, the Consultant will facilitate a
discussion about revenues available for transportation in the near and long term. It is assumed that
Finance staff can provide a summary of the existing funding trends (based on a review of City budget
documents). During the meeting, we will discuss options for generating additional revenues, and discuss
how funding impacts the size and timing of the capital list.
Deliverables:
• Memo summarizing the discussion and outcomes of the meeting, including a draft LOS policy for
transportation modes.
Task 7- Project Needs and Prioritization
Identify project types representing best practices and possible locations for those projects that should
be considered for inclusion in a future transportation network. The universe of projects under
consideration will include potential projects to address needs identified in this task, as well as under
Task 2 (Goals), Task 3 (Transportation Profile) and 4 (Travel Demand). The list will also consider projects
that are needed to support the proposed land use plan and to help the City meet its proposed LOS policy
(Task 6) and how projects score in terms of priority and which projects could fit within different funding
scenarios (Task 8).
At the beginning of this task, the consultant will compile the list of potential projects for inclusion in the
plan. Compilation of this list will include the following:
• Intersection LOS
o Update Synchro with future “baseline” improvements
Summarize LOS and significant queues. Identify where intersection operations do not meet
the City’s standards and potential underlying reasons
Packet Page 137 of 168
Compare forecasts with existing conditions
Identify portion of impact due to Point Wells development proposal
• Safety Issues
o Identify potential locations for additional safety issues due to volumes, LOS, queues, operations,
etc.
o Identify and evaluate improvements to resolve safety issues (existing and forecast) based on
professional judgment
• Freight System
o Identify any potential changes in truck routes and improvements to better facilitate truck
movements
• Parking
o Identify existing and future public parking facilities in the context of the modal transportation
network.
o Recommend strategies to make parking more efficient (e.g. shared parking) or to encourage use
of alternative modes.
• Transit
o Identify transportation projects (including sidewalk improvements, crosswalks, etc.) focused on
identified transit priority corridors
o Summarize expected changes in local and regional transit facilities and services, including long
range Sound Transit plans.
• Bicycle
o Identify projects that would improve conditions for biking.
o Include provision of state-of-the-practice planning and design features for bicycling.
• Pedestrian
o Identify projects to improve conditions for walking, including projects to enhance pedestrian
connectivity.
o
The consultant will develop this project list with City Staff and the Transportation Commission, including
initial recommendations for which projects fit within a near term (6 year) and long term (20 year)
project list. It is envisioned that the workshop held in Task 6 will inform the multimodal network
definition, although this task provides the City the opportunity to revisit the LOS policy, and land use
assumptions, as well as project prioritization to ensure that these policies do not result in unintended
consequences.
Based on input received from City staff, the Consultant will refine the list and develop planning-level
cost estimates on up to 10 projects. The cost estimates will build from recent City estimates, bid tabs,
and other information. These estimates will further inform which projects are feasible in the near-term.
After incorporating the project costs and city staff recommendations related to project prioritization and
selection, the Consultant will develop a draft transportation network that considers all modes and the
future land use plan.
Deliverables
• For initial meeting in this task: Graphically-enhanced memorandum and maps describing project
types and potential locations. The memorandum and maps will show how projects are prioritized
and phased based on the project prioritization and funding landscape already established.
Packet Page 138 of 168
• Planning-level cost estimates for up to 10 projects.
• Draft transportation network with performance of various transportation networks across modes.
Task 8- Financial Review
The Consultant will update specific sources of revenue that are available to finance transportation
improvements and programs (including unused, underused and innovative revenues and strategies).
The City will provide historical revenue collections for the past five fiscal years. The City will also identify
and summarize existing grant commitments to projects, and pending grant applications for
transportation projects. The Consultant will update the list of most promising potential future funding
sources, prepare initial estimates of amounts likely to be available and identify projects that would be
eligible for each funding source. The Consultant will balance revenues and costs in a financially feasible
Financing Plan for the city’s transportation investment. The Consultant will assist the staff and City
Council in reviewing and adopting the updated transportation impact fee.
