Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02/01/2002 City Council Retreat
"2 "50W 3rwo"; %;P grad / v' saww V6 r, � � �', � � � � - ■ _ , �; � _ - ' 7 ` _ t k - �i �- i ti _ � ` i ti y 7 ��� �� - � � � �L� � -� � �i i� 1 ,� ■ EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RETREAT AGENDA 2002 Edmonds City Council Retreat City Hall - Bracket Room 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 FRIDAY, February I Day Time Subject Reg. By Presenter FRI 1:00 p.m. Development Services Wilson Bowman e Review of City Policy Regarding Fee for Service To Cover Permitting Costs & Permit Process Expectations • Economic Development/Redevelopment - What role could/should the City take? ESA Update Break GASB 34 FRI 3:15 p.m. FRI 3:30 p.m. Hetzler Hetzler/Consultant/Koho FRI 5:30 p.m. Dinner SATURD", February 2 Day Time Subject Req. By Presenter SAT 8:30 a.m. Policy Discussion on Channel 21 and City Web Clifton Clifton Page SAT 9:30 a.m. Review of Mayor's Budget Message Committee Mayor Mayor Requests Break Workshop on Economic Development SAT 10:15 a.m. SAT 10:30 a.m. Invited Representatives from: e Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Mann Josephine Lloyd ■ Edmonds Alliance for Economic David Peterson Development Jack Ohara • Team Edmonds Ruth Arista SAT 12:15 p.m. Lunch Financial Issues SAT 12:45 p.m. • Fund 007 Petso Hetzler/Mayor/Ohlde * Loss of 1-695 Backfill Petso ■ 15t and 2"d Quarter REET Tax Orvis d:mydocuments/wordata/Council Agendas/FINAL COUNCIL AGENDA 2002 doc �r■-. UP --i=ii e � ■ V i = ONm7m ■ ■-m-f--iulON - so — -mm- =1n1 F- ■ 1 0- mm i - � F-■ 1f f■ ■ 1mm- ■� - - lif -tH 1 f fF H■ ON NON E - ■ - 1 ■ ■ F � - ■ FIB ME -MM NINE f i +■f1 •:i - _M12 0- - - mm - ■ -- fF ■ ■ ■ 1 = - 1 - - MM1- F 011- - - ■ ■1 1 H 7 = - f■ - ■ LR - ■ - i N , Review of City Policy Regarding Fee for Service To Cover Permitting Costs & Permit Process Expectations Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Fee for Service To Cover Permitting Costs The last comprehensive review of permit review fees by the City Council took place on November 23, 1999. The very good background work resulted in permit fees being raised to address increased costs associated with permit review. A goal of the increased fees was to recover the costs of processing permit applications. Historically there has long been discussion over recovering the costs of permit processing. In 1987, Ordinance 2604 was passed which established a policy that the Building Division recovers 100% of the costs associated with its operation. As an example in 2001, the Building Division budget was $647,980. The permit revenue generated by building permit and plan check fees totaled $737,686. Permit fees alone will not however cover the costs of the operations of the Development Services Department (DSD). The DSD provides a number of services that are outside the permitting process and not appropriate costs to be borne by permit applicants, such as: ■ Capital project management, design and inspection • Code enforcement • Comprehensive Planning (Land Use, Transportation, Utilities) ® Providing public information Code development • Special studies For the most part, our fees are reasonable and fair. They should be re- examined as part of the 2003 budget process. One action that was discussed in 1999 but was not adopted was the possibility of adding an automatic annual adjustment based upon inflation. To do this would require adoption of an ordinance -amending Chapter 15.00.020. There is however one example of a permit fee that staff will be proposing a change to and that has to do with how we charge for sign permit fees. Presently, we charge a fee for design review of a sign and then require a separate building permit sign fee. This has led to confusion with permit Fees for Service & Permit Process Expectations City Council Retreat February 1 & 2, 2002 Page 2 applicants who, after going through design review, discover they need another permit. The appropriate solution is to have them file for the building permit review, do the sign review simultaneously and charge only one fee. Permit Process Expectations When I began work for the City of Edmonds in the fall of 2000, my first six months were spent observing the permit process and talking to customers about how we are doing. I discovered a number of things, one of which was very good, that Edmonds has very dedicated staff, who work very hard and care deeply about how they do their jobs. I also found out that there were a number of things we could do to improve our service. First, we improved our lobby area on the Second Floor of City Hall to make it more user friendly and efficient for use by staff. We constantly receive compliments about the improvement of our lobby area. Next, the Managers and I began to look at ways to improve the permit review process. In our plan review room, building permits were tracked by submittal date rather than due date. This was changed. We examined all of our permit review timelines and set reasonable timelines to let permit applicants know when they could expect our first review to be completed by. We switched from doing sequential reviews to doing concurrent reviews. What this means is that all Divisions have the same review deadline and the permit applicant gets one set of review comments. This eliminates conflicts between reviewing Divisions or Departments. We organized our handouts so permit applicants would know which applied to their project. We are currently working on revising the DSD web -site to make these handouts available 24/7. We are constantly looking for ways to improve our services. We currently are working with a stakeholders group examining the permit process. We are training more staff in engineering to perform permit reviews to speed up permit processing. ti Fees for Service & Permit Process Expectations City Council Retreat February 1 & 2, 2002 Page 3 I believe however that the biggest improvement will come with the rewrite of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The current version was adopted during my first tour of duty back in 1980. It is way past the time to update it. It is dated and needs to be made more user friendly by both staff and the public. We expect to start the two-year update process in July of this year. I have repeatedly told staff that if we can address the following three questions, we will be able to address most permit applicant concerns: • What do I need to submit? • How much will it cost?, and • When can I get my permit? Staff is expected to provide timely, accurate permit reviews. This can be at times challenging given the quality of what we sometimes receive as parts of permit submittals. One topic that has been brought up is the possibility of setting up an expedited permit review process. Often a developer would gladly pay more for an expedited review of his project. The challenges presented by trying to provide such a service are: • What type of projects should be allowed to use the expedited review process? • Would employees support working overtime? o Should work be out -sourced to a consultant?, and • How do we maintain consistency with out -sourced work? Clearly, if expedited review was to be implemented it should be limited to major projects, with a limitation on the number that could be undertaken at any -given time. This again is subject to staff willingness to work overtime. Item #: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Development Services For Action: For Information: X Subject: DISCUSSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEES FOR THE YEAR 2000. Agenda Time: Agenda Date: Exhibits Attached: 15 Minutes November 23,1999 1. Fee Spreadsheets (Planning, Building, Engineering, Miscellaneous) 2. City Council Minutes 3. - Finance Committee Packet Clearances: Departmentlinitials Admin Svcs/Finance _ Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering City Clerk Parks & Rec Court Planning Personnel Public Works Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council Development Svcs ayor Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Services. Public Safety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ ❑ Funding Source: N/A Previous Council Action: The Finance Committee reviewed the draft fee proposals on September 13th and recommended bringing the proposals before the full Council for consideration. Narrative: The attachments (Exhibit 1) summarize staff -generated research and ideas concerning various development fees. Each spreadsheet shows the current fees charged, the fees proposed and presented during Council Committee reviews, and a new staff proposal based on a more recent "brainstorming" session intended to identify all possible development service charges. The proposed fees are intended to reflect a more accurate representation of the City's cost of processing each permit. This information has been developed analyzing records of staff time spent processing permits and best estimates of associated costs for each permit (e.g. publishing, postage, photocopying, etc.). In addition, the Planning spreadsheets show a comparison to fees charged by other jurisdictions. Note that the fees charged by other jurisdictions can only be used as a reference since the processes for various types of permit approvals can vary across jurisdictions. A couple of additional notes are worth mentioning: • A "new" idea not listed in the spreadsheets is to include a $5 "Permit System Surcharge" to pay for maintaining and updating the city's permit tracking system. • Earlier this year, the Council authorized issuing an RFP to contract with a sign company to provide public notice signs for development applications. The signs are to be paid for by the applicants with essentially a "pass -through" fee, i.e. an applicant required to have a public notice sign would pay for the sign at the time of application, and the company under contract would produce and place the sign. The fee is shown as item #68 on the Planning list. Only applications requiring large public notice signs would be charged this fee. ■ Development impact fees have thus far only been collected as impact mitigation through SEPA. Another option would be to establish an impact fee system based on the Growth Management Act, which would be tied to development standards and new development paying for its share of needed infrastructure. Impact fees could be charged for parks, capital facilities (streets and traffic mitigation), fire trucks, etc. Staff is completing an updated revenue projection based on the fee spreadsheets and will provide this information during the discussion of this item. Recommended Action: Review the fee proposals and provide budget direction. New fees or fee increases will need to be adopted by Council resolution prior to the end of the year. Council Action: .Z. % lk,;t 3 $ K2'2g8 &$ 2 u e 2 § s 4 _ R � ■ 0 § vw �ƒ a $ $ k u an � k 8 9 � �2$ � � ■ ■ . ■ . R�� � � � ƒ �■� ;§�2 ; ©s� x x k . O I- 2� � c k L Q.m§% ww § § §§ 22— 7� ® w ■■ a§E a � a \k7 §§ &— __ g @ G 4k4c E � ,_LA L 11 - � - I I 3 Exhibit 1 cr 401J, 41; J2 C31 CL 1 42' a -I- CL Golk OO La CE 71 A K CD GOP. g o '09 8 �_� C_ C13 + O AS ills E 0 10goal 1 ionDO X.X x x x X x x CRI, + co oil. CO + W.9 aRiy f LL- ?3 at 'Ot alt LU jI C, WIN, wa. LL WP WD A W CL CL E LEI 8 CIL 4) c E 24 im fis B U.11 L5 > I L WW t v W gylp c••' v NTH I T op � � U 7 N N Q d! S C N H I� W 4 ipQ�f N (��1 N Q QA N G O t M O) c n 10 .iLC � n m Nt YN! L p� •� 8Ow L vo%- , CP IBM as 12 -7 . . . . . . . . . . . S s i E �+ s 32 �s m +suam 90110N x x x x x x x N M ^ d! SEr O M Q Q N g mW i0 Q Z M wt GOD M • Z CD 40 S low to41 W � a`� �p g g �LL7 111i11777 cu � OC� hh m 8�� cm N � N N N N N N !•}� m s k§k cr No 7_§a � �_ - � . e � % $ 52 \ k a b c � k CD § 2 $ � - � k � 0 � � k2$7 ■ � z ®� § $ U. ■ ■ ��$ � ■ ■ z z 3§K�o z ■ B x x x x x x as � )§. § k co 2� � ■ � E a & I E E a 8 � ■ �$ > » a $ ■ bc � / _� ■%/ A■§ ■ �B � S§ � R ■ :81 1 m■ m e 6 ¥ . : Q W m p ON (y p G4 di O N coO �•ij tD y N o1rr N N N to O O S + ++ to �1! pp O ICJ N N LO N N O O� pp + ICJ N 40 oQ+ Y7 N pQ W �8 C + Cp �O Q _ Y 8+ N a VP N 0N0 N 6-or p G 40O69 M ' Cr 4- s L m N N.. N + N m m c M, + It N G [ . _ �su6� �RoN x x x x v- h 5+ + En o z_ 8 8 Q d N LLI N _ S Q� V Z l+tl C4+y� C � •� M p+ � I{+p� illy N + N '� = + �� N N n Em E � o w !3 s f CL Q � c a¢ uj CB z, $ cz m b �C m CE W � L� •N P-1v�3a q� v v v air v !�! 'v �, W-A A 7 pW 8 pp O M j Y d E V FE a a 's cr c b G N N N b p O C 0 N = co N N so N 9Q ' 7 O m N J � ao g � c 9Q 35 s 8 3 s z zz� z- asp:_ ,sub C� x 93PON c- rt�- x x "` Q oA o uj 0 • .opp�. p d Z $ N 88 N 'N CC W 'N N y M W QQ S z iR � K pQ 'rn bps ww N N N N MM N U N r9 wVJ W w m O U W f C � y 7 Cc� O R m a rl CD '0= W _ Building i Permit Type Current Fees (1999) Proposed Fees (2000) Staff Proposal (2000) Notes 1 Adult Family Home $120 No Change 2 Appeal of Building Official Interpretation $100 $300 3 Appeal of Notice of Civil Violation $100 $300 $500 4 Base Building Permit Fee $30 $60 5 Building Official Interpretation Request $0 $0 $50 New Fee 6 Cell Communications Bid No Change 7 Change of Use $90 No change 8 Changes to approved plans $0 $45/hour New Fee 9 Commercial Project peer review $0 $45 + Cost of review New Fee. Nominal charge for staff time to administer and actual cost of peer review. 10 Demolition Permit $180 Primary $50 Secondary No Change 11 Drainage Swimming Pool $50 No Change 12 Engineering Inspection 2.2% of Engineering improvements 2.2% of Engineering im rove. + $250 13 Factory Built Structure $360 + bid No Change _ 14 Fence $40 No Change 15 Fire Alarm (alteradon) $150 Bid 16 Fire Alarm (news stem) $150 No Change 17 Fire Sprinkler (alteration) Bid No change 18 Fire Sprinkler new system Bid No Change 19 Grading/Fill 1997 UBC Ch. 33 amended fee table No change 20 Grease Interceptor $120 No change 21 Grease Trap $60 No change 22 Hot Tub/Spa (commercial) Bid No change .23 Hot Tub/Spa (single-family) $50 No change 24 Housing Compliance $90 No change 25 Hydronic Heating $0 $100 New Fee 26 Inspecdon Rate (hourly) $45 No change 27 Investigation Fee Equal to the permit fee No change 5X the permit fee u Land se permit for setback and height checks (e.g. sheds < 120 square feet in area, sports courts < 2000 square feet 28 in area _ $0 $45 New Fee 1% of landscape 29 !Landscape Ins ection bid $65 or 1 % of landscape bid, whichever is greater 30 Lawn Sprinkler/Blackflow Valve Check $30 No change 31 Manufactured Coach $360 No change 32 Meadowdale Administrative Processing $150 $300 /O Building Current Fees Proposed Fees Staff Proposal Permit Type 1 (1999) (2000) (2000) 1 Notes Full cost to 33 Meadowdale Review applicant No change $90 + 1997 $30 + 1997 amended UMC amended UMC 34 Mechanical fee table fee table Reduction $30 + 35 Miscellaneous Permit $0 $451inspection New Fee 36 Mobile Home Inspection $120 No change 37 Parking lot Bid No change Permit application resulting from a Double permit fee Quintuple permit 38 Code Violation 2x No Change fee (5x) 39 Plan Review hours $45 No change $60 + 1997 $30 + 1997 amended UPC fee amended -UPC fee ,40 Plumbing table table Reduction 41 Re-inspection(hourly) $45 No change 100 within City limits. $100 + $45/hour outside 42 Relocation of building City limits No change _ Request for review of an approved 43 building permit $200 No change 44 Re-roof(commercial) Bid No change _ $25 if no struct. changes, 45 Re -roof (single-family) otherwise by bid No change $45 per dept. New Fee. First resubmittal is free. requesting Charge only applies after first notice 46 Re -submittals $0 $0 revisions of incompleteness or revision. $90 + plan review 47 Rockery/retaining Wall fee No change 48 Satellite Antenna commercial Bid No change .49 Satellite Antenna(single-family) $30 No change $60 + $10 per 50 Side Sewer (commercial) fixture No change Side Sewer (single-family and 51 multifamily) $60 + $25/unit No Change 60 + 2 per square foot of sign area + structural '52 Sin rev. No change 53 Swimming Pool above round $50 No change 54 Swimming Pool in -ground Bid No change Underground Tank-10,000 gallons or 55 less (fill, remove, install) $40/tank No change Underground Tank - over 10,000 56 gallons (fill, remove, install) $40/tank $150/tank Building Current Fees (1999) Permit Type Proposed Fees (2000) Staff Proposal (2000) Notes 57 Water Piping Replacement $60 + $10 per fixture $30 + $10 per fixture Reduction 58 Water Service Line, $70 $40 Reduction 59 Woodstove/Pellet Stove/Insert $40 No change En ' eerie Permit Type Current Fees (1999) Proposed Fees (2000) Staff Proposal (2000) Notes 1 Street Use / Encroachment $50 $150 2 Variance - underground wiring $80 % increase $100 3 _I Permit application resulting from a Code Violation Double permit fee (2x) No Change_ Quintuple permit _ fee (5x) 4 Re -submittals $0 $0 $45 per dept. requesting revisions New Fee. First resubmittal is free. Charge only applies after first notice of incompleteness or revision. /3 Miscellaneous Current Fees Proposed Fees Staff Proposal Permit Type (1999) (2000) (2000) Notes 50 (refundable i complaint deemed valid after 1 Building/Land Use Complaint Filing $0 inspection) New Fee --- New Fee. Fee wou cover staff cost (approx. 