The URL can be used to link to this page

2023-10-10 City Council Special Packet1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6. J OF CUMG v ti� Agenda ar Edmonds City Council SPECIAL MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL- 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 OCTOBER 10, 2023, 6:00 PM PERSONS WISHING TO JOIN THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY IN LIEU OF IN -PERSON ATTENDANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AUDIENCE COMMENTS CAN CLICK ON OR PASTE THE FOLLOWING ZOOM MEETING LINK INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261 OR COMMENT BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 THOSE COMMENTING USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE. WHEN YOUR COMMENTS ARE CONCLUDED, PLEASE LEAVE THE ZOOM MEETING AND OBSERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING ON THE COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT REGARDING ANY MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS A PUBLIC HEARING. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE CLEARLY YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. August 2023 Monthly Financial Report (0 min) COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Repeal of Ordinance 4079 Highway 99 Planned Action (30 min) 2. Year in Review / Decision Package Presentation (60 min) ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda October 10, 2023 Page 1 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/10/2023 August 2023 Monthly Financial Report Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Sarah Mager Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Received for Filing Narrative August 2023 Monthly Financial Report Attachments: August 2023 Monthly Financial Report Packet Pg. 2 I 5.1.a I O-V EDP � d 1)7 c 1 g0v CITY OF EDMONDS MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT AUGUST 2023 Packet Pg. 3 1 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail As of August 31, 2023 Years Agency/ Investment Purchase to Par Market Issuer Type Price Maturity Value Value FHLB Bonds First Financial - ECA CD Kent WA Bonds First Financial - Waterfront Center CD FHLB Bonds FHLB Bonds FM Bonds FNMA Bonds FFCB Bonds FHLB Bonds Spokane County WA Bonds FHLMC Bonds Farmer Mac Bonds FHLB Bonds US Treasury Note Note FFCB Bonds Farmer Mac Bonds TOTAL SECURITIES Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool Snohomish County Local Gov't Investment Pool TOTAL PORTFOLIO Maturity Coupon Date Rate 1,996,590 0.10 2,000,000 1,989,216 10/05/23 0.22% 2,803,516 0.21 2,803,516 2,803,516 11/15/23 2.08% 286,648 0.25 250,000 251,000 12/01/23 5.00% 245,000 0.33 245,000 245,000 12/28/23 1.49% 2,004,464 0.38 2,000,000 1,993,132 01/16/24 4.81% 954,866 0.61 1,000,000 967,973 04/10/24 0.35% 996,082 0.80 1,000,000 977,966 06/17/24 2.80% 992,693 0.84 1,000,000 969,230 07/02/24 1.75% 1,960,906 1.04 2,000,000 1,960,817 09/13/24 3.50% 950,774 1.22 1,000,000 944,331 11/18/24 0.90% 207,260 1.25 200,000 191,950 12/01/24 2.10% 974,798 1.53 1,000,000 975,450 03/13/25 3.75% 1,995,088 1.63 2,000,000 1,970,376 04/17/25 4.25% 969,524 1.91 1,000,000 973,337 07/28/25 3.60% 964,597 1.96 1,000,000 966,836 08/15/25 3.13% 1,982,692 2.27 2,000,000 1,968,622 12/08/25 4.13% 1,994,172 2.43 2,000,000 1,968,223 02/02/26 3.95% 22,279,670 1.10 22,498,516 22,116,977 10,630,000 10,630,000 Demand 5.34% 33,713,152 33,713,152 Demand 2.31% Kent Issuer Diversification Fi rst WA, Financial- 1% — �. CD, 14% Farmer ' Spokane Mac, 18% _ n-� County WA, 1% FHLMC, 4% FFCB, 18% $ 66,841,668 $ 66,460,129 Cash and Investment Balances Checki ng, (in $Millions) _$5.87, 8% Bonds, StaTLGINote, $18.45, $$1.00, 2% 25% CD's, $3.05, County 4% LGIP, $33.71, 46% 110 O Q 4) w ca C tE C LL. s C O M N O N N 3 3 Q Packet Pg. 4 1 ■ 5.1.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY Annual Interest Income $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1 236 875 $947,931 950 684 1091 709 $1,029,893 $1,000,000 $882 556 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 — $200,000 - $- 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD 2023 2 Packet Pg. 5 I 5.1.a I GENERAL FUND SUMMARY General Fund Revenues and Expenses (Rolling 24 months) — — — General Fund Revenues — General Fund Expenses 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 f JA 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 _ 3,000,000 2,000,000 �"�� ♦ �� ♦� 1,000,000 September December March June September December March June General Fund Tax Revenue (2017 through 2022 — — — Sales Tax Property Tax EMS Tax Other Taxes k� Q 12,000,000 10,000,000 -- 8,000,000 — — 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 i 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 General Fund Tax Revenue (2023 YTD) 7,597,605 Sales Tax Property Tax EMS Tax Other Taxes 3 Packet Pg. 6 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2023 General fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 2,843,094 $ 2,843,094 $ 2,320,252-18.39% February 5,636,382 2,793,288 4,920,100-12.71% March 8,487,993 2,851,611 8,150,445 -3.98% April 12,010,212 3,522,219 16,689,365 38.96% May 22,451,612 10,441,400 21,615,550 -3.72% June 25,498,180 3,046,568 23,772,230 -6.77% July 28,462,795 2,964,616 27,008,084 -5.11% August 31,857,014 3,394,219 30,494,023 -4.28% September 34,651,707 2,794,693 October 39,245,890 4,594,183 November 49,438,148 10,192,259 December 52,558,830 3,120,682 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2023 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 343,196 $ 343,196 $ 151,084 -55.98% February 564,002 220,806 270,799 -51.99% March 914,189 350,187 521,829 -42.92% April 1,199,839 285,649 745,931 -37.83% May 1,552,936 353,097 1,053,507 -32.16% June 1,933,322 380,387 1,272,041 -34.20% July 2,318,897 385,574 1,582,268 -31.77% August 2,728,590 409,693 1,854,598 -32.03% September 3,157,962 429,373 October 3,549,820 391,858 November 3,941,307 391,487 December 4,400,000 458,693 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY RUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Current Year Budget - Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. O CL d lC C 10 C LL L r.+ C O M N CD N N a1 Q 4 Packet Pg. 7 SALES TAX SUMMARY I 5.1.a I Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: August 2023 Year -to -Date Total $7,597,605 Automotive Repair, Construction Trade, Health & Personal Care, $169,494 $1,237,324 $59,075 Accommodation, Mdffig and _ Accessories, $236,419 — Communications, Misc Retail, $165,217 $1,403,683 Wholesale Trade, $225,200 Amusement & Recreation, $62,249 Business Services, $7*IRetiIA Gasoline, $0 Retail Food Stores, $254,706 uotive, $1,804,336 Manufacturing, $86,407 Others, $186,183 Eating & Drinking, $879,641 Annual Sales Tax Revenue 12,000,000 — $10,302,518 1 27 10,000, 000 $7,395,114 $8,406,296 $8,452,715 $8,317,046 8,000,000 $7,597,605 6,000, 000 4,000, 000 2,000, 000 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2022 YTD 2023 O CL 20 c �a c ii t O 2 CO) N 0 N N a� Q 5 Pt__1_-L Pf_. 8 ra�Ke� ry. o City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2023 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 911,577 $ 911,577 $ 879,231 -3.55% February 1,999,408 1,087,831 1,908,832 -4.53% March 2,854,859 855,451 2,781,110 -2.58% April 3,643,225 788,366 3,621,184 -0.60% May 4,624,484 981,259 4,607,308 -0.37% June 5,567,972 943,488 5,538,698 -0.53% July 6,580,085 1,012,114 6,542,037 -0.58% August 7,669,335 1,089,249 7,597,605 -0.94% September 8,683,583 1,014,248 October 9,768,647 1,085,064 November 10,864,900 1,096,253 December 11,900,000 1,035,100 Sales and Use Tax 12,000,000 11,000,000 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Personal/Property Tax 2023 Real Personal/Property Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 49,915 $ 49,915 $ 26,466 -46.98% February 78,108 28,192 147,332 88.63% March 375,054 296,947 824,405 119.81% April 912,236 537,182 4,885,632 435.57% May 5,909,096 4,996,860 5,742,964 -2.81% June 6,029,957 120,861 5,794,100 -3.91% July 6,148,773 118,816 5,817,644 -5.39% August 6,198,768 49,995 5,868,802 -5.32% September 6,260,415 61,647 October 6,466,132 205,717 November 11,227,156 4,761,024 December 11,327,000 99,844 Real Pe rs onaMope rty Tax 12,000,000 11,000,000 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --o—CurrentYeaz Budget �PriorYear *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 6 Packet Pg. 9 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Water Utility Tax 2023 Water Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 86,205 $ 86,205 86,092 -0.13% February 146,468 60,263 143,978 -1.70% March 232,107 85,639 221,845 -4.42% April 288,835 56,728 279,282 -3.31% May 373,578 84,744 363,282 -2.76% June 439,121 65,542 431,287 -1.78% July 541,031 101,910 543,193 0.40% August 629,368 88,337 633,755 0.70% September 748,356 118,987 October 835,253 86,898 November 933,046 97,793 December 993,712 60,666 Water Utility Tax 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget -d-- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sewer Utility Tax 2023 Sewer Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 95,852 $ 95,852 $ 89,935 -6.17% February 174,661 78,808 166,439 -4.71% March 269,654 94,993 256,368 -4.93% April 348,626 78,972 333,172 -4.43% May 444,771 96,145 424,703 -4.51% June 523,850 79,080 501,909 -4.19% July 620,193 96,343 596,420 -3.83% August 699,682 79,489 673,646 -3.72% September 799,189 99,507 October 879,620 80,432 November 976,901 97,281 December 1,055,821 78,920 Sewer Utility Tax 1,200,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY RUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -CurrentYear Budget -d-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 7 Packet Pg. 10 I 5.1.a I City of'Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales 2023 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 898,592 $ 898,592 $ 860,924 -4.19% February 1,526,893 628,301 1,439,675 -5.71% March 2,419,579 892,685 2,218,275 -8.32% April 3,010,919 591,341 2,792,540 -7.25% May 3,894,276 883,356 3,632,474 -6.72% June 4,577,455 683,180 4,312,420 -5.79% July 5,644,291 1,066,835 5,431,418 -3.77% August 6,565,058 920,767 6,336,928 -3.47% September 7,805,695 1,240,637 October 8,711,524 905,829 November 9,730,927 1,019,403 December 10,363,937 633,010 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales 2023 Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 484,003 $ 484,003 $ 417,703 -13.70% February 1,535,452 1,051,449 1,359,827 -11.44% March 2,020,122 484,671 1,794,224 -11.18% April 2,451,545 431,422 2,181,313 -11.02% May 2,936,868 485,323 2,616,433 -10.91% June 3,368,111 431,243 3,004,165 -10.81% July 3,844,019 475,908 3,441,481 -10.47% August 4,895,662 1,051,643 4,390,758 -10.31% September 5,380,996 485,335 October 5,812,621 431,625 November 6,298,011 485,390 December 6,714,303 416,292 Storm Water Sales 0 I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. O IZ d lC C 10 C LL L r.+ C O M N CD N N a1 Q g Packet Pg. 11 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2023 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 958,430 $ 1,745,646 2,695,497 3,484,346 4,445,696 5,235,623 6,198,081 6,992,099 7,987,044 8,790,485 9,763,192 10,551,011 958,430 $ 900,021 787,217 1,665,119 949,850 2,565,291 788,849 3,333,389 961,351 4,249,590 789,927 5,021,702 962,458 5,967,694 794,018 6,690,009 994,945 803,441 972,707 787,819 -6.09 -4.61 -4.83 -4.33 -4.41 -4.09 -3.72 -4.32 Unmeter Sewer Sales 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --*--Current Year Budget Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 00 O IZ 4) f4 C C LL t C O M C4 CD N N 3 3 Q 9 Packet Pg. 12 I 5.1.a I City ofEdmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2023 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 6,137,826 $ 6,137,826 $ 4,868,760 -20.68% February 11,064,571 4,926,745 10,063,682 -9.05% March 15,921,618 4,857,047 14,793,075 -7.09% April 20,583,943 4,662,325 18,985,494 -7.77% May 25,612,342 5,028,399 23,497,459 -8.26% June 31,411,865 5,799,523 28,704,022 -8.62% July 36,363,006 4,951,141 33,359,621 -8.26% August 41,130,318 4,767,313 38,672,822 -5.97% September 46,432,507 5,302,189 October 51,692,989 5,260,482 November 57,566,174 5,873,185 December 63,970,754 6,404,580 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2023 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 2,703,415 $ 2,703,415 $ 1,642,894 -39.23% February 4,120,779 1,417,364 3,380,586 -17.96% March 5,420,914 1,300,136 4,986,307 -8.02% April 6,544,202 1,123,288 6,091,521 -6.92% May 7,951,492 1,407,290 7,245,913 -8.87% June 10,036,224 2,084,733 9,392,113 -6.42% July 11,274,698 1,238,474 10,555,304 -6.38% August 12,335,881 1,061,182 12,600,704 2.15% September 13,768,928 1,433,047 October 15,093,355 1,324,427 November 16,728,866 1,635,512 December 18,488,589 1,759,723 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 110 O CL tv ♦w <4 C IE C LL s C O M N CD N N 3 3 Q 10 Packet Pg. 13 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2023 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 31,587 $ 31,587 $ 33,649 6.53% February 65,597 34,010 71,252 8.62% March 104,151 38,554 108,460 4.14% April 141,020 36,870 142,437 1.00% May 188,108 47,087 180,396 -4.10% June 237,876 49,768 208,152 -12.50% July 275,165 37,290 249,010 -9.51% August 325,994 50,829 283,971 -12.89% September 365,198 39,203 October 398,695 33,497 November 440,782 42,088 December 486,719 45,937 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2023 Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 41,345 $ 41,345 $ 32,343 -21.77% February 84,589 43,243 63,133 -25.37% March 126,357 41,768 101,671 -19.54% April 168,957 42,600 133,210 -21.16% May 210,634 41,677 164,114 -22.09% June 251,812 41,178 195,229 -22.47% July 293,809 41,997 229,429 -21.91% August 335,446 41,636 259,788 -22.55% September 377,299 41,854 October 418,301 41,002 November 461,679 43,378 December 505,239 43,560 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. O !Z d lC C 10 C LL L r.+ C O 2 M N CD N In a1 4 11 Packet Pg. 14 1 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2023 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 115,695 $ 115,695 $ 93,116 -19.52% February 219,840 104,145 164,590 -25.13% March 315,272 95,432 230,737 -26.81% April 415,812 100,540 296,057 -28.80% May 516,054 100,242 367,942 -28.70% June 651,834 135,780 455,291 -30.15% July 741,246 89,412 531,164 -28.34% August 839,112 97,865 605,627 -27.83% September 944,153 105,041 October 1,042,607 98,454 November 1,156,556 113,949 December 1,297,746 141,190 Human Resources 1,300,000 11200,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --0--Current Year Budget-PriorYear City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2023 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 135,694 $ 135,694 $ 114,975 -15.27% February 273,214 137,520 231,321 -15.33% March 414,829 141,615 352,625 -15.00% April 558,136 143,307 476,351 -14.65% May 711,840 153,704 611,186 -14.14% June 853,118 141,278 726,808 -14.81% July 997,788 144,670 855,668 -14.24% August 1,159,264 161,476 980,820 -15.39% September 1,307,192 147,929 October 1,460,910 153,718 November 1,645,269 184,359 December 1,827,709 182,440 Municipal Court 2,400,000 2,200,000 2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 12 Packet Pg. 15 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development 2023 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 82,768 $ 82,768 $ 84,200 1.73% February 173,748 90,980 172,586 -0.67% March 267,297 93,549 263,059 -1.59% April 356,785 89,487 362,832 1.70% May 449,350 92,565 470,437 4.69% June 543,530 94,180 599,614 10.32% July 642,047 98,517 718,488 11.91% August 759,375 117,328 872,904 14.95% September 869,058 109,683 October 983,298 114,241 November 1,129,896 146,598 December 1,312,555 182,659 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 11 O CL 0 <4 C IE C LL s C O M N CD N N 3 3 Q 13 Packet Pg. 16 1 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report - Fund 512 - Technology Rental Fund 2023 Fund 512 - Technology Rental Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 240,643 $ 240,643 $ 355,645 47.79% February 398,793 158,150 530,347 32.99% March 615,290 216,497 683,467 11.08% April 701,637 86,346 798,011 13.74% May 824,702 123,066 888,529 7.74% June 965,060 140,358 982,174 1.77% July 1,069,578 104,518 1,136,037 6.21% August 1,225,467 155,890 1,267,203 3.41% September 1,381,721 156,254 October 1,557,117 175,396 November 1,672,249 115,132 December 1,943,624 271,375 Administrative Services Fund 512 - Technology Rental Fund 2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Yeaz Budget -0-- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Administrative Services 2023 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 265,902 $ 265,902 $ 253,437 February 452,065 186,163 571,249 March 638,942 186,877 774,413 April 830,237 191,295 964,313 May 1,020,418 190,181 1,156,484 June 1,279,620 259,202 1,327,293 July 1,494,954 215,334 1,531,898 August 1,686,406 191,452 1,715,648 September 1,878,906 192,501 October 2,079,936 201,029 November 2,305,663 225,728 December 2,502,670 197,007 -4.69% 26.36% 2,200,000 2,000,000 21.20% 1,800,000 16.15% 1,600,000 13.33% 1,400,000 1,200,000 3.73% 1,000,000 2.47% 800,000 1.73% 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Administrative Services JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --+-Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Yeaz *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 14 Packet Pg. 17 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2023 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 96,815 $ 96,815 $ 24,570 -74.62% February 193,630 96,815 109,813 -43.29% March 290,445 96,815 186,270 -35.87% April 387,260 96,815 276,332 -28.64% May 484,075 96,815 347,909 -28.13% June 580,890 96,815 427,830 -26.35% July 677,705 96,815 534,282 -21.16% August 774,520 96,815 559,282 -27.79% September 871,335 96,815 October 968,150 96,815 November 1,064,965 96,815 December 1,161,780 96,815 Police City Attorney 1,200,000 1,100,000 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 POO- 11 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC - Current Year Budget - Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2023 Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 1,151,199 $ 1,151,199 $ 1,041,369 -9.54% February 2,301,161 1,149,962 2,119,852 -7.88% March 3,503,278 1,202,117 3,173,554 -9.41% April 4,662,822 1,159,544 4,326,784 -7.21% May 5,864,448 1,201,626 5,521,298 -5.85% June 7,133,272 1,268,824 6,661,514 -6.61% July 8,339,111 1,205,839 7,971,401 -4.41% August 9,474,966 1,135,855 9,201,003 -2.89% September 10,670,868 1,195,902 October 11,909,831 1,238,963 November 13,362,651 1,452,820 December 14,826,373 1,463,722 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. k� O IZ d M C 10 C LL _% L r.+ C O 2 CO) N CD N N a1 Q 15 Packet Pg. 18 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2023 Planning & Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 396,763 $ 396,763 $ 286,492 -27.79% February 814,630 417,867 595,086 -26.95% March 1,215,923 401,293 913,919 -24.84% April 1,639,139 423,216 1,265,403 -22.80% May 2,055,194 416,055 1,622,646 -21.05% June 2,468,896 413,702 1,934,311 -21.65% July 2,920,497 451,601 2,263,472 -22.50% August 3,344,297 423,800 2,566,672 -23.25% September 3,786,123 441,826 October 4,225,508 439,384 November 4,698,931 473,423 December 5,246,507 547,576 Parks & Recreation Planning & Development 5,500,000 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Yeaz Budget -0-- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2023 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 459,579 $ 459,579 $ 589,720 28.32% February 962,158 502,579 958,125 -0.42% March 1,464,827 502,669 1,386,849 -5.32% April 1,968,317 503,490 1,788,118 -9.15% May 2,483,065 514,748 2,229,794 -10.20% June 3,029,389 546,324 2,623,359 -13.40% July 3,627,065 597,675 3,206,401 -11.60% August 4,246,106 619,041 3,766,096 -11.30% September 4,912,622 666,516 October 5,460,137 547,515 November 6,019,055 558,918 December 6,598,994 579,939 Parks & Recreation 5,500,000 5,000,000 5,500,000 5,000,000 4500,000 4:000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2500,000 2:000,000 1,500,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -+-Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Yeaz *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. O IZ d M C 10 C LL L r.+ C O M N O N N a1 Q 16 Packet Pg. 19 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report - Fund 016 - Building Maintenance Fund 2023 Fund 016 -Building Maintenance Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 106,250 $ 106,250 $ 81,158 -23.62% February 212,500 106,250 97,897 -53.93% March 318,750 106,250 100,936 -68.33% April 425,000 106,250 116,404 -72.61% May 531,250 106,250 35,246 -93.37% June 637,500 106,250 102,751 -83.88% July 743,750 106,250 128,411 -82.73% August 850,000 106,250 128,411 -84.89% September 956,250 106,250 October 1,062,500 106,250 November 1,168,750 106,250 December 1,275,000 106,250 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2023 Facilities Maintenance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 279,527 $ 279,527 $ 335,018 19.85% February 638,903 359,376 935,298 46.39% March 1,011,874 372,971 1,264,752 24.99% April 1,367,475 355,601 1,451,697 6.16% May 1,690,876 323,401 1,803,967 6.69% June 1,957,047 266,171 2,002,414 2.32% July 2,280,286 323,239 2,209,753 -3.09% August 2,699,956 419,669 2,409,557 -10.76% September 3,185,324 485,369 October 3,725,458 540,133 November 4,170,818 445,360 December 4,877,452 706,634 Facilities Maintenance 11500,000 1,000,000 - 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC _Current Year Budget Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. O 1Z d lC C 10 C LL L r.+ C O M N CD tV N a1 Q 17 Packet Pg. 20 I 5.1.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2023 Engineering Cumulative Monthly TFD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast ActuaIs January $ 283,132 $ 283,132 $ 261,418 -7.67% February 567,413 284,281 531,670 -6.30% March 856,666 289,253 807,168 -5.78% April 1,149,630 292,964 1,076,687 -6.34% May 1,470,075 320,445 1,353,969 -7.90% June 1,765,968 295,893 1,652,623 -6.42% July 2,074,354 308,386 1,918,939 -7.49% August 2,376,166 301,813 2,184,156 -8.08% September 2,668,549 292,382 October 2,965,801 297,252 November 3,290,206 324,405 December 3,615,509 325,303 Engine a ring 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 AI 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -CurrentYear Budget Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 00 O Q 4) w f4 C C M s C O M N CD N N 3 3 Q 18 Packet Pg. 21 I 5.1.a I Page 1 of 1 CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount No. Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received 001 GENERAL FUND $ 52,558,830 $ 27,906,485 $ 30,494,023 $ 22,064,807 580/( 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 225,000 112,500 112,500 112,500 500/( 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - - - 00/( 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 447,522 - 446,522 1,000 1000/c 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND - - - - 00/( 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 17,480 28,150 67,766 (50,286) 388% 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND 1,150 3,829 (3,829) % 0C. d 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 200,000 - - 00/( 019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND - - 25,112 (25,112) 00/( V 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 167,650 1,080 1,529 166,121 10/( 10 C 111 STREET FUND 2,015,410 1,096,862 1,330,722 684,688 660/( jL 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 12,366,800 1,744,795 6,092,682 6,274,118 490% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 99,220 111,207 61,711 37,509 620/( C O 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 00/( 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 84,400 67,562 70,876 13,524 840/( N O 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 38,960 13,438 14,332 24,628 370/( C'4 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,660 1,266 1,344 316 810/, 7 a1 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 30,440 23,607 25,022 5,418 820/, Q 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,320,090 1,225,092 977,167 1,342,923 42% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 2,302,980 1,218,626 1,001,589 1,301,391 430% 0 CL 127 GIFTSCATALOGFUND 232,490 2,980,092 176,513 55,977 760/( 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 150,960 165,828 143,170 7,790 950/, TC 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 5,460 2,423 (7,497) 12,957 1370/c C 10 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 51,500 31,845 34,527 16,973 670/( LL 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,430 2,731 2,866 7,564 270/c 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 88,645 76,637 66,649 21,996 750/( 141 AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FUND 65,000 41,142 39,100 25,900 600/( 142 EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND 1,879,000 - 817,937 1,061,063 440/c M 04 143 TREE FUND 215,100 296 3,960 211,140 20/( N 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 309,800 41,009 28,458 281,343 .r 90/( 332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,713,902 1,750,731 1,255,836 1,458,066 460% 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 103,955 89,005 (89,005) 00/( Q 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 11,950,114 6,696,004 7,260,061 4,690,053 610/, y 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 9,095,452 4,776,225 5,533,553 3,561,899 61% 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 16,895,408 12,895,400 12,159,684 4,735,724 720/( 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,991,860 593,173 586,520 1,405,340 .r 290/, Q 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,253,740 1,213,983 1,938,285 2,315,455 460/( 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,634,131 771,593 1,045,016 589,115 640/( $ 124,2199434 $ 6598949888 $ 7199009369 $ 529319,065 580% 19 Packet Pg. 22 I 5.1.a I Page 1 of 1 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND $ 63,970,754 $ 30,838,095 $ 38,672,822 $ 25,297,932 60°/ 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 367,140 190,793 228,623 138,517 62°/ Ol l RISK MANANGEMENT RESERVE FUND 25,000 - - 25,000 0°/ 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,900 - - 5,900 0°/ 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 1,275,000 17,074 128,411 1,146,589 10°/ 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND - - - - 0°/ 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND - - - 0°/ 0 d 019 EDMONDSOPIOID RESPONSE FUND - - - - 0°/ lY 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 45,800 6,291 32,485 13,315 71°/ !a t) Ill STREET FUND 2,746,179 1,442,986 1,852,073 894,106 67°/ 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 11,273,695 1,724,086 5,898,243 5,375,452 52°/ LL 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 207,380 73,879 66,875 140,505 32°/ a' t 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 0°/ _ O 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 95,400 41,735 12,918 82,482 14% 2 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,880 - 825 26,055 3°/ N O 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 322 75 2,925 3°/ cV .r 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 28,500 533 11,950 16,550 42°/ 0 a1 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 4,315,418 1,647,362 1,488,715 2,826,703 34°/ Q 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 2,227,383 634,710 426,840 1,800,543 19°/ 127 GIFTSCATALOGFUND 551,598 20,135 199,537 352,061 36°/ 0 CL 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 291,530 131,408 171,894 119,636 59°/ 136 PARKSTRUST FUND 216,062 2,687 161,439 54,623 75°/ TC 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND 50,000 - - 50,000 0°/ C 10 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 11,900 70 488 11,412 4% LL 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 88,575 41,606 43,541 45,034 49% >, 142 EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND 1,879,000 503,581 1,097,143 781,857 58°/ 143 TREE FUND 239,800 - - 239,800 0°/ 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 309,800 41,009 37,745 272,055 12°/ M 04 332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,255,647 3,853,592 1,222,313 1,033,334 54°/ N 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 11,949,308 4,374,091 6,202,286 5,747,022 .r 52°/ 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 8,525,900 3,124,310 3,489,601 5,036,299 41°/ Q 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 18,972,999 10,958,789 9,890,999 9,082,000 52°/ 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,989,820 589,342 574,892 1,414,928 29°/ _ d t 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,966,825 819,901 2,245,174 2,721,651 45°/ v 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,943,624 953,307 1,267,203 676,421 65°/ :+ .r Q $ 140,855,817 $ 62,031,692 $ 75,425,111 $ 65,430,706 540/ 20 Packet Pg. 23 5.1.a Page 1 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received TAXES: 1 REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX $ 11,327,000 $ 5,791,640 $ 5,868,802 $ 5,458,198 520N 2 EMSPROPERTYTAX 4,578,000 2,306,797 2,353,857 2,224,143 5101( 3 VOTED PROPERTY TAX 500 32 4 496 10N 4 LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 1 11,900,000 7,348,080 7,597,605 4,302,395 640/( 5 NATURAL GAS USE TAX 7,600 12,868 10,133 (2,533) 1330/( 6 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 1,150,000 674,591 689,255 460,745 600N 7 ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,900,000 1,224,526 1,261,884 638,116 660/( 8 GASUTILITYTAX 845,000 590,667 680,160 164,840 800N 9 SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 384,000 239,562 274,405 109,595 71% 10 WATERUTILITYTAX 1,000,234 575,820 633,755 366,479 630/( 0 11 SEWERUTILITYTAX 942,960 555,978 673,646 269,314 710/( y 12 STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 621,458 423,053 439,078 182,380 710/( 13 T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 850,000 549,077 547,889 302,111 640/( 14 TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 773,000 308,018 273,614 499,386 350/( 2 15 PULLTABSTAX 80,200 56,600 51,319 28,881 640/( q 16 AMUSEMENT GAMES 350 - 22 328 6% C 17 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 326,000 230,182 236,093 89,907 72% T 36,686,302 20,887,490 21,591,520 15,094,782 59% t LICENSES AND PERMITS: _ 18 FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE 250 150 50 200 200N O 19 POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 700 25 630 70 900/( 20 VENDINGMACHINE/CONCESSION 94,500 52,135 58,125 36,375 620/( N 21 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST702,700 523,616 521,826 180,874 740N N 22 FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 41,000 23,804 21,801 19,199 530N +� 23 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-ZIPLY FIBER 100,600 35,890 28,403 72,197 280N 24 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 450,000 291,170 331,302 118,698 740/( 25 GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 250,000 159,903 166,403 83,597 670/( Q 26 DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 80,000 68,735 69,945 10,055 870/( 27 RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 30,000 30,173 13,962 16,038 470/( p 28 BUILDINGPERMITS 750,600 524,071 236,161 514,439 310/( d 29 FIRE PERMIT - - 5,600 (5,600) 00/( 30 ENGINEERING PERMIT - - 57,062 (57,062) 00/( 31 ANIMAL LICENSES 24,000 12,287 13,631 10,369 570/( 'v 32 STREET AND CURB PERMIT 75,000 69,291 21,134 53,866 280/( 33 STREET AND CURB PERMIT W/LEASEHOLD TAX - - 5,280 (5,280) 0% 34 OT R NON -BUS LIC/P ERMIT S 20,000 - 12,971 7,029 650/( LL 35 SPECIAL EVENT REVIEW - 14,653 601 (601) 00/( Z. 2,619,350 1,805,903 1,564,887 1,054,463 60% c INTERGOVERNMENTAL: O 36 FEDERAL GRANTS- BUDGET ONLY 166,309 - - 166,309 00/( 37 DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 9,000 5,237 - 9,000 00/( M 38 WA SASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT - 992 24,921 (24,921) 0% p 39 HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 11,100 718 11,464 (364) 1030N N 40 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 1,494,875 - 79,960 1,414,915 501( M 41 HOUSING TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM (CHIP) 1,361,011 - 1,361,011 00/( 42 STATE GRANTS- BUDGET ONLY 244,645 - 244,645 00/( Q 43 STATE GRANT FROM OTHER JUDICIAL AGENCIES 161,004 - - 161,004 00N 44 WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT - 307 - - 00/( _ 45 SCHOOL ZONE - - 1,337 (1,337) 00/( 46 WASHINGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION 34,000 2,000 3,000 31,000 90% t 47 PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 210,500 214,277 219,274 (8,774) 1040N 48 TRIAL COURT IMPROVEMENT 16,740 10,776 10,676 6,064 640% 49 CJ- POPULATION 13,070 10,942 11,529 1,541 88% Q 50 CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS 50,600 38,827 40,722 9,878 800/( 51 MARIJUANA EXCISE TAX DISTRIBUTION 125,000 49,330 51,603 73,397 410N 52 DUI - CITIES 4,500 3,497 1,540 2,960 340/( 53 FIRE INS PREMIUM TAX - 56,744 75,698 (75,698) 00/( 54 LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 325,000 221,986 230,427 94,573 710/( 55 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 343,200 166,379 164,299 178,901 480/( 56 MISCELLANEOUS INTERLOCAL REVENUE - 13,780 500 (500) 00/( 57 FIRST RESPONDERS FLEX FUND 1,000 279 90 910 90/( 58 DISCOVERY PROGRAMS TECHNOLOGY ACQ. 550 - - 550 00% 59 AWC - SEEK FUND - 3,108 - - 00/( 4,572,104 799,178 927,038 3,645,066 200% 2022 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax revenues are $249,525 higher than 2021 revenue& Please also see pages pages 5 & 6. 21 Packet Pg. 24 5.1.a Page 2 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: 1 RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMENTS 2 ATM SURCHARGE FEES 3 CREDIT CARD FEES 4 COURT RECORD SERVICES 5 D/M COURT REC SER 6 WARRANT PREPARATION FEE 7 IT TIME PAY FEE 8 MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURREXPEN 9 CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 10 PHOTOCOPIES 11 POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 12 ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 13 ELECTION CANDIDATE FILINGFEES 14 CUSTODIAL SERVICES(SNO-ISLE) 15 PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 16 POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 17 CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 18 WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 19 MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 20 FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 21 LEGAL SERVICES 22 ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 23 BOOKING FEES 24 FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 25 EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 26 EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 27 FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 28 ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 29 ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 30 BUILDINGPLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION 31 FIRE PLAN REVIEW 32 PLANNINGREVIEW AND INSPECTION 33 S.E.P.A. REVIEW 34 ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION 35 CRITICAL AREA STUDY 36 GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 37 PROGRAM FEES 38 HOLIDAY MARKET REGISTRATION FEES 39 UPTOWN EVENINGMARKET FEES 40 WINTER MARKET FEES 41 EDMONDS COMMUNITY FAIR FEES 42 BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 43 INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS $ 3,000 $ 3,669 $ 1,758 $ 1,242 590% 600 191 183 417 310% 6,000 441 - 6,000 00/( 150 1 - 150 00/( 300 - - 300 00/( 4,000 98 - 4,000 00/( 1,000 56 71 929 70% 50 128 178 (128) 3560/( 25,000 - - 25,000 00/( 100 51 32 68 320% 1,000 - - 1,000 00/( 190,000 158,135 35,031 154,969 180% 1,400 2,885 - 1,400 00/( 100,000 67,173 39,959 60,041 400/( 5,000 3,048 39,189 (34,189) 7840/( 30,000 5,201 7,482 22,518 250/( 14,000 3,169 1,684 12,316 120/( 210,970 105,485 170,569 40,401 810/( - 25 20 (20) 00/( 67,000 49,842 59,319 7,681 890% 1,050 702 - 1,050 00/( 38,000 12,578 7,049 30,951 190/( 3,000 431 172 2,828 60% 10,000 20,497 20,649 (10,649) 2060/( 3,500 721 647 2,853 180/( 1,077,500 486,524 611,546 465,954 570/( 5,000 2,356 4,262 738 850/( - - 100 (100) 00% 65,600 74,573 17,064 48,536 260/( 425,000 272,848 583,529 (158,529) 1370/( 4,000 10,951 16,379 (12,379) 4090% 500 110 57,895 (57,395) 115790/( 3,000 5,180 1,585 1,415 530/( - - 81,012 (81,012) 00/( 14,000 11,860 11,742 2,258 840/( 13,000 1,437 5,185 7,815 400/( 990,959 517,352 666,681 324,278 670/( 5,000 2,895 4,400 600 880/( 5,000 4,690 - 5,000 00/( 5,000 7,430 9,005 (4,005) 1800/( - - 560 (560) 00/( 1,000 645 - 1,000 00/( 3,427,765 1,998,554 2,481,508 946,257 720/( 6,757,444 3,831,933 4,936,444 1,821,000 730% Q 22 Packet Pg. 25 5.1.a Page 3 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received FINES AND PENALTIES: 1 PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 2 TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 3 NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 4 TRAFFIC CAMERA INFRACTIONS 5 CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 6 CURRENT TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS 7 NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 8 OTHER INFRACTIONS'04 9 PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 10 PARKANDDISZONE 11 DWI PENALTIES 12 DUI - DP ACCT 13 CRIM CNV FEE DUI 14 DUI - DP FEE 15 CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 16 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 17 CRIM CONV FEE CT 18 OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 19 OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 20 COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 21 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 22 CRIM CONV FEE CN 23 PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 24 BANK CHARGE FOR CONY. DEFENDANT 25 COURT COST RECOUPMENT 26 BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 27 MISC FINES AND PENALTIES MISCELLANEOUS: 28 INVESTMENT INTEREST 29 INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 30 INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 31 LOAN INTEREST 32 SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 33 BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 34 LEASESLONGTERM 35 DONATION/CONTRIBUTION 36 PARKSDONATIONS 37 BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 38 POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 39 SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 40 SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 41 CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 42 OTHERJUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 43 POLICE JUDGMENTS✓RESTITUTION 44 CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES 45 OTHER MISC REVENUES 46 SMALL OVERPAYMENT 47 NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 48 NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 49 NSF FEES - DEVEL SERV DEPT 50 L&I STAY AT WORK PROGRAM 51 US BANK REBATE TRANSFER IN: 52 INSURANCE RECOVERIES 53 INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM FUND 011 53 INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM FUND 136 52 TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 TO TAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 2,000 $ 1,075 $ 1,403 $ 597 700/( 130,000 52,648 49,653 80,347 380% 18,000 2,904 1,155 16,845 60/( 50,000 - - 50,000 00/( 10,000 3,697 1,481 8,519 1501( - - 44,010 (44,010) 00/( 1,000 - 5,486 (4,486) 5490/( 1,500 807 1,322 179 880/( 125,000 22,782 7,030 117,970 60% 2,000 364 739 1,261 370/( 7,000 2,578 2,653 4,347 380/( 300 63 1 299 00/( 100 18 - 100 00% 1,500 1,078 1,033 467 690/( 25,000 7,145 5,419 19,581 220/( 2,000 1,050 863 1,137 430/( 700 103 8 692 10% 100 - 100 0 1000/( 12,000 14,673 241 11,759 20/( 800 27 100 700 130/( 1,000 234 91 909 90% 200 - - 200 00/( 6,000 2,058 1,088 4,912 180/( 4,000 2,649 3,451 549 860/( 1,000 295 909 91 910/( 1,000 75 - 1,000 00/( 150 - - 150 00/( 402,350 116,322 128,236 274,114 32% 321,240 163,284 116,892 204,348 360/( 10,960 6,295 42,201 (31,241) 3850/( 12,180 3,372 1,781 10,399 1501( 12,080 - - 12,080 00/( 175,000 116,554 123,353 51,647 700/( 2,100 - - 2,100 00/( 210,000 137,479 150,871 59,129 720/( 1,500 239 105 1,395 70% 3,500 5,050 16,500 (13,000) 4710/( 1,500 2,015 1,500 - 1000/( 5,000 249 - 5,000 00/( 300 432 7,551 (7,251) 25170/( 3,800 2,825 3,055 745 800/( 2,000 - - 2,000 00/( 146,000 - 49,007 96,993 340/( 200 100 87 113 440/( - 734 14 (14) 00/( 5,000 5,185 21,932 (16,932) 4390/( 100 36 1 99 10/( 100 30 30 70 300/( 150 60 - 150 00/( - 30 34 (34) 00/( - - 8,702 (8,702) 00/( 8,500 8,541 7,494 1,006 880/( 921,210 452,508 551,109 370,101 600/( 500,000 - 722,723 (222,723) 1450% 25,000 - - 25,000 00/4 75,070 - 72,066 3,004 960% - 13,150 - - 00% 600,070 13,150 794,789 (194,719) 1320% $ 52,558,830 $ 27,906,485 $ 30,494,023 $ 22,064,807 580% O d is C �0 C 1L T t r C O 2 M N 0 N N a1 Q 23 Packet Pg. 26 I 5.1.a I Page 1 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 23,174,368 $ 11,566,780 $ 14,226,353 $ 8,948,015 610% 2 OVERTIME 649,080 707,645 629,691 19,389 970/( 3 HOLIDAY BUY BACK 294,001 10,798 9,101 284,900 30% 4 BENEFITS 7,959,238 4,296,030 5,082,004 2,877,234 640% 5 UNIFORMS 130,851 62,059 100,881 29,970 770% 6 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 165,023 56,412 55,264 109,759 330% 7 SUPPLIES 770,473 303,731 316,673 453,800 410/( 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 307,791 133,370 220,916 86,875 720/( 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 21,173,217 9,848,837 12,524,553 8,648,664 590/( 10 COMMUNICATIONS 241,295 111,924 147,899 93,396 610% 11 TRAVEL 86,242 38,761 75,567 10,675 880/( 12 EXCISE TAXES 16,500 19,269 17,234 (734) 1040% 13 RENTAL/LEASE 2,869,548 1,337,275 1,795,429 1,074,119 630/( 14INSURANCE 625,650 503,160 625,650 (0) 1000/( 15 UTILITIES 663,800 368,306 438,587 225,213 660/( 16 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 673,900 291,805 543,256 130,644 810% 17 MISCELLANEOUS 673,640 361,502 393,700 279,940 580% 18 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 1000/( 19 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,341,982 542,500 986,522 355,460 740% 20 BUILDINGS 500,000 81,116 285,637 214,363 570/( 21 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 430,000 74,310 74,690 355,310 170/( 22 CONST RUCT IONS PROJECTS 800,565 - 7,480 793,085 10% 23 PRINCIPAL PAYMENT LEASES 50,000 - 50,000 00% 24 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 191,620 - - 191,620 00% 25 INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 131,470 72,294 65,733 65,737 5001( 26 OTHER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 500 212 - 500 00% 33,970,754 30,838,095 38,672,822 25,297,932 600/( LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE(009) 27 BENEFITS $ 206,650 $ 122,185 $ 115,248 $ 91,402 560% 28 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 152,990 54,419 113,375 39,615 740% 29 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 13,704 - 7,000 00% 30 MISCELLANEOUS 500 485 - 500 00/( 367,140 190,793 228,623 138,517 62% RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) 31 MISCELLANEOUS $ 25,000 S - $ - $ 25,000 00/( 25,000 - 25,000 00% HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFTFUND (014) 32 SUPPLIES $ 100 $ $ - $ 100 00/( 33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 - 200 00/( 34 MISCELLANEOUS 5,600 - 5,600 00/( 5,900 - 5,900 00/( BUILDING MAINTENANCEFUND (016) 35 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 121,500 $ 450 $ - $ 121,500 00/( 36 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE 1,153,500 16,072 15,468 1,138,032 10/( 37 BUILDINGS - - 112,943 (112,943) 00/( 38 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 552 - - 00/( 1,275,000 17,074 128,411 1,146,589 10% DRUG ENFORCEMINTFUND (104) 39 SMALL EQUIPMENT $ - $ - $ 32,485 $ (32,485) 00/( 40 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45,000 - 45,000 00/( 41 REPAIR/MAINT 800 - - 800 00/( 42 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 6,291 - - 00/( 45,800 6,291 32,485 13,315 71% O CL d is C �0 C 1L T t r.+ C O 2 M N O N N a1 O Q 24 Packet Pg. 27 I 5.1.a I Page 2 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent STREETFUND (111) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 1,154,552 $ 462,854 $ 710,426 $ 444,126 620/( 2 OVERTIME 38,400 24,130 21,302 17,098 550% 3 BENEFITS 440,911 226,436 290,447 150,464 660% 4 UNIFORMS 6,000 4,013 4,404 1,596 730% 5 SUPPLIES 263,000 146,628 133,415 129,585 5101( 6 SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,000 985 6,250 13,750 310/( 7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 23,210 14,644 7,121 16,089 310% 8 COMMUNICATIONS 4,500 4,770 3,941 559 880/( 9 TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 00/( 10 RENTAL/LEASE 304,730 194,613 204,616 100,114 670/( 11 INSURANCE 126,466 184,111 126,467 (1) 1000% 12 UTILITIES 273,730 153,717 158,990 114,740 580/( 13 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 52,000 22,493 12,550 39,450 240% 14 MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 3,408 6,642 1,358 830% 15 BUILDINGS 25,000 - - 25,000 00/( 16 OTHERIMPROVEMENTS - 165,353 (165,353) 00% 17 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 4,380 - - 4,380 00/( 18 INTEREST 300 185 149 151 500% COMBINED STREErCONST/IMPROVE(112) 19 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 21 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 22 LAND 23 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 24 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 25 INTEREST MUNIC IPAL ARTS AC Q UIS. FUND (117) 26 SUPPLIES 27 SMALL EQUIPMENT 28 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 29 TRAVEL 30 RENTAL/LEASE 31 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 32 MISCELLANEOUS HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) 33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 34 MISCELLANEOUS 35 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) 36 SUPPLIES 37 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) 38 SUPPLIES 39 MISCELLANEOUS TO URIS M PRO MO 110 NAL FUND/ARTS (123) 40 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 2,746,179 $ 1,442,986 $ 1,852,073 $ 894,106 670% $ 3,817,980 $ 870,330 $ 1,184,703 $ 2,633,277 310% 1,139,535 1,433 1,074,099 65,436 940/( 172,650 - 21,388 151,262 120% 270,000 69,759 - 270,000 00/( 5,818,580 709,132 3,563,125 2,255,455 610% 54,070 72,201 54,058 12 1000/( 880 1,230 869 11 990/( $ 11,273,695 $ 1,724,086 $ 5,898,243 $ 5,375,452 520/( $ 4,700 $ 930 $ 924 $ 3,776 200% 1,700 - - 1,700 00% 191,000 70,609 61,269 129,731 320% 80 - - 80 00/( 3,000 32 2,968 10% 300 - - 300 00/( 6,600 2,340 4,650 1,950 700/( $ 207,380 $ 73,879 $ 66,875 $ 140,505 320% $ 90,400 $ 39,735 $ 10,918 $ 79,482 120% 1,000 - - 1,000 00/( 4,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 500% $ 95,400 $ 41,735 $ 12,918 $ 82,482 140/( $ 1,790 $ $ 825 $ 965 460% 25,090 - 25,090 00% $ 26,880 $ $ 825 $ 26,055 30% $ - $ 322 $ - $ - 00% 3,000 - 75 2,925 30/( $ 3,000 $ 322 $ 75 $ 2,925 30% $ 28,500 $ 533 $ 11,950 $ 16,550 420% $ 28,500 $ 533 $ 11,950 $ 16,550 420% E Q 25 Packet Pg. 28 I 5.1.a I Page 3 of 6 C TIY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %, Spent REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (125) 1 SUPPLIES $ - $ 13,609 $ - $ - 00% 2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 616,867 673,830 311,806 305,061 5101( 3 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 1,148,910 98,419 303,833 845,077 260% 4 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 5,684 - - 5,684 00/( 5 LAND 200,000 - 77,708 122,292 390/( 6 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,343,957 861,504 795,368 1,548,589 340/( $ 4,315,418 $ 1,647,362 $ 1,488,715 $ 2,826,703 340/( REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 (126) 7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 9 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 10 LAND 11 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 12 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 13 INTEREST 14 OTHER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) 15 SALARIES AND WAGES 16 OVERTIME 17 BENEFIT S 18 SUPPLIES 19 SMALL EQUIPMENT 20 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 21 RENTAL/LEASE 22 MISCELLANEOUS 23 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES CE EYERYMAINTEVANCF/IMPROVEMEVT(130) 24 SALARIES AND WAGES 25 OVERTIME 26 BENEFIT S 27 UNIFORMS 28 SUPPLIES 29 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 30 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 31 COMMUNICATIONS 32 TRAVEL 33 RENTAL/LEASE 34 UTILITIES 35 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 36 MISCELLANEOUS PARKS TRUSTFUND (136) 37 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 38 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES C EVIEIERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND (137) 39 SMALL EQUIPMENT SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) 40 SUPPLIES 41 TRAVEL 42 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS IMPROVOUIENTDISTRICTFUND (140) 43 SUPPLIES 44 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 45 MISCELLANEOUS EDMONDS RISCUEPLAN FUND (142) 46 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREE FUND (143) 47 SUPPLIES 48 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 49 LAND $ 292,065 $ 454,508 $ 247,766 $ 44,299 850/( 578,340 16,897 26,392 551,948 501( 148,575 10,138 - 148,575 00% 100,000 - 100,000 - 1000/( 848,963 97,473 - 848,963 00/( 155,470 - - 155,470 00/( 103,970 55,314 51,982 51,988 5001( - 380 700 (700) 00% $ 2,227,383 $ 634,710 $ 426,840 $ 1,800,543 190% $ 241,455 $ $ 96,158 $ 145,297 400/( - 5,791 (5,791) 00X 89,033 43,015 46,018 480/( 146,000 6,985 42,552 103,448 290/( 500 - - 500 00/( 56,500 - 56,500 00/( 17,510 11,673 5,837 670/( 600 - 348 252 580/( - 13,150 - - 00/( $ 551,598 $ 20,135 $ 199,537 $ 352,061 360X $ 172,817 $ 68,800 $ 91,496 $ 81,321 530/( 3,500 788 1,712 1,788 490/( 61,328 26,324 34,363 26,965 560/( 1,000 - - 1,000 00/( 7,000 1,986 3,803 3,197 540/( 20,000 12,959 18,667 1,333 930/( 4,200 1,150 3,248 952 770/( 1,700 1,148 1,152 548 680/( 500 - - 500 00/( 9,420 7,850 6,332 3,089 670/( 5,565 2,885 3,823 1,742 690/( 500 3,536 - 500 00X 4,000 3,981 7,299 (3,299) 1820/( $ 291,530 $ 131,408 $ 171,894 $ 119,636 590/( $ 43,842 $ 2,687 $ - $ 43,842 00% 172,220 - 161,439 10,781 940% $ 216,062 $ 2,687 $ 161,439 $ 54,623 750/( $ 50,000 $ $ $ 50,000 00/( $ 50,000 $ $ $ 50,000 00/( $ 1,500 $ $ 24 $ 1,476 20/( 4,500 - 4,500 00% 5,900 70 464 5,436 80/( $ 11,900 $ 70 $ 488 $ 11,412 40/( $ 4,091 $ 6,232 $ 7,212 $ (3,121) 1760/( 78,327 34,556 35,119 43,208 450% 6,157 817 1,210 4,947 200/( 88,575 41,606 43,541 45,034 490% $ 1,879,000 $ 503,581 $ 1,097,143 $ 781,857 580/( 1,879,000 503,581 1,097,143 781,857 580% 1,000 $ $ - $ 1,000 00X 39,800 - 39,800 00% 199,000 - 199,000 0% O d is C O C U- T t r C O 2 M N O N N a1 Q Packet Pg. 29 1 I 5.1.a I Page 4 of 6 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 2012 LTGO DEBTSERVIC FUND (231) 1 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND $ 235,000 $ - $ - $ 235,000 09 2 INTEREST 74,800 41,009 37,395 37,405 509 3 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - - 350 (350) 09 $ 309,800 $ 41,009 $ 37,745 $ 272,055 129 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (332) 4 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 5 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 7 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 8 INTEREST WATER FUND (421) 9 SALARIES AND WAGES 10 OVERTIME 11 BENEFIT S 12 UNIFORMS 13 SUPPLIES 14 WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 15 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 16 SMALL EQUIPMENT 17 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18 COMMUNICATIONS 19 TRAVEL 20 EXCISE TAXES 21 RENTAL/LEASE 22 INSURANCE 23 UTILITIES 24 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 25 MISCELLANEOUS 26 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 27 BUILDINGS 28 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 29 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 30 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 31 REVENUE BONDS 32 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 33 INTEREST 34 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS S TO RM FUND (422) 35 SALARIES AND WAGES 36 OVERTIME 37 BENEFITS 38 UNIFORMS 39 SUPPLIES 40 SMALL EQUIPMENT 41 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 42 COMMUNICATIONS 43 TRAVEL 44 EXCISE TAXES 45 RENTAL/LEASE 46 INSURANCE 47 UTILITES 48 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 49 MISCELLANEOUS 50 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 51 LAND 52 BUILDINGS 53 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 54 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 55 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 56 REVENUE BONDS 57 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 58 INTEREST 59 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS $ - $ 62,656 $ - $ - 09 1,352,620 413,383 141,867 1,210,753 109 805,377 3,351,494 1,056,621 (251,244) 1319 50,000 - - 50,000 M 47,650 26,059 23,825 23,825 .