Deliverables:
• Updated forecasts for each source of revenue that can be used to fund transportation
improvements.
• Updated financing plan for the transportation plan: revenues and costs are balanced.
Task 9 - Multimodal Concurrency System
The Consultant will develop the elements necessary to develop a multimodal concurrency system that
meets the requirements of PSRC. To achieve this, the Consultant will perform the following tasks:
• Finalize multimodal 20-year transportation projects list based on work in Task 6
• Identify future growth (tied to updated land use and travel demand forecasts developed in Task 4)
• Provide City with options (and a recommendation) of how to structure the concurrency system based
on the experiences of other Puget Sound communities
The Consultant will meet with City staff and the Advisory Committees up to two times to discuss and
finalize the concurrency system. This task also assumes that the Consultant would be available for up to
two (2) council working sessions.
Deliverables
• Document proposed concurrency system.
Task 10 – Develop Transportation Plan Document
Based on information in other tasks and information from the City, prepare a draft Transportation Plan
including text and all figures and maps. Revise the Transportation Plan as needed based on consolidated
review by city staff.
Deliverables
• Three hard copies and electronic version of draft plan, which will be graphically-enhanced and
provide a user-friendly roadmap to Edmond’s transportation vision. This plan will be “branded” to
have its own identity, yet fit well with other efforts currently being led by the City.
Packet Page 139 of 168
• Final plan- three hard copies and electronic version
Task 11- Transportation Impact Fee Update
The Consultant will update the 2009 rate study for transportation impact fees for Edmonds. The
Consultant will identify the portion of improvement costs in the Transportation Plan that are eligible for
impact fees. The Consultant will identify opportunities to include non-motorized projects within the
impact fee project list. The amounts will be based on growth's proportionate share of the cost of
projects in the Transportation Plan. The methodology and algorithms will be consistent with RCW 82.02
and Edmonds' level of service methodology. The Consultant will then use trip data developed as part of
the traffic model to calculate the cost per trip of eligible costs. The Consultant will apply the cost per trip
to standard trip generation data and produce a rate schedule of impact fee rates per dwelling unit for
residential development, and rates per square foot for commercial and other non-residential
development. The Consultant will update the rate study report that documents the updated
methodology and data used to calculate the updated impact fee rates. The City will update the impact
fee ordinance using the rates prepared by the Consultant. The Consultant will assist the staff and City
Council in reviewing and adopting the updated transportation impact fee.
Deliverable:
• Updated rate study describing impact fee methodology and rates.
Task 12: Road Standards Memorandum
The Consultant will identify changes needed in the city’s road standards that relate to recommendations
in the Transportation Plan. These changes will focus on cross sections and other design features related
to topics such as complete streets.
Deliverables:
• Memorandum with identification of proposed road standard changes and mark-ups of road
standard diagrams (to be finalized by city)
Task 13: SR 99 Corridor Plan and Streetscape Options
The SR 99 Corridor Plan will be reviewed and modified as needed to match current and future travel
forecasts. Streetscape options on SR 99 will be developed for the purpose of stimulating development
and achieving a cohesive look and feel. Streetscape options will take into account right-of-way
limitations and will consider the use of medians which can also serve to increase safety by restricting
turning movements.
Deliverables:
• Memorandum with:
o Identification of corridor project revision needs (if any)
o Identification and evaluation of streetscape options
o Documentation of cost estimates for preferred options
Packet Page 140 of 168
Budget Summary
City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 4, 2014
Task Budget ($000)
1 Project Management 15$
2 Public Involvement 13$
3 Goals & Policies 8$
4 Transportation Profile 24$
5 Travel Demand 20$
6 Transportation Workshop 3$
7 Project Needs and Prioritizaztion 22$
8 Financial Review 12$
9 Multimodal Concurrency 6$
10 Plan Document 8$
11 Transportation Impact Fee 16$
12 Road Standards 5$
13 Highway 99 Conceptual Plan 10$
Management Reserve 3$
Grand Total 165$
Packet Page 141 of 168
AM-7110 9. B.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Fehr & Peers for the SR-104 Complete Street
Corridor Analysis
Recommendation
Forward the item to the City Council for approval at the September 16, 2014 City Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The SR-104 Corridor Analysis will focus on 5-miles of principal arterial, from 76th Ave. W to the Edmonds Ferry Terminal.