2 hrs.) of having a single document delivered to the county for recording by the dose of next 2 Covenant Recording fee (expedited filing.) $0 $75 business day at the latest New Fee. Fee would partially cover staff cost of recording multiple documents. Document would be recorded as part of the normal course of city business at the County, 3 Covenant Recording fee (normal filing) $0 $15 generally once a week 4 Fire Inspection $0 $50 / inspection New Fee 5 Pre -Application Conferences $0 $0 $250 1 New Fee /y In attendance: Councilmember Gary Haakenson Councilmember Dave Earling Councilmember Tom Miller Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Ray Miller, Development Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Jeannine Graf, Building Official Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor Members of the Public Councilmember Haakensen moved to add another item to the agenda regarding SnoCom. Councilmember Earling seconded and the item was added as item 3G. A. Review of Community Grant Award Applications D. Earling and G. Haakenson concurred that the following awards be made: $1,000 to the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association; $1,000 to Edmonds Community College; $1,500 to the Olympic Ballet Theatre; $750 to the Stevens Foundation and $750 to Teen Hope for total awards of $5,000. G. Haakensen agreed. Recommended Action Committee recommendation to move forward to the full Council. B. Report on Potential New Revenue Sources Peggy Hetzler presented a schedule to the Committee outlining various revenue options. The first option listed concerned property tax levies and the amount of additional revenue that could be generated at 1-percent intervals ($62,825) up to the maximum of 6-percent ($376,950). She also indicated the impact of each percentage increase on a home value of $250,.000. A discussion followed regarding utility taxes and the amount of revenue that could potentially be generated through a combination of standardizing all rates at 6-percent on current utility base ($60,000); applying the 6-percent rate to garbage collection ($190,000); applying the rate to sanitary sewer ($180,000); and imposing the rate against pagers ($30,000) for total utility revenue increases of $460,000. /S D:Word:FinnAg Exhibit 2 Finance Committee Minutes September 13, 1999 Page 2 A business and occupation tax based on the number of employees per business was also presented ($175,000), as well as a non-resident business license fee ($17,000). The next revenue items discussed were fees for advanced/basic life support services. Councilmember Gary Haakenson indicated that transport fees were not recommended for consideration. Councilmember Earling concurred that Resolution 882 (regarding Medic 7 transport fees) states that fees will not be reviewed until after June 30, 2000. The final revenue option presented by P. Hetzler was the local option motor vehicle excise tax 1-695 eliminates the state's MVET but cities may still be able to impose a local fee. A presentation by Development Services Director, Ray Miller, followed regarding planning, building and engineering fees. He indicated that the department was attempting to recover the full cost of processing permits through a new fee structure. Peggy Hetzler then presented the projected financial position for the General Fund for the years 1999 and 2000. She indicated that if 1-695 passes and no new revenue sources or taxes are adopted, the General Fund expenditures may exceed revenues next year by $2.5 million. Councilmember Earling stated that this deficit could eliminate any General Fund cash balance and the entire emergency reserve by the end of 2000. Recommended Action The Committee recommended bringing the new revenue proposals forward to the full Council. Councilmember Earling requested that he write the cover memo on the development services fee proposal. He also requested that an analysis of the impact of various property levies be presented based on average home value and mean home values within Edmonds. C. Report on Volume Rate Sewer Study Recommendations Public Works Director Noel Miller distributed a chart indicating the impacts of the fixed fee portion of the new rate structure. He indicated that the study was not complete enough to bring draft numbers to the Committee. P. Hetzler mentioned that a reasonable timeframe for the implementation of a new rate structure might be as long as six months, depending on the timeframe for the new financial system purchase and a public awareness campaign. She also indicated that a public vote may be required to implement the new fee structure if 1-695 is approved. /6 n:wara:nroft Item Committee: Meeting Date: Subject: From: Mayor: Comments: COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEMO Finance Committee September 13, 1999 NEW REVENUES Ray Miller, Development Services Director Attached for review and discussions are the fee recommendations for the Development Services Department that includes Planning, Building and Engineering Divisions. 17 &,3 City of Edmonds ca Exhibit 3 Planning Fees ■ Introduction and Issues In the Fall of 1998, Council reviewed and updated planning fees. Council direction was to update fees on a regular basis (annually) to keep pace with inflation and changing circumstances. Significant issues this year include: 1-695. The possible passage of I-695, which, if passed in November, would have a significant impact on the ability of the city to enable fees to keep pace with costs in the future. Automatic Annual Adjustments. If it is the policy of the city to have fees, at a minimum, keep pace with the cost of inflation, this annual adjustment could and should be built into the fee equation so that it automatically becomes part of the fee schedule. This could be enacted by ordinance as an amendment to ECDC Chapter 15.00.020. Cost Recovery. Up until this point, many planning fees have been set to recover basic overhead costs (e.g. proportionate cost of Hearing Examiner contract, postage, photocopying, etc.), but not staff time. Because of the gradual decline in various forms of revenue sharing from the state and federal governments, the policy of partial cost recovery needs to be reviewed. The fees proposed this year make significant adjustments toward full cost recovery. Commercial vs. Residential Permits. Up until this point, some permit fees have maintained an artificial distinction between commercial and residential activities (variances are a notable example, where the actual costs of processing the permit don't vary by the type of use). This was a policy distinction, based on the notion that single family home owners may need a break in the fee. + Fees Table (Note: "% inc." indicates a fee that should be increased for inflation.) Fee Type Current Propo-sed Notes Architectural Design Review ADB Review —Administrative $ 0.00 35 New fee Approvals ADB Review - Major Project $ 275.00 500 (SEPA required) ADB Review — Minor Project $ 75.00 % inc. (SEPA exempt) ADB Review— Minor Project $ 35.00 75 + % inc. Make same as Minor ADB — signs only (SEPA exempt) Minor modification of 0 50 �] New fee approved sign Appeals & Request for Reconsiderations Appeal — No transcript $ 100.00 125 required (e.g. appeal of: staff decision, SEPA Determination, etc.) Fee Type Current Proposed Notes Appeal - Transcript required $ 100.00 + 275 Flat fee to ease payment and (e.g. appeal of: Hearing $200.00 collection, based on transcript Examiner decision, ADB ($200 covers cost experience decision, etc.) of transcript preparation. Applicant responsible for any additional cost above $200. Applicant may submit a written request for a refund of difference if cost less than $200) Requests for Reconsideration $ 25.00 50 of any decision or ' recommendation Comp .Plan & Gode Amendments Comprehensive Plan $ 500.00 % inc. Amendment Master Plan Approval 0 200 New fee ECDC Amendment $ 500.00 %inc. Environmental Review Environmental Checklist $ 85.00 + 150 + hourly rate Set flat fee to decrease Review (SEPA) billable rate for above 5 hr. number of billable accounts, staff time based on experience exceeding first 2.5 hours of review. Environmental Impact Full cost of Full cost Statement (EIS) preparation and (no change) all City staff review time Conditional Use Permits Conditional Use Permit — $ 700.00 % inc. Hearing Examiner public hearing (non= RS" zones) Conditional Use Permit — $ 350.00 % inc. Hearing Examiner public hearing ("RS" zones) Conditional Use Permit — $ 100.00 % inc. Administrative review by staff /q Fee Type Current Proposed Notes Critical Areas Critical Areas Checklist 0 25 New fee review Critical Areas Variance or $ 700.00 % inc. Reasonable Use Exception (non-"RS" zones) Critical Areas Variance or $ 350.00 %inc. Reasonable Use Exception ("RS" zones) Critical Areas Reasonable $ 750.00 % inc. Use Exception — if processed in conjunction with a Critical Areas Variance (non "RS" zones) Critical Areas Reasonable I $ 400.00 % inc. Use Exception — if processed in conjunction with a Critical Areas Variance ("RS" zones only) Variances Variance — signs only (non $ 350.00 700 + % inc. Policy issue: make same for "RS" zones) all variances Variance (non "RS" zones) $ 700.00 %inc. Variance ("RS" zones) $ 350.00 700 + %inc. Policy issue: make same for all variances Variance — underground $ 80.00 % inc. wiring Shoreline Permits Shoreline Substantial $ 750.00 %inc. Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or Variance (non "RS" zones) Shoreline Substantial $ 450.00 %inc. Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or Variance CRT zones) Request for an Amendment $ 50.00 200 Includes staff research time to an approved Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Shoreline Substantial $ 50.00 100 Includes staff research time Development Permit Exemptions aQ Fee Type Current Proposed Notes Subdivisions / Short Plats I Lot Line Adjustments Lot Line Adjustment $ 95.00 + 100 Includes recording fee, based actual recording on experience cost charged by the County Subdivisions (—< 4 lots) — Short $ 225.00 + % Inc. actual recording cost charged by the County Subdivisions (�-, 5 lots) — $ 700.00 + 1,000 + 25/lot Formal (Preliminary review $25.00/lot before Hearing Examiner) Subdivisions (z 5 lots) — $ 50.00 + 200 Reflects staff time. Formal (Final review before actual recording City Council) cost charged by the County Subdivisions (Z 5 lots) — $ 106.00 + 450 Flat fee only; per -lot fee is Formal (If filed in conjunction $25.00/lot + already included in PRD with a PRD application) actual recording application fee. cost charged by the County Modification Request 0 100 per request New fee included w/ Subdivision application Planned Residential Developments (PRD's) Planned Residential $ 800.00 + % Inc. Development (PRD) — $25.00/lot or unit (Preliminary review) Planned Residential $ 50.00 200 Reflects staff time. Development (PRD) — (Final review) Amendment to approved 0 500 New fee PRD's Rezones Rezone $ 400.00 700 Rezone — Contract $ 450.00 900 Consolidated Permit Applications Consolidated Permit Fee for primary Same Applications (e.g. Variance Hearing (no change) and ADB, etc.) Examiner permit + 50% of ADB application fee Il Current Proposed Notes Fee Type 1 7 In -Lieu Parking Joint Parking In -Lieu -Parking (review by $ 75.00 200 Reflects staff time. City Council) In -Lieu -Parking Fee $ 8,000.00 % inc. (new construction) $ 3,000.00 (conversion of existing building space to new use) Joint Use of Parking $ 50.00 100 Reflects staff time. Street Vacations & Street Map Amendments Street Vacation — Appraisal $ 369.00 + i 2,400 Flat fee; includes average Required cost of appraisal _ appraisal cost Street Vacation — No $ 369.00 400 Appraisal Required Street Map Amendment $ 375.00 % inc. Miscellaneous Accessory Dwelling Unit 0 100 New fee Housing for the Elderly $ 50.00 % inc. Applications which are Actual cost of Same remanded to a new hearing new publication (no change) date due to improper or and / or mailing inadequate public notice of new public resulting from application notices material submitted by the applicant, or requests by the applicant to postpone a hearing that has already been advertised Request for Extension of $ 50.00 % inc. Time for an approved permit Minor modification of 0 200 New fee approved plan Request for Code 0 50 New fee Interpretation Request for Zoning 0 50 New fee Compliance/Status Letter Request for Review of an $ 200.00 % inc. Approved Permit a;2 Building Fees e Introduction Building permit and plan review fees are established pursuant to Title 19 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. By city ordinance, Building fees are set to recover 100% of costs. Unless provided otherwise by this section the established fees shall apply for plan review and building permits specified below: 1. Building Permits fees shall be charged at the following rate: a) Commercial Permits: All permits relating to other than residential permits as described below shall be calculated at the rate established in the amended Building Permit Fee Schedule based on 120% of Table 1-A of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code on file with the City Clerk and City Building Official. b) Residential Permits: Permits for the construction, including remodels and additions, of single- family residences along with accessory structures such as carports shall be calculated at the rate established in the amended Building Permit Fee Schedule based on Table 1-A of the Uniform Building Code on file with the City Clerk and City Building Official. c) The determination of value or valuation under the provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code shall be based on the latest edition of Building Valuation Data as published in Building Standards or Codes Forum magazine, on file with the City Building Official. d) Plan Review fees: When submittal documents require a plan review, a fee shall be paid at the time of application submittal. Plan review fees shall be 85% of the calculated building permit fee, are non-refundable, and are separate and in addition to, all other applicable review and building permit fees. Plan review fees include review by the following City Divisions; Building Fire, Engineering, Public Works and Planning. e) Additional plan review required on resubmitted plans: After the third review of resubmitted plans if additional plan review is required of any City Division, an hourly charge of $45 per hour (minimum one hour) shall be assessed and collected upon permit issuance. _ Fees Table Fee Type Current Proposed Notes Adult Family Home 1 $120 $120 Appeals to the Building Code or Enforcement Violations $100 $300 Base Building Permit Fee $30 $60 Cell Communications Bid Bid Changes to Approved Plans None $45 per hour I New fee Change of Use $90 $90 Demolition Permit $180 Primary $50 Secondary $180 $50 Drainage Swimming Pool $50 $50 Factory Built Structures $360 plus bid $360 plus bid Fence $40 $40 23 Fee Type Current Proposed Notes Fire Alarm (new system) $150 $150 Fire Alarm (alteration) $150 Bid Fire Sprinkler (new system) Bid $150 plus consultant review fee Fire Sprinkler (alteration) Bid Bid Grading/Fill 1997 UBC Ch. 33 amended fee table 1997 UBC Ch. 33 amended fee table Grease Interceptor $120 $120 Grease Trap $60 $60 Hot Tub/Spa Single Family $50 $50 Hot Tub/Spa Commercial Bid Housing Compliance $90 Bid $90 Hydronic Heating None ' $100 New fee Inspection Rate (Hourly) $45 $45 tion Fee Equal to the Investiga—T permit fee Equal to the permit fee Landscape Inspection 1 % of landscape bid $65 or 1 % of landscape bid whichever is greater Lawn Sprinkler/Backflow $30 Valve Check $30 Manufactured Coach $360 $360 Meadowdale Review Full cost to applicant Full cost to applicant Meadowdale Administrative $150 Processing $300 Mechanical $90 plus 1997 amended UMC fee table $30 plus 1997 amended UMC fee table Miscellaneous Permit Fee None $30 plus $45 per I New fee inspection Mobile Home Installation $120 $120 Parking Lot Bid Bid Plan Review Rate (Hourly) $45 $45 Plumbing $60 plus 1997 amended UPC fee table $30 plus 1997 amended UPC fee table aye Fee Type Current Proposed Notes Relocation of building ` $100 within City $100 within City limits, $100 plus limits, $100 plus $45 per hour $45 per hour outside City limits outside City limits Re -Inspection (Hourly) $45 $45 Re -Roof Single Family $25 provided no $25 provided no structural structural changes, changes, otherwise by bid otherwise by bid Re -Roof Commercial Bid Bid Request for review of $200 $200 approved building permit Rockery/Retaining Wall $90 plus plan $90 plus plan review fee review fee Satellite Antenna Single $30 $30 - Family Satellite Antenna Commercial Bid Bid Side Sewer Single Family & $60 plus $25 per $30 plus $50 per Multifamily unit unit Side Sewer Commercial $60 plus $10 per $60 plus $10 per fixture fixture Site Improvement Inspection $50 $45 per inspection Sign $60 plus $2 per $60 plus $2 per square foot of square foot of sign area plus sign area plus structural review structural review Swimming Pool In Ground Bid Bid Swimming Pool Above $50 $50 Ground Underground Tank (Fill, $40 per tank $40 per tank Remove, Install)10,000 gallons or less Underground Tank (Fill, $40 per tank $150 per tank Remove, Install) over 10,000 gallons Water Piping Replacement $60 plus $10 per $30 plus $3 per each fixture each fixture Water Service Line $70 ' $40 Woodstove/Pellet $40 $40 Stove/Insert :°�;°MMc�O�MMOOr`tifDN � OOOOOONO��rOO)N oOMMCCOOV Vr- L) d 69 69 6% 64 69 69 69 64 64 69 69 63 64 64 CD coNNNN 0)(0r-mcrlm 0 GD c0 C O O M 0) c0 � d' � 4969(96969b9, lc) y N-O 0Olc)_m )f 1A LO CO 0OMrNNN +• E O> co r r v 0) rNW N E N NrOMMOrO)NvvvcmN rO.-0)0) N V- 0)rc'M N0f-cn 00 co VN N 0) ` m r W Lq Lq u7r���00Omcn 0NpperD LO mticMDO�r N 2 au71C1lArrNa0r V M W o M 0 Kr C%JLq _ v o 0 0 ONN���Ocj00�.M-.M-rr 04 NMvOW� co to O I[i CO� � � O 0 w N QO O M O 1n N 0 co N DO 1n cf r r N C �N�rrr 07 0 OOCrrNGOrdOD00�C0� # rO1�1AO0NrONM000OrrC�7 rrC4 VrNc'9M N I�MrMV00 N LOM N r• C m aco 'mac c °���c""ca�a a�� a v,EEFf Im m m do 0 C. C c c W N X_ N C C m m m p y vJ N c E p H ca� g�>auco <Q<cou)a.cL 000)<C7imF°-- z/ City of Edmonds Community Services Department Building -Planning -Engineering 121-5th Avenue North • 2nd Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: (425) 771-0220 FAX: (425) 771-0221 FAX COVER PAGE To: Scott Svnder Date Transmitted: 9/7/99 Recipient's Fax No. 206-447-0215 From: Development Services Raymond Miller No. of Pages: 1 (Including cover page.) Facsimile Equipment: Automatic/Group II (2,3 mins.); Group III. If there are any problems during transmission or documents are received incomplete, please call (425) 771-0220 and ask for Linda The following is used by Lewis & Yakima Counties. Something to consider. Would like your, comments at your earliest convenience. 