The URL can be used to link to this page

2014.03.04 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 4, 2014 6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 1.(60 Minutes)Convene in executive session to discuss the qualifications of a candidate for public employment per RCW 42.30.110(1)(G) and to discuss potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). REGULAR MEETING MARCH 4, 2014 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 2.(5 Minutes)Roll Call 3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda 4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items A.AM-6625 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 25, 2014 B.AM-6623 Approval of claim checks #207238 through #207321 dated February 27, 2014 for $326,674.58. Approval of reissued check #207322 dated February 27, 2014 for $75.00. 5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 6.(20 Minutes) AM-6624 2013 Municipal Court Report 7.(60 Minutes)Discussion and potential action regarding modifying or terminating Sunset Walkway Packet Page 1 of 120 7.(60 Minutes) AM-6543 Discussion and potential action regarding modifying or terminating Sunset Walkway Project 8.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 9.(15 Minutes)Council Comments 10.(15 Minutes)Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 11.(5 Minutes)Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 120 AM-6625 4. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:03/04/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 25, 2014 Recommendation Review and approve attached minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached are the draft minutes for review and approval. Attachments 02-25-14 Draft Council Meetiing Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 02/28/2014 10:06 AM Final Approval Date: 02/28/2014 Packet Page 3 of 120 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES February 25, 2014 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Diane Buckshnis, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Thea Ocfemia, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO EVALUATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(g), AND TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 6:01 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to evaluate the qualifications of a candidate for public employment per RCW 42.30.110(1)(g), and to discuss potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Police Chief Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 6:35 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. At 6:50 p.m., Mayor Earling announced an additional 5 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 6:53 p.m. 2. COUNCIL DISCUSSION WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR CANDIDATE - SHANE HOPE At 6:55 p.m., the City Council met with Development Services Director candidate Shane Hope. All City Council members were present. 3. MEET WITH ARTS COMMISSION CANDIDATE KEVIN CONEFREY FOR CONFIRMATION TO THE ARTS COMMISSION. MEET WITH CANDIDATE MIKE HATHAWAY FOR CONFIRMATION TO THE COMMISSION ON THE COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS Packet Page 4 of 120 At 7:15 p.m., the Council met with Kevin Conefrey, a candidate for confirmation to the Arts Commission, and Mike Hathaway, a candidate for confirmation to the Commission on the Compensation of Elected Officials. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:20 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Johnson requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #207111 THROUGH #207237 DATED FEBRUARY 20, 2014 FOR $207,819.10. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #60812 THROUGH #60827 FOR $440,801.30, BENEFIT CHECKS #60828 THROUGH #60834 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $195,411.76 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1, 2014 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2014 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM RATELCO PROPERTIES CORP. ($6,838.28) E. CONFIRMATION OF KEVIN CONEFREY TO THE ARTS COMMISSION F. CONFIRMATION OF MIKE HATHAWAY TO THE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON THE COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS Item D: AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE, A REQUEST FOR BID, FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY UPGRADE COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO SEND THIS ITEM TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. Councilmember Johnson explained she would like an opportunity for the Finance Committee to review this item in greater detail. Mayor Earling advised this is a budgeted item and was reviewed by the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee (Councilmember Bloom and Council President Buckshnis) who forwarded it to the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Petso said she was happy to have the Finance Committee (herself and Councilmember Johnson) discuss this as long as the delay would not be problematic for staff. Public Works Director Phil Williams offered to respond to Council questions now or at the Finance Committee. Packet Page 5 of 120 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented unless there were specific issues with this item, she was uncertain why it would be referred to the Finance Committee. Councilmember Bloom commented if a Councilmember had a concern and there was no issue with timing, she was willing to have it reviewed by the Finance Committee. Councilmember Peterson did not support referring this to the Finance Committee, pointing out nearly everything the City does has a financial implication. He did not want to set a precedent that items must have a double committee review. He had faith that the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee had reviewed this and that staff had provided the necessary information. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE ITEM D. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION ENDED IN A TIE VOTE (3- 3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND PETERSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING NO. MAYOR EARLING VOTED YES TO BREAK THE TIE AND THE MOTION CARRIED (4-3). 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dewayne Farman, Edmonds, referred to Item 13, explaining the potential sale of this property has elevated Seaview residents’ concern about the Angler’s Crossing PRD. Without the City’s property, that 26-home PRD cannot meet the 10% open space requirement. He recalled when the McNaughton Group applied for a permit to develop the PRD in 2005, nearly 100 homeowners organized, a group called Save Perrinville Woods, in an effort to protect the woodlands that would be at risk from the development. He enumerated the reasons they opposed the PRD: loss of the natural environment including a wetland and native habitat, changes in drainage that would cause irreversible damage to Perrinville Creek and surrounding wetlands, loss of the trees that provide a weather buffer and reduce light and traffic noise from Perrinville, significant change to the neighborhood’s quality of life particularly the 12 homes that border the PRD, and increased vehicular and pedestrian safety issues caused by additional traffic on 80th particularly the limited sight distance at the intersection of 184th. He urged the City to support the Seaview and Perrinville residents and not sell the property. He also requested the Council set a date to gather more public testimony regarding the sale of the property. Brian Furby, Edmonds, referred to Item 13, commenting once property is sold it is gone. The school district’s practice is to retain property, allow the district to generate revenue and minimize the cost to citizens of capital improvements. He clarified he was not suggesting this property be used to generate revenue. Before making a final decision, he suggested the Council, 1) inform Seaview residents that the sale of the property is being considered, and 2) consider developing the property as a park. The property could include educational programs, nature trails, co-exist with Seaview Park and serve as a corridor to South Snohomish County Park. He recommended the City notify the residents of Seaview and hold a public hearing. He also suggested seeking a grant to develop a park. Dick Van Hollebeke, Edmonds, referred to Item 13, commented this PRD was approved when he was on the Council in 1997. The property is a ravine with an approximately 75 foot drop in a narrow canyon. That parcel would not be developed but it adds to the square footage. The property owners, the Parks, who are in their eighties, have a right to develop their property; whether it is developed as a PRD is yet to be decided. Residents cannot just say they want it to remain wilderness because it benefits them and Packet Page 6 of 120 ignore the fact that the Parks own the property and have a right to develop it. He anticipated a win-win- win, the City has the opportunity to generate revenue from property taxes and development fees, new residents would provide economically benefit to Perrinville businesses, and development would eliminate vandalism that is occurring on the property. He summarized development would not hurt residents in the area; none of the properties face the neighbors. Bill Rankin, Edmonds, referred to emails he has sent to Councilmembers regarding Item 13. He urged the Council not to sell the property for the reasons outlined in his emails. He questioned why the sale of this land was still tied to the PRD from 2007, suggesting it was an obsolete document that should be readdressed due to the changes that have occurred in the area since 2007. The PRD does not address public safety issues; there are no sidewalks and he feared an additional 150 residents would increase vehicular and pedestrian traffic concerns as well as environmental concerns. The PRD does not connect to Perrinville in a meaningful way; he suggested a through street that would allow the neighborhood easier access to Perrinville. He summarized a plan was needed that addressed the infrastructure, the environmental impacts and safety. He agreed the landowners have a right to develop their land but questioned the sale of property to persons who have two abandoned buildings on their property, one burned to the ground and the other one vandalized. He suggested the development should be “Strangler’s Crossing” as it will choke the life out of the neighborhood. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, urged the Council to consider residents’ concerns with regard to Item 13. Next, he referred to the perception that there are problems with Councilmembers’ demeanor and attitudes toward each other. He found Councilmember Peterson’s remarks in the newspaper about a candidate being divisive to be inappropriate, particularly in light of the Public Safety & Personnel Committee’s efforts to identify someone to assist the Council with conflict resolution. He commended the three Councilmembers who support Steve Bernheim for appointment to the Council vacancy as he has represented the citizens well in the past and would do so without taking sides and by working with everyone. He suggested Council President Buckshnis do the job of Council President by mending fences or bending her principles to properly end the process. Lori Haug, Edmonds, referred to Item 13, voicing her opposition to the City selling the property because it will assist a development that should not happen. She recalled the Hearing Examiner approved 27 homes on the property in 2007. In addition to the ravine property owned by the City, there is another very steep slope to the south. The development would fill two ravines with concrete which is not beneficial to the watershed. The sale of the City’s property will increase the number of homes that can be developed. She displayed a 2005 site plan that included the open space required for a PRD and 26 homes. She displayed a subsequent site plan with 27 homes with the open space on the City’s property. The 1998 contract rezone includes aspects that are problematic for developers including the requirement for a limited building footprint. 8. CONFIRMATION OF TOP CANDIDATE N. SCOTT JAMES AS FINANCE DIRECTOR Mayor Earling explained several months ago, candidates for a Finance Director were interviewed and two highly qualified individuals emerged from that process; the Council had an opportunity to interview both candidates. One candidate was selected; that person resigned effective January 31, 2014. Mayor Earling presented Scott James for appointment as Finance Director, explaining Mr. James lives in Edmonds and previously worked in Edmonds’ Finance Department; he most recently worked in Mukilteo as their Finance Director. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR N. SCOTT JAMES AND CONFIRM HIS APPOINTMENT AS FINANCE DIRECTOR. Packet Page 7 of 120 Council President Buckshnis explained she and former Councilmember Yamamoto participated in the original interview process where many supported the selection of Mr. James. She welcomed him to Edmonds. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling recognized Mr. James’ family in the audience. Mr. James thanked Mayor Earling and expressed his appreciation to the Council for their vote of confidence. He looked forward to returning to Edmonds where he worked for seven years before leaving nine years ago, spending seven of those years as Finance Director in Mukilteo. He looked forward to assisting in Edmonds’ continued success. 9. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON ORDINANCE CLARIFYING WIRELESS REGULATIONS IN ECDC 20.50 AND ECDC 17.40.020 City Attorney Jeff Taraday spoke regarding Items 9 and 10, two code revisions related to wireless telecommunication facilities. Although it was anticipated these would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda, the response to a question when the Council last discussed this needed to be corrected. The question was in regard to Item 10 which creates amnesty for a particular wireless telecommunication facility that has existed for quite some time but the permitting documentation does not clearly indicate it was a legally constructed facility at the time it was installed. AT&T proposed having that facility treated as a legal nonconforming use from this point forward. The question was whether or not the code amendment could have the effect of allowing other telecommunication companies to locate antennas on the same building. The answer provided was no; however, Item 10 combined with Item 9 would have that effect. He summarized Item 9 and 10 together could possibly allow other wireless carriers to locate antennas on this building. No changes have been made to the ordinances since they were previously presented to the Council. Mr. Taraday relayed a question from a Councilmember whether the ordinances were discretionary or did the Council have to adopt them. He responded Item 10 is discretionary, although not adopting Item 10 would make it difficult for the wireless facilities to be upgraded. Item 9 is less discretionary as it is intended to comply with federal law. Councilmember Petso asked whether the change the Council intended to approve was to allow updating of the existing company’s equipment on the two sites. Mr. Taraday responded Item 10 is an amnesty provision that states any wireless communications facility that was established prior to August 5, 1998 and does not conform to the current standards of Chapter 20.50 shall be treated as a legal nonconforming wireless communication facility regardless of whether the original establishment of that wireless communication facility complied with the applicable code that