Due to the various modes of transportation interfacing along both regional corridors (high vehicle ADT, multiple bus stops,
high pedestrian activity along certain sections, and bicycle connections), many deficiencies exist. The purpose of this analysis
is to develop a corridor master plan, which identifies safety, access management and streetscape improvements coordinated
with Complete Streets principles and integrated with the proposed form-based code for Westgate Village (SR-104 & 100th
Ave) and other zoning on SR-104.
On July 14, 2014 a Selection Committee met and interviewed four project teams. Following completion of the interviews, the
project team from Fehr & Peers was chosen by the Committee to prepare the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis.
Staff and the consultant have agreed on a scope of services and budget for the project. The Capital Budget includes $150,000
for the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (2014 & 2015 expenditure). The negotiated fee for the professional services
agreement is $139,000.
Attachments
Fehr & Peers Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/04/2014 01:26 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/04/2014 05:14 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/05/2014 07:54 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:53 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/05/2014 10:21 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/03/2014 05:07 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 142 of 168
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter
referred to as the "City", and Fehr & Peers hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant";
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a
consulting firm to provide transportation consulting services with respect to the SR-104
Complete Street Corridor Analysis;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and
between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material
necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of
Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for
services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full
compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies,
equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work.
A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be
on a time and expense basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, provided, in no
event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of
$139,000.
B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each
voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the
progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed
in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that
has not been submitted to the City Engineer three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such
late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment
cycle.
C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final
payment. Copies shall be made available upon request.
Packet Page 143 of 168
3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data
and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the
services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the
Consultant, provided, however, that:
A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant
shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and
shall at that date become the property of the City.
B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review
and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this
agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and
release under Chapter 42.56 RCW.
C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the
event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work
product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination,
shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a
prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at
no additional cost.
4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this
Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals.
5. Indemnification / Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall defend,
indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any
and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or equity arising from the
negligent acts, errors or omissions, and willful misconduct, of the Consultant in the performance
of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW
4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or
damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and
the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant’s liability, including the
duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant’s negligence.
The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including
RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers.
The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant’s
own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense,
the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51
RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section
shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and
keep in force during the terms of the Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following
insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner
pursuant to Title 48 RCW.
Packet Page 144 of 168
Insurance Coverage
A. Worker’s compensation and employer’s liability insurance as required by the State.
B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not
less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property
damage. The per occurrence amount shall be written with limits no less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000).
C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one
million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit.
D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000).
Excepting the Worker’s Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by
the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant
shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the
Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies at any time.
All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State
of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within
fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City.
No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty days prior notice to the
City.
The Consultant’s professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under
this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified
elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant’s professional liability to third
parties be limited in any way.
7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex,
sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the
United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any
other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.
8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an
independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or
representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of
the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents,
employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract.
9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's
status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must
meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this agreement, the Consultant shall not
perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or
for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written
notification to the City and the City’s prior written consent.
Packet Page 145 of 168
10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party
may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such
termination no fewer than ten days in advance of the effective date of said termination.
11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document,
the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Fee Schedule attached hereto as
Exibit B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended
except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written
Agreement and any provision of Exhibits A or B, this Agreement shall control.
12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform
services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to
additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be
liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation
is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are
encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a
revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in
this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for
services rendered in excess of the Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment
to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties.
13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary
knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and
any persons employed by Consultant shall perform the work in a professional manner consistent
with sound engineering practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with
the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope
of Services.
14. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time
limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any
other provision.
15. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be
assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City.
16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not
employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for
the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or
resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the
City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from
the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement
shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including
Packet Page 146 of 168
regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and
licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to
assure quality of services.
The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes
which may be due on account of this Agreement.
18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address:
City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
Fehr & Peers
1001 4th Ave, Suite 4120
Seattle, WA 98154-1155
Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the
U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed.
DATED THIS _______ DAY OF __________________, 20_____.
CITY OF EDMONDS FEHR & PEERS
By By
David O. Earling, Mayor
Its
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Page 147 of 168
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn,
personally appeared , to me known to be the
of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said
instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above
written.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
Packet Page 148 of 168
SR 104 Corridor Analysis
SCOPE OF WORK –September 4, 2014
The SR 104 Corridor Analysis will focus on the corridor between 76th Ave W to the Edmonds Ferry
Terminal. Initial focus by the Consultant will be on the Westgate area to identify transportation needs
that can be integrated as appropriate into the City’s form-based code.
Task 1: Project Management
Project management will be coordinated between the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and SR 104
Analysis.
1.1 – Project Management
The Consultant will provide continuous project management for the project duration (9months).
The Consultant and City project managers will schedule a weekly call and meet in person at least
monthly.
1.2 – Progress Reports and Invoicing
The Consultant will prepare monthly progress reports identifying work completed in the previous
month, work in progress, upcoming work elements, and reporting of any delays, problems, or
additional information needs. These reports will be submitted with the Consultant invoices.
1.3 – Coordination and Issues Workshop
The Consultant will prepare a workshop agenda and needed materials. The workshop objectives
include: project expectations, issues and opportunities, guiding principles, and desired outcomes.
Deliverables
• Master Project Schedule
• Workshop notes
• Monthly progress reports and invoices
Task 2: Community Outreach
Community Outreach will be coordinated between the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and SR 104
Analysis. Unique activities are identified as applicable below.
2.1 – Stakeholder Interviews
At the outset of the project, the Consultant will conduct up to 5 interviews with stakeholders in
the Edmonds area, targeting those with an interest in the transportation master plan update and
the SR 104 corridor analysis. These interviews may identify additional stakeholders or audiences
Packet Page 149 of 168
who should be engaged throughout the project, inform next steps in public involvement and
inform the technical analysis on issues to be considered. Specific tasks include:
• One planning meeting with City of Edmonds staff to:
o Identify stakeholders
o Review stakeholder interview questions
• Develop interview questions
• Conduct up to 5 stakeholder interviews, with City of Edmonds staff (if desired)
• Compilation of key takeaways and recommendations, as well as brief individual interview summaries
Deliverables
• Stakeholder interview question set (one draft, one final)
• Compilation of interview takeaways and recommendations
• Individual interview summaries
2.2 – Open House Support
The Consultant will support two open houses in order to update the public on both the
transportation master plan update and SR 104 corridor analysis, at key milestones throughout
the project. The first open house is anticipated in fall 2014 (late October/early November 2014)
and will be an opportunity to inform the public on these projects and gather initial input. The
second open house is anticipated to be a mid-project update in spring 2015 (March 2015). The
City will prepare open house mailings and announcements and determine the meeting locations
and agendas. The Consultant’s support of these two open houses will include:
• Development, in close coordination with City staff and the technical team, of meeting materials, to
include:
o Up to 10 display boards per meeting (20 boards total)
o Up to two meeting fact sheets/supplemental hand-out materials per meeting (four total)
o One comment form per meeting (two total)
• Logistics support, including meeting support materials (easels, pens, comment boxes, etc.), comment
collection, meeting support materials (easels, supplies), sign-in sheets, directional signage, staff name
tags, etc.
• Up to two staff to set-up and participate in the open house, and take-down.
• Summary of each open house.