38.05.150 Automatic fee schedule adjustment. Beginning on January 1, 1999, and each successive January 1st thereafter, the county fee schedule adopted as a part of this chapter shall automatically be adjusted to account for any increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as established by the U.S. Department of Commerce for the Seattle Metropolitan Area. The calendar year utilized to establish the fee schedule adjustment will be as established by the Department of Commerce for the Seattle CPI. Fees adjusted in this manner may be' rounded to the nearest $5.00 increment. This section shall not preclude the county from modifying the base fee where the board of county commissioners finds it necessary to do SO. (Ord. 1158, 19981 aZ '7 Economic Development/Redevelopment — What role could/should the City take? City Council Retreat February 1 & 2, 2002 Economic development in Edmonds has historically been primarily focused on the downtown area. Examples of this include the 1996 Edmonds' Economic Development Strategic Action Plan (Attachment 1) and the 1999 Downtown Economic Enhancement Strategy (otherwise known as the Hyett-Palma Study). Some effort was focused toward Highway 99 for economic development in the mid-80's. The Edmonds Community Development Code was amended to create "high-rise" nodes. The City partnered with the City of Lynnwood, Snohomish County, Mountlake Terrace, and Highway 99 property owners undertook the development of the "Highway 99 Urban Design Guidelines" as a means to foster consistent design guidelines along the southern portion of Highway 99 and create a more pedestrian friendly environment to promote economic development opportunities along the corridor. The thought at the time was that by creating increased height limits, new development would capitalize on the new regulations. To date no one has utilized those regulations to create a high-rise building. On February 22, 2001, the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce sponsored a meeting on economic development in Edmonds. Out of that meeting four stakeholders groups were formed around the topics of the Highway: ■ Design Guidelines/ADB Process • Parking • Permitting/Codes • Marketing City staff has taken a role in the design guidelines, parking and permitting/codes issues. Staff has worked with the stakeholders in the discussions and development of the proposed new design guidelines and the ADB process. City planning staff and the Alliance completed a parking inventory in the summer of 2001. A comprehensive review of parking regulations and policies was budgeted and will be completed in 2002. The Development Services Director and Managers from the three Development Services Divisions have been meeting with stakeholders to discuss improvements to the permitting process. The group meets once a month and is now working on finalizing a list of possible solutions to present to a larger group of developers, who use our services. Economic Development & Redevelopment City Council Retreat February 1 2. 2002 Page 2 What role could/should the City take? This is a good policy question for the City Council to discuss. There are multiple parties looking at the issue of economic development. The most prominent include the City of Edmonds, the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development, the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Property Owners and the Downtown Merchants Association. Most of the efforts of these groups have to date focused on the downtown area. There are a number of things that the City could do to encourage economic development and re -development. The three obvious things are looking at our permit review process and streamlining reviews, development of clear, concise codes that are consistently applied, and establish clear and definitive policies in the comprehensive plan to support economic development as a major policy goal. Another is to look not only at downtown but also to the Highway 99 corridor. The Highway 99 area has the greatest potential to create substantial retail sales tax revenue. The recent bankruptcy filing by K-Mart, as an example, could possibly impact the Edmonds store. If that were the case, what use would the City like to see the property redeveloped as? Uses such as new car sales and large "big box" retail can generate substantial tax revenue. The downside of these uses can be unattractive large buildings and large parking lots. The City could develop zoning regulations to encourage specific types of uses, set clear design standards and regulations, and develop streamlined review processes to encourage businesses to locate in the planned area, and finally recruit targeted businesses. Infrastructure would need to be looked at to insure the any needed capital improvements have been installed to meet the needs of the targeted uses. In addition, the City could do a planned action that essentially does the review of environmental impacts for a designated area based upon code regulations. This would eliminate the SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) process for new businesses locating in the planned action area, such as Highway 99. Other questions that need to be addressed include: • What city resources should be directed toward economic development? How much funding should be made available? • Should the City take a proactive role promoting economic development? Should the City dedicate staff resources to promote economic development (e.g. position for Economic Development, or Redevelopment)? How do we involve the Highway 99 property/business owners, as well as other neighborhood businesses in the economic development process? U� Cl r' r— O LUr U 11J 0 U� v U �J � r O G^ o U U LL] i=IMF L L' i ■ . 1 Ic 4 ■ F 4 L ■ 1 — i -'4 LFE O a C Y O Co W L w-. O O -tf C nLL o 110 LL , Q) U L (D E 0 U o c cU L m a) t U� cn o -0 Z C U O E U wa C O cn U E U) O m U O 'C "J .a N N W O O C U w U- O L E cU .0 ca M E N N F-I <I wl L. N co CD V M E cU C O a) C cU C to (U U O N O cOn o V 0 E O C 0-02 O a i U) U) 7 >, (� FL' `) C O co a) E O cu� p L- F � a) 1 a) 0 0�• V O O a) ;>. V c C Q) �JOfW�- ❑m-�I-❑-j<M v U L Q) ` U L (U Q) J >, o C m Cl) C o U cU U II (�U C O C p C cU L O U O >, U L oZS U O U °ZS O >, Z 0) U Q) 00 �U _0 o(� C U O L a) C6 cU L L o L �Z o� tea. o -c cu cU a) cB c`U t o o O (1) c� �-,Ua_�Y�Umc)IYILf mCD�U c m — c�U �L'"aV'iocU >1 L >+'U cu = c 3°0- o c: a) o � 0 .S c� O N L)_ cu cC�•`- (U C o = o cu Y o �Y Co`0— J ni_ ❑❑W a) WW°6 c� C� a) a) �. E O O O 0 L=—p A� o _� 6 C o Q) O .T cQ C cLU NE NO co N >0 c�U O ❑❑❑QJZW ) 0'-U2m--.)IL0 C� 0 aYi c x O U) U a) a) t�O E to O t }, c 8 U O O Q<`Yoc0':romp a)roU)>,m ¢m aoimmm 0- O o °' ❑ 9 Em C0) 2mm(m c�`UVv �UU oZf .II O> A cU O cU C cU 'D U C> U N p a) cQ �(',) 0 O a) ON O O` � C W�:Ewo0ozo M"w❑a_mmYoo to'� iv w m m a w -_ = on vi Y'_ = a� vai t.. o a L°3 mar¢ cm a c y = o ❑- l"C❑C N N W N _ _ U cn — a ❑ 4) C cf-O ca CEEar U��� c c-W]s� ❑a C r_ a]-- = CD ar - 00 CL -4� c E c o'cQ-E �m�'0tc U-0 w c M y UCL ❑ wcc_ 1-Dm) U a m Q N tf ? j = _ _ = o a en v o ❑ W - a? eu'ti m tv c 0-0 al-0 m � :f �_ _ > _ 5 n N O '0aEj U ) O _ Ca w ' - .. '-' _ _ - co CL M �ce0 i-°>acn= c oo CDcl CL w = � C OJ 0) � CD E 0] k O � � V) U � � > J _ J _ - _T � � � > c�� CD c rj m c in m E c a� a L .. a- _ 0) co m 3 a 3 c> ., _ _ :o to °' ca w ID V,L N.a a- u t 0 - - - a L co Ca g a y u e E a N a� v; __ E vi +J N VE'`L -he wy Qa,.c_-°E3E L" E C. O G' c0 i7 0.0 Cw Er ❑ m N O7 '37 01 c _ _ — ❑ y O m C w a_ D V1 Gs ❑ j _ - _ RY O O N Cv s _*jd N O C w h EC_3j [>rO) a�as a,c tey;� v, M. cp � c ❑ p 3 � � �~ c CDv' s ai w = � � O �Eroc��'�� Nmo rc,na"� _ a,tiui c �_ G u 0 CL - 3 aD toin -��ca ~ _E E:��rn � :°�pm U) ❑ 0 > to 0 _ _ _ — - CD U C _ _ _ Rf N [0 Ile -Q ca 0 U CL -0 - _ - — A 0 CO U W cp o a w ,�� E� ro r y ;= _= j� 0 rn E > r C w •tl '�r tC0 CD 0 -0 m LLI O G O — G Cl)J� Q 7-. 0—,-- 3 cv c`77 a ttGN [�y •C LO b w >+ inC_ i0 C ;n — _ -P N Q In Im b rN+ D C N V ❑ C •ca �'E- it ❑ N m ❑ �_ U > �_ - im _ cU T O U v7 O O- — -_ E Q7 tr- ' E U Q 0E c �� v v d c y '—J o c �- to 0 4l O d .. n E cv�y E m v"W c') CD0y .O E °- c o �'� � a�� ns V7 > O .�+ G y❑� C 7' -❑❑- '�� hi O d� r ❑ :. O C >r y Q •� �D > C 7 Ca .0 CL c L" C7 O0 U •_ C F N E _ .S [� CO U) E c] cu sn a a� c° rn 0. m ►y C Y s, o c=c of cEm c"u m'"�r�E ° F_"n =2.2 E osm o a c E E m E t c v� 4 �> = >; c_ m c'c L " N E w 0. u c❑i G .0 v) VS-1 `� v�i w a W •C < ? F- 3 [❑S C] lik 0. ❑ � a� o) ca CL �ti ca L U C O w QCc 'O U)o 'ypC C Qi m o E o= EQ-6 m C C C Q CD L a) U E 3 w e c o c`a m y ca L co O C O O o f C Lo O L N a) a) C O U)CL W ca U > cu O m L a) In Q 0-C C y 0 y� O• O to. N E O U-0 W E N Q r ca O ca C a) ca r a) � ca a3 3 a, fl a C C U ca W o y y is y 0 c -' o 00 •Ln L 'D VCo0 Ea)�E a) O �—a) C T'OE ca— � L a) ni C ° U ao co2ocm oL -iCs oca-�E C a) N N O a) a) w a) >E —CVTCCa QN •E m y Co ai tn O C a) w O O CD C N C9 '> C a) y L � ao E�-� 0— 3 c�u o a' o c.�°� ai j cv O L -0 O C o Q C U E ,n C 1 ) � E�—CcE a) 0L=C: Q)i'v� y ,, o c m m ca - y` c O ca � W-0 N= t-- vi w° o o 'E a`� y W ca a) m t E L a) '� 0 3 > m a)0.-0.— y� E— a3 a � L o j o� ay'W o oC o o io o m a�i E N O d C O O c`9 C C (� > O C > O C L•+ E G y v2 j .pY N C J y O o C i7 a) C O'OD U) O OCa "O U= ,E N cE o N ca "N 0 cu U v a c o ca a)Xo�ocaoO ai'N OE o-0 o ao ) 0a�o)EW CD oL�in-E a CU En 0) ) >ao m ` . a inU) Y > 0 0 a) aa) .nin-0 m a) W� L o 0 o o v a)" o ff y y y y 3 ca m ca a) a o 3'3h- " U= y y m o 0 0 3 c o c 3 m o a) c a) O C o� camas ccu�r'a'o''�vyiEL -tom cca0t aiE "' a)ma3 _ n E o c } m E L to C m m E E Y O 01 O C O � .- C O U C V �L _L O O O> 0 O m_ a N Co y C C o o E 0 N ca o L N a c) U 3 a '�' a) c a 3 a) m u U) o a) 3 p E to �m nE3oa) a)� E � yZ`� CD caN a,�a) v-enm a) C m O N .D m` "LaC) CD � V !n N > L C ccu 'a a) a) a) ..0 y C c O C m> a) m m y L E v- "OU m �'_' w�.. w y 3 CD 0 m L — O N Ui O N0 E C O L L a) y N m W Y m to E O E U = cn ca m ca m O_ E V) ayj a) O m ""' w L > V) a U ca o L N .0 L y 0- a) E.. C �� �a, o CL � N C en Ca CD — oE— a) ° Vm cU) Q' >� 0 E o i � c �• o 0CU 'O o yEca a)o ) -0EE:... Cy U ) C O Q)O a'D O ca c0 cu "Dm OoC°C � yc3. -0`°oc�o o> on0)> (1) coP: c W Co = = y ) .c cY o c0 V)ca) opy ) O W U a) Ea voa)a) a) a) C VO o C a) N O _ w O 'O O EE p �Lc mo i�ERccy cm y3cva) CD p�oZ0Up°c) i-1, > C O ) a) 4.cv c,c o 0o O a) O O o a) o to `v CD 0 .. c =O a)(D CD .ca CD UQ). *L`' W N C E vi ,w m e w a= C d€ 2 - N �- � CD O v ��y � E a) w C aL+ v-. y d .3 CD a) a) C O N m C "•'' y 'O E p C V ,p N O O O L a�j O .%. 70 a) y E y O O U; :: N C a) '� Q) '� ' a) p v a) °) o c,• m y >, E o> a) E m d a) (9 = tm p ca 3 ca �a) a C L O C vi N y E y p y n �+ d 0 •C (a 4_- a+ �.. O C Q) L� m d� O= O E �- � y •— O E �a O L C H a *� as a) m m �C a O C O a) C E ca a a) c a+ .. O O> c �aa))aa)) t ca>i "= co-2 "ca)E o uCa.00 ca 0cE>N to> a) ca w. o m2� �� mw cq °: v o mW > a) Qd Q coiv� Qv cca Q cca 3 Q o CD ca 0 c c 7a v a) m n) d r V) c L >. O cC c9 a) L.; of w �N O •d O m c O yD N o !I C O S L M N N O ++ > w+ C N { O� N E� ro 0 0 O v 0), U v? E ro O A.V N O U E 'D Q) c 0 `� N II a) LLI °� W a ca W C [a o cNo cc U coo ome °E c amN •— d �..- O '— •� O N to 0 C Q) ° °-EEn °_'Uc ao E'aa O to O cp n 0 c C O C O ca Co L C) cGnNUN Eg Q-°vya`"i N O 07 C C Q O O cu O o o O tn O" m >. C N W c9 d 0 0 cp E to 0� 'y 0 7 of O > V C 7L N w. U L Y 2 O C 0 .O C� '0 a) lu 0 N N cu m _ N C ca Y G U> 0 O N O o N CD >, U T N c > V � VO � CO �p'D= N V)O E CD C ?� CD a'XEn0�c -0 vEo Sa o _ c cv N O co cII y ca �. O C Ll.l a7 U > CU N E a) — O a) O O cv cn c0 m .-. W L cc > c7 > N 'y p L a) y p 'C � w cff 0 O` cd .� C .N C > E N O) N O_ OG' C y'C C9 Ca a) co _— cC {1 L [Q C .Y E o V) CL 01 N L0 ED a) N y o O Q >, .N� CD p>c°_' O a'c'oc a>EN tno0 aG>>= 3 y o c, Cr a c c o c 0 0 •E ca w E" O O O ca +- .- - N t (D - eh -u O e} O O lA > co N JCL E �oL E a� n L.. a.Ear o-oo oc�� ' E�� LJL to co ru ca — `�' in U) N N N E Q. cn p a) c E ^` N a) D =3 W C N E w M as Q o auW m0>% �, U � � = a> CD V p m � �. c) .� u! C O O 1 C CrGO p 0 C) `° Eo E o C: CD WEE c c 0L COam CD CD W CD Goa O m a) cn C cn v) N N� O O> M C) O v) Q) O }" ' N C j C 7 co C C • � d a) cn .. fl C E cts O c9 C? > C E > ca >cE ) >� °_ E'er =ioa�o (� f' d () U ._. Q) ,E E ca 3 y (0 aa') y t O .. c0 cn v0 �Em U'O E ai o�0 E`�cc `�� tn o- CII c� of o` W v> m r m o c > -o N W U �-c= 'C°.. 6 c �o U w »o- � � o 65 co a «• o co co co O �' (y M �+ CD c c y E ca y cn a) C C O G E' p O Q) N v) .0 CD U N c o v) E CO cxs u C N = V a) cc C N O—cu v� En 0 T7 m C O E y> N Q! C a) i O W >; to ram— ° ; >v� dL`°Cv °>»-Evi m e a CD f� o E n. CM4� B 0 0 o o� a> wLL ••vim E t oyy c o. v +mac c w E O� r O O O N O to N cy O w 80 ❑- 2 > (� 1- a o " co vC— id i-- E w CD>' as O O L r > 0 O WaW CL ►- m'�= E cf) m m �a a. N N Q1 c a� a 0- n. CL n c c c 000 0_o m m m .0 cco.0 LL o E a� a� a� -CD a) o �E L -, O m L > > > O Q) CD() >> a) a)O a) ro �cEa fn 2L n Q n CL o C Y ❑ a`� i s i i i i aL> aL� � � � �n �n N n-0 m.0n-0-0 .n� L n nn n� nn � � o-ac cE E E �, E E E E E E L t L L L L t t Qmm Mmmm�MM� N�oInm�E cu m��mc�no L L O= .0 .0 L O L L O UU�UUUUaUU� c c c E c� c c n c cn �U cc y TTTTTTTTTTT � �.� m �m'�= m� m = m :t!=- === : : m mcutm>mm >o >mm»-NC N J UUUUUUUUUUUU dwUdWa- w wa wa.d-ww< Q 0 m a� U C N O E a) NEC c 0 0 C CA O O L q N N N O 2 'U O N N C C N j .0 N 'D N .0 W N O O O cu O '0 w N O E C T w m O _ — L m C _ C� °) E r- M O L M CD CD CM m N n C w. cm 7 'O �«- N N C M N C E 'y O C CM O N m m a> 0 0 :C. O C C O N N .� .0 L L x c E � ? 0 3 L� c a� E >> +� O M E vac o o Co 0 5 >.N"». c o m -0-0 0 0 LC W n C C N :% E cn N L o.0 C CD n -0 C o w C O) m °_' Q)i >, - E c-° v> o u �' o� �� n C o vi � v m c N " U Q) ._ — N O '> Cl N O C L. L C C1 o U_ C O C �, M O w C in m o>—> c-0 a� c 7 � .�. 0 0 ten- M �= o c — M C O N L 7 m O C N m -"� U O d L C �+ C _ 3Qv 20.->0) =o� 0 E� E>`- vQD no ,n N aEcca N� c❑0c a�mi� o`LEc cc� co v �� c>3 Y 4) — O Q Y C o 7 M' C c c 3 0` c c� o ca N �' c a>i� Q' E Y m U� N 0 M 0 cu Co no n N- N O ._ 0 E C Q1 3 4- E N N a m M C 0m0�Mo�,4-mc as 0 m -0Or_mccE .0 ocE E N C N .N V f�`II tm.. O O O .0 E U c �.... m L' O ..0.. C 'L E V L N mmE`-cn,,a� c v�� E 2-6 cu— 0�l-0c p MnDc`acciC�C -' 7 0 n a L 'a- O y-0- O U D O of � N N w cr CL ... V E E ve m 0 T p w r c E�� c L 8 U °-' a� c Qo c o 1DL c �� W > ` o n`D 0 o 0 na�� o a, rnL m w�. c4:E E 2 � � _v o N a),, E a) > € Co O> y U C C N N a N M �C w =3 O c C C Cl p ap-- U Y E O Q) ❑ L"' N> >, �a N >' _T M C O M M C U Q) O b? M C o U n M CL U °- Q M aNi o m °' — Co > z m 0 � c, o = N n � U- O ca co E � ca E CL 0 CL V b = L U G U O m= N Q m C N ._ n CL CD d C1 Q. 0 a CL m > > > h > E'» > > m M `° C0 � 0� a> fl o� �V O o.CJ o O m N �►��E � >o>,o>o M >>E�>> >. C N Q) N C N M 0 0 0 0 N a O_ "' O N G N O �. Q) C N 2 i+ Q) Q) O Q) m m O❑w�ww(�Uof�wec m w nclL03W WX0C) m❑LL ❑❑Um❑❑ r-+ L L m +-+ O r N r-M . Lr; (O I- 00 C3; O r '' w M � N (O 1� U) rNM4�C011GO�rrr- fn �ci rrrrrrN '' (n NNN N N N) CD m IL N NN L N U -0 E L O U U O O a_ a) 0 N N c c co co U U _a t O a) ili 2 W c N 0 Iz a) C (D C cu M -0 cu L E U E � L c O- L cu m`- -C a)L a) p >. Y U2U 2 c vni U a`) 0- nn nca. a L CLtn n a Eo mn c Lr) i -0 E U C V C C C C C a C U C C- wUv a a a aMIL v Uv�i�¢vai�avva_v a) W 3 co N cu O c' E v) ca ° (1) a) 3 O C a) N .� U U -O !2C:a) W C: 0- : ro W 0 C C O �> > p) C O C U E N •)e O a) 0 �� — cu c E U C C)O a) o)-o •- C • C N •p ca a) c0 cB O a) a) 0) U .-• > > cti N O L 0 .... N Y O cu 70 N c C QI Q O L) 'c7 ca O C y Q. C N N O. 7 u a) M N a) V N - N d O c0 E C p-0 a) c U) E E - UCa CO �C f- fl) >' C Q a) N 7 y C U 0 a) J O O a) t�—n U c _ � r. _ � C c-0 C > O C o f a) " U .� C — a) a) a)— O O C N O p �. 7 Q Q . O p(A� C UY�. �- N ca •� 0 L) N o c) U) C a) m 3 rn v E L «. C o c._ ._. 3 0 .0 = o vN y O C y �' >s @ C O c0 O C [a co -0 '� � Ql co E C o c c c c o `o a� o N cCp E c a? 0 �aW II p �� Q Tz7.Nc�o.�"-.+>, a) m c: o E �E 0 iu �.NExN Q c a�0inN3�Uc°)i 0 y w c 0 .- a) c c9 r= " c`oo>p.-Ecv� 1 ,� o -j C y E o N 3 ofl�a)3�cv__n��Ea)mo p .• »� G cuC) +-' E ��oawio C N N Em O O� U U E co ca C C V)>0 o. P`�ca u m U�1vo)0c35E0oE5o'0Ect 0 cu >C�6 ;r ca d C co :° a 3 „o � c c-0 L. O o C C O v) o a�i ate) .0 C � � m 0 U a�i a Qc«- , aa) 000NoOE a) 3�°->>='acv>oE�3cp v) >. .. a) — .-. C L) 0 ? >, se — a o o N a) c °) co a) 0c`oi�v0ino•`a�ia3iwoa0 0= F tLF- oa>)o.°«a--)o°)'0a) CDXa>) � o c E E�zz�OZUwwo t �o�0o ca ca m M�I�~"Cl) mce)o)C3 m n n "IT Nt�t -It "It I'll 't•V•Ntr)LOLO rn rn TT L C _M, a) Q1 c9 a- v o� -0n v rn c o o E)O o— E cy m asn` C G N � j v i) c o� N Q- � o o E cuC>x G [n c ~t� �m Ico c o (D � ' co c D En y co mcu U K = 0. > Qr p7 Q 7x a� c0 O a)O `'p O - a) 0) O C co N •C E M c0C i '0 U � wN L_ a E m•-N O caw�C C " � cu a) cc C v U 0-� 3 .� c Q a�i m Q n.o x U c v O cu o c E E'er n o CD E b ro L L coLp "O3 � O p E .p W U N E O 0 b N vi m a� c o ca a`a •- ❑ -0 .0_ as o (9 c '0_ 7 S E o n of c "- L@ 0 0 m 0) � o o f❑ E N C O d'- C .-7 N N p �._. C ►� Ewm E"�"' ,60E mW cu wtn 0 00 c�a ci, 0 • y 0 cho m 0)� � EUY�a`>� �U ow�EEo m N v U C 3 cv [d m o N °7 N O> U 0❑ c� Y t11 O Q N O ro 0 7 C E U a N Ec�N cLo am�� o�wa c 0-0:; O b 4) > O O7 C N b O p c O C• ti a� E y n c"o o a- 4 .Q c i3 ro c a� 4? u� U a 3 E o, 0 N a] a+ V N C �` ❑_ m N- N C O V O_ C C E C: cv ,n a E v0._ u .� 0] E•- p E s o f E c ro. N x = 0 co C L) w a E] cd a3 iv D m :a Nc4 m cU w 'j - N a) U c0 .c -0 .� [I7 C a) N C) CO L O D� Ll] o N C .E E c N .0 E U E U rn O U N 3 LL1 U_ 3 L 0 E aai ro 5 c_ca 0. E m N c X m Y+ 2' ��n a) d rn CL a 0-0 n o CLu3 c� U d o a) a ^` O U) c T r N cD W ^ 0) i /^o W— ai SIS fp >+ w C .�� c C CD LL 'L3 O �� ❑ w C C ro a] 'C... u] N o, ro roc0vr aciE E�7v 3E� ��°� -� vN�i ro urp m `o c'� `m o� �L c vo r- o o 0 E c CD m� E 7 E as � N 0 ��� o-0 o E � 10 a� 3 a m w o m E �?_ ��co y v Co N wm �' cca -0.0 m cum ou C EC c U C) L) � E' °' o � aci � m tn � � a) .22 cUc C d E c ❑ 0] D ro p E a 47 c c cu cy , a w ry as to w n 'o "." U E 'S3 07 - �, C a) C- co -~• .E � a) N 0 « O U.l i3 C E a] " 0 w N@ Cl .N � ro E OCD � w C V Q 4] qy o E 0 17 Z1 .b+ c E .N G E c D N C71 c co ❑ U O ro sn ❑ U `- ❑ w CZ CON a... C co�. 0. E o c W v a�� s CO v c C E a Cc= E Wa; 0y+�cu -0 m co Egan ar=m ac�Qa� o�ti i�� m.0ro mE� � g n E CL O U > M P O ru G O a, mg> O❑ L� CL -a� 0] C a] N cam' U v o E o C� U_ c `v CISvi c Q>,o CLcv0)<V) Ena �� Em❑E m ��c �` 3 ac o a� b' CC O N .1 N [� O (1 L O C p U] O O U Co -a ' C •� u) E C wCV), 0 0 .O n N E❑ 0- a O "J C N m 07 N x L -, LO ap tq to ^ C.E CL mov m Qo. � oEa a3o U) w co t,c Q C N U a❑to Lf CE o N QON w G pN E C 4 E�aia,c'vEo, N '3�� o�Gccc� m�v y� t� cad V) co E ccav E'o� m � 0'm `�0 a) W woU�rramcoU0 LL QO� c vi Ems-MU� OL. � $ • 1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Update Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Our primary focus responding to the listing of chinook salmon as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has centered upon being prepared for submittal of our National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit in 2003. On August 6, 2001, CRK Environmental Management signed a professional agreement with the City for preparation of a Plan of Action and Milestones (POAM) for ESA/ Storm water Management. Four tasks were delineated in the agreement. The following is an overview of those tasks and the progress to date: 1. Document and Information Review. This task involved revising the City's present plans, regulations and programs. Status: Completed. 2. Philosophy, Principles and Approach. This task involved developing an Adaptive Management Plan guideline for POAM preparation and to guide future decision -making. City staff (including Parks, Public Works, Planning and Engineering personnel) reviewed this Plan. Status: Staff presented the plan to the Council CS/DS committee on October 9, 2001, On October 30, 2001 the Plan was adopted by the City Council. 