-. 509 $ 2,255,647 $ 3,853,592 $ 1,222,313 $ 1,033,334 549 0M $ 1,205,783 $ 500,022 $ 668,112 $ 537,671 d 559 24,000 10,723 13,289 10,711 559 0 440,577 212,705 263,493 177,084 609 C 4,000 3,008 3,614 386 9M C 150,000 100,107 100,766 49,234 679 li 2,398,000 1,117,721 1,259,858 1,138,142 539 T 180,000 103,147 104,485 75,515 589 t 13,500 3,749 6,730 6,770 509 C 2,256,928 605,340 952,559 1,304,369 429 0 35,000 22,132 23,236 11,764 669 2 200 - 462 (262) 2319 N 1,696,934 878,124 963,171 733,763 579 N 202,496 100,333 126,202 76,294 629 225,380 122,359 225,379 1 1009 35,000 20,920 21,767 13,233 629 71,130 23,457 19,972 51,158 289 Q 123,600 127,434 165,003 (41,403) 646,370 194,533 189,888 456,482 299 12,500 - - 12,500 0 09 CL 10,000 10,044 5,943 4,057 599 4) 1,670,000 87,212 969,308 700,692 589 _ 2,940 - - 2,940 09 R 333,830 - - 333,830 09 C 25,840 25,839 25,839 1 1009 C 185,300 104,805 92,769 92,531 509 li 378 444 (444) 09 A $ 11,949,308 $ 4,374,091 $ 6,202,286 $ 5,747,022 529 t $ 1,113,757 $ 506,826 $ 735,908 $ 377,850 669 26,000 10,792 8,865 17,135 349 398,973 211,243 261,965 137,008 669 6,500 5,543 4,928 1,572 769 46,000 30,970 22,233 23,767 489 4,000 985 1,713 2,287 4M 3,143,445 977,092 1,056,007 2,087,438 349 3,200 4,246 4,272 (1,072) 13M 4,300 1,982 - 4,300 09 499,658 483,110 501,645 (1,987) 1009 307,168 175,270 195,513 111,655 649 31,679 82,335 31,680 (1) 1009 10,500 9,726 10,075 425 969 189,130 12,663 11,602 177,528 69 232,300 131,483 155,847 76,453 679 283,341 74,810 72,689 210,652 269 680,000 - - 680,000 09 25,000 - - 25,000 M 56,474 - 12,536 43,938 229 1,031,645 281,617 285,112 746,533 289 107,290 - - 107,290 M 160,870 - - 160,870 09 61,600 61,590 61,590 10 1009 103,070 61,859 55,231 47,839 549 - 165 193 (193) M $ 8,525,900 $ 3,124,310 $ 3,489,601 $ 5,036,299 419 27 Packet Pg. 30 I 5.1.a I Page 5 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent SEWER FUND (423) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 3,159,792 $ 1,201,082 $ 2,047,088 $ 1,112,704 6M 2 OVERTIME 130,000 87,349 103,632 26,368 80° 3 BENEFITS 1,043,665 481,116 723,222 320,443 69° 4 UNIFORMS 11,500 7,815 8,348 3,152 7M 5 SUPPLIES 453,000 181,945 312,294 140,706 699 6 FUEL CONSUMED 20,000 - - 20,000 09 7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 5,000 - - 5,000 00 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 83,900 104,243 8,642 75,258 100 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,587,949 1,600,151 1,792,655 795,294 694 10 COMMUNICATIONS 48,000 31,615 31,534 16,466 66° 11 TRAVEL 5,000 - 144 4,856 M 12 EXCISE TAXES 1,026,360 703,057 823,454 202,906 8W 13 RENTAL/LEASE 344,978 212,297 212,753 132,225 629 14 INSURANCE 360,663 203,936 364,070 (3,407) 1019 15 UTILITIES 3,607,060 1,650,769 2,223,615 1,383,445 62° 16 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 728,630 726,075 328,325 400,305 4M 17 MISCELLANEOUS 138,350 172,681 237,006 (98,656) 1719 18 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,588,089 1,175,403 326,829 1,261,260 219 19 BUILDINGS 12,500 - - 12,500 09 20 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 68,126 - - 09 21 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,976,163 1,989,039 61,040 2,915,123 29 22 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 129,820 - - 129,820 00 23 REVENUE BONDS 55,310 - - 55,310 00 24 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 104,000 174,591 103,986 14 10M 25 INTEREST 353,270 182,515 177,781 175,489 5W 26 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 4,985 4,582 (4,582) M $ 18,972,999 $ 10,958,789 $ 9,890,999 $ 9,082,000 52° BOND RESERVE FUND (424) 27 REVENUE BONDS $ 840,010 $ - $ - $ 840,010 09 28 INTEREST 1,149,810 589,342 574,892 574,918 509 $ 1,989,820 $ 589,342 $ 574,892 $ 1,414,928 299 Q 28 Packet Pg. 31 5.1.a Page 6 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 395,171 $ 195,698 $ 261,308 $ 133,863 669 2 OVERTIME 2,000 222 878 1,122 449 3 BENEFITS 132,345 67,420 84,833 47,512 649 4 UNIFORMS 1,500 934 1,253 247 849 5 SUPPLIES 149,120 65,962 78,355 70,765 5M 6 FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - - 1,000 M 7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 458,880 245,831 194,092 264,788 429 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 58,000 3,264 2,850 55,150 59 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 46,750 999 1,023 45,727 29 10 COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,428 1,938 1,062 659 11 TRAVEL 1,000 - 1,870 (870) 1879 12 RENTAL/LEASE 17,470 6,930 11,170 6,300 649 13 INSURANCE 50,178 51,903 52,373 (2,195) 1049 14 UTILITIES 14,000 12,863 14,291 (291) 1029 15 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 60,000 34,785 39,914 20,086 679 16 MISCELLANEOUS 12,000 5,976 8,170 3,830 689 17 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 3,564,411 125,685 1,490,854 2,073,557 429 $ 4,966,825 $ 819,901 $ 2,245,174 $ 2,721,651 459 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND (512) 18 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 657,771 $ 212,735 $ 376,510 $ 281,261 579 19 OVERTIME 2,000 880 225 1,775 119 20 BENEFITS 191,954 81,260 136,359 55,595 719 21 SUPPLIES 5,000 5,389 4,862 138 979 22 SMALL EQUIPMENT 181,800 32,987 81,813 99,987 459 23 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 61,860 29,809 31,832 30,028 519 24 COMMUNICATIONS 58,770 47,356 51,602 7,168 889 25 TRAVEL 1,500 - - 1,500 09 26 RENTAL/LEASE 4,640 2,973 1,094 3,546 249 27 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 666,729 286,312 559,700 107,029 849 28 MISCELLANEOUS 55,600 1,719 10,147 45,453 189 29 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 56,000 251,887 13,060 42,940 239 $ 1,943,624 $ 953,307 $ 1,267,203 $ 676,421 659 TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS $ 140,855,817 $ 62,031,692 $ 75,425,111 $ 65,430,706 549 Q 29 Packet Pg. 32 5.1.a Page 1 of 1 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL OFFICE OF MAYOR HUMAN RESOURCES MUNICIPAL COURT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CITY ATTORNEY NON -DEPARTMENTAL POLICE SERVICES SATELLITE OFFICE COMMUNITY SERVICES✓ECONOMIC DEV. PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM PARKS& RECREATION PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE $ 486,719 $ 215,904 $ 283,971 $ 202,748 58% 505,239 238,242 259,788 245,451 51 % 1,297,746 620,253 605,627 692,119 47% 1,827,709 799,325 980,820 846,889 54% 2,502,670 1,416,372 1,715,648 787,022 69% C 1,161,780 622,645 559,282 602,498 48% y 18,488,589 9,457,188 12,600,704 5,887,885 68% 14,826,373 8,195,392 9,201,003 5,625,370 62% C �0 230,681 56,281 69,152 161,529 30% LL 1,312,555 362,340 872,904 439,651 67% 2' t 5,246,507 2,289,744 2,566,672 2,679,835 49% r 324,650 87,457 168,503 156,147 52% 2 M N 6,598,994 3,003,579 3,766,096 2,832,898 57% N 4,283,090 2,015,568 2,613,096 1,669,994 61 % u) 4,877,452 1,457,804 2,409,557 2,467,895 49% 0 Q $ 63,970,754 $ 30,838,095 $ 38,672,822 $ 25,297,932 60% a.i CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY Title 2023 Amended Budget 8/31/2022 Expenditures 8/31/2023 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent WATER UTILITY FUND $ 11,949,308 $ 4,374,091 $ 6,202,286 $ 5,747,022 52% STORM UTILITY FUND 8,525,900 3,124,310 3,489,601 5,036,299 41% SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 18,972,999 10,958,789 9,890,999 9,082,000 52% BOND RESERVE FUND 1,989,820 589,342 574,892 1,414,928 29% $ 41,438,027 $ 19,046,533 $ 20,157,779 $ 21,280,248 49% 30 Packet Pg. 33 I 5.1.a I Page 1 of 2 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title 2023 Amended Budget 8/31/2022 Expenditures 8/31/2023 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES AND WAGES $ 219,276 $ 122,982 $ 148,536 $ 70,740 68% BENEFITS 103,845 61,298 69,158 34,687 67% SUPPLIES 11,000 1,498 1,290 9,710 12% SERVICES 152,598 30,127 64,987 87,611 43% $ 486,719 $ 215,904 $ 283,971 $ 202,748 58% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES AND WAGES $ 282,988 $ 165,708 $ 173,620 $ 109,368 61% BENEFITS 90,087 56,969 59,588 30,499 66% SUPPLIES 1,500 1,732 1,118 382 75% SERVICES 130,664 13,834 25,462 105,202 19% $ 505,239 $ 238,242 $ 259,788 S 245,451 51% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES AND WAGES $ 782,258 $ 315,329 $ 341,118 $ 441,140 44% BENEFITS 243,609 106,562 128,059 115,550 53% SUPPLIES 13,600 809 2,318 11,282 17% SERVICES 258,279 197,553 134,132 124,147 52% $ 1,297,746 $ 620,253 $ 605,627 $ 692,119 47% MUNIC IPAL C O URT SALARIES AND WAGES $ 1,234,740 $ 510,169 $ 655,795 $ 578,945 53% BENEFITS 345,764 159,108 202,655 143,109 59% SUPPLIES 23,048 7,305 8,083 14,965 35% SERVICES 224,157 122,743 114,288 109,869 51% $ 1,827,709 $ 799,325 $ 980,820 $ 846,889 54% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES AND WAGES $ 1,601,894 $ 870,896 $ 1,113,280 $ 488,614 69% BENEFITS 465,703 273,609 318,237 147,466 68% SUPPLIES 13,000 7,761 5,566 7,434 43% SERVICES 422,073 264,107 278,565 143,508 66% $ 2,502,670 $ 1,416,372 $ 1,715,648 $ 787,022 69% C ITY ATTORNEY SERVICES $ 1,161,780 $ 622,645 $ 559,282 $ 602,498 48% $ 1,161,780 $ 622,645 $ 559,282 $ 602,498 48% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES AND WAGES $ 101,750 $ - $ $ 101,750 0% BENEFITS 239,583 87,443 85,261 154,322 36% SUPPLIES 5,000 - - 5,000 0% SERVICES 16,426,684 8,704,740 11,413,187 5,013,497 69% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,391,982 592,500 1,036,522 355,460 74% DEBT SERVICE - PRINCIPAL 191,620 - - 191,620 0% DEBT SERVICE - INTEREST' 131,970 72,505 65,733 66,237 50% $ 18,488,589 $ 9,457,188 $ 12,600,704 $ 5,887,885 68% PO LIC E S ERVIC ES SALARIES AND WAGES $ 9,366,760 $ 5,255,688 $ 5,707,500 $ 3,659,260 61% BENEFITS 3,280,628 1,865,396 2,041,304 1,239,324 62% SUPPLIES 342,941 168,530 190,497 152,444 56% SERVICES 1,786,044 837,076 1,234,328 551,716 69% DEBT SERVICE - PRINCIPAL 50,000 - - 50,000 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 68,702 27,373 (27,373) 0% $ 14,826,373 $ 8,195,392 $ 9,201,003 $ 5,625,370 62% S ATELLITE O FFIC E SALARIES AND WAGES $ 38,537 $ 1,449 $ 29,120 $ 9,417 76% BENEFITS 7,298 274 15,970 (8,672) 219% SUPPLIES 17,000 11,057 226 16,774 1% SERVICES 167,846 43,501 23,836 144,010 14% $ 230,681 $ 56,281 $ 69,152 $ 161,529 30% O CL d is C 10 C 1L T t r.+ C O 2 M N 0 N N a1 4 31 Packet Pg. 34 1 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2023 Amended 8/31/2022 8/31/2023 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent C O MMUNITY S ERVIC ES /EC O N DEV. SALARIES AND WAGES $ 613,413 $ 153,446 $ 438,310 $ 175,103 71% BENEFITS 165,783 47,078 110,982 54,801 67% SUPPLIES 4,075 269 1,144 2,931 28% SERVICES 529,284 161,548 322,468 206,816 61% $ 1,312,555 $ 362,340 $ 872,904 $ 439,651 67% PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND WAGES $ 2,392,581 $ 1,341,586 $ 1,561,397 $ 831,184 65% BENEFITS 779,673 467,779 568,951 210,722 73% SUPPLIES 23,400 5,168 9,468 13,932 40% SERVICES 2,050,853 475,210 426,856 1,623,997 21% $ 5,246,507 $ 2,289,744 $ 2,566,672 $ 2,679,835 49% HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM SALARIES AND WAGES $ 101,849 $ 47,094 $ 74,320 $ 27,529 73% BENEFITS 29,301 13,042 23,374 5,927 80% SUPPLIES 15,000 1,207 3,608 11,392 24% SERVICES 178,500 20,506 67,201 111,299 38% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 5,608 - - 0% 324,650 87,457 168,503 156,147 . 2 PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES AND WAGES $ 3,288,534 $ 1,606,600 $ 1,985,926 $ 1,302,608 60% BENEFITS 1,078,818 548,972 684,632 394,186 63% SUPPLIES 468,900 175,233 234,572 234,328 50% SERVICES 1,672,742 672,773 817,913 854,829 49% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 90,000 43,052 46,948 48% $ 6,598,994 $ 3,003,579 $ 3,766,096 $ 2,832,898 57% PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND WAGES $ 409,900 $ 86,100 $ 278,671 $ 131,229 68% BENEFITS 150,075 41,644 84,312 65,763 56% SUPPLIES 9,600 3,019 7,622 1,978 79% SERVICES 98,006 55,240 58,335 39,671 60% $ 667,581 $ 186,004 $ 428,940 $ 238,641 64% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES AND WAGES 1,287,006 580,466 868,055 418,951 67% BENEFITS 462,021 233,831 326,281 135,740 71% SUPPLIES 128,000 52,618 69,154.33 58,846 54% SERVICES 1,359,860 509,772 848,685 511,175 62% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,640,565 81,116 297,381 1,343,184 18% $ 4,877,452 $ 1,457,804 $ 2,409,557 $ 2,467,895 49% ENGINEERING SALARIES AND WAGES $ 2,395,963 $ 1,227,710 $ 1,489,499 $ 906,464 62% BENEFITS 812,924 451,495 519,387 293,537 64% SUPPLIES 2,200 896 2,921 (721) 133% SERVICES 404,422 149,464 172,350 232,072 43% $ 3,615,509 $ 1,829,565 $ 2,184,156 $ 1,431,353 60% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 63,970,754 $ 30,838,095 $ 38,672,822 $ 25,297,932 60% O d is C 10 C 1L T t r.+ C O M N O N N a1 Q 32 Packet Pg. 35 5.1.a GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GENERAL FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- & SUBFUNDS 8/31 /2023 8/31 /2023 Q2 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance 001-General Fund * $ 3,724,156 $ 957,244 $ 2,173,753 $ (8,178,799: 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 100,741 116,693 51,932 (116,123: 0 011-Risk Management Reserve Fund 25,000 25,000 - - CL 012-ContingencyReserve Fund 2,228,672 2,228,672 446,522 446,522 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 11,701 11,701 - - c 016-Building Maintenance 4,235,959 4,379,235 25,839 (60,645: c 017 - Marsh Restoration & Preservation 853,595 853,595 - 3,829 u_ 018 - Edmonds Homelessness Response Fd 200,000 200,000 019 - Opioid Response Fund 25,112 25,112 - 25,112 c 0 Total General Fund & Subfunds $ 11,404,934 $ 8,797,251 $ 2,698,047 $ (7,880,104; M N O N *$8,914,686 of the fund balance in Fund 001 added to the $2,228,672 balance in Fund 012, represent the required N 20% operating reserve. Q There are no interfund loans outstanding at this time. 0 a� GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW LL 21 0 2 M N BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES N w GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 3 FUNDS 8/31 /2023 8/31 /2023 Q2 YTD 3 Q Fund Balance Cash Balance w; c a> General Fund & Subfunds $ 11,404,934 $ 8,797,251 $ 2,698,047 $ (7,880,104; s Special Revenue 15,739,992 21,098,737 582,341 (610,842: w Capital Projects - Fund 332 241,205 162,488 (241,319) 33,523 t. Q Total Governmental Funds $ 27,386,132 $ 30,058,477 $ 3,039,069 $ (8,457,423: *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 33 Packet Pg. 36 5.1.a SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- SPECIAL REVENUE 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 Q2 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund $ 36,614 $ 39,753 $ 1,041 $ (30,956 111 - Street Fund (112,667) (55,462) 221,483 (521,351 112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 2,633,944 (128,753) 123,175 194,439 Q 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 629,724 659,927 (20,569) (5,164 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 152,823 142,296 17,303 57,958 Fu 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 88,539 92,019 2,640 13,507 = 122 -Youth Scholarship Fund 16,477 17,183 122 1,269 123-Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 128,243 128,216 2,222 13,072 u_ 125 - Real Estate Tax 2 2,781,009 2,868,489 (579,947) (511,548 s 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 * 4,600,270 4,708,475 215,137 574,749 c 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 3,040,769 3,182,872 (70,805) (23,024 0 130- Cemetery Mai ntenance/Improvement 239,445 252,299 (1,267) (28,724 N 136 - Parks Trust Fund (7,497) - - (168,935; N 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 1,137,827 1,189,000 14,086 34,527 N 138- Sister CityCommission 22,272 23,194 2,465 2,377 140 -Business Improvement Disrict 62,892 62,892 (5,156) 23,108 Q 141 -Affordable and Supportive Housing I'd 273,666 266,027 - 39,100 142 - Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund (214,618) 7,409,555 658,594 (279,206 oo 143 - Tree Fund 230,260 240,756 1,816 3,960 CL aD Total Special Revenue $ 15,739,992 $ 21,098,737 $ 582,341 $ (610,842 *$200,000 of the fund balance in Fund 126 has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding, as well as $1,000,000 for the purchase of Open Space. ii ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW 0 M N O N BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES 3 ENTERPRISE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- Q FUNDS 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 Q2 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance = a> E 421 -Water Utility Fund $ 32,946,398 $ 9,775,142 $ 1,293,400 $ 1,057,775 �a 422 -Storm Utility Fund 20,115,684 6,859,768 2,832,824 2,043,951 Q 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 65,268,019 17,210,094 7,527,964 2,268,685 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 855,589 855,589 5,357 11,628 411 -Combined Utility Operation 89,005 132,091 30,565 89,005 Total Enterprise Funds $ 119,274,695 $ 34,832,685 $ 11,690,109 $ 5,471,044 *$250,000 of the Storm Utility Fund Balance has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding. *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 34 Packet Pg. 37 5.1.a SUMMARY OVERVIEW BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- CITY-WIDE 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 Q2 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance Governmental Funds $ 27,386,132 $ 30,058,477 $ 3,039,069 $ (8,457,423, Enterprise Funds 119,274,695 34,832,685 11,690,109 5,471,044 V 0 Internal Services Fund 9,829,228 5,440,913 129,436 (529,075 CL Total City-wide Total $ 156,490,055 $ 70,332,074 $ 14,858,613 $ (3,515,455 .v c ca c ii INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW s 0 M N O N N 3 3 BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES Q ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- o a INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 Q2 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance .v c 511 -Equipment Rental Fund $ 9,088,912 $ 5,009,232 $ 152,945 $ (306,889 L 512-Technology Rental Fund 740,316 431,681 (23,509) (222,186 >+ t Total Internal Service Funds $ 9,829,228 $ 5,440,913 $ 129,436 $ (529,075 = 0 M N O N w N 3 O 3 Q w C N E t V r Q *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 35 Packet Pg. 38 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/10/2023 Repeal of Ordinance 4079 Highway 99 Planned Action Staff Lead: Councilmember Diane Buckshnis Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History The City of Edmonds completed a subarea planning process for the Highway 99 corridor in 2017 which included: 1) Adoption of the Highway 99 subarea master plan into the comprehensive plan (ordinance 4077) 2) Update of the general commercial zoning in Chapter 16.60 ECDC (ordinance 4078) 3) The establishment of the Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Highway 99 Subarea (ordinance 4079 and attachment 3). Council Minutes of 6/20/2017, 7/18/2017, 7/31/2017 and 8/15/2017 provide history of the transparent and lengthy process which led to the approval of 4079. A planned action ordinance allows developers a streamlined permitting process requiring only a SEPA (State Environmental Protection Act) checklist to be completed. The Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement for the Highway 99 subarea can be found as attachment 2. Simply put: the Highway 99 subarea EIS created a futuristic "model" for the Highway 99 subarea that projected growth, traffic, land use, job creation, affordable housing and zoning assumptions utilizing a "status quo" method (no -change) and then a preferred method (more growth). The Planned Action EIS also identified impacts and mitigation measures associated with "new" planned developments in the subarea (open space, public services, police, etc). The complete EIS can be found on the City's website. Once the Planned Action EIS was finished, Ordinance 4079 (see attachment 3) was drafted and identified certain requirements that the City was to adopt such as good development regulations (or code) to help protect the environment. Additionally, zoning or design standards specific to the sub -area was to be drafted to guide the land use, amount, location, form, and quality of desired development (refer to Section 4 D of #4079). Ordinance 4079 also stated that every five years the "Planned Action Ordinance" was to be reviewed to ensure that City had complied with standards and assumptions noted in the ordinance. Council requested a specific presentation in July 2022 when the review first came forth. The City's SEPA Responsible Official provided a complete detailed presentation on October 18, 2022 (see attachment 4). At the conclusion of the Highway 99 Planned Action Five -Year Review, Council voted (4-3) to conduct a supplemental EIS (SEIS) to update the 2017 EIS (FEIS or final EIS). Packet Pg. 39 6.1 Two examples of why the City had not complied to Ordinance #4079 in terms of code updates and a reason to have a SEIS were: 1) the City had to place a moratorium and update the code related to building step backs, and 2) the City received a Resolution Number 1125 from Olympic View Water & Sewer District regarding Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA) and our inadequate code (see attachment 6). Currently staff is working on the updated CARA code which was scheduled for the Planning Board in September, but delay occurred. In July (2023), the City brought forth the proposed consultants for the Comprehensive Plan. A citywide EIS was recommended and approved by Council. Any plan to conduct a SEIS for the Highway 99 planned action area was pushed back until after the completion of the citywide EIS and Comprehensive Plan completion, likely 2025. Because of the outdated projections and assumptions found in the Planned Action EIS relating to most categories such as job creation, affordable housing, transportation, environment, design standards, zoning, etc. coupled with the City not meeting many of the code updates needed for all the assumptions, mitigation and impacts, it seems best to just repeal 4079. In this regard, developers will return to doing their own EIS (normal SEPA process) for each development. At the request of the Council President, a white paper prepared by Councilmember Buckshnis is included in the packet to reflect some of the issues that were noted of inconsistencies found in the EIS. Many changes have occurred with one of the largest being the City implementing a multi -modal method of transportation for traffic impact studies. The developer will actually benefit from this new method of traffic impact review which is another reason for the repeal. Recommendation Approve the draft ordinance to Repeal Ordinance 4079. Narrative The most expedient action to address outdated assumption and projection of the Planned Action EIS for Highway 99 and Area is to repeal Ordinance 4079. This repeal would require developers to complete a SEPA process just as they would in other areas of the city. In 2025, after the completion of the comprehensive plan and Citywide EIS, the Council may choose to consider re-establishing a planned action ordinance for the Highway 99 subarea. Attachments: 2023-09-20 ordinance repealing Ord 4079 by Ordinance 4079 Pages from 2022-10-18 City Council - Full Minutes-3212 Resolution 1125 Watershed Protection Attachment 5 Reasons why the 2017 EIS is outdated Memo_PAO Status with Comp Plan Sept 2023 Packet Pg. 40 6.1.