Deliverables
• Open house summaries (one draft, one final)
2.3- SR 104 Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meetings
The Consultant will prepare for and attend up to four corridor Advisory Committee meetings to
provide information about the Corridor Study process and goals, and to solicit community input
on the key corridor issues and potential solutions to consider. Support will include developing
talking points, providing the appropriate project materials and documenting input received
during the meetings.
Deliverables
• Up to four sets of meeting materials
Packet Page 150 of 168
• Summary of meeting actions
2.4 City Council and Planning Board Meetings
The Consultant will support the City with up to 2 Planning Board and 4 City Council meetings.
Support will include developing talking points, preparing appropriate project materials and
attending the briefings.
Deliverables
• Up to six sets of meeting materials
• Summary of meeting actions
Task 2 Assumptions
• The City and consultant will share responsibilities community outreach activities for the Corridor
Study and Transportation Plan update.
• Both the City and Consultant will provide staff to support the public outreach events, including
community and/or neighborhood briefings, public meetings, and informational booths.
• The City will maintain a stakeholder email list of interested parties and send any electronic
communications about the Corridor Study and Transportation Plan update directly to interested
parties.
• The City will manage and respond to all public inquiries received via phone, email or in-person
about the Corridor Study and Transportation Plan update.
• The City will print and/or mail community outreach materials or utilize other existing local
avenues for communication to distribute project information.
Task 3: Corridor Profile
3.1: Operations
Traffic Counts: The Consultant will assemble PM peak hour traffic counts from those collected for
the Transportation Plan. The Consultant will count up to 4 additional locations for morning peak
2-hour turning movements and for a Friday PM peak condition in the vicinity of downtown
Edmonds.
Level of Service (LOS): The Consultant will calculate peak hour intersection LOS with Synchro and
report Highway Capacity Manual results.
Speed: The Consultant will collect and analyze speed data at three corridor locations for a typical
weekday (24 hours) and at one location on a weekend day. Locations will be reviewed with the
city prior to data collection.
Safety: The consultant will obtain crash data from WSDOT and summarize the data and identify
safety issues. Crash data will include all travel modes
Pedestrians and Bicycles: The consultant will obtain bicycle counts from the turning movement
counts and from WSDOT’s annual bicycle and pedestrian survey counts. The Consultant will
conduct visual observations of pedestrian and bicycle movements at key locations along the
corridor related to peak hours (7 – 9 a.m., and 4 – 6 p.m.), school start/end times, and a typical
Packet Page 151 of 168
weekend day. The Consultant will inventory existing pedestrian facilities along SR 104 and
connecting streets (up to ¼ mile), including sidewalks and crossing treatments.
Transit: The Consultant will obtain and analyze transit route and boarding data from Community
Transit. Transit stops will be inventoried and mapped.
Parking: The Consultant will inventory on and off-street parking along properties fronting SR 104.
Field observations during weekday and weekend periods will identify locations of on-street
parking demand and use of commercial property parking. Likely parking users will be identified
as possible through observations and community input. No formal parking demand inventory
will be conducted. The Consultant will also conduct a parking evaluation for the proposed
Westgate Zoning to determine reasonable parking demand for a mixed use development.
3.2 Physical Conditions
The Consultant will develop a profile of existing physical conditions in the corridor.
Roadway Geometrics
The Consultant will undertake the following:
• Inventory existing horizontal alignment information based on available aerial mapping and as-built
information supplied by the City, WSDOT and Snohomish County records. Field surveying and base
mapping is not included in this scope of services.
• Roadway design criteria will be prepared based on posted speeds of 35 to 45 mph using AASHTO
“2011 A Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” and “Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities” and City design criteria, as well as WSDOT “Design Manual”, where applicable.
• Existing driveway and side street locations will be inventoried using available aerial mapping, as-built
information supplied by the City, WSDOT and Snohomish County records supplemented by field
reconnaissance. It is assumed that up to 60 driveways as well as side streets will be inventoried. The
goal of this inventory is to identify driveway and side street connections that are closely spaced or
with sight distance challenges and/or challenges with proposed alternatives. Locations of driveways
will be approximate.