3. Regulatory Gap Analysis. This task involved comparing the City's existing program and regulations versus various environmental and storms water management regulations. The analysis, deficiencies and recommendations were summarized in four matrixes, which evaluate the City's program against four key state and federal programs: 1) State Shoreline Master Program Gap Analysis. 2) Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm water Permit Gap Analysis. 3) Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines (Puget Sound Chinook 4(d) Rule #10 Limit to Take Prohibition for Routine Road Maintenance) Gap Analysis, and 4) Tri-County Storm water Management Checklist Gap Analysis. Status: 1) Staff has reviewed this Analysis and the consultant will address minor comments. 2) Early in the process of working on this task, the need to establish baseline information on stream conditions was identified. Pentec signed a Professional service agreement with the City for a Stream Inventory and Assessment Project on October 16, 2001. They have completed the Field Survey of Edmonds 7 largest streams and are nearly complete with the draft report. The report will include a fish survey, stream habitat survey, overall stream characterization and detail potential enhancement projects and stream protection recommendations. 4. Plan of Action and Milestones Report. This task involves completion of a planning level document that identifies timelines and requirements to comply with the aforementioned requirements (filling the gaps that are required) of the various programs. To this end the report will identify such things as capital improvements, consultant studies, additional staffing requirements and the cost estimates to achieve these requirements. Status: Staff is currently compiling comments on the draft report prepared by the consultant. ESA Update City Council Retreat February 1 & 2 Page 2 WRIA 8 In addition, the City of Edmonds is part of the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish (WRIA 8) watershed planning efforts. A major milestone in the planning efforts by WRIA 8 was the recent issuance of the Draft Near Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation (DNTAAS). The Action Agenda is intended to provide guidance to local governments and the public on interim measures that can be taken while work on a long term conservation plan for the watershed is undertaken. It is not law, but rather gives local governments options to help conserve salmon habitat. The DNTAA has been issued for public comment. The WRIA 8 Forum of elected officials will be meeting in late February to discuss the DNTAA and the process for finalizing the document, including public comment. City of Edmonds Council Retreat February 1, 2002 Prepared by: Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Steve Koho, Public Works Governmental Accounting Standards Board Pronouncement 34 (GASB 34) In June 1999, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board released a new pronouncement known as GASB Statement 34. This pronouncement radically changes the rules governing the manner in which financial statements are prepared and requires valuation and reporting of public infrastructure condition. Statement 34 is designed to move governmental accounting toward a business accounting model, while retaining certain core aspects of governmental accounting. One major intent of the statement is to provide information to the users of financial statements about the long-term viability of all the infrastructure assets of a community. In general, GASB 34 requires governments to: 1. Report on the overall state of the government's financial health, not just its individual funds, in a consolidated, government -wide statement prepared on a full accrual basis. 2. Provide the most complete information ever available about the cost of delivering services to citizens that includes a charge for the consumption or preservation of infrastructure and other capital assets. 3. Include for the first time information about the worth and condition of the City's infrastructure and capital assets. This change will require extensive efforts on behalf of the City to identify and establish original cost information for the past twenty years on all roads, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, traffic signalization, street lighting systems, parks landscaping and vegetation, trails, bike paths and rights of way. For the last year, staff from Finance and Public Works has worked to learn the technical issues relating to these new requirements. However, reporting the state of the City's infrastructure assets is likely to impact the City Council as the policy setting body of the organization. Mr. Duncan Rose, a former city manager and current partner with Parsons Engineering, will give a presentation at the retreat that will address the policy ramifications of this statement as well as describe the level of effort needed for compliance with the new rule. Compliance dates for the new ruling are mandated by the GASB and the State Auditor's Office. The next steps planned by staff are research, followed by the preparation of a draft strategy and budget. This information will be brought before Council for policy setting direction. Once a compliance plan is developed, staff will implement the plan in order to meet the compliance schedule of GASB 34. k OF EDP D City of Edmonds Community Services Department Fst. i gga Date: January 28, 2002 To: Gary Haakenson, City Council From: Stephen Clifton, AICP, Community Services Director�v Subject: 2002 City Council Retreat - - City of Edmonds Official Web Site and Channel 21 Access Policies and Disclaimer Attached you will find a memorandum from Zach Lell, Attorney with Ogden Murphy Wallace, regarding the City of Edmonds' official web site and Channel 21. This topic will be discussed during the City Council Retreat on February 2, 2002. The memorandum includes discussion on the purposes of the city's website and Channel 21 in addition to draft policies and a disclaimer City which specify the extent and limitations of access available for both media. The proposed draft policies, if accepted by the City Council, will help prevent indiscriminate public use of Channel 21 and the City's official web site. A disclaimer related to the City's web site would also warn on- line visitors the City disavows any responsibility for the content of other Internet pages to which the City's site may provide links. City of Edmonds ca Community Services CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSO MAYORR CITY HALL • THIRD FLOOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 775-7724 • FAX (425) 771-0252 COMMUNITY SERVICES 4.4C.1S9° MEMORANDUM DATE: January 28, 2002 TO: Mayor Haakenson Edmonds City Councilmembers Stephen Clifton CC: Scott Snyder, City Attorney Cindi Cruz FROM: Zach Lell RE: City of Edmonds Official Web Site and Channel 21 -- Access Policies and Disclaimer I. INTRODUCTION The City of Edmonds maintains an official web site for purposes of posting information about City governance and other material relevant to the Edmonds community. The City also operates cable Channel 21, a full-time public access television channel broadcasting City Council meetings and other information regarding local governmental affairs. The City occasionally permits other organizations and governmental agencies to post information on both media. Such posting occurs directly in the case of Channel 21, and through Internet links in the case of the City's web site. In order to prevent indiscriminate public use of Channel 21 and the City's official web site (thereby creating a "public forum" available to all users). City staff has asked our office to assist in drafting policies specifying the extent and limitations of access available for both media. The City has also requested a disclaimer for its web site that would warn on-line visitors the City disavows any responsibility for the content of other Internet pages to which the City's site may provide links. The attached documents respond to this request. {JZL507387.DOC;1/00006.040074/) 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Mayor Haakenson Edmonds City Councilmembers Stephen Clifton January 28, 2001 Page 2 II. DISCUSSION A. Web Site and Channel 21 Access Policies Because the City's web site and television channel potentially represents government "property," limitations on public access to such media implicate various constitutional constraints. Generally, the validity of speech restrictions on governmental property is determined by reference to the character of property at issue. Government property other than such historic public gathering places as parks, sidewalks and streets (i.e., the "traditional public f6rum")1 may typically be reserved for its intended governmental purpose without regard to any desired public use thereof 2 Restrictions on speech in this arena are valid if viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the properties purpose a comparatively easy standard to satisfy.3 Our chief concern regarding the City's web site and Channel 21 is the potential characterization of these media as "designated public fora"; i.e., property that the City has effectively (and perhaps inadvertently) "opened" for public speech by permitting communicative use by a wide variety of speaker ,.4 Once particular government property is judicially recognized as a designated public forum, any restrictions on speech are invalid unless they are narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest.5 Government regulations rarely satisfy the "compelling interest" standard. Very few court cases have directly addressed the issue of permissible speech regulations within a municipal web site or public access television channel. In The Putnam Pit, Inc. v. City of Cookeville, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a City's web site was not a public forum for constitutional purposes.6 Likewise, in Denver Area Edu. Tel. Cons., Inc. v. Federal Comm. Comm'n, the United States Supreme Court refused to apply forum analysis to a government access television channel. Despite this favorable authority, however, we advise the City to proceed cautiously when regulating speech within the context of its web site and Channel 21. The Washington State Constitution affords greater free speech protection than its federal counterpart,8 and may i Perry Edu. Assn v. Perry Local Edu. Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37,45 (1983). 2 Id at 46. 3 Id. 4 Id. at 45. 5 Id 6 221 F.3d 834, 84246 (6' Cir. 2000). 7 518 U.S. 727, 749-750 (1996). 8 See, e.g., Collier v. City of Tacoma, 121 Wn.2d 737, 747-48, 854 P.2d 1046 (1993). Mayor Haakenson Edmonds City Councilmembers Stephen Clifton January 28, 2001 Page 3 ultimately recognize a broader category of public fora than exists under federal law.9 Similarly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal rulings of which bind Washington courts) may ultimately decline to follow the Sixth Circuit's Putnam Pit holding, and may instead characterize municipal web sites as public fora. Our office has accordingly drafted the attached access policies conservatively, and has attempted to establish clearly defined guidelines for access to both the City's web site and Channel 21. B. Disclaimer Many cities post a disclaimer on their official web sites which, inter alia, warns Internet visitors that sites to which the city's web page may provide links are beyond the city's regulatory reach. Our office has similarly crafted the attached disclaimer to achieve this purpose. The draft was adopted from various other Washington municipal web site disclaimers, and is worded expansively in order to preclude various forms of potential liability. III. CONCLUSION The lack of precedent regarding municipal regulation of official web sites and public access television prevents definitive legal answers in this arena. To avoid potential challenges to the City of Edmonds' access restrictions, we advise the City to apply the attached policies consistently and evenhandedly. Should any issue regarding public access to either medium arise, please contact our office immediately. 9 Cf. Briton v. City of Erie, 933 F. Supp. 1231, 1268 (W.D. Pa. 1995) ("A public -access cable television channel is a public forum"); Missouri Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kansas City, 723 F. Supp. 1347, 13551 (W.D. Mo. 1989). CITY of EDMONDS WEB SITE ACCESS AND LINKAGE POLICY The City of Edmonds web site was developed for the limited purpose of providing information regarding the Edmonds community, local government services, local civic events, local news events, local regulations, and other designated materials directly and uniquely relevant to the City of Edmonds and its residents. Nothing in this policy or in the City's web site itself shall be deemed to create or constitute a public forum. The City of Edmonds does not provide web site hosting for the general public, but does provide Internet links to the web sites of designated government, non-profit, civic and local organizations that have a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds. Any organization or group hosting a web site to which the City of Edmonds web page provides a link shall be solely and exclusively responsible for the content thereof. [Please see the City of Edmonds Web Page Disclaimer LINK] Organizations or groups desiring to place a link on the City of Edmonds web site must apply in writing to the City of Edmonds Community Services Department. The application must contain the following information: ■ The name, business address, and telephone number of the organization • The URL or Internet address of the organization's web site ■ The content of the organization's web site ■ The organization's mission or purpose • An explanation of the organization's specific relevance to the Edmonds community ■ The organization's designated contact person for purposes of communicating with the City of Edmonds R The organization's registered agent for purposes of receiving legal service of process • The identity of other web sites that provide an Internet link to the organization's web site The City of Edmonds Community Services Department will determine whether or not to approve each organization's application and will notify the applicant of the decision within ten days of receiving an application. In rendering its decision, the Community Services Department shall consider the guidelines enumerated below in light of the stated purpose of the City of Edmonds web site. Generally, Internet links to the following types of web sites may be permissible: ■ Governmental and public educational institutions located within the State of Washington ■ Local organizations having a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds or with which the City of Edmonds partners in order to provide services, including but not limited to the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, Port of Edmonds, and Stevens Hospital • Local cultural, artistic, civic or non-profit recreational organizations having either a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds or specific and direct relevance to City residents ■ Tourist information {JZL507167.DOC;3/00006.900020/ } ■ Information regarding Edmonds community events, such as festivals, art displays and neighborhood fairs Generally, Internet links to the following types of web sites are not permitted: ■ Political candidate sites or sites advocating a position on political issues, including but not limited to ballot propositions ■ For -profit business or commercial sites ■ Individual personal home pages ■ Sites containing religious proselytizing or spiritual ■ Sites containing illegal, obscene or pornographic content Nothing herein shall be deemed to abridge or otherwise limit the City's unrestricted and sole discretion to restrict, limit, alter or remove any material or link posted on the City's official web site at any time and without notice for any reason, including but not limited to administrative convenience, space availability or appearance of impropriety. The fact that the City has previously authorized the posting of material on its official web site by any organization or group shall in no way be construed to establish any future right by such organization or group to post additional materials or links, or to limit the City's ability to restrict, limit, alter or remove any such material or link once posted. Any organization whose application for web site linkage has been denied by the City may file a letter of appeal with the Mayor within 30 days of receiving a written denial from the Community Services Department. { JZL507167. DOC;3/00006.900020/ } City of Edmonds Government Channel 21 Policy Government Channel 21 is a public service created for the limited purpose of providing Edmonds citizens with designated information regarding the operation and affairs of City government. The "Community Calendar" (character generator) is offered to provide selected information from public, educational and governmental sources. Channel 21 is available to local cable subscribers and is displayed throughout the day, seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day with both text (agendas and announcements) and video (meetings) information. Nothing in this policy or in Channel 21 itself shall be deemed to create or constitute a public forum. Organizations or groups desiring to post information on Channel 21 must apply in writing [see attached form] to the City of Edmonds Community Services Department. The application must contain the following information: ■ The name, business address, and telephone number of the organization ■ The content of the organization's proposed message ■ The organization's mission or purpose ■ An explanation of the organization's specific relevance to the Edmonds community ■ The organization's designated contact person for purposes of communicating with the City of Edmonds ■ The organization's registered agent for purposes of receiving legal service of process The City of Edmonds Community Services Department will determine whether or not to approve each organization's application and will notify the applicant of the decision within ten days of receiving an application. In rendering its decision, the Community Services Department shall consider the guidelines enumerated below in light of the stated purpose of Channel 21. Generally, the following types of information may be posted on Channel 21: • Information regarding governmental and public educational institutions located within the State of Washington ■ Information