existed at the time of such establishment. Councilmember Petso clarified the original use was nonconforming; the intent was to allow it to be updated as needed; making that change also allows new companies to locate on the same site. Mr. Taraday explained Item 10 does not refer to new companies, it only states anything prior to August 5, 1998 is a legal nonconforming use. However, applying that status of legal nonconforming in the context of the ordinance in Item 9, the net effect of the two together is a company could apply to co-locate and it likely will be allowed. Councilmember Petso asked whether the new company would be required to comply with current standards or could they locate antennas in accordance with the previous code. Mr. Taraday referred to language in 20.50.020(c) that states, for existing sites only to the extent feasible additional antennas and equipment shall maintain the appearance intended by the original facility including but not limited to color, screening, landscaping, camouflage, concealment techniques, mounting configuration or architectural treatment. He clarified the net effect is it is not a free-for-all on the legal nonconforming Packet Page 8 of 120 sites; there are still some limits but they do not necessarily comply with current standards. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained the City’s codes regarding wireless communication facilities are predicated on the idea that co-location is preferable to new sites/locations. The language Mr. Taraday referred to is the attempt to have some local control. The language allows co-location but requires the overall appearance to remain the same. Councilmember Petso asked whether the ability to require screening/camouflage for a new carrier co- locating on the same site would be minimal if an existing site is minimally screened/camouflaged. Mr. Chave answered it would depend on the site. On one site, the antennas are spread across the roof; screening is difficult because what is preferable, the antennas or a wall? Councilmember Petso commented one of the characteristics of a nonconforming use is it can be maintained/repaired but not necessarily expanded. She asked why new companies would be allowed to expand a facility. Mr. Chave answered the City could make that decision; the difficulty is technology changes and federal rules. Over time antenna sizes have generally decreased; it is generally preferable to allow upgrades to the extent they improve the situation. He noted not allowing any change would eliminate the possibility of improving the situation. Councilmember Petso asked why allowing additional companies to co-locate was not considered an expansion of the nonconforming use. Mr. Taraday answered federal law states if co-location does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower or base station, it must be approved. There is some judgment call about what the language “does not substantially change the physical dimensions” means but federal law intends to make it easier for wireless communication facilities to upgrade their technology as new technology comes on line. Mr. Chave pointed out there are few sites that fit into that category. Councilmember Petso asked whether the code section Mr. Taraday read applies to nonconforming facilities or only conforming facilities. Mr. Taraday answered the language applies to existing, potentially nonconforming facilities; there is no need for special treatment for conforming facilities. Council President Buckshnis commented the visual pollution will improve over time as technology improves. Mr. Chave answered that has been recent history and there is no reason to believe that will change. Council President Buckshnis referred to the building across the street from the post office that has a number of antennas. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3961, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 20.50, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, SECTION 21.05.005, ACCESSORY ANTENNA DEVICE, AND SECTION 17.40.020, NON-CONFORMING BUILDING AND/OR STRUCTURE, OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON ORDINANCE ADDRESSING THE LEGAL STATUS OF EXISTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES THAT WERE BUILT PRIOR TO OR JUST AFTER ADOPTION OF EDMONDS' ORIGINAL WIRELESS REGULATIONS COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3962, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.40 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD SECTION 17.40.023, AMNESTY FOR CERTAIN LONG- EXISTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES. Councilmember Bloom asked if the wording of the ordnance could be revised to not allow co-location of new facilities on a nonconforming facility. Mr. Taraday answered this ordinance is discretionary; the Packet Page 9 of 120 Council is not required under federal law to approve it. However, a wireless telecommunication facility has existed at this location since approximately 1998. When the company maintaining that facility applies for permits to upgrade their facility it becomes problematic if it cannot be recognized as a legal facility. The incidental fallout from making this a legal nonconforming facility is it falls under the federal code provision that allows co-location at that facility. The Council cannot do anything about the federal law; the Council could theoretically not adopt this ordinance but that places the company and staff in a difficult position with regard to this facility that has existed since 1998 seemingly without public complaint. He summarized staff views this as the fix to a problem staff is confronted with when AT&T wants to upgrade their facility. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY CULTURAL PLANS Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this is a continued public hearing from February 4, 2014 when she made a presentation regarding both plans. She explained the process began in June 2013 when the Council authorized a contract for the consultant MIG. The public process included Project Advisory Teams for the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan and Community Cultural Plans. The first draft plan was published and presented to Council in early December. Comments were accepted for a 60 day period and the plan was published to the Department of Commerce. Changes made to the draft plan based on those comments were presented to the Planning Board at a public hearing in January and to the Council in early February. She requested the Council approve the PROS and the Community Cultural Plan tonight; they will be formally adopted with the Comprehensive Plan adoption later this year. Since the February 4 presentation, further revisions have been made to the PROS Plan based on comments forwarded by Councilmembers: • Typographical and editorial changes for consistency and clarity, • Clarifying recommendation 2.C to include other public and private partners in acquisition and development collaborations, • Added references to additional City sites and efforts o Profiles for Point Edwards overlooks and Meadowdale Natural Area o Year-round market, as elaborated on in the Strategic Action Plan o Removing “relocate” on Senior Center inventory page Ms. Hite relayed special thanks to Councilmember Petso who thoroughly reviewed the plan and meet with her to provide comments. Ms. Hite relayed changes made to the Community Cultural Plan based on comments received: • Typographical changes and editorial clarifications, • Updated Appendix A for consistency with the body of the document, • Added an introduction to Appendix C • Added Strategy 1.8: Encourage the City to review/develop zoning and permitting incentives that actively encourage developments that sustain the vision for a people-friendly, culture-oriented community, which includes public art and public space, and adds to a rich network of cultural resources Councilmember Petso asked if the language in the Comprehensive Plan would allow the acquisition of property in the vicinity of the Skipper’s property or Salish Crossing for recreational purposes. She referred to past efforts to include a star on the map to indicate a recreational facility in that area was a Packet Page 10 of 120 desirable use. Ms. Hite answered there are several broad references in Goals 2 and 3 that would allow that. Councilmember Petso asked whether there was language in the plan that would allow the City to pursue grants to purchase open space that became available for purchase. Ms. Hite answered yes, explaining a chapter was added to the PROS Plan regarding natural resources and habitat conservation that allows the City to aggressively pursue open space and habitat areas for conservation. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Joanne Otness, Edmonds, Arts Commissioner, acknowledged the hard work and spirit of cooperation in the development of the plans, particularly the Community Cultural Plan. The process exhibits a spirit of cooperation and communication between the community, staff and consultants. As a result of last year’s Arts Summit, public hearings and public meetings, revisions and refinement of ideas the updated plan will serve the City well and continue to evolve. The plan is broad enough yet specific enough to allow the Arts Commission, other arts entities and the City to work with it. She thanked everyone involved for their hard work in developing the plan. Jan Elliott Glanister, Edmonds, echoed Ms. Otness’ comments. She expressed support for the PROS and Community Cultural Plans, commenting she was involved in the advisory team for the Community Cultural Plan. She was particularly supportive of the plan in regard to youth activities such as drop-in centers, concerts for or by youth and classroom space for visual arts and music classes. The plan suggests a number of venues in Edmonds for these activities; she reminded there are other possible venues in the over 30 churches in Edmonds that have auditoriums, sound systems, lobby areas, kitchens, parking, classrooms and a volunteer staff dedicated to youth. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE AND COMMUNITY CULTURAL PLANS. Councilmember Johnson inquired about prioritization or sequencing of projects in the PROS Plan. She suggested establishing timeframes or priorities to provide an expectation of when projects will occur. Ms. Hite answered the PROS Plan is a 6-year plan and is updated every 6 years although it can be amended as necessary. In response to the State Recreation and Conservation Office’s (RCO) recommendation to identify 2-3 projects that will be worked on in the next 6 years, those are identified in the final draft plan. The annual CIP/CFP process is an opportunity to include projects based on funding or other opportunities. Council President Buckshnis commended everyone involved, noting the plan reads well, she liked the charts and it includes her priority, the marsh. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 12. CITY PARK PROJECT UPDATE Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this project, City Park Play and Spray Revitalization, will replace the play area and add a spray park. The process has been underway for the past 6-8 months with a consultant team from MacLeod Reckord. Council has authorized separate bids for the play park equipment and the spray park equipment. The process has reached 95% construction documents and is in Packet Page 11 of 120 the permitting process. Information has been provided the geotech sub-consultant and the Department of Ecology (DOE). With 95% design and the geotech report, the first issue encountered is related to the water table under the area where the spray park was to be located. She explained the spray park is designed as a water reuse system that allows capture of the water from the spray area for use for irrigation, toilet flushing and filling the water tank for the flower program. This is the first system in the State that attempts to reuse water in this many ways. Upon receipt of the water table and soil report and discussions with the permitting department, City engineers and the consulting team, it was determined the best alternative in moving forward would be to redesign the tank and the tank location. Instead of locating the tank directly under the spray park, the solution would be additional geotech work on the hillside under the ballfield and to locate the tank there. This would likely be out of the water table and less expensive to construct, but would require redesign and a pump to move water to the tank rather than a gravity fed tank. She anticipated this alternative would be workable but redesign and additional geotech work would be necessary to confirm that. The redesign, geotech work and going from 65% to 95% design would increase the $1.35 million budget by $322,419. Ms. Hite relayed an additional issue, DOE determined reuse is too new in the State and they will only allow irrigation reuse with redesign of the filtration system. This would save $52,000 in the budget and lead to additional water waste. Ms. Hite relayed options for Council consideration, advising these were presented to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee who recommended presentation to full Council: 1. Approve additional expenditure o Additional expenditures may be required if further issues are discovered 2. Cease project o Funding Sources:  $500,000 in CIP  $500,000 granted from State RCO  $270,000 granted from Hazel Miller Foundation  $80,000 granted from Snohomish County o Would require refunding Hazel Miller Foundation and State grants 3. Go forward with replacement of play area. Research options for alternative locations for spray play area at City Park that would accommodate a water recirculating system Ms. Hite relayed a question about locating the spray pad in another park, explaining there is no other park with restrooms, parking and the infrastructure to accommodate such an attraction. A comment received during the SEPA process was to consider the traffic and safety on 3rd Avenue which will be done. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the cost of only replacing the play area. Ms. Hite answered the play area is approximately $200,000 which includes a community-build. Approximately $110,000 has been spent in design. The spray pad with a recirculating system in a different location can be $650,000 - $800,000 and possibly more if additional geotech work and design are required. With the budget of $1.35 million, less $200,000 for play equipment and less the $100,000 spent on design, approximately $1 million remains for a spray pad with a recirculating system. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented on the possibility that another area will not be feasible. She asked if locating an above ground tank elsewhere in the park will work. Ms. Hite answered she was not certain; that option will have to be explored. She advised $200,000 for the play area and $110,000 for design still leaves $200,000 of the $500,000 in the CIP to determine if that alternative is feasible. Packet Page 12 of 120 Council President Buckshnis asked whether a smaller tank could be utilized since not all the water would be reused. Ms. Hite answered yes. Council President Buckshnis asked whether the State would eventually allow reuse for flushing toilets and for the flower program. Ms. Hite answered a recirculating system would eliminate that aspect of the project. She did not anticipate the State would allow reuse for flushing toilets and the flower program within the timeline for this project. If the State allowed it in the future, an add-on to the current project would require digging up the entire system. Councilmember Peterson clarified the State will allow the water to