• Inventory existing signage based on field reconnaissance (approximate location and type/message).
Stormwater Facilities
The Consultant will conduct a limited evaluation of stormwater facilities adjacent to the roadway
prism at up to six locations identified jointly by the City and Consultant. The evaluation will be
based on as-built information supplied by the City, WSDOT and Snohomish County records, as
well as field reconnaissance. The focus will be on issues that are located within or immediately
adjacent to the roadway prism and can be mitigated by the scope of the corridor improvements.
It is assumed that issues outside of the immediate roadway prism are outside the scope of this
corridor plan.
Illumination
The Consultant will inventory existing illumination through use of PUD as-builts and field
reconnaissance (location by reference to nearest cross street/driveway).
3.3: Land Use and Plans
Packet Page 152 of 168
The Consultant will obtain and review relevant planning documents from City Staff and other
agencies. These will include a review of comprehensive plans: transportation plans, land use and
zoning, school zones and activities, and related studies. The Consultant will review the city’s
Form-based Code and specific requirements for the Westgate area.
The Consultant will prepare thematic maps showing land use growth patterns (to 2035) within
the study area.
3.4: Future Growth
The Consultant will prepare year 2035 PM peak hour traffic forecasts along the corridor using the
city’s updated travel demand model.
Deliverables:
• Memorandum and maps documenting existing and future conditions, and roadway design criteria
Task 4: Needs Assessment
The City and Consultant will use the results from the corridor profile analysis, the Issues
Workshop and stakeholder interviews to determine a set of key corridor physical and operational
issues. These tasks will support the existing and future needs assessment of all modes (Vehicles,
Pedestrians, Bicycles, Transit).
The following analyses will be performed:
• Existing and future traffic constraints- Identify existing LOS problems based on Subtask 3.2. Estimate
future LOS based on corridor growth factor analysis. Compare LOS to city standards and effects on
safety.
• Speed limits analysis, speeding and enforcement issues
• Safety problem areas, by mode and cause (e.g. impacts of weather and time of day). Conduct a safety
audit and assessment of signalized and non-signalized intersections operations
• Pedestrian connections: walking routes, sidewalks, parks trails, crosswalks and their use
• Bicyclist usage and patterns
• Transit routing, stops and pedestrian access. Include long range plans from Community Transit.
• Parking within the public right-of-way and its impacts, including shoulder parking and access to
private parking
• Access management issues: left-turn movements, driveway/access analysis, sight distance
• FBC Requirements and impacts on SR 104. Included will be an identification of ways to improve the
“view from the road” with specific focus on public wayfinding and gateway signage and a street
graphics code overlay for private signage.
• Roadway Geometrics, including identification of substandard horizontal alignment conditions and
driveways limited to those that are closely spaced or those with substandard sight distance
conditions. Consideration will be given to vertical and horizontal roadway designs.
• Surface water management issues. Review of surface water needs will be focused on a limited
number of locations along the corridor where existing stormwater issues were identified.
• Illumination analysis tied to city’s preferred light level standards. With use of existing power poles,
coordinate with franchise on specific requirements (including mounting heights). Existing light levels
will be reviewed with the use of AGi32 modeling.
Deliverables:
Packet Page 153 of 168
• Draft and Final Corridor strip map with needs identified along with draft
• Draft and Final short memorandum describing corridor needs, with appendices for selected
technical topics
Task 5: Develop and Evaluate Alternatives
The Consultant will develop up to two (2) alternative design and operational concepts along the
corridor. After review and comment by City staff and stakeholders, the Consultant will prepare a
recommended strategy for the corridor.
The corridor alternatives will reflect a mixture of physical and operational strategies aimed at
improving mobility and safety for all modes. Corridor strip maps will be used to illustrate the
relationships between the various elements and to identify key issue areas.
The evaluation of alternatives will be based on a set of criteria jointly developed by the
Consultant, City and stakeholders. The Consultant will prepare a mixture of quantitative and
qualitative measures tied to the study guiding principles and objectives. The alternatives will be
compared against these measures using a matrix with easy-to-follow ratings and graphics.