regarding local organizations having a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds or with which the City of Edmonds partners in order to provide services, including but not limited to the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, Port of Edmonds, and Stevens Hospital ■ Information regarding local cultural, artistic, civic or non-profit recreational organizations having either a recognized relationship with the City of Edmonds or specific and direct relevance to City residents • Information regarding Edmonds community events, such as festivals, art displays and neighborhood fairs • City -initiated press releases Generally, the following types of information may not be posted on Channel 21: • Political information advocating a candidate or position on political issues, including but not limited to ballot propositions ■ For -profit business or commercial information ■ Individual personal information ■ Religious proselytizing or spiritual instruction • Illegal, obscene or pornographic matter {JZL507181.DOC;2/00006.900020/} ■ Press releases not initiated by the City of Edmonds ■ Meeting schedules for community organizations' Nothing herein shall be deemed to abridge or otherwise limit the City's unrestricted and sole discretion to restrict, limit, alter or remove any informational material posted on Channel 21, at any time and without notice, for any reason, including but not limited to programming availability. The fact that the City has previously authorized the posting of informational material on Channel 21 by any organization or group shall in no way be construed to establish any future right by such organization or group to post additional materials, or to limit the City's ability to restrict, limit, alter or remove any such material once posted. Moreover, the City makes no guarantee that any informational material will be posted by or for any specific time, notwithstanding that the organization or agency requesting such posting may have informed the City of a preferred time and/or duration of posting. Any organization whose application for information posting on Channel 21 has been denied by the City may file a letter of appeal with the Mayor within 30 days of receiving a written denial from the Community Services Department. FINAL DETERMINATION BY CITY COUNCIL {JZL507181.D0C;2/00006.900020/} City of Edmonds Official Web Site Disclaimer The City of Edmonds web page was developed for the limited purpose of providing information regarding the Edmonds community, local government services, local civic events, local news events, local regulations, and other designated materials directly and uniquely relevant to the City of Edmonds and its residents. Nothing in this web page shall be deemed to constitute a public forum. Neither the City of Edmonds, Washington, nor any agency, officer, or employee of the City of Edmonds nor the copyright holder(s) warrant the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information in this web page and shall not be liable for any losses caused by any person or entity's reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of such information. This publication is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non -infringement. Portions of information obtained from this Web page, including but not limited to the Edmonds City Code and the Edmonds Community Development Code, may be incorrect or outdated. Any person who relies on any such information does so at his or her own risk. In no event will the City of Edmonds be liable for any direct, indirect, punitive, special, incidental or consequential damages, however they may arise, resulting from the reliance of any person or entity upon such information, even if the City has been advised of the possibility of such damages. The City of Edmonds reserves the right, in its sole discretion and without obligation, to make amendments to or correct any error or omissions in any portion of these materials at any time, or to remove all or any portion thereof. All comments, guest book entries, suggestions, ideas, notes, drawings, concepts, or other information disclosed or offered to the City of Edmonds by this site or in response to solicitations in this site (collectively, the "Comments") shall remain the property of the City. None of the Comments shall be subject to any obligation of confidence on the part of the City of Edmonds and the City shall not be liable for any use or disclosure of any Comments. Without limitation of the foregoing, the City of Edmonds shall exclusively own all presently known or hereafter existing rights to the Comments of every kind and nature throughout the world and shall be entitled to unrestricted use of the Comments for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the provider of the Comments. Many of the Internet pages maintained by the City of Edmonds contain links to sites that are not under the control or management of the City or any agency, officer, or employee of the City of Edmonds, or the copyright holder(s) (hereafter, the "City"). Accordingly, the City makes no representation concerning the content of these sites, nor can the fact that the City has provided these links serve as an endorsement of any of these sites. The {JZL507144.DOC;2/00006.900020/} City provides these links only as a courtesy to you. This disclaimer serves to inform you that the City has not examined or approved any of these sites, and therefore cannot make any representations regarding any material found there. Some people may find such material offensive, inappropriate or unsuitable for viewing by minors. The City accordingly encourages you to exercise discretion while browsing the Internet. Other Internet sites may link to the City of Edmonds web page. Since these sites are not under the control or management of the City, the City makes no representation concerning the content of these sites to you, nor can the fact that these sites provide links to any City page(s) serve as the City's endorsement of any of these sites. Communications sent via the Internet or through this web page shall in no way be deemed to constitute legal notice to the City of Edmonds or any of its officers, agents, or employees, where notice to the City is required by any law, rule, regulation, or contract. {JZL507144.DOC;2/00006.900020/} No Packet for this Agenda Item Edmonds — Economic Development 2002 Economic development can be interpreted in different ways depending upon philosophy, goals, and particular characteristics of a particular region or community. The following suggestion for Edmonds is not listed in priority order, but the suggested objectives are potentially the four most critical ones. The three most common gQats of economic development are employment/wages, tax base and support of the community business infrastructure. Enhanced residential density in "the Bowl". - Supports growth management activities for Seattle. - Supports the downtown business retail and restaurant community. - Supports retail sales tax revenue. - Supports property tax revenue. - Supports employment primarily during construction. ✓ Code revisions... public attitude ... ADB process... positive approach Enhanced tourism —primarily overnight, but including day visits. - Supports the downtown business retail and restaurant community. - Supports retail sales tax revenue (to a very high degree on a per capita basis). - Supports hotel/motel tax revenue. - Supports property tax revenue. - Supports employment, both during construction (higher wages) and ongoing (lower wages). - Provides cultural and recreational opportunities for local residents as well. ✓ Waterfront oriented... FACE ... PFD... other attractions. Enhanced office park employment centers. - Supports growth management activities for Seattle. - Supports retail sales tax revenue (indirectly). - Supports property tax revenue. - Supports employment (variety of wages). - Enhances community image. ✓ Both downtown and Hwy 99 oriented... adequate sites needed... possible code revisions. 01/29/02 Enhanced retail sales tax/"big box" retailing. - Supports retail sales tax revenue. - Supports property tax revenue. - Supports employment (often lower wages). - May add to destination attraction capabilities for the community_ ✓ Hwy 99 oriented includes volume retailers for personal and business sales, car dealers, etc. Notes: • Every dollar of retail and other sales equals $0.01 for the City of Edmonds and a total of $0.017 for the local community. • Every $1,000 of assessed value equals $2.467 of property tax for the City of Edmonds —It is estimated that every square foot of retail and office space is worth $0.79 per year in property tax to the city, and for residential and hotel space each square foot is worth $0.68 per year. 01/29/02 ryi Downtown Edmonds Economic Impact Analysis Prepared for The Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development By David Peterson & Mikael Hattrup July 2001 An economic impact analysis of benefits was developed to assist in responding to two separate questions: 1. What is (are) the community -wide economic benefit(s) from various land use alternative developments on sample sites within the greater downtown Edmonds area? What type of development returns the biggest measurable economic benefit(s) to the community? 2. And, on a more micro -level, how do various building code and parking regulations effect development plans ... number of units, square footage developed, etc.? What are the economic gains and losses to the community at large, and to various civic entities due to alternative development guidelines? Four separate land use types were selected for an economic testing --retail, residential, office and hotel. In every case the type of use was related to the general character and potential of downtown Edmonds (big box retailing was not used as an example). As stated on the attached Findings and Assumptions table, this work identifies the relative benefits of certain developments, not related public costs, if any. Also, this is not a market study, it doesn't test demand/supply feasibility. Rather it seeks to identify economic impacts, when and as development occurs. It doesn't suggest degree of developer/owner success per each project --that is a separate matter. (For analysis purposes the study assumes nearly full occupancies for retail, residential and office space, with vacancies/turn over only a short term factor. For hotel rooms 70% annual occupancy --a healthy figure --was assumed.) Assumptions were based upon current local, and in some cases regional, trends. Where the latter was involved, sources were used with Edmonds in mind. The 1,500 square foot model was used because it relates well --it represents 2 small apartments, or 1 medium one, or 2/3 of a large one. It also represents 3 hotel rooms and fits as well as any number for retail and office. To determine total economic impacts from a project, or from code impacts one way or the other, multiplying the ratio of total square footage/1,500 square foot increments by the category factors will illustrate that product. These are annual impacts with categories including the short and long term. The former involves the construction period, while the latter includes operations, direct on- going business activity, and secondary impacts (such as spending by hotel guests away - from the hotel, or spending by employees in the new space, away from that space). Conservative, middle-of-the-road figures and assumptions were generally used. EconImnactFullText.doc Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development Page 1 of 5 Assumptions and Findings: • Construction costs of $125 - $150 per sq. ft. for residential, $110 - $120 for retail and office, and $125 for hotel. ■ All model base units figured at 1,500 sq. ft. Operating costs based upon recent (local) federal composite averages. All taxes based upon current rates. No federal taxes included. ■ Impact of direct to indirect $ and employment were considered at multipliers of 2x for construction and 1.5x for all other categories. ■ Spending patterns by categories were based on US Census data and "Sales and Marketing Management's Buying Power Index" surveys. • Sales and square footage ratios were based upon Urban Land Institute reports. Edmonds base data were in part based upon the Chamber of Commerce surveys in the Hyett Palma study. • Tourism spending patterns were based upon local data, recent studies, and updates of the U of Wisconsin base national surveys. ■ Development assumptions relate to the Edmonds "downtown" and immediate surrounding areas including the waterfront. • Impacts are all on the positive side — income and growth related. These are the benefits. Costs of services per capita are not intended to be included. ■ Market feasibility is not implied. This analysis does not suggest what can be built on any specific site, rather relates current types of local development to its' impacts if and as built. Attention was paid to factors such as construction costs, material/labor splits, operating expenses, taxes and their rates by category, spending patterns by income levels and by category, average sales per square foot, employment densities, and dollar turnover impacts. These economic impacts are based upon activity/development generated within the greater downtown Edmonds area, but community and public revenue benefits can also include spending outside of that area. EconlmpactFul lText. doe Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development Page 2 of 5 •t Economic benefits vary —some uses are more positive in one category, while other uses may have a greater impact in different categories. Depending on what impacts are more highly valued, one or another land use might be considered as more positive. Is it tax base? Employment? Dollar generation in the community? Most often it is a composite of these, and the order varies with the specific objective(s). Table #1 is a summary of the key economic elements. Table # 2 is an even tighter summary based solely upon the total benefit impacts, which includes the direct impacts and the dollar turnover multipliers. Without regard to other factors, the following findings appear per unit: • There is not much difference among the uses in terms of taxes, or employment, due to construction. There is not much difference per unit regarding utility taxes. • Property taxes are a significant income contributor for all uses, with retail and office space the highest. Hotel and retail space generate the most sales tax, by a wide margin, however they each are based upon a market need/supply of other land uses. Retail depends upon significant residential density base, office employees and tourist/hotel guests. The sales tax is generated at the retail space, but the economic activity is created elsewhere. Hotel guests spend inordinate dollars in a community on a daily basis, but building such space on its' own will not positively impact the economy unless there is a market (conferences, meetings (regional or beyond), and tourist attractions) to fill the space/rooms in the first place. Long term direct employment is most significant for retail and office space. Hotel, office, and residential uses (in that order) have the biggest impacts on creating a demand for other office and retail space, and indirect employment. • Retail uses however, have an attraction synergy to create a growth market by becoming an attraction base --and that is real, but hard to quantify based upon pure employee and related impacts. Each use is important: Residential is the lifeblood of support for retail and services --professional and personal. It represents a consistent base of community spending --regular and repeat. This supports sales and other taxes. Either a solid local residential density, or an unusual shopping attraction is necessary for a strong retail base... preferably both. EconlmpactFullText.doc Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development Page 3 of 5 • Retail provides the sales tax base and provides employment while serving as an attraction. Office space provides employment and steady, across-the-board economic support, which directly benefits retail and services. • Hotel rooms, when feasible and occupied due to successful attractions and locations for meetings, support other community services and retail. • They all involve employment growth, construction of some form, and tax base increase. Table 1 Annual Impacts Summary of Developments / Per 1,500 sq. ft. Inner vNft Residential Direct Total Retail Direct Total Office Direct Total Hotel Direct Total During Construction (1) Jobs (person/year) 2.11 4.2 1.7: 3.3 1.7: 3.3 1.9; 3.8 Sales Tax (all) $17,738: $35,476 $14,199: $28,398 $14,199: $28,398 $16,187: $32,374 Sales Tax (Edmonds) $3,506: $7,012 $2,805: $5,610 $2,805: $5,610 $3,194: $6,388 0eratinq/Living (2) Utility Taxes (Edmonds) $180: $270 $200: $300 $224: $336 $160' $240 Property Taxes (all)' $3,888: $5,832 $4,504: $6,758 $4,955: $7,434 $2,100": $3,150"" Property Taxes(Edrnands)" $816: $1,224 $942: $1,413 $1,036: $1,554 $44V: $660"" Spendin Generation - direct (2) Sales Tax (all) $2,160: $3240 $21,930: $32,895 $12,914: $19,371 Sales Tax (Edmonds) $75; $113 $4,3351 $6,503 $3,107: $4,661 Other Img (2) .lobs on site 0.13: 0.2 3.33: 5.0 5.25: 7.88 1.2: 1.8 ,lobs off site 0.09: 0.14 0.05: 0.07 0.12: 0.18 0.27: 0.41 Sales Tax (all) listed above $243: $365 $615: $922 listed above Sales Tax (Edmonds) listed above $47: $71 $121: $181 listed above Sq. ft. demand retail 24: 36 12: 18 30: 45 133: 200 ft, demand office 12. 