be used for irrigation in the park but not to flush toilets. Ms. Hite answered that is her understanding. Councilmember Peterson commented the location of City Park near the marsh seemed ripe for issues related to the water table. He asked about early geotech work. Ms. Hite answered a preliminary geotech report thought it would be feasible to plant the tank without any dewatering or shoring in the construction process. When the consultant submitted 95% document for permits, the City’s engineers and permit techs asked a lot of questions. The geotech sub-consultant described the construction model, stating it was possible an extensive process of dewatering and shoring would be necessary which could cost an additional $200,000 - $250,000. After questioning by City staff, the geotech took a more conservative approach. For Councilmember Peterson, Ms. Hite advised the geotech is a sub-consultant hired by the consultant. Councilmember Peterson asked whether there was peer review. Ms. Hite said there was not. Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding the spray pad would be a very popular feature and asked whether a parking impact analysis had been done to determine whether there was sufficient parking. Ms. Hite answered the parking impact analysis was done with adoption of the Master Plan which included the spray park. Councilmember Johnson asked how many daily users were anticipated. Ms. Hite answered it depends on the weather; spray pads can attract upward of 300-500 kids and families throughout the day. She acknowledged a hot Sunday with the spray pad, a summer concert and a picnic shelter rental could create parking issues. Council President Buckshnis referred to a letter she received from a resident regarding pedestrian safety that she forwarded to the Police Department. Ms. Hite advised that is the letter she referred to. Council President Buckshnis asked whether the funds from the Hazel Miller Foundation could be used somewhere else if the replacement of the play area proceeded. Ms. Hite answered if the Council chooses to proceed with Option 3, she will need to contact the State RCO, Hazel Miller Foundation and Snohomish County. The $80,000 from Snohomish County is for the play area. It was the consensus of the Council to proceed with Option 3. 13. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON POTENTIAL SALE OF SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF 184TH STREET SW AND 80TH AVENUE W (TAX PARCEL NUMBER 00370800101200) Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification of a statement made during Audience Comments that the property is owned by a private party. She also inquired about the process for selling the property. Senior Planner Kernen Lien identified the City-owned property, the Angler’s Crossing Plat/PRD and the Parks property on a map. City Attorney Jeff Taraday noted several people during Audience Comments referred to this as a PRD; the PRD expired some time ago. A new development permit or PRD could be submitted with or without the inclusion of the City’s property. The City Council’s decision whether to sell the City property in no way prevents development of the remainder of the property. With regard to Councilmember Fraley- Monillas’ question about the process for selling the property, Mr. Taraday explained it is common for Packet Page 13 of 120 cities to conduct a public process to ensure it receives the highest price but there is no legal requirement to do that as long as the city ensures it receives fair market value. The best way to get fair market value is to put it up for auction or sale. Mr. Lien identified the City’s property, Perrinville, 80th Avenue West, 184th, and Angler’s Crossing/PFD on the map. He explained the City’s property has been associated with the Angler’s Crossing Plat/PRD for several years since the contract rezone in 1996/1997. The Angler’s Crossing Plat/PRD received preliminary approval in January 2007. Technically the preliminary plat is good until January 2017; however, the plat cannot proceed without the PRD which expired in 2012. A number of developers have approached the City regarding this property and some purchase and sale agreements have been signed over the years that have since expired. There are no current purchase and sale agreement for the property. This item was presented to the Council due to developers who have approached the City regarding the sale of the City’s property. Councilmember Petso observed the citizens who spoke under Audience Comments recommended holding a public hearing before making a decision to sell the property. She asked whether that was an appropriate action. Mr. Taraday answered the Council could hold a public hearing although there is no legal requirement to hold a public hearing before making a decision to surplus property. Councilmember Peterson observed the PRD has expired. He inquired about the process for developing the property if the Council surplused the property and someone purchased that property and the Parks’ parcels. Mr. Lien answered the plat is still good but the PRD has expired; technically someone could apply for the same PRD but would need to comply with current standards such as stormwater. The plat was approved with older stormwater regulations. Complying