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS REPEALING ORDINANCE 4079, WHICH CREATED A SEPA PLANNED ACTION WITHIN THE CITY'S HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA WHEREAS, the city council adopted Ordinance 4079, a planned action ordinance under RCW 43.21 C.440, on August 15, 2017; and WHEREAS, Section 5.A of Ordinance 4079 stated: "The City shall monitor the progress of development in the designated Planned Action Sub -area to ensure that it is consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance and the Planned Action EIS regarding the type and amount of development and associated impacts, and with the mitigation measures and improvements planned for the Highway 99 Planned Action Area;" and WHEREAS, the city council has concerns about whether the mitigation measures in the Planned Action EIS are adequate; and WHEREAS, there will be an opportunity to revisit the subarea, including the utility and desirability of using a planned action in the subarea, in conjunction with the 2024 comprehensive plan update; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Repealer. Ordinance 4079 is hereby repealed. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: Packet Pg. 41 6.1.a MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 42 6.1.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2023, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS REPEALING ORDINANCE 4219, WHICH IMPOSED MANDATORY HAZARD PAY FOR GROCERY STORE WORKERS. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2023. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 3 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 43 6.1.b ORDINANCE NO.4079 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A PLANNED ACTION FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules provide for the integration of environmental review with land use planning and project review through designation of Planned Actions by jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act "GMA); and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted development regulations providing for planned actions; WHEREAS, the City has prepared a subarea plan and development regulations for the Highway 99 Subarea; and WHEREAS, designation of a Planned Action expedites the permitting process for subsequent, implementing projects whose impacts have been previously addressed in a Planned Action environmental impact statement (EIS), and thereby encourages desired growth and economic development; and WHEREAS, the Highway 99 Planned Action EIS identifies impacts and mitigation measures associated with planned development in the subarea; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted development regulations which will help protect the environment, and is adopting zoning regulations specific to the sub -area which will guide the amount, location, form, and quality of desired development; WHEREAS, the Highway 99 Subarea is deemed to be appropriate for designation of a Planned Action; WHEREAS, the Edmonds Planning Board held an open record public hearing on May 10, 2017 to consider Highway 99 Subarea development regulations and on July 26, 2017 to consider the proposed planned action ordinance; WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council held an open record public hearing on June 20, 2017 to consider Highway 99 Subarea development regulations and on July 31, 2017, to consider the proposed planned action ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: -1- Packet Pg. 44 6.1.b SECTION 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference. The City Council bases its findings and conclusions on the entire record of testimony and exhibits, including all written and oral testimony before the Planning Board and City Council. SECTION 2. Purpose. The City Council declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to: A. Combine analysis of environmental impacts with the City's development of plans and regulations; B. Designate the Highway 99 Subarea as a Planned Action for purposes of environmental review and permitting of subsequent, implementing projects pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RC W 43.21 C.031; C. Determine that the EIS prepared for the sub -area plan meets the requirements of a Planned Action EIS pursuant to SEPA; D. Establish criteria and procedures, consistent with state law, that will determine whether subsequent, implementing projects qualify as Planned Actions; E. Provide the public with information about planned actions and how the City will process applications for implcmcnting projects; F. Streamline and expedite the land use review and approval process for qualifying projects by relying on the EIS completed for the Planned Action; and G. Apply the City's development regulations together with the mitigation measures described in the Planned Action EIS and this Ordinance to address the impacts of future development contemplated by the Planned Action. SECTION 3. Findings. The City Council finds as follows: A. The City is subject to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, and is located within an Urban Growth Area; B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA, and is amending the Comprehensive Plan by adopting a subarea element specific to the Highway 99 Subarea; C. The City is adopting development regulations to implement the Highway 99 Subarea Plan to implement said Plan; D. The City has prepared an EIS for the Highway 99 subarea (Planned Action EIS) and finds that this EIS adequately addresses the probable significant environmental impacts associated with the type and amount of development planned to occur in the designated Planned Action area; -2- Packet Pg. 45 6.1.b E. The mitigation measures identified in the Planned Action EIS and attached to this ordinance as Exhibit B, together with adopted City development regulations, will adequately mitigate significant impacts from development within the Planned Action area; F. The Subarea Plan and Planned Action EIS identify the location, type and amount of development that is contemplated by the Planned Action; G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned Action will protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic development; H. The City has provided numerous opportunities for meaningful public involvement in the proposed Planned Action; has considered all comments received; and, as appropriate, has modified the proposal or mitigation measures in response to comments; I. The Highway 99 Subarea Plan is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1), and any future projects which meet the definition of an essential public facility will not qualify as Planned Actions; J. The Planned Action applies to a defined area that is smaller than the overall City boundaries; and K. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned Action, with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIS. SECTION 4. Procedures and Criteria for Evaluating and Determining Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planned Action Area. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the area shown in Exhibit A. B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a site -specific implementing project application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIS issued by the City on June 2, 2017, and the Final EIS published on August 4, 2017. The Draft and Final EISs shall comprise the Planned Action EIS. The mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B are based upon the findings of the Planned Action EIS and shall, along with adopted City regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to impose appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action projects. C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in the Planned Action EIS, subject to the thresholds described in subsection 3.13, below, and the mitigation measures contained in Exhibit B, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action Projects pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031. A development application for a site -specific Planned Action project located within the Highway 99 Subarea Planned Action Area shall be designated as a Planned Action if it meets the criteria set forth in subsection 3.13 of this ordinance and applicable laws, codes, development regulations and standards of the City. -3- Packet Pg. 46 6.1.b D. Planned Action Qualifications. The following thresholds shall be used to determine if a site -specific development proposed within the Highway 99 Planned Action Area is contemplated by the Planned Action and has had its environmental impacts evaluated in the Planned Action EIS: (1) Land Use. The following general categories/types of land uses, which are permitted or conditionally permitted in zoning districts applicable to the Highway 99 Planned Action Area, and subject to any limitations in size contained in the applicable zoning districts, are considered Planned Actions: Anticipated land uses are further identified below: (a) Multiple dwellings; (b) Office uses, including but not limited to medical office; (c) Retail and service uses; (d) Medical and health care uses; (e) Mixed use development; (e) Utilities and capital facilities. To be considered Planned Actions proposed projects shall only include those uses specifically listed in development regulations applicable to the zoning classifications applied to properties within the Planned Action Area. (2) Development Thresholds. a) The following amount of various new development are contemplated by the Planned Action: Land Use Development Amount Non-residential uses, including 1,634,685 square feet of building office, retail, service and area medical/health care uses Residential 3,325 dwelling units (b) If future development proposals in the Highway 99 Planned Action Area would contribute enough new square footage and/or dwelling units to the square footage and/or dwelling units generated from earlier planned action projects to cause either of the above thresholds for cumulative development to be exceeded, that development proposal and all subsequent proposed projects will require additional SEPA review, pursuant to WAC 197-11-172. Furthermore, if proposed -4- Packet Pg. 47 6.1.b development would alter the assumptions and analysis in the Planned Action EIS, further environmental review may be required. Shifting the development amount between categories of uses may be permitted so long as the total build -out does not exceed the aggregate amount of development and trip generation reviewed in the EIS, and so long as the impacts of that development have been identified in the Planned Action EIS and are mitigated consistent with Exhibit B. (c). Building Heights. Building heights shall be as established in the applicable zoning classification and as evaluated in the Planned Action EIS. (3) Transportation. (a) Trip Ranges & Thresholds. The Planned Action EIS analyzed and identified mitigation for 2,755 new pm peak hour trips to be generated from cumulative development occurring in the Planned Action area. If a proposed project would contribute enough new pm peak hour trips to the trips generated from earlier planned action projects to cause this threshold for cumulative development to be exceeded, that proposed projects and all subsequent proposed projects will require additional SEPA review. (b) Concurrency. The determination of transportation impacts shall be based on the City's concurrency management program and the level of service standards in the Comprehensive Plan. (c) Traffic Impact Mitigation. All planned action projects shall pay, as a condition of approval, their proportionate share of local street improvements according to the schedule in Edmonds City Code 3.36.125. Impact fees will be determined according to the methodology contained in Chapter 3.36. (d) Director Discretion. The Development Services Director, in consultation with the City Engineer, shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (latest edition) or an alternative manual accepted by the Director at his or her sole discretion, for each project permit application proposed under this Planned Action. (4) Elements of the Environment and Degree of Impacts. A proposed project that would result in a significant change in the type or degree of impacts to any of the elements of the environment analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, would not qualify as a Planned Action. (5) Changed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change significantly from those analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official may determine that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental environmental review is conducted. E. Planned Action Review Criteria. (1) The City's SEPA Responsible Official may designate as planned actions, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030, applications that meet all of the following conditions: -5- Packet Pg. 48 6.1.b (a) the proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified in Exhibit A of this ordinance; (b) the proposed uses and activities are consistent with those described in the Planned Action EIS and Section 4.1) of this ordinance; (c) the proposal does not cause the Planned Action thresholds and other criteria of Section 4.13 of this ordinance to be exceeded; (d) the proposal is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and the Highway 99 Subarea Plan; (e) the proposal's significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Planned Action EIS; (f) the proposal's significant impacts have been mitigated by application of the measures identified in Exhibit B, and other applicable city regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special permits that may be required; (g) the proposal complies with all applicable local, state and/or federal laws and regulations, and the Responsible Official determines that these constitute adequate mitigation; and (h) the proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1). (2) The City shall base its decision on review of a SEPA checklist, or an alternative form approved by the Department of Ecology, and review of the application and supporting documentation. (3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be considered to qualify and be designated as a Planned Action, consistent with the requirements or RCW 43.21 C.030, WAC 197-11-164 et seq, and this ordinance. F. Effect of Planned Action (1) Designation as a Planned Action project means that a qualifying proposal has been reviewed in accordance with this ordinance and found to be consistent with its development parameters and thresholds, and with the environmental analysis contained in the Planned Action EIS. (2) Upon determination by the City's SEPA Responsible Official that the proposal meets the criteria of Section 4.13 and qualifies as a Planned Action, the proposal shall not require a SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further review pursuant to SEPA. G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for Planned Actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the following process. -6- Packet Pg. 49 6.1.b (1) Development applications shall meet all applicable requirements of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Applications for Planned Actions shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include a SEPA checklist, or an approved Planned Action checklist. (2) The City's Director of Development Services or designee shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in Edmonds City Code 20.02.003. (3) If the application is for a project within the Planned Action Area defined in Exhibit A, the application will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the criteria of this ordinance and thereby qualifies as a Planned Action project. The SEPA Responsible Official shall notify the applicant of his/her decision. If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned Action, it shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in Edmonds City Code Chapter 20.02, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be required. The decision of the SEPA Responsible Official regarding qualification as a Planned Action shall be final. (4) Public notice and review for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall be tied to the underlying permit and shall follow the procedures set forth in Edmonds City Code Chapter 20.03. If notice is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required by this ordinance. (5) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action, the SEPA Responsible Official shall so notify the applicant and prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with the City's SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. The notice shall describe the elements of the application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned Action. (6) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA documents, to meet their SEPA requirements. The SEPA Responsible Official may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non -qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the Planned Action EIS. SECTION 5. Monitoring and Review. A. The City shall monitor the progress of development in the designated Planned Action Sub -area to ensure that it is consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance and the Planned Action EIS regarding the type and amount of development and associated impacts, and with the mitigation measures and improvements planned for the Highway 99 Planned Action Area. B. This Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed no later than five years from its effective date by the SEPA Responsible Official to determine the continuing relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, -7- Packet Pg. 50 6.1.b the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS. SECTION 6. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between this Ordinance or any mitigation measure imposed thereto, and any ordinance or regulation of the City, the provisions of this ordinance shall control EXCEPT that the provision of any International Code shall supersede. SECTION 7. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or its application be declared to be unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the constitutionality or validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. ATTEST/AUTH TICATED: C'TTY- CLERK, SC10Tf PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: MA OR DAVID O. EARLING J BY JE REY B. TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: August 11, 2017 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: August 15, 2017 PUBLISHED: August 20, 2017 EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 2017 ORDINANCE NO.: 4079 -8- Packet Pg. 51 6.1.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4079 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 15`h day of August, 2017, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4079. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A PLANNED ACTION FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 161h day of August, 2017. 5;;� C LERK, SC ASSEY Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 9 Packet Pg. 52 6.1.b Q Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 10 Packet Pg. 53 6.1.b PLANNED ACTION AREA E MONDS - - _ 22M n Sw 77"t 224I11STSY1 ESPERANCE 22$TH si?Sw 230TH ST 5W T737tin sr I H$T SLY 51 SW EDMONDS I.'H S ;W LYNNWOOD .J 1 1 1 i i MOUNTLAKE TERRACE / / i 1 1 .1 4-_-.-. 244TllSTSW --- ----�--------------- Highway 99 Subarea Plan - Planned Action Ordinance 11 Q Packet Pg. 54 6.1.b EXHIBIT B Highway 99 Subarea Plan PLANNED ACTION EIS MITIGATION DOCUMENT The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review for project and non -project proposals that may have adverse impacts on the environment. In order to meet SEPA requirements, the City of Edmonds issued the Draft Highway 99 Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on June 2, 2017 and the Final Highway 99 Planned Action EIS on August 4, 2017. The Draft and Final EIS are referenced collectively herein as the "EIS." The EIS has identified probably significant impacts that would occur with future development in the Planned Action area, together with a number of potential measures to mitigate those significant impacts. The purpose of this Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measure for qualified planned action development proposals, based on significant impacts identified in the EIS. The mitigation measures would apply to future development proposals that are consistent with the planned action development envelope reviewed in the EIS and that are located within the Planned Action area (see Exhibit A). USE OF TERMS Brief definitions of terms used in this Mitigation Document are provided below. SEPA Terms The discussion of mitigation measures may refer to the word's action, planned action or proposal and for reference, these terms are defined below: • "Action" means projects or programs financed, licensed, regulated, conducted or approved by an agency. "Project actions" involve decisions on a specific project such as a construction or management activity for a defined geographic area. "Non -project" actions involve decisions about policies, plans or programs (WAC 197-11-704) • "Planned Action" refers to types of project actions that are designated by ordinance for a specific geographic area and addressed in an EIS in conjunction with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, a fully contained community, a master planned resort, a master planned development or phased project (WAC 197-11- 164). Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 12 Packet Pg. 55 6.1.b • "Proposal" means a proposed action that may be an action or regulatory decision of an agency, or any action proposed by applicants (WAC 197-11-784) Other Terms The Planned Action area may be referred to as the Highway 99 Planned Action Area, Highway 99 Subarea, project area or project site in this document. General Interpretation Where a mitigation measure includes the words "shall" or "will," inclusion of that measure is mandatory in order to qualify a project as a Planned Action. Where "should" or "would" appear, the mitigation measures may be considered by the project applicant as a source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualifies as a planned action and/or to reduce or avoid impacts. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance activities, etc., are the responsibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perform. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED UNDER THE PLANNED ACTION The proposal reviewed in this EIS include designation of the Highway 99 Subarea (see Exhibit A) as a Planned Acton area for the purpose of SEPA compliance, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440 and WAC 197-11-164, adoption of comprehensive plan amendments for the Highway 99 Subarea, and adoption of zoning code amendments addressing zoning classifications, design standards, parking standards. The planned action designation would encourage redevelopment in the Highway 99 Subarea to create increased housing choices and an attractive pedestrian -oriented streetscape, provide opportunities for medical services growth, provide for enhanced multi -modal mobility, and provide for a greater mix of uses in the subarea. Under this Planned Action, redevelopment would add about 3,013 new jobs and 3,325 new housing units through 2035. MITIGATION Based on the EIS, which is incorporated by reference, this Mitigation Document summarizes significant adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur in conjunction with the development of planned action projects. Mitigation measures, identified in the EIS, are reiterated here for inclusion in conjunction with proposed projects to mitigate related impacts and to qualify as planned action projects. Consistency review under the Planned Action, site plan review, and other permit approvals will be required for specific development actions proposed under the Planned Action designation (WAC 197-11-172). Additional project conditions may be imposed Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 13 Packet Pg. 56 6.1.b on planned action projects based upon the analysis of the Planned Action in relationship to independent requirements of the City, state or federal requirements or review criteria. Any applicant for a project within the planned action area may propose alternative mitigation measures, if appropriate and/or as a result of changed circumstance, in order to allow an equivalent substitute mitigation for identified impacts. Such modifications would be evaluated by the City SEPA Responsible Official prior to any project approvals by the City. As permitted by WAC 197-11-660, there may be some adverse impacts that are unavoidable because reasonable or feasible mitigation cannot be achieved for the Planned Action The combination of regulations applicable to each element of the environment and mitigation measures identified in the EIS and documented in this Mitigation Document that are applied to any planned action proposal will adequately mitigate all significant environmental impacts associated with planned action proposals, except for those impacts that are identified as significant unavoidable adverse impacts. Mitigation measures are provided below for each element of the environment considered in the EIS. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The EIS identifies significant impacts, unavoidable adverse impacts, and mitigation measures for potential impacts associated with land use, plans and policies, aesthetics, transportation, and public services and utilities. Please refer to the Draft and Final EIS for complete text associated with each element of the environment. The following lists all mitigation measures applicable to impacts for each element of the environment. Land Use Mitigation Measures Incorporated Plan Features The zoning code includes provisions to minimize the impacts associated with increases in building height and changes in land use patterns under the Planned Action. The proposed Subarea Plan includes policy language in support of the proposed stepback development regulations, which are intended to help mitigate for potential land use conflicts around the edges of the subarea. Applicable Regulations and Commitments Zoning designations provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the City's growth targets for the subarea. When combined with the City's remaining existing development Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 14 Packet Pg. 57 6.1.b and design standards, the Planned Action stepback standards will mitigate for land use incompatibilities in areas where the updated CG zone abuts single family zones. Additionally, existing development and design standards require site design to be compatible with existing and planned character of the nearby area. Applicable site development standards include those for setbacks, screening and buffering, site design, lighting, building design and massing, and others. Other Mitigation Measures No additional mitigation measures are recommended. Plans and Policies Incorporated Plan Features The locally -designated role of the Highway 99 Corridor will continue to be maintained and reinforced through the plan vision for a high density, walkable mixed -use neighborhood with urban amenities. Within the Planned Action, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan clearly identify three distinct districts anchored around major transportation gateways and employment clusters, such as the hospital and international businesses (Recommendation 3.1, February 2017 Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan). These amendments will bring the Comprehensive Plan and recommended Highway 99 Subarea Plan into alignment. Regulations and Commitments As required by the Growth Management Act (GMA), the draft Subarea Plan and regulations have been submitted to the Washington Department of Commerce for review and comment prior to final adoption. Other Mitigation Measures No additional mitigation measures are recommended. Aesthetics Mitigation Measures Incorporated Plan Features The City's Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center Comprehensive Plan Map designations within the Comprehensive Plan will guide aesthetic improvements under the planned action. Such improvements shall make the area more attractive and pedestrian friendly by: • ensuring that the design of new development contributes to the quality and character of the area • encouraging a variety of building types Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 15 Packet Pg. 58 6.1.b • using landscaping and buffering to soften street fronts and to provide transitions between more and less intensive uses • fostering distinct sub -district identities consistent with the Highway 99 Corridor Vision. Additionally, the Planned Action contains policy guidance and recommended transportation improvement projects that are intended to enhance the aesthetics and urban design of the study area and support the community's vision for the future neighborhood character of the corridor. The policy guidance calls for improvements in signage and wayfinding, using design to strengthen business opportunity, development of a unique district design identity, supporting building types and uses typical of vibrant urban corridors, and making code updates to support more pedestrian- and transit -friendly building forms and streetscapes. Regulations and Commitments Development under the Planned Action will be required to comply with existing development and design standards including those for setbacks, screening and buffering, site design, lighting, building design and massing, and others. These standards require site design to be compatible with existing and planned character of the nearby area. Additionally, the Planned Action stepback standards provide for transitions in building height and bulk between portions of the subarea zoned for the highest intensity uses and adjacent single family zoned areas. Other Mitigation Measures No additional mitigation measures are recommended. Transportation Incorporated Plan Features The City of Edmond's existing planned transportation improvements will help to mitigate for traffic impacts. The near -term and long-term transportation improvements in the Subarea Plan will contribute to the underlying infrastructure that creates transit, pedestrian, and bicycle -friendly places and will indirectly help to mitigate for traffic impacts. Regulations and Commitments Near -term and long-term transportation improvements identified in the proposed Subarea Plan will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Transportation Plan's capital improvement projects. The current Comprehensive Transportation Plan process Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 16 Packet Pg. 59 6.1.b (updating the Plan in a cycle approximately every six years) will be the mechanism for monitoring the LOS at impacted intersections. The City's current six year Transportation Improvement Program will be used to prioritize projects and identifying funding. Flexibility will be built into each cycle of this program to modify the priority and funding of the capital projects serving the study area as new development occurs and creates opportunities for matching funds from private development; redirecting project priorities and timing to coincide with major developments. The City will leverage the proposed Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance to request early distribution of state funds ($10,000,000) earmarked for Highway 99 within Edmonds in the State's Ten Year Transportation Investment Plan. Additionally, the City will continue to compete for funding from state and federal grants and continue to watch for potential new funding sources. Other Mitigation Measures The EIS analysis indicates that mitigation for traffic impacts of improvement projects under the Planned Action would occur in two stages. Stage_1 The City will work with Community Transit to identify and help implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation measures to potentially reduce intersection level of service impacts under the No Action and Preferred Alternatives. The City may also consult with Sound Transit and the Washington State Department of Transportation on this subject. Residential (any size), commercial (under 25 employees), and mixed -use developments may select from a menu of TDM measures specifically assembled for these types of land uses. The City will work with Community Transit and, if appropriate, other agencies, to develop guidelines and worksheets for property owners or tenants of new developments to formulate a trip reduction plan, provided that where the proposed development already incorporates measures that encourage vehicle trip reduction or transportation demand as part of its proposal . Where specific trip reductions plans are required, plans must be submitted to the Development Services Department prior of building permit application unless a different schedule has been approved by the Development Services Director. The Department will consult with Community Transit on the commute trip reduction plans and recommend any changes.. Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 17 Packet Pg. 60 6.1.b Developments comprised of larger employers are required to develop and implement TDM plans tailored to their workforce. Employers with 25 to 100 employees are required to develop a TDM plan selecting from the menu of TDM measures described above, or customize their own plan. TDM plans for employers with 100 employees or more must conform to the requirements of the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law that is part of the Washington Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94). Menus of TDM strategies should include tiers of measures that have varying levels of effectiveness and cost including but not limited to measures within the following broad categories and associated example measures: • Financial incentives, amenities and perks: o Fully or partially subsidized transit passes o Carpool/vanpool subsidies such as fuel vouchers, provision of vehicles, full or partial coverage of vehicle lease, fuel, insurance and maintenance o Car share membership for use by registered carpool and transit commuters o Emergency ride home program o Company vehicle available for employees who commute by alternative modes o Prize drawings to employees or residents who commute by alternative modes o Subsidized off -site services such as fitness center, daycare, dry cleaning, bicycle repair and maintenance, etc. o Service provided, or delivered, on -site such as dry cleaning pickup and delivery, ATM machine, fitness center, daycare, etc. • Parking Management Strategies o Charge market rate for employee parking o Parking cashout program o Preferential parking for carpool/vanpools o Restrictions or limited on -site parking o Unbundled parking o On -site bike share and/or car share facilities • Support Strategies and Assistance o Part or full-time on -site TDM coordinator o Commute options package for new employees and/or residents o Commute alternative information kiosk or website Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 1F Packet Pg. 61 6.1.b o Rideshare matching program o Discounts on purchasing bicycles and accessories o Sponsored events promoting alternative commute options Note: Except where required by law or as a condition of approval, monitoring, refinement, and maintenance of individual TDM plans by new development is voluntary after the initial submittal for plan approval. Stage The City will implement new capacity -enhancing mitigation measures for intersection impacts under the Preferred Alternative. The following new intersection capacity - enhancing mitigation measures will be incorporated into the City's standardized six -year Transportation Improvement Program process for funding and prioritizing transportation projects: • State Route 99 / 220th Street SW — Widen State Route 99 to add a second southbound left turn lane. This intersection is projected to operate at LOS F under buildout of the Preferred Alternative, exceeding the standard of LOS E even with implementation of the improvement called for in the 2015 Comprehensive Transportation Plan to widen 220th to add a westbound right turn lane and a second westbound left turn lane, and an eastbound right turn lane. • State Route 99 / 224th Street SW — Convert the eastbound approach of 224th Street SW to provide an exclusive right turn lane, a shared through/right turn lane, and an exclusive left turn lane, or an alternate design as confirmed by further study. This intersection would operate at a LOS F under buildout of the Preferred Alternative. This intersection was not studied in the 2015 update to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and, therefore, does not currently have any planned improvements. Additionally, the City will take steps to enable the new capacity -enhancing mitigation measures when and if monitoring shows that the measures are required, and implement the improvements, as the following opportunities arise: • Require any new development, redevelopment or site improvements requiring a building permit on the properties adjacent to the impacted intersections to not construct any form of structure or infrastructure (except landscaping or other streetscape improvements) on, under, or above the right of way potentially needed to be acquired for the intersection capacity improvements. • Coordinate with WSDOT and adjacent municipalities on the potential land acquisitions needed for the intersection capacity improvements located within Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 19 Packet Pg. 62 6.1.b their jurisdictions and, if possible, request the adjacent municipalities to apply the same building restrictions. • As funds become available through the City's Transportation Improvement Program process, construct the capacity improvements. This may include acquiring the necessary right of way from adjacent property owners through purchase or negotiated dedication. Public Services Incorporated Plan Features Proposed transportation projects under the sub -area plan would improve pedestrian and bicycle character, access, and mobility within the study area, particularly crossing Highway 99. As such, east -west access across Highway 99 to park and recreation facilities would improve. The sub -area plan provides greater incentive for mixed -use and commercial development in proximity to existing infrastructure on SR-99, making more efficient use of available stormwater capacity. Additionally, planned streetscape improvements under the Action Alternative would increase landscaping along the street — trees and other landscaping provide a natural ability to absorb stormwater and release it slowly to the atmosphere. The City will continue to pursue energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption, thereby reducing stress on Snohomish County PUD as residential and jobs growth occurs. The sub -area plan encourages sustainable building practices, including considering requiring electric vehicle charging facilities and encouraging solar panels (Recommendation 2.2 and 2.3, February 2017 Draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan). Regulations and Commitments Police The Police Department will implement the 2016 agency goals to the extent feasible in its 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan. These goals include: • bringing the Street Crimes Unit and second K-9 team back on line • partnering with City Council and the Edmonds School District to secure funding for a School Resource Officer for Edmonds-Woodway High School • establishing by policy the Peer Support Team to assist Department members and their families in time of need • working with SNOCOM and Bair Analytics to secure a crime analysis workstation which interfaces with records management and helps bring a public crime mapping portal on-line Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 20 Packet Pg. 63 6.1.b As recommended in the 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan, the Police Department should maintain, at a minimum, the current staffing ratio of 1.35 commissioned officers per 1,000 residents. Additionally, the Police Department should continue looking to future budget cycles and preparing to pursue and justify the addition of commissioned staff as the economic climate allows. As recommended in the 2016-2021 Multiyear Strategic Plan, the Police Department should restore the Crime Prevention Officer position to aid the Department's ability to conduct crime prevention training and strategies for businesses, apartment management, various concerned groups, and individuals. Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Ongoing capital facilities improvement, budgeting, and operational planning by Fire District 1 and the City of Edmonds are anticipated to address incremental increases and other changes in demand for fire services, including the need for additional personnel, additional apparatus, and facility improvements. Fire District 1 recently completed the first Phase of a Capital Facilities Plan which evaluates existing conditions, including an inventory and assessment of existing facilities. Phase 1 of the plan indicated a need for minor near and mid-term maintenance and repairs at Stations 16 and 17, as well as potential seismic or safety upgrades. Station 20 is identified as one of 5-6 stations throughout the district which should be considered for replacement to support operation needs and code deficiencies (Fire District 2016c, 46, 48, C 114-C 145). Phase 2 will forecast future needs and phase 3 will provide an estimate of capital facility funding necessary to execute the plan, an implementation timeline and a recommended funding approach. All potential development in the study area will be constructed in compliance with the City's current Fire Code (ECDC 19.25), which is comprised of the 2015 International Fire Code with Edmonds Amendments. Adequate fire flow to serve potential development will be provided as required by the Fire Code. Potential development will also be required to comply with code requirements for emergency access to structures. The Department of Fire Prevention also reviews proposed street improvements on a project —by -project basis to identify potential negative impacts on response times and ensure street improvements are consistent with the City's Fire Code. A portion of the tax revenue generated from potential redevelopment in the study area would accrue to the City and Fire District 1 to help fund additional fire and emergency medical services. Schools Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 21 Packet Pg. 64 6.1.b Ongoing capital facilities improvements, budgeting, and operational planning by the District, in conjunction with the City of Edmonds, are anticipated to accommodate projected student enrollment at acceptable levels of service over the next twenty years. The School District will continue to replace, expand, modernize, and upgrade District facilities as approved by voters in the 2014 Capital Construction Bond and should implement the goals identified in Edmonds School District's Strategic Direction (ESD 2014). Parks and Open Space The City will, to the extent feasible, implement goals identified in the 2014 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan which improve the park system within or near the study area to address geographic gaps in service (Edmonds 2014, 4-1 — 4-11). Specifically, impacts identified in the EIS should be mitigated by: • Expanding the partnership with the Edmonds School District, including negotiating an agreement for expanded, year-round public use of school grounds, sports fields and gyms for recreation purposes (Goal 1.A). • Exploring property acquisition and development with partners, including the School District, Snohomish County and other public and private entities — continue to partner with neighboring and overlapping jurisdictions (cities, counties, school districts) as well as private entities (i.e. churches) to expand recreation opportunities for the community; continue discussions for possible acquisition of Esperance Park from Snohomish County for annexation and redevelopment into a community park with sports fields, community gardens, picnic shelters, and other recreation features; and consider acquisition of County park land within or adjacent to Edmonds (if made available), such as Chase Lake (Goal 2.C). • Acquiring park land in the Highway 99/SR 104 areas to provide adequate park service in redeveloping areas. Create new civic spaces to enhance investment and revitalization while meeting recreation needs, especially where service gaps exist, or higher residential impact is planned (Goal 2.G). • Defining the best routes for and treatments to create central north -south and east - west pedestrian and bicycle corridors, incorporate these into the City's transportation plans, and implement improvements (Goal 2.N). • Increasing connections to the Interurban Trail, using signage, sidewalks, curb extensions, and other pedestrian/bicycle enhancements, especially focusing on crossing Highway 99 (Goal 2.0). Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 22 Packet Pg. 65 6.1.b • Strongly considering the formation of a Metropolitan Park District in order to sustain the level of quality expected by the community while growing to meet future needs (Edmonds 2014, 5-5). Electricity Ongoing capital facilities improvements, budgeting, and operational planning by Snohomish County PUD are anticipated to address incremental increases and other changes in demand for electricity. Depending on the level of development and associated new loads, feasibility studies should be conducted for individual projects as part of the development review process. System capital projects should be developed to meet the demands of future loading if capacity improvements are necessary (Ha pers. com). Stormwater Any redevelopment or new development under both alternatives would be subject to today's stricter regulations governing stormwater. Green design and construction methods should be employed in buildings, streetscapes, and drainage features to detain and treat stormwater (Ecology 2014, 8-10). The City's Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (2010) will guide infrastructure improvements. Specific elements of the stormwater improvements will be defined by the requirements of the State -mandated NPDES Western Washington Phase 11 Municipal Stormwater Permit. Under this set of regulations, the City maintains measures to protect and i mprove runoff conditions in relation to the receiving waters. The City of Edmond's stormwater management requirements and ongoing efforts are included in: • Edmonds Community Development Code 18.30 and Stormwater Code Supplement to 18.30 (Edmonds 2010b; Edmonds 2016c) — the City is nearly finished updating the Stormwater Code and Supplement, anticipated to be adopted January 1, 2017 (Cawrsepers. com) • Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan (Edmonds 2010a) • Stormwater Management Program Plan (Edmonds 2016f) Other Mitigation Measures Police The City will monitor growth and demand for police services in the study area in order to determine if/when additional personnel are needed and will regularly review trends to ensure the Police Department has enough advance time to address the needs. New development under the Planned Action will employ Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques - incorporation of design features into Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 23 Packet Pg. 66 6.1.b development that would help reduce criminal activity and calls for service, including orienting buildings toward the sidewalk and public spaces, providing connections between buildings, and providing adequate lighting and visibility. Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) The City will monitor growth and demand for fire and emergency medical services in the study area in order to determine if/when additional personnel, equipment, or facilities are needed and will regularly review trends to ensure the City and Fire District 1 have enough advance time to address the needs. The City and Fire District 1 should work together to plan for pedestrian improvements, such as wider sidewalks, to ensure that the opportunity for emergency vehicle maneuvering is maintained. Additionally, the City should continue efforts to find sufficient resources to retain and improve Fire District 1's current level of services provided. Efforts include exploring additional funding sources — such as a Fire Benefit Charge or Levy Lid Lift; pursuing ways to reduce unnecessary costs/eliminate redundancy, including potential opportunities to partner with neighboring cities, Fire District 7, and other Fire Protection agencies through regional consolidation; and planning for the possible formation of a Regional Fire Authority in South Snohomish County. Schools The Edmonds School District tracks information on growth in enrollment and demand for educational programs offering across all grade spans in the region, including the study area, as part of its determination about if/when additional personnel or facilities are needed. The City will periodically review trends and information from the Edmonds School District, to ensure the City and the Edmonds School District have enough advance time to address the needs, including grade configuration, optimum facility size, educational program offerings, classroom utilization, scheduling requirements, and the use of temporary classroom facilities. Additionally, the Edmonds School District will continue to evaluate both condition and capacity of existing facilities at Westgate and Sherwood Elementary Schools to determine if capital improvements are needed. Parks and Open Space The following steps should be taken to mitigate for impacts to Parks and Open Space under the Planned Action: • Require on -site open space as a residential amenity for new development. Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 24 Packet Pg. 67 6.1.b • Encourage and promote public open spaces through public/private partnerships where possible. • Implement pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements to provide greater access to existing facilities within one-half mile of the study area, with a focus on removing Highway 99 as a physical barrier. • Existing recreational programs may see increased enrollment and increased revenue as people living in the study area enroll in more programs. This increased enrollment may marginally help offset the costs of providing additional facilities. Electricity The following steps should be taken to mitigate for impacts to the electrical grid under the Planned Action: • Evaluate and identify future service system needs through coordinated electricity demand planning between the City Development Services Department and Snohomish County PUD. • The PUD is currently undergoing smart grid infrastructure modernization of its electrical distribution system to improve reliability and increase efficiencies for its customers. • Where feasible, reduce the use of power in building heating and cooling through passive systems and modern power saving units. Stormwater No additional mitigation measures are recommended. Highway 99 Subarea Plan — Planned Action Ordinance 25 Packet Pg. 68 6.1.b Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington ) County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH773342 ORD 4077-4081 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 08/20/2017 and ending on 08/20/2017 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is �6s.x Subscribed and sworn before me on this i day of 'D No ary Public in and for the State of Washington. Ciry -f NAm & - I FCA1. ADS 114101416 SCOT1'PASSFY 0,11011,11 OP•,..... t(� LP V �7iARy Puwc 2 = •29�`'�C9o�� OF WNS\N Packet Pg. 69 6.1.b ORDINANCE SUMMARY of the City of Edmonds. Washington On the 15Ih day of August. 2017, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed the following Ordinances. the summaries of the content at said ordinances consisting of titles are provided as follows ORDINANCE NO.4071 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS. WASHINGTON. ADOPTING THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ORDINANCE NO.4078 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, AMENDING CHAPTER 16.60 ENTITLED "CG - GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE," AND ECDC 20.60.045 ENTITLED 'FREESTANDING SIGNS - REGULATIONS; REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY 10 CG - GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ORDINANCE NO.4079 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A PLANNED ACTION FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT ORDINANCE NO.4080 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 3.38 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, MULTI -FAMILY TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM ORDINANCE NO.4081 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 3.75 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The full text of these Ordnances will Do madod upon request. DATED this 1611, day of August, 2017, CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY L C f� C C) d O Q Packet Pg. 70 6.1.c for the assistant court administrator position. With regard to workload, it depends on how it is measured. There has been a lot of work coming out of COVID with the Washington Supreme court emergency order about to go away and the pause on infraction failures to appear. There are different ways to measure workload such as number of cases or number of hearings. For example, she had six cases on this afternoon's docket but it took hours. Once the assistant court administrator position is filled, the court will be properly staffed to handle the work that comes through Edmonds Municipal Court. Councilmember Chen recalled Ms. Maylor's response to his email that there were 5,000 new cases in 2021 and 1,000 in 2022, which is a significant drop in the number of cases, yet the department's budget has doubled. Judge Rivera said case filings is one way of tracking workload. The court processes cases they get; it is interesting to look at trends, there are peaks and valleys. If someone pled guilty to domestic violence or driving under the influence today, they potentially would be on probation through 2027. A lot of what they do in community court is providing services to people on probation who may be struggling, it is not just pending cases. She agreed the case filings are projected to be lower in 2022 than in 2021. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 4. HIGHWAY 99 PLANNED ACTION FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin explained this plan review was written into the legislation and anticipated. Staff thoroughly reviewed the planned action mitigation measures and will report on compliance with the planned action and status of development. She recognized the significant amount of public comment and she appreciated the diligence about understanding the nature of development that is occurring, questioning how it fits into the environmental review; staff will review and offer assurances on each of those aspects from traffic to parks to ensure the initial issues outlined the in EIS are acknowledged and still moving forward consistent with what was required by the EIS and mitigation measures, both the private development community as well as public investments. Ms. McLaughlin explained the intent of a planned action is to offer transparency to the public about what is anticipated from development along a corridor that was upzoned to a zone that will accept higher levels of density, particularly housing given the City's housing needs. It also gives developers some assurance, a level of confidence to make those large scale investment in larger apartment buildings that are being constructed in the corridor. It is also to leverage public investment, putting private and public investments in the same area increases livability. Although mitigation measures cannot address existing deficiencies, they can shape in a beneficial ways the neighborhoods along the Highway 99 corridor. It also leverages private investment not only in the realm of housing but sidewalks and walkability via frontage improvements to add to the walkability network, sidewalk network and improves safety at intersections. That is all in accordance with the anticipated impacts. There has been a negligible amount of development compared to what was anticipated under the planned action. There are nowhere near the cumulative impacts anticipated or mitigated against. Planning Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Highway 99 Subarea Planning Process o Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077) o Updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078) o Environmental Impact Statement & Planned Action (Ordinance 4079) o Won VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound Regional Council • What is a Planned Action SEPA? o Designating specific types of projects shifts environmental review to an earlier phase o The intent is to provide a more streamlined environmental review process at the project stage by conducting a more detailed environmental analysis during planning Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 18, 2022 Page 17 Packet Pg. 71 6.1.c o Early environmental review provides more certainty to applicants with respect to what will be required and to the public with respect to how environmental impacts will be addressed o Designation of planned action projects does not prohibit the city from placing conditions on a project; it only addresses procedural SEPA requirements Planned Action Thresholds and Mitigation Measures o Development Thresholds ■ Number of Residential Dwelling Units — 3,325 Units ■ Square Footage of Non-residential Uses — 1,634,685 square feet ■ PM Peak Hour Trips — 2,755 Trips o Mitigation measures are largely a mix of policy, code amendments and specific projects o Mitigation measures identified in EIS and attached to the Planned Action Ordinance ■ Incorporated Plan Features ■ Regulations and Commitments ■ Other Mitigation Measures Planned Action Monitoring and Review o Ongoing: Monitor progress of development to ensure it is consistent with the assumptions of the planned action, the amount of development and associated impacts and mitigation measures o August 2022: Five-year review of assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures Monitoring and Tracking o Projects reviewed at application with Planned Action Checklist o Review based on application materials and SEPA Checklist o All projects tracked in Highway 99 spreadsheet o Additional SEPA review required if project impacts and/or mitigation not in Planned Action Planned Action Projects and Thresholds Planned Status Remaining until BLD Measure Action threshold Threshold Issued Proposed exceeded Land Use New square 1,634,685 14,125 1,389 1,619,171 Non-residential, including office, footage of retail, service and building area medical/healthcare uses Residential Number of new 3,325 319 313 2,693 dwelling units Transportation Peak PM Trips 2,755 80 126 2,549 • Environmental Conditions Changed? o Detailed in Subarea Plan ■ Land Use Pattern ■ Housing ■ Transportation ■ Economic and Market Trends o Changes in existing conditions limited to plan implementation ■ Zoning change ■ Transportation projects ■ New development Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 18, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 72 6.1.c CURRENT ZONING ■ CG2 - General Comme'cw 2 ■ CG General Car —al ■ 8N - NNghtxldloco li— ■ BC Commr.nly Business PS-8 Single Family. 8,000 sq h RM 3 Maldemey, 3,DW sq It . RM 2 4 NulMsmily, 2.400 soft . RM-1.5- V01damily. 1,5W W It . MU - Medlca' Use . P - Public use RECOMMENDED20NING ■ FIN Naighbarhood Busness ■ tic - Communry Bus- Rs8 - S�rde Famfy.8.000 w r' RM 3 MulMam+ry. 3,000 so RM 24 MuadamlN, 7.400 sa ■ RM-1 S-Mubdsrnry, 1-500sq.9 ■ MU-Medcal Use ■ P PubI. Use • Impacts of Development? o Twelve projects: ■ One expired ■ Four projects completed ■ Three currently under construction ■ Four under application review o Impacts as envisioned and mitigated New square footage of Number of new Peak PM Trips Project Pmjeet Status ; PwrarN Addr.0 building area (non- 1 i residential uses) dwelling units Generated GRE Apartments BID Issued 'PLN20180060 23326 Highway 99 0 192 83 CHC Addition IBID Finaled 'PLN20190029 ! 23320 Highway 99 7,000 0 13 Edmond Senior Living Expired ';PLN20190013 2120072nd Ave. W _ Doug's Mazda service OLD Finaled BLD20191212 22133 Highway 99 13,659 0 - 18.7 Doug's Hyundai showroom addn/remodel OLD Finaled ;BLD20190120 :22130 Highway 99 2,542 0 1.27 Behar remodel :BID Finaled iSL020171452 .22019 Highway 99 -94 0 -2 Better Bellevue Townhomes BID Applied PLN20180058 :8029 238th St SW 0 3 1 Apollo Apartments. BID Applied iPLN20200043 !23601 Highway 99 -26,290 252 76 Anthology Senior Living BID Issued PLN2021-0004 '21200 72nd Ave. W 14,125 127 .3 Terrace Place Apartments Proposed iPLN2022-0047 2362584th Ave. W 0 : 261 102 Housing Hope Proposed PLN2022-0042 '8215 236th St. SW 1,389 52 _ 24 Highway 99 Gateway Project:. Capital Project 0 0 0 • Mitigation Measures o Specific mitigation measures in agenda packet identifying actions taken o Mitigation measures expected to occur over time ■ Transportation Projects (Near -term 5 to10 years; Long-term 10 to 20 years) ■ Park Acquisition ■ Development Improvements o Specific Subdistrict Identities ■ Health District, International District, and Gateway District • Other — Project Review Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 18, 2022 Page 19 Packet Pg. 73 o Design review in other areas of the city require Architectural Design Board (ADB) review is SEPA triggered o In CG zone, only projects that exceed 75 feet required to go to ADB o With adoption of Planned Action, no notice required o City's largest projects don't require notice or public design review process Recommendations o No amendments to the Planned Action Ordinance 4079 or supplements to the Highway 99 Planned Action EIS are needed at this time o Implementation of the Planned Action EIS and mitigations should continue to be pursued o Expand notice and public process for projects in CG zone o Expand Subdistrict Identities Ms. McLaughlin emphasized there was a thorough analysis under the planned action, environmental review and specific measures and staff believes it is in compliance. She recognized the community's concern which is why changes are suggested related to public notice and design review. Staff has the discretion to require noticing, but it does not require SEPA noticing. With regard to design review, projects are reviewed by staff under specific development standards. If there is interest, there could be a higher level of design review for projects along the Highway 99 corridor. Changes like this do not require a supplemental EIS. She agreed with continuing to finetune and improve the process and outcomes and address some of the issues the community raised. Ms. McLaughlin continued, just like with the emergency ordinance that was brought forward, it was not an explicit mitigation measure or requirement of the planned action, it was something staff thought was not an equitable approach and an emergency ordinance was proposed to address it. The City can work with much more innovation and expedience in resolving some of the issues instead of going through a rigid environmental process that has very defined methodologies that may not result in the desired outcome. For example, the transportation methodology relies on vehicular level of service at intersections, it only count cars. If only cars are counted and impacts are defined by cars at intersections when the community is talking about impacts to people, walkability, bikeability and livability of their neighborhood, an environmental document will only expand intersections and add signals. In staff s opinion a supplement EIS is not the vehicle to make the changes everyone wants to see. An example of that is shifting to a multimodal level of service, something she hoped was on the near term horizon. Ms. McLaughlin explained despite the planned action and EIS, staff still goes through an individual project based analysis which includes traffic. Reviewing those traffic analyses confirmed what she already thought; there are negligible impacts from the projects at the intersections mentioned this evening during audience comments such as 236t1i & 84'1i. She reiterated a supplemental EIS may not be the vehicle to get the outcomes that everyone seeks. Councilmember Tibbott recalled there used to be a transition zone between a 75' building and a one story single family. He did not know what happened to that and would like to explore how to reintroduce that.. He appreciated what staff was saying about a multimodal approach to looking at streets; he has often thought the level of service at intersections does not help much with regard to determining the impact to a neighborhood. For a long time he and the late Councilmember K. Johnson worked to get walkway crews, etc. He would like some reassurance that there is something in the TIP that addresses the issue on 236'. His kids attended Madrona; most of the students do not walk because it is a choice school. Having a walkway system that serves that neighborhood is very important and he wanted assurance the City was moving in that direction. Ms. McLaughlin referred to her articles regarding the comprehensive plan visioning process which addressed evaluating a transition zone for this neighborhood as part of the comprehensive plan process. She acknowledged eliminating nine zones may have homogenized it too much. That can be done without a supplemental EIS via the comprehensive plan process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 18, 2022 Page 20 Packet Pg. 74 6.1.c Mr. Lien explained the rezoning of the Highway 99 corridor got rid of the transition zones and was part of the EIS analysis and there were some mitigation measures associated with that including the stepbacks properties that are adjacent to single family. The ordinance last week addressed specific mitigation for properties across the street. That was part of analysis in the EIS for removing those transition zones. With regard to transportation improvements, there are east -west connector sidewalk projects identified in the EIS, new bike lanes on 236t1i, and pedestrian sidewalk improvements. Pedestrian projects identified in the EIS will occur over time. Ms. McLaughlin said while the planned action includes mitigation measures, it is not inclusive of projects in the CIP/CFP or existing projects. Layering those over the mitigation measures in the EIS provides a more full picture of the commitment over the years in this neighborhood. Mr. Lien highlighted projects in the CIP that are in the mitigation measure table in the packet. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for the complete packet. She is environmentally rigid; she is not a scientist but has spent more than a thousand hours talking to people about this. The EIS talks about probable adverse environmental impacts. The FEIS talks about the 2014 stormwater code which has been updated and had a significant impact to stormwater which would be a reason to trigger supplemental EIS. The City learned from OVWSD about issues with the wellheads that are within this area. Updating the code regarding the critical aquifer recharge area (CARA) could also trigger a supplemental EIS. In addition to protecting water quality and the environment, climate change has significant impacts across the world. Significant geomorphology events where very little rain falls have a tremendous impact on stormwater. Further, there are sewer treatment plant issues where nitrogen levels have changed and the facility is at capacity. Citizens' voices need to be part of this supplemental EIS. She was not as worried about traffic as she was with poor air quality, recalling people wore masks in Oregon when Mount St. Helens erupted and more recently due to wildfire smoke. The air quality on Highway 99 is another trigger for a supplemental EIS. Things have drastically changed from 2017 to 2022, even from 2020 to 2022. She planned to make a motion to have a supplemental EIS performed. With regard to stormwater regulations, Mr. Lien explained the update resulted in stricter stormwater regulations so that was not a probable significant environmental impact under SEPA. Implementing the stormwater regulations will help protect the environment so he disagreed that was a probable significant probably impact under SEPA. With regard to the CARA, staff is aware of that issue and added OVWSD's wellhead protection areas to the critical area layers, consider those during reviews and notify OVWSD if there are any projects in those areas. As part of the SEPA review and SEPA appeal on the stormwater, there was a lot of discussion on that and the updated stormwater regulations provide protection to the wellhead protection areas. The City does not have a specific CARA code but it will be part of the comprehensive plan update. Implementing the stormwater code is not a probably significant adverse impact under SEPA and was actually litigated before the hearing examiner recently. He talked to WWTP Manager Pam Randolph about sewer capacity Councilmember Pained thanked staff and the community for the abundance of information. She anticipated the planned action absorbed a lot of time in 2017. She noted things should happen sooner and asked whether transition zones could be implemented more swiftly than the 2024 comprehensive plan update. Duplexes, triplexes and 4-plexes provide honest transition zones in a fairly narrow area. She also asked if the sidewalk program and planning could be accelerated to prioritize these routes because sidewalks build communities. She asked whether Snohomish County could build sidewalks in the Esperance area. She was most concerned about displacement; this community has the highest level of diversity and is the most economically vulnerable. She asked what the City could do to avoid displacement. Housing is critical need and is more critical than it was 5-8 years ago when the earlier analysis was done. Displacement is a critical Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 18, 2022 Page 21 Packet Pg. 75 6.1.c issue and is one of the ways the community judges success. She asked what a blight designation meant, how it benefits Edmonds, and the components of that designation. With regard to whether transitional zoning could be implemented sooner, Ms. McLaughlin said that type of analysis lends itself to what will be done with the comprehensive plan update. She was not a fan of waiting until 2024, but starting on the journey will lend itself to more sensible citywide analysis about growth, density and housing. Whether some of those policy recommendations can be expedited, she was not opposed to it. The ability to invest in this network is in the council's hands in terms of approving a budget that prioritizes investments in this corridor and in this neighborhood. There is a fixed amount of capital funding and how it is allocated is up to council. Recognizing the importance of private investment in that equation for building out sidewalk networks is also critical. Without the private investment, the City does not get the frontage improvements. Ms. McLaughlin continued, through the reimagining work, street typologies are being explored to inform the sidewalk code package. The sidewalk code will ensure the City is leveraging as much private investment from development as possible as well as exploring an in -lieu payment program. Those tools, which are not currently available, will help further build out the network using private investment. A critical part of that is shifting to a multimodal level of service. Currently the City cannot prioritize sidewalk expansion using transportation impact fees because those go toward vehicular capacity improvements. That is a big deal for this neighborhood in particular who want to prioritize sidewalks. Once the City shifts to a multimodal level of service, those impact fees can be used where they are needed. The transportation and park impact fees for one development were over $1 million. She summarized private investment was certainly part of the equation. With regard to displacement, McLaughlin said it is thorny and challenging and something cities across the country are looking at in relation to escalating housing prices. The Department of Commerce under the GMA has required all cities in Washington to evaluate this as part of the comprehensive plan. A gap analysis has been done for equity and the analysis will consider housing costs, where costs are escalating the most and where there is the greatest risk of displacement. Staff is aware this corridor is at risk for displacement, but it is not disproportionate impacted under the planned action; that will be considered via the comprehensive plan update. With regard to a blight designation, Ms. McLaughlin said a Highway 99 community renewal plan is underway that will consider whether it meets the designation of blight as defined in the RCW. The EIS did use the terminology of blight so it is irrelevant to this conversation. She asked what the question about blight was in relation to. Councilmember Paine commented it was a new word that was being applied to some aspects of the Highway 99 redevelopment; it was her vague understanding that there was a funding source and she was seeking more information. Ms. McLaughlin responded blight can be defined in a couple of ways under the community renewal plan as economic or structural such as the way streets are laid out or land use as it relates to transportation. From an economic standpoint, this corridor is actually a strong economic engine for the City so from an economic standpoint it would not be characterized as blight. Councilmember Paine said she was glad to hear that, commenting blight was such a loaded word. Due to the amount of information, she wanted more time to consider this. She was interested in what could be done short of an EIS to address the concerns raised by the community. Even though staff determined the triggers for a supplemental EIS have not been met, there is still a big need. Councilmember Nand echoed Councilmember Buckshnis' comment that it would be appropriate to proceed with a supplemental EIS. She did not find it appropriate to act as though adding hundreds of housing units to the area of town where she lived and grew up without acknowledging that when people jaywalk on Highway 99, they are crossing five lanes of traffic. People have been killed crossing Highway 99, something Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 18, 2022 Page 22 Packet Pg. 76 that doesn't happen in other areas of the City. She was one of those 12-year old jaywalkers crossing Highway 