18 6: 91 15; 23 3: 5 ` Assume assessments @ 8046 of true value total. " Already adjusted @ 80% of true value total. (1) One time impacts with a multiplier of (2 x). (2) Ongoing annual impacts with a multiplier of (1.5 x). EconlmpactFullText.doc Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development Page 4 of 5 Table 2 Total Economic Impacts (i) Summary of Developments / Per 1,500 sq. ft. Increments Residential Retail Office Hotel Short Term (2) Employment 4.2 3.3 3.3 3.8 Taxes: All Entities $35,476 $28,398 $28,398 $32,374 Edmonds $7,012 $5,610 $5,610 $6,388 Long Term (3) Employment 0.34 5.07 8.06 2.58 Taxes: All Entities $9,342 $40,318 $8,692 $22,761 Edmonds $1,607 $8,287 $2,071 $5,561 Other Impacts Demand for sq. ft. of other space (4) 54 27 68 205 Sales/Spending $300,000 to "On -site" n/a $450,000 (5) n/a $120,724 Sales/Spending "Off -site" $75,310 [c)) $5 274 (5) $13,478 S82,013 (1) Includes both direct and indirect impacts. (2) One time -- one year only.... involves construction. (3) On going operations.... annually. (4) Retail and office space. EconlmpactFul lText. doc Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development Page 5 of 5 EDMONDS ALLIANCE WORK PLAN 2 E C� ME M O R A N D UM Date: I January 31, 2002 To: I Councilmembers From: I Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Presentation regarding Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development Perhaps you recall, a week ago, I made reference to a tracking device in association with the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development. That, in fact, is what you will find attached. This tracking device is a direct manifestation of the Alliance's approved work plan. The work plan was presented to Council last year and insofar as the Council approved the budget for the Alliance, the Council was in essence approving the work plan. Therefore, what you find here is the Alliance work plan that, via the budget the Council has approved. As liaison to the Council, I felt that we needed an additional method of helping the Council and the community understand the goals, objectives and progress of the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development. Therefore what you see attached on the first page is from Sections 1 and 2 of the Alliance work plan, referring to analysis. Page 2 of the tracking device is Section 3 of the Alliance work plan, referring to communications and page 3 of the tracking device is Section 4 of the Alliance work plan of additional programs. You will note that Alliance staff has reported to you their progress and goal for each and every item. I was going to speak to this at the retreat; but in order to maximize your time with the Alliance consultants, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and Team Edmonds participants, I have simply submitted for you in your packet. If, over the weekend, you have questions regarding this attachment, I will be available to answer them for you; and of course, at the Retreat, you will have David Peterson to speak with. This tracking device has been approved by the Edmonds Alliance Executive Board and there was some discussion at the Executive Committee meeting of the Alliance that this, or something like it, should also be used by the Port of Edmonds and the Chamber of Commerce. The important point here is, that these are the projects and progress so far on each and every one of them. In this way, I hope to better demonstrate to the Council and the community, the important work that the Alliance is doing. I look forward to being able to discuss it further insofar as all you have is highlighted projects and without additional information explaining the projects. However, I will be happy to flush out each project with you as we work through it. City of Echnonds COUNCIL OFFICE I EDMONDS ALLIANCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT As Reported January 31, 00 I. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS and/or HIGHEST AND BEST USE STUDIES To assist the Alliance, City, Port, and community in making economic decisions as to what is and/or what could be the public and private economic impacts of specific community actions. Question for each is: What percentage of Alliance work and obligations are completed, what is completion date, additional comments. A. BUILDING CODES/DESIGN REVIEW/BUILDABLE LANDS:_ Approximately 50%.of the Alliance work has been completed. This includes an economic model and the means for applying it to an individual site or multiple sites from a community, impact perspective, and for a variety ,of land uses. In the next 2 months an analysis_ of buildable lands within the BC Zone and adiacent properties will be completed, which is another 25% of the work assignment. The remaining 25% of the assignment relates to the Alliance, working with other organizations, the Planning Board „and the City Council toward the implementation of improvements to the design guideline process and to building and parking codes. it's uncertain how long this will take because the political process is involved. B. UNOCAL: Economic I pact Analysis on Unocal 2 separate alternatives and on Bri htwater have been completed on a preliminary basis. Approximately 20% of the assignment is completed. if Brightwater as a project oes forward there will be little additional private development analysis to be done: however if it does not it is expected that the Alliance will be involved in the analysis of futurgsrivate plans „with 50% of the work completed by autumn of 2002 and 1,00% completed by mid 2003. C. PARKING: Phase I is completed, that is 50% of the entire project This Spring & Summer the Alliance will work with the City and a consultant to complete the other „50%, which will produce aparkingpIan and program. Com letion date late Summer 2002. D. PUGET SOUND CHRISTIAN COLLEGE: Im act Analysis applications for residential or other land uses as part of the redevelopment of this site following a sale are on hold until the PFD question regarding the same site is resolved. Separate from the PFD, zero completion of analysis If -an alternative development becomes a probability, community impact analysis will be undertaken „and completed by no later than Fall of 2002. E. HIGHWAY 99. Zero accomplishment/effort to date. With board direction it possible that this will became a priority to do preplanning analysis in order to identify needs, opportunities and work objectives. This first phase of work will take 6 to 9 months, The second phase of development_ planning is probably a 1 to 2 year process. Both phases (but especially the 2nd) require extensive City involvement _ F. PFD:_ It's difficult to project percentages because the finality and the total length and scope of the proiect is an unknown at this time. This may become a major community effort. or it may not occur. To date the Alliance's greatest contribution to theprogram was to organize an intense meeting of significant players in order to expedite the preparation of the business plan and critical path for the PSCC site proposal For the present that is 100% of our assignment —If the project goes forward we will be called on for additional assistance suggesting that perhaps Alliance for Economic Devel we are about 50% of the way through, an effort that might go on well into 2003 If the project does not go forward lease see item 1,D for the Alliance role. G. NEW CONSIDERATIONS: Recently completed alternative impact analysis as it would relate to variations on the PFD for the Safeway site _this included extensions of right of way along SR 104 If the PFD is no longer an option for the Safeway site, and if requested the Alliance will work with the owners of the property and others on community impact analysis. Our preparations suggest that we are 10% completed an this and would expect that the -assignment, if given, would be of an approximate 12-18 month nature. d:mydocuments/wordata/plunkelUEAED Final Final Worksheet.doc Revised 01/30/02 Alliance for Economic Develo COMMUNICATIONS/LIAISON Questions A -I: Any info to report. Question J: Percentage completed, completion date, additional info. Question K: Any info to report. A. SOUND TRANSIT: Since this project appears to be on hold for lack of finances our attendance at planning meetings is likewise on hold and therefore our communication of findings. B. PFD:_ Regular meeting attendance in order to provide assistance ( see 1., F ), and through 2 boardmembers who also serve on the PFD board continued communications to the Alliance board and others C. BRIGHTWATER: Attended a King County sponsored meeting t12 invitees] and several public community - wide meetings regarding this subject. No particular role for the Alliance at, this stage. D. PARKING COMMITTEE: Staff and board are among the regular members of the committee and they represent the Alliance position in those discussions, and include committee progress in communications to others_ E. PORT: Continued liason is enhanced through two boardmembers affiliated with the Pori and a process is in place for regular communication of the Alliance achievements and ,priorities with the Port staff and board F. PUGET SOUND CHRISTIAN COLLEGE: Regular meetings have been held with sr. staff of PSCC. Primarily related to their move to a new location and to the process of, sale of the property. These meetings are expected to continue for some time. G. FACE: Have not been involved on a regular basis as much recently as in the Dast. Do stay in contact with the chairman of the FACE_group, and have written supportive letters regardinq their fundraising efforts. Expect to become more involved again as time permits in the near future. H. UNOCAL:-- Meet regularly with local representatives, participate with them in discussions of development alternatives and strata ies. Keep them up to date regarding the Alliance progress and programs. d:mydocuments/wordata/plunketi/EAED Final Final Worksheet doc Revised 01/30/02 Alliance for Economic Development I. SAFEWAY PROPERTY: Meet regularly with „owner representative and participate with trim in discussions of development alternatives and strategies including the PFD. Keep him up to date regarding the Alliance progress and programs. J. OTHER: Monthly Newsletter and column in the Edmonds Beacon continue to be a regular process. No completion date is anticipated but rather is ongoing. d:mydocuments/wordsta/plunkett/EAED Final Final Worksheet.doc Revised 01130/02 Alliance for Economic Development PROGRAM/PROJECT Help optimize existing community attributes and help develop new attractions to promote economic growth that enhances quality of life in Edmonds. Questions: Percent completed, completion date, additional information. A. Develop a "theme" or "niche": Barely started and very little accomplished to date. Did make. application for funding (from Hotel/Motel tax sources) of a program. description and feasibility analysis for a tourist attraction -- an aquarium. Funds not approved at this time. During 2002 the Alliance will look at the possibility of other means of accomplishing this or reapplying for funds at the end of the calendar year. B. Detailed research of current attractions: Partial inventor about 50% has been developed for attractions and other economic base features —retail, housing, employment, etc. Much of this was undertaken as part of the economic im act analysis study, and further research has been on hofd waiting for the 2000 Census materials to be published. With time availability the remainder of the inventory could be completed within 0 to 8 months. This inventory will help store owners property owners other buisnesses realtors and others in their development of business plans, and in implementation of daily activity. C. Review of alternative projects: This primarily relates to what is referred to as a "highest and best use" series of studies for sites such as Hwy 99 as well as key downtown and waterfront. locations. Approximately 20°I of the potential project analysis has been completed, but with the model in place the application to the remaining 80% will not take as proporfsonately Ion a time as might otherwise be thought. Of course this is dependent on the number and timing of apj2lications, but it is expected that the Alliance will undertake 6 or 8 such studies on a regular basis, which could be completed during the year 2002. D. Private technical support: This is both normal and somewhat irregular in terms of occurrence. The Alliance responds to requests for information and often suggests directions of activity for those wishing to put business ❑fans or other business activities in motion regarding Edmonds locations This will be an ongoing process, and sometimes is several at once and other times is less active_ depending on those seeking the assistance. The assistance is sought by both those in the private sector and the public sector as well. d:mydocuments/wordate/plunkett/EAED Final Final Worksheet.doc Revised 01/30/02 0 O O N p o O o N to g O L. Cl c d LL, 7 �. LL LL d O r s U fA LL o r- o r- rn OOOCD � 07 N CO O 61 v cMOtiO o cn T M rI] CV � O LO 69 C7 O T O T (o OOOO N O O 00 M d N O M to �Ist670 6Fi th O O O Ln Kt V OOO cM O f` w O K O (M v N O 47 EH E!Y o a (r D] m O M LL 7 co M 3- M O f- ,C M M I Lo u G 7 N N I-T N O (O V O M O f• ( T P O a o 69 CY d M M N (10 m T r` 00 (C (P O 00 O d' 3 O a) M to (O p�is CN �O(�n SN v o U') I: v Ce) N�V e- C M ul M O o�) I, r- t LO � � 69 — 00 O v N O T N t- 07 OM r` d T lg CD 00 N IT cr-r N O ry N c1le T (O r- CM d co 00 C M O N :J f- r- O O U') T N r Ct tr; fA T T Y N p lLO uo CO) rr O M M m 11, V [J3 V] OOG' c] O Cl) N O: Lq N oc 00 ry 00 (O c 0 CO � 69 rfJ U � N O O +.t i C cc 00 00 r- r-- 0 O d M It LID 64 hg �:• Z O a U � Q N m 7 c m E r a J >a x E v) C E p d> I l w$ X U ao z z In 5 w LU V W d O O O N O N M O d N N O d N N O O O O O O O O O O O O Qw O O O O O O W N N M N IL 11 0 City of Edmonds Council Retreat February 2, 2002 Prepared by: Peggy Hetzler Loss of I-695 State Backfill Funding Following the passage of Initiative 695, the Washington State Legislature approved funding to cities and counties from the State's general fund to partially offset the loss of motor vehicle excise tax revenues. In 2000 and 2001, the City of Edmonds received approximately $660,000 in State backfill money. In the State's 2002-2003 biennial budget, the City was scheduled to receive approximately $900,000 in additional backfill funding. The City received the 2002 payment of $460,000 in July 2001. Because of the downturn in the economy and the resulting state general fund deficit for the remainder of the biennium, the Governor and the legislature have indicated that backfill money will be eliminated for 2003. Exhibit 1 is an updated five-year forecast for the General Fund that reduces 2003 revenues by $460,000 for the loss of the backfill funding. Property tax revenues in this exhibit are calculated based on an annual increase of 1%. The General Fund's ending cash is exhausted by the end of 2004. Exhibit 2 is the same five-year forecast assuming that the City's banked property capacity is recaptured in 2003 and 2004 with 1 % annual increases thereafter. The ending cash in this scenario is sufficient to balance the budget until the end of 2005. To compensate for the loss of backfill funding, the Association of Washington Cities is expected to propose a list of additional revenue options that the legislature could grant to cities. The list includes: • A multi -year levy lid lift above the 1% now allowed on an annual basis under Initiative 747. • Shifting 30 cents of the state's property tax authority from the state to increase the current city authority. • Authorizing an additional .2% sales tax • Increasing the city utility tax limit from 6% to 8%. In addition, legislation is being introduced that would grant counties the authority to impose a countywide utility tax of up to 1 % of gross receipts. This revenue source would be collected by the county and shared with the cities. In the absence of specific information relating to these revenue proposals, it is difficult to calculate the impact to the City of Edmonds. If any of these proposals is adopted by the State, finance staff will present the revenue impact for consideration by the Finance Committee. Tna U ' i1 LLIVU I• 11001 A 1 rrrTrn1- f 1 -1"fs IMF �� �i�� ?ApIk r.� F IA I C - -z1. i ■ I.- f ro-Tr 1 - . 1 141 1 ■ 1 P -V WT I -m1l� ■ J rr-ml u= _mJ _j rrkr ,UwU-1 �- kw Ir u:+_ ■ =NW = ■ it r'wcjF MMM I 1 r Cuur' tolINNE ■ -.-T Mmff- iml-3,1 .I— 1 !101 1-:J= IdV6JK rL 3iUMirr 90*Xi 3. = d1 dl; P _ La— r I E. 4 ::--u 1 1 riiq l !-- %1t 1� F" I r i. - II y-lion IDiu•LliLm r-11P�'l 1:Tn r ■W rim mm In lyl-ptsi'..-er - -4 j JF JL�.11 In I LF . Q 1 11 :11A F I.r-11411- -1 J I- 11 r'11 # I ii-Two ail-"- r.. � -W, n- TTTm--r� i1- -11 Ii. 9 ~ ■'� � �1111 ~ E ' '11..�� 5a = �'1 T -' :111 I PF...0 tMr ip = '-' ~ -W-1 I "' Pui iImum11■ L, IL1 r..ju-_e1 rin . rJ D41 w-ud6r ILL iilJ I 6=tYI w u --km pm-m wj ■ LU 17q6,,'-U -u- ■I -4111111, 1 16 Tri 1-a 1 inaim rr t .3m it ali I111 i1zr will L rr ■ mA me -ffd, J IdiM i ill w. - I. in 9 L.....,w_,rx F -I ' =- mm1 r w-ebm- _ --1 �—x i ' I--y'INW _UW4UUI!1MhW``'' 4L ; ^I10 oft I WUNUAM 'LMr I ■w( -PS7 ' MYLU 'a LI E +LP I R x 'r Ta 1IJAM ■TIII -6il-.��f l - 'D, M=1 r 1 1J ■VW Mill hum M% a, 1wiaft1-rm ■ 1 1r1, JAU — w l nil I u4 ■- mi-r M. WTI b--Q1 ILkm m ur uiw1g-" d jm1=" -1 alb on, rwIw q m 1-i ="U■ITSbL=1uLLBrr*—Ujq -^ -I UL-4pN_-'L�- }t%M;' 'I=m/' i =i�� a '_fi1■ Mil. hWM 11IT rill►rt- MW i 17QITRF. if■ &IliImO C.MM 1 t MEN IF 1� -fw fl+b Ur='.WE }I�' ■J_I I■y w - . :■'�-'EJ "Lim JL 1■ 1-"11 r �' 0 AT � 1 11 on L LLC tut %L� Tr - . � 1 1 u.I iiru �-m ud ■ 4—..1 -,1- IN, � a r■i IN-1 _ w 1no Imiiy I I FI mP ■M1.1 mL w-m1morin ii%mD,pF W—_ y11 1}JI-.W ' .. Air., - r'td Ir = N DI W.1--4.Iy 11 '1 Imo.- n i 1■T w-- a , trih I`r-. -Amm i erT1 rI=.-T It, q7rrm1■.1,I-ill ujF r1. Im -.mL - - — —W*� ' ,- Y'— it +i` IU6 : I ' IN. J -45 N ' = a I~« tm) ►iL:" 1 =i it 1 ON I 1 M-nl-1■Iln-1 II' 117m111q 1 Dt! m1 C-IT L-1 MM —q 142-- r sM D ja 1 I �.r V L O LL V 0 O a i�l CO N CO I` M � N. L N C O O r- 00 C7 i' N COO v f` W - v Csf N N Co L O (M ti IRT co ti � N L CD CD I, � ti M CO CO O O 00 O r r 0 ti T r N N �. Cn LO CA N M CO r 1;T N ti L N O ti O N O d O Co F- r N O ti � � v N N co U-) N 1;t N 00 00 O N N ":t L r r O Im i N UNN M ti N N co O N N � R O O CCO M LO f� (D N co co co CA M V r N N fl- ti 0) In LO 00 O O co N O^ d' 't CA CNM Cf } N Nt O o0 CM] co N r N N v (D 00 o Ln C7 N O N C') O co 00 00 LO i' N N rn N co M r r r N N N cn 'f3 R L N U ,o w x 0� W d U r_ is is c F0- ~ o U w J Z r N M It LO c.i CD v � O N U 32 U N cn M S 4) m U � O N O 0 � L N E 2 00 N O O .