Recommended cross sections will be developed with the goal of achieving a uniform look and
feel for the corridor and for use by potential developers for developing their footprint. In
addition, recommended cross sections will be developed for the adjacent residential areas that
tie into the SR 104 corridor. Cross sections will be reviewed in the context of existing City codes.
The design concepts will be drawn onto aerial photography, nominally to scale, using GIS and
graphic software (e.g. Illustrator). The level of detail will be sufficient to describe the concept,
understand its feasibility and impacts, and prepare planning-level capital cost estimates.
For Stormwater Facilities, the Consultant will coordinate with City staff on preferred Low Impact
Development (LID) and traditional (pond) facilities for up to 2 corridor improvement areas. LID
facilities may include vegetated swales, rain gardens, media filters and dispersion trenches.
Potential stormwater facility sites will be identified in conjunction with the two alternative design
concepts. The Consultant will also identify best practice roadway and/or safety methods for
minimizing or avoiding stormwater impacts.
The Consultant will develop typical conceptual lighting layout for two alternative design concepts
with specific focus on conflict areas (intersections, uncontrolled crossing points, roadway curves
and driveway locations). Field lighting measurements are not included in the scope of services.
The Consultant will prepare planning-level capital cost estimates for up to 8 projects contained
within the preferred concept.
Deliverables:
• Memorandum with
o Identification and evaluation of alternatives
o Documentation of cost estimates for preferred alternative
• Draft and Final Corridor strip map for alternatives
Packet Page 154 of 168
Task 6: SR 104 Corridor Master Plan
The Consultant will compile the recommended concept into a Corridor Report and included
within the citywide Transportation Plan. The Master Plan will contain recommended future
capital projects with prioritization, necessary information to program projects into the future
with limited funds, as well as an overall strategy for implementation. The Consultant will prepare
listings of high, medium, and lower priority projects based on the agreed evaluation criteria.
The Consultant will prepare a final strip map showing the recommended projects. In addition,
The Consultant will prepare a fact sheet for each recommended project (or groupings of projects)
identified within the corridor study and transportation plan will include the following:
• a project scope
• the main problem(s) the project aims to ameliorate
• future significant challenges to be resolved, including right-of-way acquisition, if applicable
• a prioritization ranking within a prioritization methodology
• a planning-level cost estimate
• potential funding sources
Up to 8 projects (or grouping of projects) are assumed.
For the Westgate area, the Consultant will prepare draft(s) of Master Internal Circulation Drive
Regulating Maps for each of the four quadrants at Westgate
• Apply FBC standards for drive width/designs
• Show proposed required location/configuration for internal drives
• Show required access points for internal circulation drives w/SR104
• Line up internal circulation drives where facing across quadrants
• Orient building pads/amenity features/parking to circulation drives
The consultant will also identify potential additional FBC requirements to enhance multi-modal
function at Westgate, e.g., mandated bicycle racks, bus passes, bus shelters incorporated into
access to buildings/amenity zones, other methods to enhance pedestrian/bicycle movement
within and to Westgate.
Deliverables:
• Draft and Final Corridor Study (3 hard copies plus electronic). The City will be responsible for
printing and distributing the document.
Packet Page 155 of 168
Budget Summary
City of Edmonds
SR 104 Corridor Analysis
September 4, 2014
Task Budget ($000)
1 Project Management 10$
2 Public Involvement 9$
3 Corridor Profile 25$
4 Needs Assessment 30$
5 Develop and Evaluate Alternatives 33$
6 Corridor Master Plan 29$
Management Reserve 3$
Grand Total 139$
Packet Page 156 of 168
AM-7108 9. C.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Ryan Hague Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Construction contract for the ADA Ramps Along 3rd Ave S Project.
Recommendation
It is anticipated that the award amount will be under $100,000 and Council approval will not be required.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
This project is intended to upgrade the curb ramps at various intersections along 3rd Ave S from Pine St to Main St. This will
increase pedestrian safety and mobility in the area.