99 because there have never been not enough sidewalks or crosswalks. People run across five lanes of traffic traveling 40-60 mph trying to reach a bus stop, something that does not happen in other parts of Edmonds. That is the reason for the level of frustration expressed by the Lake Ballinger community. She was proud to be from the Lake Ballinger and Highway 99 community; it is a lovely place to live and she was shocked to hear the word blight applied to that area. Councilmember Nand continued, the incredibly frustrated speakers who addressed council about supplemental EIS they feel frustrations are falling on deaf ears. Young kids who jaywalk in this area can be killed; adding hundreds of housing units to this area without addressing that impact is irresponsible. It is the responsibility of the City, not private development to address that concern. A multitude of concerns have been eloquently expounded in numerous meetings prior to tonight. She requested staff revise their position that a supplemental EIS is not necessary or that no amendments are necessary. Conditions that may have been appropriate in 2017 are not appropriate post -pandemic. It is not appropriate after a heatwave killed hundreds in Washington last year due to inadequate infrastructure to protect vulnerable populations including seniors. People died on sidewalks in Washington during 2021 due to the heat when resources were unable to reach them in time. Councilmember Nand continued, there is a lot of frustration in her part of the community, an area that has always been very different than the Bowl. It is not just feeling underserved by City government or feeling their concerns and frustrations fall on deaf ears, but the fact that they generate the most tax income for the City, yet their area is treated as a problem. For the first time in 2019 when she ran for council, someone referred to her part of Edmonds as the ghetto of Edmonds, a term she had never heard before. It is a part of Edmonds where a lot of people of color live including her family who are members of the Asian -American community. Before 2019, she did know her area of Edmonds was referred to as the ghetto of Edmonds or that it was referred to as a blight. She was always proud to be part of Edmonds and did not know that was how other people viewed that area. Councilmember Nand continued, she lives in high density housing a few yards from Highway 99. She sees her neighbor's young kids playing in the common driveway for their townhouse complex because there is absolutely no green space for them to play. People pull out of their garages and whiz past kids trying to play ball in the common driveway due to the lack of green space or trees especially compared to other parts of Edmonds which are very well served and well represented. Issues of cultural competency need to be addressed when people have been speaking to council for weeks about why they feel the subarea plan is inappropriate and why they haven't been adequately consulted. She recognized staff worked very hard to prepare tonight's packet, but did not feel it was adequate to address the concerns of her community and a supplemental EIS needs to be pursued. She supported looking at transportation issues, reiterating in her area of Edmonds, someone who is unlucky while jaywalking will die, something that does not happen to people in the Bowl where people drive 25 mph. She encouraged staff to examine cultural competencies when dealing with proud residents and taxpayers in her area of Edmonds who address this apparatus that is supposed to represent them and is funded by taxpayer money. Ms. McLaughlin appreciated Councilmember Nand's passion and commitment for the corridor. The intent of tonight's presentation is to find the most effective vehicle to address all the issues that Councilmember Nand raised. She assured she is passionate about traffic safety and finding ways to get capital investments into that neighborhood. That is why she wanted to emphasize how ineffective the existing environmental framework would be to achieve that and recognizing the limitations of that environmental document, the City could be more effective on the fringes. She is an educated professional completely committed to under - invested and under -represented neighborhoods like this area. She assured this areas was not blighted and hoped that word did not get proliferated in that neighborhood. It is not blighted; it is an economic engine for Edmonds that is only now receiving the investment that it has historically deserved. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 18, 2022 Page 23 Packet Pg. 77 6.1.c Ms. McLaughlin assured Councilmember Nand that her and the community's concerns have not fallen on deaf ears. A member of the community wrote a very thorough letter that took a lot of research in addition to the material staff provided in the packet. It took time to research and respond to her letter and meet with her, but it did not fall on deaf ears; staff took her comments very seriously. Staff's recommendation to not pursue a supplemental EIS is absolutely no reflection to their dedication and commitment to investing in this area, it is because staff feels taking a different strategy would be more successful. Mayor Nelson expressed appreciation for the work Ms. McLaughlin does and took offense to claims that she has not been paying attention or listening. He knew she cared deeply about what was happening in that area and was doing everything she can via the lens she looks through. Her expertise and her staff s expertise in working through these issues and challenges are undervalued and he appreciated everything they were doing. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Councilmember Teitzel commented the frustration expressed by residents indicates a need to redouble efforts to reach out to the community including communities of color. During his first term on council, he attended open houses, recalling at one held at the hospital, almost everyone in the room looked like him; there were very few people of color. The problem is not getting enough input from people affected by these changes and they are shocked and concerned when these large developments start happening and they realize how big the developments will be and how many people will live there. The City needs to redouble its efforts and find ways to reach everybody to get input early before things reach the 1 I' hour. Councilmember Teitzel continued, there has been a lot of discussion about the lack of open space, green space and parks in south Edmonds. The City is trying to acquire open space and parks in conjunction with the subarea plan. He referred to page 842 of the packet, Parks and Open Space in the 2017 subarea plan states, "provide onsite open space as a residential amenity through new development." He asked if that could be interpreted as developers would be expected to provide the open space or is that action that the City would take in concert with development. Mr. Lien answered that is one of the design review standards that were adopted in 16.60 to require amenity space and open space with development, but does not replace the need for parks in the area. Ms. McLaughlin said there have been conversations recently with both private development and the parks department about private investment solely providing those investments as well as public -private partnership opportunities. Councilmember Teitzel referred to page 840 of the packet Parks and Open Space in the 2017 subarea plan which refers to possible acquisition of Esperance Park from Snohomish County for annexation and redevelopment into a community park with sports fields, community gardens, picnic shelters, etc. He asked why it would be beneficial for the City to acquire the park from Snohomish County when south Edmonds residents already use it. Ms. McLaughlin was unsure of the status of that effort and offered to circle back to Councilmember Teitzel on that question. She observed his point was not to take credit for space that already exists. Councilmember Teitzel clarified since south Edmonds residents already use that park and actually own it because they also pay taxes to the County, if the City acquires it, it will also take on the maintenance costs. He did not see the benefit to the City as part of the subarea plan to consider acquiring the park at this time. Mr. Lien said since the subarea plan was done, the Snohomish County Esperance Park has been developed and made available for public use. It includes sports fields, a dog park, playground trails and other recreation facilities. The City has not acquired the park, but Edmonds citizens do use it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 18, 2022 Page 24 Packet Pg. 78 Councilmember Teitzel said he was interested in considering an SEIS especially with the passion expressed about why the City should pursue an EIS. He asked the cost in terms of time and investment to conduct an SEIS. Ms. McLaughlin answered that body of work has not been scoped, but depending on the scope and amount of community outreach, she estimated the cost at $200,0004250,000 based on a range in other local jurisdictions. She pointed out staff resources for that work would also need to be considered as the City begins the update of the comprehensive plan. That workload would be unanticipated and almost duplicative as it will consider the same policy issues, code issues, displacement issues, and will culminate in an EIS. Councilmember Teitzel suggested staff provide council the response to the citizen's letter. The council needs to understand if an EIS is not done, how the City can respond to those concerns. Ms. McLaughlin said these are valid issues that are mentioned in various planning documents whether it is an adopted document of and EIS or planned projects associated with the CIP or comprehensive plan policies, all well intended and adopted by council that are not all in one place. The community renewal plan provides an opportunity to include an action plan to combine all the current and planned actions in one location so it does not feel so disparate or unintentional. It would be helpful to see all the investments outlined in one place along with a time horizon. With regard to impacts of doing an SEIS, Mr. Lien explained if an SEIS is initiated on the subarea plan, the planned action is not in place during that interim period. If any project applications are submitted while an SEIS is underway, they would need to go through the entire SEPA process which includes a new threshold determination, etc. To reinforce what other councilmembers are saying, Council President Olson suggested some type of work plan approved by council may be workable if it included dates and deadlines. There is a sense of urgency about some of these things, specifically related to the aquifer. She was confused by staff saying there were no changes in the environment; it was not that the changes have happened while the planned action was in place, but questioned whether the fact that this environmental condition was unknown at the time it was implemented would be considered a change. Mr. Lien explained for the SEPA analysis, the threshold is a probable significant environmental impact. The City became aware of the wellhead protection areas by OVWSD and there is a stormwater code that address development within wellhead protection areas that protects the aquifer recharge area. Knowing they exist now does not necessarily mean it is a probable significant adverse impact. This was a big part of the discussion when the SEPA review was done on the stormwater code. Council President Olson asked if there was anything in the documents about true protections for ensuring development does not occur in that area. Mr. Lien answered it is not that development does not occur in the wellhead protection areas, it is how development occurs. For example, to protect the aquifer, one of the problems is injection wells. He first became aware of this during the Madrona School project that proposed deep injection wells for stormwater which could potentially put stormwater into the aquifer. That is one of the things that should not be done as part of development in an wellhead protection area. When development is proposed within a wellhead protection area, OVWSD is notified so they can review the project and the city stormwater code also helps project those areas. He summarized it is not that no development can occur in those areas, it is how development occurs to avoid impacting the aquifer. Council President Olson said she did not want to take action tonight; she wanted time to talk with citizens and staff. One of the early concerns was the transportation impacts in the original EIS focused on Highway 99 and SR-104. As soon as those buildings (84') are constructed, they will obviously have a traffic impact. If the original EIS did not look closely at that street and address those impact, it seems like that needs to happen now. If there is no requirement for a traffic impact study because it is part of the subarea plan, that seems like a miss. Whether that is handled by a council action plan or something else, she felt there should Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 18, 2022 Page 25 Packet Pg. 79 be something that is documented, tracked and made a sense of urgency and a priority. Mr. Lien explained applicants for projects within the planned area still prepare a project -level traffic impact analysis that looks at the impacts of that specific project. Even if it qualifies as a planned action, conditions and mitigations can be added for specific projects if warranted. He summarized additional traffic impact analysis is required at the project level when applications are made. Council President Olson referred to staff s comments about having public notice and involvement, and asked if the developer would expect something had changed based on public input. Ms. McLaughlin asked if Council President Olson's question was whether the developer would be aware the public notice had changed. Council President Olson clarified staff mentioned adding a step for public notice for some projects, but if nothing is required in terms of the subarea plan or the way the City typically does business, how would the public input be used and would it change what happens. Ms. McLaughlin answered the developer would definitely be aware of it coming into the application process and it likely would require an ordinance change. In terms of how to be most effective with public notice, frankly a SEPA notice may not be effective at reaching people, speak in layman's terms, and have a community conversation. The public notice staff has been thinking about is in advance of a design review, to require a community meeting with the developer to talk about project. That is something other jurisdictions do and it is highly effective to have community members meet the developer and talk about the project in advance of a design review so they understand what's valuable to the community versus just notice of a public hearing. Council President Olson suggested she and staff talk offline about what that ordinance needs to look like. Councilmember Chen acknowledged staffs hard work putting the packet together and all the information provided. He also acknowledged staff listens to the community's input and thinks about what's best for the community as evidenced by the moratorium two weeks ago. He shared the concerns of other councilmembers' and the community about the lack of green space, lack of a transition zone, and displacement for low income and people of color living in this community. Many of them work multiple jobs to make ends meet and when their property values increase due to development, their property taxes increase which diminishes their ability to pay. He was very concerned about displacement due to development. Councilmember Chen referred to Councilmember Teitzel's comment that people at community events look like him, commenting it is because people of color work 2-3 jobs and are at work when those event are held and do not have time to attend. He complimented staff s efforts to reach out, noting it is hard to reach them. With the community's input and concerns, he supports conducting a supplemental EIS. The estimated cost of $250,000 is a worthy investment to get the community's input and get the best development for this community. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO HAVE A SUPPLEMENTAL EIS CONDUCTED. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for all the work they are doing, but she is jaded after 12 years. Highway 99 residents deserve this SEIS. So much change has occurred and the citizens deserve to have a voice. She preferred conducting a SEIS rather than a work around such as updating the code, including it in the comprehensive plan, conducting a charrette, etc. She reiterated the climate will continue to get worse. The Lake Ballinger Forum, which consists of Mountlake Terrace, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline and Edmonds, is intent on keeping the lake clean and pristine. The City has $240 million from the state and should just bite the bullet and do it. Councilmember Paine said she was not in support of the motion at this time. The council needs to learn more about implementing fixes that can happen right away. She wanted to explore other options before reaching the conclusion that a SEIS is needed. She was excited about the light rail, anticipating south Edmonds residents were not saying no housing or were supportive of the delays that a SEIS would create. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 18, 2022 Page 26 Packet Pg. 80 6.1.c She was hopeful things like transition zones could be implemented right away and consideration given to things that could be done short of a SEIS. Adding more housing options throughout Edmonds would be ideal rather than building it all in this corridor, but this corridor has the greatest opportunity with the light rail, additional transportation services on Highway 99, and the Highway 99 renewal project which will result in a lot of changes. Councilmember Paine continued, she would like to adopt guidelines for all neighborhoods so there is shared vision and opportunities for Highway 99, Lake Ballinger, the Gateway District, etc. and do it in a way that includes public outreach. There are two mobile home parks in Edmonds; those are the areas she worries about displacing and having more housing options is great way to avoid that. Housing is a human right and honors people who have been here for a long time. She thanked staff for all the information and summarized she preferred to look at options before doing a SEIS. Councilmember Teitzel commented the council is hearing from its constituents tonight and for the past several weeks that they want action taken on issues that concern them such as displacement, open space acquisition, partnership with other entities on parks, traffic safety, pedestrian safety, etc. The key thing the council should consider is how to best address those concerns. If it is a SEIS so be it; if there is a better, more efficient, effective way to do that, that was fine too. The council needs to get to the point where it can make a decision whether to invest the money in a SEIS or not. He observed Ms. McLaughlin has said there may be better ways to ensure those concerns are addressed and was willing to entertain those ideas, but needed to see the responses to the concerns raised in the letter and the concern the council heard tonight. He would like to consider that before taking action on conducting a SEIS. For that reason he will not support proceeding with a SEIS at this time. Councilmember Nand said she was full throated in support of the motion to authorize a SEIS tonight. The political process exists for a reason and the engaged citizenry has let the council know through the political process that they have concerns about some of the proposed changes, the oversights they feel emanate from City government and affect their community. A SEIS is the bare minimum of an appropriate response to the level of outage coming from her community at some of the changes imbedded in the five-year plan. She will take endless amounts of verbal smacks to continue verbalizing the wholly appropriate engagement in the political process that is coming from her part of Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott agreed that moving forward with a SEIS at this time is premature. A SEIS may need to be done, but he preferred to see a work plan from the development services department about how it would integrate with the comprehensive plan which will include a great deal of public input. He hated to circumvent a process that is already in motion to insert another process when resources could be expedited via a process that is already in motion. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND TO 10:45. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Councilmember Paine asked when the emergency ordinance expires. Mr. Lien explained the emergency interim ordinance is good for six months. A public hearing schedule is scheduled for November 15 and the ordinance should go through the planning Board and back through council before the 6 months expires. Councilmember Paine observed the effect of the emergency ordinance was no new permits were accepted during emergency interim ordinance period. Mr. Lien explained the interim ordinance passed two weeks ago was related to stepbacks for properties across the street and is good for six months with the possibility of an extension with a work plan. A public hearing before council is scheduled on the interim ordinance for November 15; the council makes findings whether to continue the interim ordinance or modify the interim ordinance. The next step in the interim ordinance process is planning board review and recommendation to council and then council would adopt another ordinance (or not) to make it permanent. The interim ordinance is only related to stepbacks. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 18, 2022 Page 27 Packet Pg. 81 6.1.c Council President Olson said she would support the motion with the thought that a motion to reconsider could be done next week. The council will learn during the coming week whether it was the right move or have something in the packet next week to consider as an alternative. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, BUCKSHNIS, AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO. Ms. McLaughlin asked what the one week reconsideration mentioned by Council President Olson meant. Council President Olson offered to follow up with Ms. McLaughlin tomorrow, explaining councilmembers on the prevailing side have the option to reconsider. If there was a convincing reason or an agenda memo regarding a different approach next week, there could be a motion to reconsider the motion passed tonight. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VISIONING SUMMARY Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 6. APPROVAL OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (Previously Consent Agenda Item 7.10) Mr. Taraday said he had an opportunity to compare the committee packet to tonight's packet and understood the question about the resolution. The resolution in tonight's packet meets the typical Edmonds resolution format and appropriately adopts the Snohomish County Solid Waste Plan so he saw no legal reason not to adopt it. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson welcomed Councilmember Nand. He reported on the Great Shakeout, an annual earthquake preparedness exercise that will include testing of the tsunami siren on Thursday, October 20 at 10:20 a.m. for 3 minutes. The siren is only a test and is for people who are outside, not inside a building, to seek higher shelter. The City's disaster coordinator will be at the exercise to answer questions about disaster preparedness. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Nand said she was incredibly honored and privileged to be on council. She was tweeting with the former council student rep Brook yesterday and told him it was important that the council model democracy and the democratic values of the U.S. Constitution at all levels of government down to the city council. In working with City staff, she has established Councilmember Nand office hours every week on Thursday from 4 to 5 pm. She also plans to have Councilmember Nand office hours on the weekend in the Highway 99 community. She is wholly committed to being a public servant and she was thankful for the opportunity. Councilmember Paine welcomed Councilmember Nand, commenting she has been an active part of the community and it was great to have her voice and experience. She thanked all the applicants for their interest in council position #7. There is an amazing body of talent in Edmonds and she encouraged the applicants to stay involved. She looked forward to the community renewal project open house on Thursday evening. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 18, 2022 Page 28 Packet Pg. 82 6.1.d OLYMPIC VIEW WATER & SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 1125 A RESOLUTION URGING THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO EXPEDITE THE UPDATE TO ITS GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE GREATER PROTECTIONS TO CRITICAL AREAS WHICH HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WITHIN THE OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT WATERSHED PROTECTION PLANNIG AREA. WHEREAS, Olympic View Water & Sewer District ("District") is a purveyor of public water to approximately 13,000 customers within and outside the City of Edmonds ("Edmonds") corporate limits; and WHEREAS, under rules and regulations promulgated by the State Department of Health, the District must meet stringent standards for supplying safe public water to its customers; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW57.08.005(3) the District has express authority "To construct, condemn and purchase, add to, maintain, and supply waterworks to furnish the M district and inhabitants thereof and any other persons, both within and without the o district, with an ample supply of water for all uses and purposes public and private with 2 full authority to regulate and control the use, content, distribution, and price thereof ...."; and 0 0 m WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 57.08.005(7) (a) the District has authority "To 0- construct, condemn and purchase, add to, maintain, and operate systems of drainage for a the benefit and use of the district, the inhabitants thereof, and persons outside the district s with an adequate system of drainage, including but not limited to facilities and systems a for the collection, interception, treatment, and disposal of storm or surface waters, and for the protection, preservation, and rehabilitation of surface and underground waters, and drainage facilities for public highways, streets, and roads, with full authority to regulate the use and operation thereof ..."; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 57.08.005(10) Where a district contains within its borders, abuts, or is located adjacent to any lake, stream, groundwater as defined by RCW 90.44.035, or other waterway within the state of Washington, such District has authority to provide for the reduction, minimization, or elimination of pollutants from those waters in accordance with the district's comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 57.08.005(22) a water/sewer district has authority "To exercise any of the powers granted to cities and counties with respect to the acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation of, and fixing rates and charges for waterworks and systems of sewerage and drainage"; and WHEREAS, under RCW 36.70.A.020(10), one of the important planning goals for cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act ("GMA") is to Packet Pg. 83 6.1.d "Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060 (2) each county and city planning under GMA is required to adopt development regulations that protect critical areas that are required to be designated under RCW 36.70A.170; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.050(3) the State Department of Ecology is required to provide minimum guidelines that apply to all jurisdictions, the intent of which is to assist counties and cities in designating the classification of agricultural lands, forestlands, mineral resource lands, and critical areas under RCW 36.70A.170 ; and WHEREAS, under RCW 36.70.A.070 one of the mandatory elements cities and counties are to provide in their comprehensive plans is a land use element which shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies. Where applicable, the land use element shall review drainage, flooding, and stormwater runoff in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound; and WHEREAS, pursuant RCW 36.70A.172 in designating and protecting critical areas under GMA, counties and cities are required to include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries; and WHEREAS, in fulfilling its responsibilities to comply with the protection of critical area aquifers under GMA, Snohomish County has adopted SCC Chapter 30.62.0 the purpose of which is to "... designate and protect critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAS) pursuant to the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) in order to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare and to protect groundwater resources. Critical aquifer recharge areas include sole source aquifers, Group A wellhead protection areas and areas sensitive to groundwater contamination."; and WHEREAS, SCC 30.62C.150 provides that County Planning and Development Services shall provide notification as required by Chapter 30.70 SCC of any proposed development activity or actions requiring a project permit subject to Part 300 to purveyors of Group A public water supply systems established pursuant to WAC 246- 290; and WHEREAS, SCC prohibits the following activities in CARAS: (1) Landfills, including hazardous or dangerous waste, municipal solid waste, special waste, woodwaste, and inert and demolition waste landfills; (2) Underground injection wells; Packet Pg. 84 6.1.d (3) Mining of metals and hard rock; (4) Wood treatment facilities occurring over permeable surfaces (natural or manmade); and (5) Facilities that store, process, or dispose of radioactive substances; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has no comparable regulations to designate or protect CARAS; and WHEREAS, the District has increasing concerns with land use and development activities in Edmonds which if not regulated in a similar way as Snohomish County, may pose harm to the watershed and groundwater within the District which is the source of supply for its water customers; and WHEREAS, WAC 365-190-100 adopted in February, 2010 by the State Department of Commerce regarding Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas reads as follows Critical aquifer recharge areas. (1) Potable water is an essential life sustaining element for people and many other species. Much of Washington's drinking water comes from groundwater. Once T- groundwater is contaminated it is difficult, costly, and sometimes impossible to clean up. Preventing contamination is necessary to avoid exorbitant costs, hardships, and potential c Z. physical harm to people and ecosystems. (2) The quality and quantity of groundwater in an aquifer is inextricably linked to its 0- recharge area. Where aquifers and their recharge areas have been studied, affected a counties and cities should use this information as the basis for classifying and designating s these areas. Where no specific studies have been done, counties and cities may use existing soil and surficial geologic information to determine where recharge areas exist. To determine the threat to groundwater quality, existing land use activities and their potential to lead to contamination should be evaluated. (3) Counties and cities must classify recharge areas for aquifers according to the aquifer vulnerability. Vulnerability is the combined effect of hydrogeological susceptibility to C contamination and the contamination loading potential. High vulnerability is indicated by c land uses that contribute directly or indirectly to contamination that may degrade a groundwater, and hydrogeologic conditions that facilitate degradation. Low vulnerability is indicated by land uses that do not contribute contaminants that will degrade groundwater, and by hydrogeologic conditions that do not facilitate degradation. s Hydrological conditions may include those induced by limited recharge of an aquifer. Reduced aquifer recharge from effective impervious surfaces may result in higher a concentrations of contaminants than would otherwise occur. (a) To characterize hydrogeologic susceptibility of the recharge area to contamination, counties and cities may consider the following physical characteristics: (i) Depth to groundwater; (ii) Aquifer properties such as hydraulic conductivity, gradients, and size; (iii) Soil (texture, permeability, and contaminant attenuation properties); Packet Pg. 85 6.1.d (iv) Characteristics of the vadose zone including permeability and attenuation properties; and (v) Other relevant factors. (b) The following may be considered to evaluate vulnerability based on the contaminant loading potential: (i) General land use; (ii) Waste disposal sites; (iii) Agriculture activities; (iv) Well logs and water quality test results; (v) Proximity to marine shorelines; and (vi) Other information about the potential for contamination. (4) A classification strategy for aquifer recharge areas should be to maintain the quality, and if needed, the quantity of the groundwater, with particular attention to recharge areas of high susceptibility. (a) In recharge areas that are highly vulnerable, studies should be initiated to determine if groundwater contamination has occurred. Classification of these areas should include consideration of the degree to which the aquifer is used as a potable water source, feasibility of protective measures to preclude further degradation, availability of treatment measures to maintain potability, and availability of alternative potable water Mi"11KRM (b) Examples of areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water may include: (i) Recharge areas for sole source aquifers designated pursuant to the Federal Safe 0 Drinking Water Act; (ii) Areas established for special protection pursuant to a groundwater management c program, chapters 90.44, 90.48, and 90.54 RCW, and chapters 173-100 and 173- a 200 WAC; s (iii) Areas designated for wellhead protection pursuant to the Federal Safe Drinking 2 Water Act; r (iv) Areas near marine waters where aquifers may be subject to saltwater intrusion; and (v) Other areas meeting the definition of "areas with a critical recharging effect on N aquifers used for potable water" in these guidelines. (c) Some aquifers may also have critical recharging effects on streams, lakes, and 0 wetlands that provide critical fish and wildlife habitat. Protecting adequate recharge of 0 these aquifers may provide additional benefits in maintaining fish and wildlife habitat a conservation areas; and WHEREAS, the District's Well Head Protection Areas (WHPA) have been designated as highly susceptible to stormwater contamination, and portions do not have overlying till to protect the aquifer. More than half of the Deer Creek WHPA (out to 10- year zone) and a portion of the buffer zone as well, are not covered with till and therefore are highly vulnerable to contamination; and WHEREAS, Edmonds will be required to update its Comprehensive Plan in 2024 and will have the opportunity to include more stringent regulations to protect the groundwater supply from which the District draws its public water drinking supply; Packet Pg. 86 6.1.d NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District as follows: The Board of Commissioners of Olympic View Water and Sewer District urge Edmonds to begin the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan to include measures which will better protect sources of water supply in the District's watershed protection planning area. 2. The District urges Edmonds to adopt regulations similar in nature and at least as stringent as Snohomish County to designate and protect critical aquifer recharge areas CARAS) pursuant to the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) in order to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare and to protect groundwater resources. The District requests that Edmonds immediately agree to providing notice to the District of any proposed development activity or actions requiring a project permit pursuant to WAC 246-290. 4. In updating the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, the District urges Edmonds to work together with the District to adopt more stringent protections for the District's watershed which are based on the best available science. r- 0 ADOPTED by the Board of Commissioners of Olympic View Water & Sewer District at an open public meeting this 27 day of June 2022. 0- L a a� s ATTEST: John Elsasser, President Lora Petso, Secretary Approved as to Form: Grant Weed, General Counsel Fanny Yee, Vice President Packet Pg. 87 6.1.d ti CD d tU C cu C L 0 Q Nd LPL d U C cu C L 0 M L 0 C O tU d O L (L a) L w m LO N C O 7 O N d C d E C1 r Q Packet Pg. 88 6.1.e Attachment 5 Reasons to Repeal Ordinance #4079 — A Planned Action Ordinance for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan pursuant to SEPA Ordinance 4079 is predicated on a number of assumptions that are outlined in Section D "Planned Action Qualifications" identifying area like land use types, development thresholds and transportation thresholds. At a minimum the Planned Action EIS dated 2017 included a number of assumptions for 1) land use and growth; 2) targets for traffic zones and trip generations; 3) zoning standards for height, setbacks, and lot coverage; 4) public services such as police, and EMS; 5) code development 6) utilities; and 7) schools and open space. Mitigation measures were also included and can be found as exhibit B or the Planned Action EIS Mitigation Document. Many of these items are out of sync with the Planned Action EIS for Highway 99 subarea. Here are a few items defined in the 2017 Planned Action EIS for Hwy 99 subarea that have NOT occurred or are insufficient or inadequate in either assumptions or actions: • Code and design standards for the planned action vision of housing stock that is 3-4 story multi- family has not happened; • Code and design standards for mixed -use development has not happened; • The City has yet to meet the necessary job creation estimate of 2,317 for alternative 1 (do nothing) or 3,013 positions (for preferred alternative); • The City has yet to develop a comprehensive code for our Critical Area Recharge Area (CARA) to protect our very precious non -contaminated ground water; • The traffic and new trip generation (cars) forecasting needs to be reviewed since the pandemic and actual trips may be inconsistent as many worked from home; • While two of the subdistricts had been created (Hospital and International) prior to this ordinance — code, design standards, and policy have not been uniquely created for the Hospital, or International or Gateway Districts. • Existing redevelopment Code amendments have partially been completed (i.e. raising building heights to 75 feet, bicycle storage in buildings, and some affordable housing) however, a number of codes remain outdated in terms of pedestrian activity zones, open space and building transparency standards, parking lot locations, ground floor setbacks, etc. • Environmental issues like low impact development, stormwater management, tree canopy, parks and open space, utilities, and development incentives need updating and are not close to helping the City achieve any of the projected modeling or visioning for this subarea. • Most of the Preferred alternatives (alternative 2) stated as assumptions for land use, public services, plans and policies, aesthetics, transportation and utilities have not been met nor have many of the City's normal growth projections been met. • Traffic level of service noted in 2017 are far below the City's established standard for three of the six study intersections: 1) State Route 99 and 212th Street SW, 2) State Route 99 and 220th St SW, and 3) State Route 99 and 224th St SW. It is obvious the vision and assumptions require updating and a new planned action EIS should be performed in this subarea. Council should ensure the Administration includes newer environmental concerns such as multi -modal transportation concepts, air quality, noise pollution, heat dome effects, sidewalks and human scale development, sewer capacity, and the impact of density from surrounding Cities. Packet Pg. 89 6.1.f CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • Fax: (425) 771-0221 www.edmondswa.gov PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT MIKE NELSON MAYOR To: City Council From: Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Development Department Date: September 29, 2023 Subject: Approach to Highway 99 Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) within the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update 1. Background: The City of Edmonds initiated the Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan to address future land use and transportation needs on and around the Highway 99 corridor. The plan acts as a guide for future development of the corridor area, and includes specific actions and investments designed to bring positive changes to the community. The Subarea Plan and the Planned Action FEIS were adopted in August 2017. 1.1. Outcomes from Subarea Plan: a) Proposed update to Highway 99 subarea maps and text to clearly identify three distinct districts in the subarea anchored around major transportation gateways and employment clusters b) Rezone the CG2, RM-1.5, BN, and portions of the RM- 2.4 and BC zones throughout the study area to CG c) Development code amendments d) Initiate improvements to the Highway 99 Corridor and adjacent local streets (As existing or recommended projects within the City's 2035 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)) 1.2. The Planned Action and the accompanying FEIS: a) Definition: A planned action is a development project whose impacts have been addressed by an EIS associated with a plan for a specific geographic area before individual projects are proposed. A planned action involves detailed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review and preparation of EIS documents in conjunction with sub -area plans, consistent with RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164 through WAC 197-11-172. Such up -front analysis of impacts and mitigation measures then facilitates environmental review of subsequent individual development projects. Source: https.//mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/(and-use-administration/planned-action Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City— Hekinan, Japan Packet Pg. 90 6.1.f A Planned Action FEIS provides detailed environmental analysis during the early stages of the planning process rather than at the individual project permit review stage. The EIS captures the potential impacts of multiple projects; thereby assessing any potential cumulative impacts. Future development proposals that are consistent with an adopted planned action ordinance and meet the conditions of the PAO (and will not have impacts that exceed those included in the FEIS) complete a SEPA checklist and are not subject to SEPA appeals when consistent with the planned action ordinance, including specified mitigation measures. Planned actions still need to meet the City's development regulations and obtain necessary permits. b) Purpose of the PAO for Hwy 99 Subarea: • To facilitate development and provide developers certainty for design requirements AND • To capture potential impacts of ALL development within the study area overtime rather than piecemeal, which would not reveal the impacts of multiple developments 1.3. 5-year review by City of Edmonds Following Ordinance 4079, the SEPA Responsible Official for the City of Edmonds reviewed the planned action ordinance five years from its effective date to determine continuing relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Based upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance or may supplement or revise the Planned Action EIS. The city found that there has been little change to the environmental conditions within the Planned Action area since the Planned Action was adopted in 2017 and the limited number of projects have not resulted in impacts not considered in the Planned Action EIS. While there have been some changes to documents and codes referenced in the mitigation measures, implementing the updated regulations and documents is still consistent with the mitigation measures envisioned in the Planned Action. As a result, no amendments or supplements were proposed for the Planned Action EIS. Source: Memo titled "Highway 99 Planned Action Five -Year Review" submitted by Kernen Lien, Planning Manager (SEPA Official) on Aug 11, 2022 to Highway 99 Planned Action SEPA File, City Council 2. Current Status The City of Edmonds developed a scope of work for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update that includes concerns about the Planned Action Ordinance and the subarea plan. The city is aware of these concerns and determined that the best approach to addressing them is to integrate the analysis and subsequent recommendations into the new Comprehensive Plan. 2.1. The following concerns have been raised regarding the FEIS and the subarea plan, and may be addressed and potentially modified in the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update: a) Requirements for pedestrian oriented design on Highway 99 may not be appropriate for buildings fronting a seven -lane surface highway Packet Pg. 91 6.1.f b) Uniformity of zoning lacks sensitivity to characteristics of different places within the subarea. (Note: zoning within a subarea cannot be downzoned without potential adverse legal challenges.) c) The lack of transition zones creates stark contrasts between allotted development in boundary areas (75-foot development is allowed adjacent to or across the street from detached single-family housing). d) Community concern about lack of participation in the administrative design review process e) Without a PAO, the unpredictable rules for building design will likely inhibit private investment. f) The subarea plan does not include a street typology classification, resulting in no significant variation in building design between Highway 99 and smaller local cross streets. 2.2. In response to the concerns raised, the City Council is considering whether to repeal the PAO (Ordinance no. 4079). 3. Benefits of retaining PAO The PAO and the Planned Action EIS for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan provide an upfront, early assessment of environmental conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures for the Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea. Without the PAO, each individual project would comply with SEPA separately, most likely by issuing a SEPA checklist. A checklist rather than an EIS would be required because individual development projects rarely cause significant impacts that would trigger a SEPA EIS. The result would be a series of individual projects that can state that they are not causing significant impacts but when these projects are analyzed on a cumulative scale, they are likely to cause significant impacts (as determined by the existing FEIS and corresponding PAO). The PAO protects the city from unanticipated significant effects over time. The PAO requires each potential project to meet conditions established in the PAO and the FEIS. Each project must complete the Highway 99 Planned Action Review Checklist to be exempt from completing its own separate SEPA process. Packet Pg. 92 6.1.f 3.1. Development Process without PAO: • Each project submits its own proposal for SEPA review • An individual project would not create significant adverse impacts • Each project issues a SEPA checklist and is signed by the city SRO • No EISs are required due to lack of significant impacts for individual projects • Piecemeal environmental analysis on a project -by project basis! Significant cumulative impacts over time! 3.2. Development Process with PAO: • A Planned Action EIS contains an upfront assessment of environmental conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures. The development thresholds have been determined. • Each project does not submit a separate SEPA checklist • Each project must follow design guidelines as specified in PAO/subarea plan/comprehensive plan to mitigate impacts. • Community benefits from better development outcomes, fewer significant impacts, and required mitigation measures already in place in the PAO • Creates certainty for developers with consistent requirements for a 5-year period. The SEPA checklist is required but not subject to SEPA challenge. A SEPA CEP L �- .r — A n A �,wayss r SEPA lid PAO Sub -Area Park Space A j. g� Highway99 IAk Utilities um AA Packet Pg. 93 6.1.f 4. Anticipated mitigation measures within the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update The 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update will evaluate the issues raised pertaining to the Subarea Plan through various measures, not limited to: a) Conduct Highway 99-focused community engagement as a trust building measure and to ensure concerns are fully understood. b) Refine pedestrian -oriented design requirements to reflect the context of streets along Highway 99 c) Evaluate transition zones that fit within existing neighborhood areas d) The transportation element within the Comprehensive Plan is also being updated. City-wide studies on multi -modal LOS are being undertaken for forecasted growth. e) Consider broader city-wide distribution of development intensity f) Consider design guidelines overlay which support transition zones and higher design standards. Packet Pg. 94 s.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/10/2023 Year in Review / Decision Package Presentation Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Dave Turley Background/History Year in Review for the Planning & Development Department and Police Department. Staff Recommendation Presentation only, no recommendation. For information and brief discussion purposes. Narrative N/A Packet Pg. 95