= 00 C 0 6,i (Q L CD U x CD � � C r- d �• 0 L O Q O N Q O E a CD v O U d Q M C ��1 In co CO L7O 0 p i>- N O °- N N LO M ti cc La ti (OD (m))co N r O L_ IL - � N N rn N Ln r a+ L 00 O p i' N CO a 4 `_V_ LO LO ~o LO N w 6, M LO 00 C1 CV p Lo L O N ILN �} CV r 00 ri CD 0Mo v r N m O CM LO ov0 Lo C7 G "t 00CD r d' m OCV CO LO T' d O r N v m O O C.0 M P- C) N cc O co i M W L 0. y M N N r _ vo'� o u m o N� rn i Q N co a N N LO � ` 0 O M N +�+ Q } N CD N M � N N N d d z v c c d X w w �a �a H H Ln O LO M LO O N � M r N r co O LO O N C'M co � M N Lii 00 r r N N U E 0 U � Ca O O N I N O O N 4) N L ci c 0 � V O NL co a ,S U C N M (� U �� 2 r U c O L_ Ln T- LL w A - 0 3 0 N O U) C O m L N E a0- C O O N W CD .r Qi � i C � m O 60- L c 3 O Q = N Q O N N Ear N Ln v d Q Ci c 00 City of Edmonds Council Retreat February 2, 2002 Prepared by: Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Discussion of 1st and 2nd Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET) Overview The State of Washington authorizes cities and counties to impose taxes upon the sale of real estate up to one half of one percent of the selling price of the property. This taxing authority is divided into two one quarter of one percent increments. The allowable uses of each quarter percent varies. The primary difference relates to the purchase of property which is an allowable use only for the 1st quarter percent. History The City of Edmonds imposes both REET increments. The annual income from each increment is approximately $700,000. In 1995, the 1st 1/4% was pledged for the annual debt service on the City Hall building. The 2nd 1/4% is devoted to parks improvements (Ordinance 3160/1977;ECC 3.29017). In October 2000, the City Council voted to officially devote both REET funds to the purchase and improvement of park property. Exhibits Exhibit 1 is a discussion of real estate excise tax prepared by the Municipal Research & Services Center. Exhibit 2 is a compilation of frequently asked questions relating to the authority to impose the tax and the allowable uses of the tax. Exhibit 3 is a listing of the enabling RCW's along with copies of each statute. Exhibits 4 and 5 are five year forecasts for both REET funds. Real Estate Excise Tax Information Page 1 of 3 RCW & Municipal About Site Contact FAQs I Search WAC Codes MRSC Index Links Help ��Home Municipal Research & Services Center p Working Together for Excellence in Local Government Real Estate Excise "fax fXk�r, 'MIT 1 This page includes a discussion of the real estate excise tax. Also included are links to: (1) the state laws authorizing the real estate excise tax; (2) frequently asked questions; and (3) various documents, including sample ordinances to levy the real estate excise tax. The State of Washington is authorized to levy a real estate excise tax on all sales of real estate, measured by the full selling price, including the amount of any liens, mortgages and other debts given to secure the purchase at a rate of 1.28 percent. RCW 82.45.060. A locally -imposed tax is also authorized. However, the rate at which it can be levied and the uses to which it may be put differs by city or county size and whether the city or county is planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). All cities and counties may levy a quarter percent tax (described as "the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax" or "BEET 1" ). RCW 82.46.010. Cities and counties that are planning under GMA have the authority to levy a second quarter percent tax (BEET 2). RCW 82.46.035(2). Note that this statute specifies that if a county is required to plan under GMA, or if a city is located in such a county, the tax may be levied by a vote of the legislative body. If, however, the county chooses to plan under GMA, the tax must be approved by a majority of the voters. How Can the First Quarter Percent -- REET 1 -- Be Spent? Cities and counties fall into three categories: 1) those that are not planning under GMA; 2) those that are planning under GMA, but have a population under 5,000; and 3) those that are planning under GMA and have a population of 5,000 or over. Cities and Counties That Are Not Planning Under GMA and Those That Are Planning But Have a Population Under 5,000. Both groups of entities have the same restrictions on their spending of REET 1 revenues. They must use these funds "for any capital purpose identified in a capital improvements plan and local capital improvements, including those listed in RCW 35.43.040." RCW 82.46.010(). RCW 35.43.040 lists local improvements that can be funded through a local improvement district (LID), including streets, parks, sewers, water mains, swimming pools and gymnasiums, etc. (Note that in chapter 272, Laws of 1994, the legislature clarified its original intent that "local capital improvements" was intended to include the acquisition of real and personal property associated with such local capital improvements. This means that land acquisition for parks is a permitted expenditure.) Capital projects not listed in the LID statute (for example, a fire station, city hall, courthouse or library) are also permitted uses as long as they are included in the city's or county's capital improvement plan. Expenditures that are not allowed are such things as the purchase of police cars. Accountants may consider these to be "capital" for accounting purposes, but they are not "capital purposes" or "local capital improvements." See correspppLdence, between Allen R. Hancock, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of Island County and Philip H. Austin, Senior Deputy Attorney General. Cities and Counties With a Population of 5,000 or More That Are Planning Under GMA. These jurisdictions must spend the first quarter percent of their real estate excise tax receipts http://www.mrsc.org/finance/reet/reetweb.htm 01 /24/2002 Real Estate Excise Tax Information Page 2 of 3 solely on capital projects that are listed in the capital facilities plan element of their comprehensive plan. RCW 82_.46.0l_ (2)(0. RCW 82.46.010(6) defines "capital projects" as: those public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets; roads; highways; sidewalks; street and road lighting systems; traffic signals; bridges; domestic water systems; storm and sanitary sewer systems; parks; recreational facilities; law enforcement facilities; fire protection facilities; trails; libraries; administrative and judicial facilities... Spending the Second Quarter Percent -- REET 2 This part of the real estate excise tax may only be levied by cities and counties that are required to or choose to plan under the Growth Management Act. All cities and counties that levy this tax face the same provisions, whether their population is greater or less than 5,000. For this quarter percent of the real estate excise tax, "capital project" means those: public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks. RCW 82.46.035(5). Note that acquisition of land for parks is not a permitted use of REET 2 receipts, although it is a permitted use for street, water, and sewer projects. What's the Half Cent Tax Shown in RCW U.46.010(3)? Cities and counties that are not levying the optional half -cent sales tax under RCW 82.14.030(2) have the option of levying an additional one-half percent real estate excise tax. These receipts are not designated for capital projects. They are a general fund revenue for city operating expenditures. Only one city, Clarkston, has chosen to do this. From a financial standpoint, the optional half -cent sales tax will probably always bring in more revenue than this additional one-half percent real estate excise tax. For border cities and counties, however, who do not feel they are able to levy the optional sales tax, this tax is a revenue option. Accounting for These Funds Because this revenue source has a dedicated purpose, it must be accounted for separately in a capital projects fund. Those cities and counties that are planning under GMA and levying both BEET 1 and REET 2 need to keep track of each of these revenues separately because the uses to which they may be put are different. R W 82.46.030 2 and RCW 2.46.035(4). Reference Sources • Statutes . FLoquent YAsked _u_Q tio�r F( ems) http://www.mrsc.org/finance/reet/reetweb.htm 01/24/2002 • E. • Real Estate Excise Tax Information Page 3 of 3 Documents • March 2, 1984 letter from Alan R. Hancock, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of Island County To Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Washington State Attorney General. • March .6, 19841ctter from Philip H. Austin, Senior Deputy Attorney General to Alan R.Hancock, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of Island County. • MRSC sam 1p e ordinance to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for cities that are not planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) or for cities that are planning under GMA but which have a population of 5,000 or less. • MRSC sample:ord trance to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for all cities that are planning under GMA and have a population of more than 5,000. • MRSC sample ordinance to levy the second quarter percent of the real'estate excise tax rates for cities planning under GMA. • MRSC sample_ ordinance to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for counties that are not planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) or for cities that are planning under GMA but which have a population of 5,000 or less. • MRSC sample ordinance to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for all counties that are planning under GMA and have a population of more than 5,000. • MRSC sample ordinance to levy the second quarter percent of the real estate excise tax rates for counties planning under GMA. • Real estate excise tax rates from the Washington State Department of Revenue. RCW & Municipal About Site FAQs Search I WAC Codes MRSC 1 Index Links Help Contact Us Home http://www.mrsc.org/finance/reet/reetweb.htm 01 /24/2002 0 .7 • Real Estate Excise Tax - Frequently Asked Questions Page 1 of 3 RCW & Municipal About Site Contact FAQs Search WAC Codes MRSC Index Links Help Us Home Municipal Research & Services Center • Working Together for Excellence in Local Government Frequently Asked Questions on Real Estate Excise Tax Questions 1. On what is the real estate excise tax based? 2. What ri_ties atad c unl t1e5 C econd quarte scent of the eal_estate exciw_tax_�REET Z)? 3, Does a e ty.i arc uiltX need_a emote of'thepeoat e _in order to levy the ae _q�zarter ereent ai the real estate excise tax (BEET 2. 4. How and when can a city that _is..planning under the Growth .Managgment_Act (GMAT and that has a population_of 5,000 or less spend its real estate excise tax revenues? 5. When and how can a city that is planning._under_the Growh ana ement Act (GMA)and that has a_population of over 5,000_s_pend_its real estate excise tax revenues? 6. When. and how can a city or county (of any size that is not planning under the Growth Management Act spend its real estate excisetax revenues? 7. Can the real estate excise tax be levied even though the city or county is not ye Aallowed to spend A9 8. Can cities and counties use real estate excise tax f ud�fpr ptann ng? 9. Can real estate excise tax funds be used for maintenance? 10. Maya city_ or county L se real estate excise tax revenues to pay debt service on_a councilmanic bond? 1. On what is the real estate excise tax based? The real estate excise tax is levied on all sales of real estate. The amount of the tax is based on the full selling price, including the amount of any liens, mortgages, and other debts given to secure the purchase. 2. What cities and counties can levy the second quarter percent of the real estate excise tax (BEET 2)? Counties that are required or have chosen to plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the cities located in them. RCW 82.46.035(1). 3. Does a city or county need a vote of the people in order to levy the second quarter percent of the real estate excise tax (BEET 2)? It depends. If the city or county is required to plan under the Growth Management Act, then only an affirmative vote of the legislative body is needed to levy this tax. However, if the city is located in a county that has chosen to plan under GMA, this tax may be levied only "if first authorized by a proposition approved by a majority of the voters." RCW 82.46.035(2). Only cities planning http://www.mrsc.org/finance/reet/reetfaqs.htm 01/24/2002 L-A • 11 Real Estate Excise Tax - Frequently Asked Questions Page 2 of 3 under GMA may levy this tax. 4. How and when can a city that is planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and that has a population of 5,000 or less spend its real estate excise tax revenues? The receipts from the first quarter percent (REET 1) can be spent on "any capital purpose identified in a capital improvements plan and local capital improvements, including those listed in RCW 35.43.040." RCW 82.46.010(2). RCW 35.43.040 lists projects for which local improvement districts (LIDS) may be formed and includes everything from street projects to parks to sewers to swimming pools. For a complete list, consult the statute. The second quarter percent (REST 2) cannot be spent until the city or county has completed the capital facilities element of its comprehensive plan. This part of the tax has more limited uses. It can only be spent on street projects, water and sewer projects, and parks projects (excluding the acquisition of land). RCW 82.46.035(5). 5. When and how can a city that is planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and that has a population of over 5,000 spend its real estate excise tax revenues? Revenues from the first quarter percent (BEET 1) may be spent only on capital projects in a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan. RCW 82.46.010(2). RCW 82.46.010(6) lists these projects and the list seems to include everything a city or county might ever put in a capital facilities element, including the acquisition of land for parks. Since the projects must be in the capital facilities plan, obviously, the plan must be complete before any REET funds can be spent. Like REET 1 revenues, those from the second quarter percent of the real estate excise tax (REET 2) cannot be spent until the capital facilities element is finished. Allowable expenditures are street projects, water and sewer projects, and parks projects (excluding the acquisition of land). RCW 82.46.045(5). 6. When and how can a city or county (of any size) that is not planning under the Growth Management Act spend its real estate excise tax revenues? The receipts from the first quarter percent (BEET 1) can be spent on "any capital purpose identified in a capital improvements plan and local capital improvements, including those listed in RCW 35.43.040." RCW 82.46.010(2). RCW 35.43.040 lists projects for which local improvement districts (LIDs) maybe formed and includes everything from street projects to parks to sewers to swimming pools. For a complete list, consult the statute. 7. Can the real estate excise tax be levied even though the city or county is not yet allowed to spend it? Yes. The tax can be levied and placed in a municipal or county improvements fund until the city or coutny completes the capital facilities element of its comprehensive plan. 8. Can cities and counties use real estate excise tax funds for planning? Cities and counties cannot use these funds for planning in the sense of developing a capital facilities element or a capital improvements plan. However, MRSC has advised that cities and http://www.mrsc.org/finance/reet/reetfaqs.htm 01/24/2002 i • • Real Estate Excise Tax - Frequently Asked Questions Page 3 of 3 counties can use these funds for design costs, engineering costs, surveys, etc. for specific projects in their capital facilities element or capital improvements plan. Funds from the second quarter percent (BEET 2) can only be used in conjunction with street, water, sewer, and parks projects. RCW 82.46.035(5). 9. Can real estate excise tax funds be used for maintenance? Only if it's a major maintenance project in a capital facilities element or capital improvements plan. Sometimes it's hard to tell if a project qualifies. Painting is almost certainly not an accepted use. Putting a new roof on a building would probably be a permitted use. If the project is considered a "public work" for bidding purposes, then REET funds can be used. The second quarter percent (BEET 2) can only be used for street, water, sewer, and parks major maintenance because its uses are limited to those kinds of projects. 10. May a city or county use real estate excise tax revenues to pay debt service on a councilmanic bond? Yes, as long as the project is one for which these revenues may be used. For example, revenues from the second quarter percent (REET 2) can only be spent on street, water, sewer, and parks projects. Therefore, these revenues could not be used to pay debt service on a new city hall or county courthouse. Note that if the real estate excise tax receipts fall short of the amount needed to pay debt service, the general fund must make up the difference. FAQs I Search I RCW & Municipal WAC Codes About I Site I Links I Help I Contact I MRSC Index Us http://www.mrsc.org/finance/reet/reetfaqs.htm 01 /24/2002 • 11 0 Statutes - Real Estate Excise Tax Page 1 of 1 RCW & Municipal About Site Contact FAQs Search WAC Codes MRSC Index Links I Help Us I Home Municipal Research & Services Center a Working Together for Excell fnce in Local Government Statutes - Real Estate Excise Tax `k �HLB'�T 19. ■ RCW 82.46.010 Tax on sale of real property authorized - Proceeds dedicated to local capital projects - Additional tax authorized - Maximum rates. The authority to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax and the permitted uses. Also the authority to levy a half cent tax for general government purposes if the city does not levy the second half cent of the retail sales and use tax. • RCW 82.46.030 The remaining proceeds from the county tax under *RCW 82.46.010 (1) shall be placed in a county capital improvements fund. The remaining proceeds from city or town taxes under *RCW 82.46.010 (1) shall be distributed to the respective cities and towns monthly and placed by the city treasurer in a municipal capital improvements fund. RCW 82.46.035 Additional tax - Certain counties and cities - Ballot - Use limited to capital projects - Temporary rescindment for noncompliance. The authority for levying the second half cent. . RCW 35.43.040 Authority generally. Statute that lists "local capital improvements" referred to in RCW 82.46.010 Q as spending options for the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for cities that are not planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) or cities that are planning under GMA but have a population of 5,000 or less. RCW & Municipal About Site FAQs I Search I WAC I Codes I MRSC I Index I Links I Help Contact I Home Us http://www.mrsc.org/finance/reet/rectstat.htm 01/24/2002 Page 1 of 2 RCW 82.46.010 Tax on sale of real property authorized -- Proceeds dedicated to local capital projects -- Additional tax authorized -- Maximum rates. (1) The legislative authority of any county or city shall identify in the adopted budget the capital projects funded in whole or in part from the proceeds of the tax authorized in this section, and shall indicate that such tax is intended to be in addition to other funds that may be reasonably available for such capital projects. (2) The legislative authority of any county or any city may impose an excise tax on each sale of real property in the unincorporated areas of the county for the county tax and in the corporate limits of the city for the city tax at a rate not exceeding one -quarter of one percent of the selling price. The revenues from this tax shall be used by any city or county with a population of five thousand or less and any city or county that does not plan under RCW 36.70A.040 for any capital purpose identified in a capital improvements plan and local capital improvements, including those listed in RCW 35.43.040. After April 30, 1992, revenues generated from the tax imposed under this subsection in counties over five thousand population and cities over five thousand population that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be used solely for financing capital projects specified in a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan and housing relocation assistance under RCW 59.18.440 and 59.18.450. However, revenues (a) pledged by such counties and cities to debt retirement prior to April 30, 1992, may continue to be used for that purpose until the original debt for which the revenues were pledged is retired, or (b) committed prior to April 30, 1992, by such counties or cities to a project may continue to be used for that purpose until the project is completed. (3) In lieu of imposing the tax authorized in RCW 82.14.030(2), the legislative authority of any county or any city may impose an additional excise tax on each sale of real property in the unincorporated areas of the county for the county tax and in the corporate limits of the city for the city tax at a rate not exceeding one-half of one percent of the selling price. (4) Taxes imposed under this section shall be collected from persons who are taxable by the state under chapter 82.45 RCW upon the occurrence of any taxable event within the unincorporated areas of the county or within the corporate limits of the city, as the case may be. (5) Taxes imposed under this section shall comply with all applicable rules, regulations, laws, and court decisions regarding real estate excise taxes as imposed by the state under chapter 82.45 http : //www.mrsc. org/nxt/gateway. dll/rcw/rcw%20%2082%20%20title/rcw%20%2082%2... 