The project costs are being funded by a Snohomish County Community Development Block Grant.
The City expects to receive construction bids on this project in September. Staff is expecting the bids to come in under
$100,000 and the award will be authorized by the Mayor.
Attachments
Project Map
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/04/2014 01:08 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/04/2014 05:14 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/05/2014 07:54 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:47 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/05/2014 10:21 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/03/2014 04:00 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 157 of 168
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades Along 3rd Ave S
PROJECT LIMITS
7 6 t h A v e W
Main St
196th St SW
O
l
y
m
pic View D r
Pine St
6 6 t h A v e W
8 4 t h A v e W
220th St SW
8 8 t h A v e W
208th St SW
7 4 t h A v e W
6 8 t h A v e W
9 t h A v e N
Bowdoin Wy
212th St SW
Dayton St
1 0 0 t n A v e W
T a l b o t R d
N 205th St/244th St SW
Lund's Gulch Rd
O l y m p i c A v e
5 t h A v e S
200th St SW
168th St SW
8 0 t h A v e W
224th St SW
T i m b e r L n
9 5 t h P l W
7 5 t h P L W
9 6 t h A v e W
7 2 n d A v e W
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
ale Rd
M a p l e w o o d D r
S u n s e t A v e N
2 3 1 s t St SW
206th St SW
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
each Rd
5 t h A v e N
8 3 r d A v e W
240th St SW
7 4 t h A v e W
N 205th St/244th St SW
8 0 t h A v e W
I-5
99
104
524
City of Edmonds
Mapbook
Packet Page 158 of 168
AM-7112 9. D.
City Council Meeting and Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/09/2014
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Committee: Parks, Planning, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Perteet for the 228 th St. SW Corridor Improvement project
Recommendation
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the September 16, 2014 City Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
On October 16, 2012, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement #1 with
Perteet for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project.
On June 11, 2013, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplement Agreement #2 with Perteet for
the 228 th St. SW Corridor Improvement project.
On April 15, 2014, City Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplement Agreement #3 with Perteet for
the 228 th St. SW Corridor Improvement project.
Narrative
The project will construct the missing link of roadway on 228th St SW from State Route (SR) 99 to 76th Ave W. and install
two new traffic signals at the intersections of SR99 / 228th St. SW and 76th Ave. W. / 228th St. SW. The center median will be
extended on a portion of SR99 to restrict left turns and improve safety. Sidewalk and bike lanes will be included along the
new section of 228th St. SW. The section of 228th St. SW from 80th Ave W to 1,000 feet east of 72nd Ave. W and 76th Ave.
W from 228th St. SW to SR99 will be overlaid. A raised median with decorative elements will also be installed along SR99.
As part of this project, right-of-way acquisition was required from (14) parcels and the City has reached agreements with (12)
of them. The proposed Supplement will provide additional professional services to support the City Attorney with on-going
negotiations and mediations for both parties.
The right-of-way fees for Supplement No. 4 is $66,764 and will be paid by grant funds.
The City secured federal transportation grants for $6,263,000 (HSIP, CMAQ, and TIB) to complete the
design, right of way acquisition, and construction. No local match is required for the HSIP grant and
13.5% local match is required for the CMAQ and TIB grants.
The design and right of way phases are scheduled for completion in late 2014 and construction is
tentatively scheduled to begin in spring 2015.
Attachments
Perteet Supplemental Agreement
Packet Page 159 of 168
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/04/2014 01:15 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/04/2014 05:15 PM
City Clerk Scott Passey 09/05/2014 07:54 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2014 09:52 AM
Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 09/05/2014 10:21 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/03/2014 05:19 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2014
Packet Page 160 of 168
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
1
o
f
1
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
2
o
f
1
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
3
o
f
1
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
4
o
f
1
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
5
o
f
1
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
6
o
f
1
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
7
o
f
1
6
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
8
o
f
1
6
8