01 /24/2002 • C. • Page 2 of 2 RCW. (6) As used in this section, "city" means any city or town and "capital project" means those public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets; roads; highways; sidewalks; street and road lighting systems; traffic signals; bridges; domestic water systems; storm and sanitary sewer systems; parks; recreational facilities; law enforcement facilities; fire protection facilities; trails; libraries; administrative and/or judicial facilities; river and/or waterway flood control projects by those jurisdictions that, prior to June 11, 1992, have expended funds derived from the tax authorized by this section for such purposes; and, until December 31, 1995, housing projects for those jurisdictions that, prior to June 11, 1992, have expended or committed to expend funds derived from the tax authorized by this section or the tax authorized by RCW 82.46.035 for such purposes. [1994 c 272 § 1; 1992 c 221 § 1; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 36; 1982 1st ex.s. c 49 § 11.1 NOTES: Legislative declaration -- 1994 c 272: "The legislature declares that, in section 13, chapter 49, Laws of 1982 1st ex. sess., effective July 1, 1982, its original intent in limiting the use of the proceeds of the tax authorized in RCW 82.46.010(2) to "local capital improvements" was to include in such expenditures the acquisition of real and personal property associated with such local capital improvements. Any such expenditures made by cities, towns, and counties on or after July 1, 1982, are hereby declared to be authorized and valid." [1994 c 272 § 2.1 Expenditures prior to June 11, 1992: "All expenditures of revenues collected under RCW 82.46.010 made prior to June 11, 1992, are deemed to be in compliance with RCW 82.46.010." [1992 c 221 § 4.] Severability -- Part, section headings not law -- 1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW 36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901. Intent -- Construction -- Effective date -- Fire district funding -- 1982 1st ex.s. c 49: See notes following RCW 35.21.710. http ://www.mrsc. org/nxt/gateway. dll/rcw/rcw%20%2082 %20%20title/rcw%20%2082%2... 01 /24/2002 I I C:] • Page 1 of 1 RCW 82.46.030 Distribution of proceeds. (1) The county treasurer shall place one percent of the proceeds of the taxes imposed under this chapter in the county current expense fund to defray costs of collection. (2) The remaining proceeds from the county tax under RCW 82.46.010(2) shall be placed in a county capital improvements fund. The remaining proceeds from city or town taxes under RCW 82.46.010(2) shall be distributed to the respective cities and towns monthly and placed by the city treasurer in a municipal capital improvements fund. (3) This section does not limit the existing authority of any city, town, or county to impose special assessments on property specially benefited thereby in the manner prescribed by law. [2000 c 103 § 17; 1992 c 221 § 2; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 37; 1982 1st ex.s. c 49 § 13.1 NOTES: Severability -- Part, section headings not law 1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW 36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901. Intent -- Construction -- Effective date -- Fire district funding -- 1982 lst ex.s. c 49: See notes following RCW 35.21.710. http ://www.mrsc. org/nxt/gateway. dll/rcw/rcw%20%2082%20%20tltle/rcw%20%2082%2... 01 /24/2002 L I 0 I I Page 1 of 2 RCW 82.46.035 Additional tax -- Certain counties and cities -- Ballot proposition - - Use limited to capital projects -- Temporary rescindment for noncompliance. (1) The legislative authority of any county or city shall identify in the adopted budget the capital projects funded in whole or in part from the proceeds of the tax authorized in this section, and shall indicate that such tax is intended to be in addition to other funds that may be reasonably available for such capital projects. (2) The legislative authority of any county or any city that plans under RCW 36.70A.040(1) may impose an additional excise tax on each sale of real property in the unincorporated areas of the county f(--,r the county tax and in the corporate limits of the city for the city tax at a rate not exceeding one -quarter of one percent of the selling price. Any county choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040(2) and any city within such a county may only adopt an ordinance imposing the excise tax authorized by this section if the ordinance is first authorized by a proposition approved by a majority of the voters of the taxing district voting on the proposition at a general election held within the district or at a special election within the taxing district called by the district for the purpose of submitting such proposition to the voters. (3) Revenues generated from the tax imposed under subsection (2) of this section shall be used by such counties and cities solely for financing capital projects specified in a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan. However, revenues (a) pledged by such counties and cities to debt retirement prior to March 1, 1992, may continue to be used for that purpose until the original debt for which the revenues were pledged is retired, or (b) committed prior to March 1, 1992, by such counties or cities to a project may continue to be used for that purpose until the project is completed. (4) Revenues generated by the tax imposed by this section shall be deposited in a separate account. (5) As used in this section, "city" means any city or town and "capital project" means those public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks. (6) When the governor files a notice of noncompliance under RCW 36.70A.340 with the secretary of state and the appropriate county or city, the county or city's authority to impose the additional excise http://www.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll/rcw/rcw%20%2082%20%20title/rcw%20%2082°/"2... 01 /24/2002 Page 2 of 2 tax under this section shall be temporarily rescinded until the governor files a subsequent notice rescinding the notice of noncompliance. [1992 c 221 § 3; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 33; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 38.1 NOTES: Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1992 c 221 § 3 without cognizance of its amendment by 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 33. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1). Sections headings not law -- 1991 sp.s. c 32: See RCW 36.70A.902. Severability -- Part, section headings not law -- 1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW 36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901. http://www.mrsc. org/nxt/gateway. dll/rcw/rcw%20%2082%20%20title/rcw%20%2082%2... 01 /24/2002 s • Ll Page 1 of 3 RCW 35.43.040 Authority generally. Whenever the public interest or convenience may require, the legislative authority of any city or town may order the whole or any part of any local improvement including but not restricted to those, or any combination thereof, listed below to be constructed, reconstructed, repaired, or renewed and landscaping including but not restricted to the planting, setting out, cultivating, maintaining, and renewing of shade or ornamental trees and shrubbery thereon; may order any and all work to be done necessary for completion thereof; and may levy and collect special assessments on property specially benefited thereby to pay the whole or any part of the expense thereof, viz: (1) Alleys, avenues, boulevards, lanes, park drives, parkways, parking facilities, public places, public squares, public streets, their grading, regrading, planking, replanking, paving, repaving, macadamizing, remacadamizing, graveling, regraveling, piling, repiling, capping, recapping, or other improvement; if the management and control of park drives, parkways, and boulevards is vested in a board of park commissioners, the plans and specifications for their improvement must be approved by the board of park commissioners before their adoption; (2) Auxiliary water systems; (3) Auditoriums, field houses, gymnasiums, swimming pools, or other recreational, playground, museum, cultural, or arts facilities or structures; (4) Bridges, culverts, and trestles and approaches thereto; (5) Bulkheads and retaining walls; (6) Dikes and embankments; (7) Drains, sewers, and sewe sewers shall include as nearly as can be drained through the trunk thereto; r appurtenances which as to trunk possible all the territory which sewer and subsewers connected (8) Escalators or moving sidewalks together with the expense of operation and maintenance; (9) Parks and playgrounds; (10) Sidewalks, curbing, and crosswalks; http://www.mrse. org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%203 5 %20%20TITLE/RCW%20%203 5 %20.°/`2... 01 /24/2002 s Page 2 of 3 (11) Street lighting systems together with.the expense of furnishing electrical energy, maintenance, and operation; (12) Underground utilities transmission lines; (13) Water mains, hydrants, and appurtenances which as to trunk water mains shall include as nearly as possible all the territory in the zone or district to which water may be distributed from the trunk water mains through lateral service and distribution mains and services; (14) Fences, culverts, syphons, or coverings or any other feasible safeguards along, in place of, or over open canals or ditches to protect the public from the hazards thereof; (15) Roadbeds, trackage, signalization, storage facilities for rolling stock, overhead and underground wiring, and any other stationary equipment reasonably necessary for the operation of an electrified public streetcar line; (16) Systems of surface, underground, or overhead railways, tramways, buses, or any other means of local transportation except taxis, and including passenger, terminal, station parking, and related facilities and properties, and such other facilities as may be necessary for passenger and vehicular access to and from such terminal, station, parking, and related facilities and properties, together with all lands, rights of way, property, equipment, and accessories necessary for such systems and facilities; (17) Convention center facilities or structures in cities incorporated before January 1, 1982, with a population over sixty thousand located in a county with a population over one million, other than the city of Seattle. Assessments for purposes of convention center facilities or structures may be levied only to the extent necessary to cover a funding shortfall that occurs when funds received from special excise taxes imposed pursuant to chapter 67.28 RCW are insufficient to fund the annual debt service for such facilities or structures, and may not be levied on property exclusively maintained as single-family or multifamily permanent residences whether they are rented, leased, or owner occupied; and (18) Programs of aquatic plant control, lake or river restoration, or water quality enhancement. Such programs shall identify all the area of any lake or river which will be improved and shall include the adjacent waterfront property specially benefited by such programs of improvements. Assessments may be levied only on waterfront property including any waterfront property owned by the department of natural resources or any other state agency. Notice of an assessment on a private leasehold in public property shall comply http://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%203 5%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%203 5 %20. %2... 01 /24/2002 L-1 s • Page 3 of 3 with provisions of chapter 79.44 RCW. Programs under this subsection shall extend for a term of not more than five years. [1997 c 452 § 16; 1989 c 277 § 1; 1985 c 397 § 1; 1983 c 291 9 1; 1981 c 17 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 258 § 1; 1965 c 7 § 35.43.040. Prior: 1959 c 75 § 1; 1957 c 144 § 2; prior: (i) 1911 c 98 § 1; RRS § 9352 (ii) 1945 c 190 § 1, part; 1915 c 168 § 6, part; 1913 c 131 § 1, part; 1911 c 98 § 6, part; Rem. Supp. 1945 § 9357, part. (iii) 1911 c 98 § 15; RRS § 9367. (iv) 1911 c 98 § 58, part; RRS § 9411, part.] NOTES: Intent -- Severability -- 1997 c 452: See notes following RCW 67.28.080. Savings -- 1997 c 452: See note following RCW 67.28.181. Authority supplemental -- Severability -- 1985 c 397: See RCW 35.51.900 and 35.51.901. http://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%2035%20%20TITLE/RCW%20%2035 %20. %2... 01 /24/2002 • • 0 d 00 O 00 O 00 r (1) CM D) O O 10 It6) Q) M lt7 O p N OCND N 'p 00 (D 00 co0a) M 06 to LO Nr T ^ U')m LO 0 LO In coO r ❑) N r M T sy` D7 M � N O O N N� O T 00 LO 00 LO CF a r T Lo 69 M It O O It O O P It co co O 00 O O c0 O N N 'C' (D M U? U) � CD O N 0)r r M _N O 4O OO m N (O M In f- Ln I- O O O (O OO ti O r c OS cC5 co � N O M I� LO O LO c[3 r r f- fl- O O O Il- O O (c O O (D 00 I-- LO 0 00 U,)O (c I-- O M 0)Ia) I Cr D) O O CV O Oct N O T U( 0 "1 T CO O T T O Rt O r (D IN O .p O (D qt O co 't LO COO M O N O ti co T coCr O O co�` N M N N 00 O O 00 CDM O M ti O N O N I� N N O" N N r f� r 6I OI Uj ti O co co m N Q cccc N ems - ct LO Lr) N M M M r N O O N O O f— N O M d' O O CDfl- Il- 00 00 O cc O O O (O O N 00 In 0 T (c N N OI �r O U coC�c N Q CMD (D O 00 It N O 00 r Ef3 w O c r U C O N d U c� CO p w LL c c o CU CO c = c a) _ c c a � ci :�' co > p -0 LU n o aU ~ �o a`C�i w a)a Q)a) O U)O o a) p c C n C > m U m a) c >o o 'Z '� o or c- a) o )W N W m ca LU U U () � a) c y o (.: c LU y--i U LL U- LI +. cQQ�h .� p cp N N 0) •— I--io0of p - X W 0 N 00 N 0 U) J x w w w 5 U) w 1 R O cf) M N C C C O NNMo aN O Q O LLI0 O O O O U) N O O O O O 0 N O d N N M M Q w a 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD W N 00 00 0 O O W O O Lu O O O Q N co co O m M O O O O J 0 0 0 0 00 O N O't H G Q O O M N N a v N O O N C O a=. N C O a cu :3 07 CU U d O O C O O U `O CL c UZ L co co cnL CD C O ca. p L O O N u7 _ L = r U Co O N (62) S O Q Q a)� U Q �0 V C C C O 0 0-0 O u L m 0 U vaj�W��WF-- m N a c0 U cU .0 N d U) cu H C] 0 • In LO N r' '3 LL 1 W 0 mow� ry C) o O O L a. Lli 0 0 X U cn Cn r 00 0 00 0 00 00 ate) rn rn o rn 0 0CD o rn rn 0. o oIt � o(oorn N O co 00 00 N(o O U') coo N 00it r ch U')N r U7 U7 CD U') CDU7 r 1l r 0 r CD 0 CDr O OQ r 0 r 0 0 0 C T" CA OI O NU7 ti 00�0U] N N N Q �� 0000cc4 ° L ONO N I� N CM LAC') Cc (� r Nfer N Nt O 0� CD CD O CDCDIt UO O 00 O 0 00 CD CD o0 ti 1I0 N U7 O 0 LC) CD CDO O U') 00 N �0U) �Cq NcOcovO of.2 1 U) [I- N O O 1` 00 00 00 6e 0 a r r U7 ti O 0 1` O O O O C7 M N p M U') O O U") O O O O "T ❑) a) O co O O co O O 0 0 CD N N O N 0 O N a N CO co 00 d CN ] coo N° N 1` r O r N N O a N N N r O 00 r 0 O O It 0 0�t U) U7 oo qt � d� a) M � C � Lr) O0) rI (� 00f � N 00 U It O) c N CO*J O N Q O ti 00 N N fo 64 CV r N 00 CV 1` O O It M O O ➢-- N O r O �t LC) O N O O r 00 0 N Co P- O N Cr r C r- (� 0 0l MOO O a TTr- 0M 1- 04 rl- V N Q CIO �-60 CD r I` CM VT C'7 CD r N a) L y-+ C (1) iZ X w Cc C L U) a) > to (u a) 0 . V cn U "' a) � (n ° c_ a�i c L � C E (LU c _� a cu C > O c 0 ° (n c a) W aa)) � C ((D� � U ° Q c m cu `�' Q) U) w LW (0 0" 2 (� L1°I � �QO~ �a-� cn0 LL N O O N co N O In J x ui w W J. 0 • • w (n 0 0 0 N w a w y 0 0 M d N O O ix N a N O N H c W N 0 w aUo U) O N D Z 03 LU m M LU Q 0 N ~ CD0' ac. N G J v a N p U N C LLZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 Ci C C CL C 0 0 0 0 0 O O N LO N O tt O N O m O N �t O CT C~ CM N tb O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o tri o L6 o o tri o tri tri o o tri o C OV to LO n N N v 0 r to 'It O I.- M N 69 O O O O O o O O O O O O o 0 o O o o O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O t0 O O N O N N M L O L L6 L L 0 0 0 0 0 L to fD L T 64 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O O O O O O O O to O O O O to lr) M' O In O O O O O O O O t- O o O d' M � LO d. to _a L L a� yC C 0- C E C C O O ) N V 7 (a E w to O +'' >' C C O O a) a) rN• L O C C O C E ° E c a)a� c a N E U- E > o cu Ea�i��o��o ��U>go�a�iLrca �o CLm0 Y C- aEi E o E c CL cu aa) o° CL 6 `� a c a E d c`o E "O O O a- U O O aY N u E O O O E C `Q U E o C E Y a: D a) (`0 Y C a (Lj .� U L (� ca 6 n3 O` f6 0 —�o ° a) a) ca E O M a c cn wca L 2 += ,> ,N O a) 0 L � a � Q � 7 a) C Y >' O c`a ca 'C C ca � Y N � ° aaca >- coo< ) �=c)QmOUFa3�u)Muj LO N T