with current stormwater standards may change the plat somewhat. He summarized it was unlikely someone would attempt that due to the difficulties with applying for the same PRD. Councilmember Peterson inquired about the procedure to begin the process again. Mr. Lien answered someone could apply for a plat and not a PRD. Preliminary plat approval is a Type III-B process before the Hearing Examiner. Adding a PRD to a plat requires neighborhood meetings up front, design review, and preliminary plat and PRD approval is before the Hearing Examiner. Final approval of a plat and PRD is a City Council decision. Councilmember Peterson summarized if a buyer moved forward with a PFD there would a public process with notice, traffic studies, etc. Mr. Lien answered a new process would include traffic impacts, geotech, stormwater reports, etc. utilizing the regulations that are in place at the time they apply. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested gathering community input regarding the sale of the property. She asked if a public hearing was held in the past on the sale of this property. Mr. Lien answered the City property has been associated with the Park property back to a street vacation on Olympic View Drive in 1996/1997 which included a public process. A contract rezone followed which included public hearings at the Planning Board and City Council. The plat/PRD approval also included a public process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the harm in having another public hearing on the sale of the City’s property other than taking additional time. Mr. Lien answered there was no harm but here is a time factor. If someone purchases the property and considers applying for the exact same PRD, the preliminary plat approval is good until January 2017. The person would need to go through the PFD process and make it fit into the preliminary plat, and have the civil work completed and/or bonded for. Council President Buckshnis suggested holding a public hearing prior to selling the property because it has been a hot topic for a number of years. She recalled only a portion of two houses are on the City’s property, therefore, if the City does not sell the property, only two houses will be affected. Mr. Lien displayed a map of the 27-lot Angler’s Crossing preliminary plat/PRD and identified portions of houses Packet Page 14 of 120 that would be located within the City’s property. The density calculation for Angler’s Crossing included the City’s parcel; the City’s parcel would be needed to achieve 27 lots. Council President Buckshnis asked if the City’s property could be used as open space as part of a PRD. Mr. Lien answered a PRD allows some of the zoning standards to be altered and has open space requirements. PRDs are typically done on sites with steep slopes and create smaller lots which allow more intense development. The City’s property could be included to achieve the density and the parcel set aside as open space. He noted that would be a major change to the plat/PRD and would require a new process. Council President Buckshnis asked if a public hearing could be held on March 4. City Clerk Scott Passey advised the soonest would be March 18. Councilmember Bloom inquired about notice for the public hearing, recalling a request that the people originally involved be noticed. Mr. Taraday answered because there is no legal requirement to have a public hearing regarding the sale of property, there are no notice requirements. Unless directed otherwise, staff would publish a general notice of the public hearing. Councilmember Bloom recalled when the Council discussed the extension of expired plats, come Councilmembers requested those involved in the expired plat be noticed that the plat would be extended. She asked whether the Council could request the people involved be notified. Mr. Lien advised the parties of record for the Angler’s Crossing could be added to the notice in addition to the typical land use notice of property owners within 300 feet. Councilmember Bloom requested the public hearing include that notice. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Bloom’s request for a public hearing and noticing prior participants as well as property owners within 300 feet. She asked whether a public hearing and/or public process occurred prior to the purchase and sale agreement. Mr. Lien answered he was uncertain as it related to sale of the property; there was a public process with regard to the development. Council President Buckshnis agreed to schedule a public hearing on March 18. Councilmember Peterson requested the notice of the public hearing state sale of surplus City property to avoid confusion that it is a public hearing on the PRD. Mr. Taraday agreed, noting it was not a public hearing on a land use project, it would be a public hearing on whether or not the City should sell the property and not on any proposed use of the property except perhaps the City’s use of the property and how the City could use it. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien confirmed the notice would include parties of record and property owners within 300 feet. Mayor Earling observed the community members in the audience would also spread the word. Council President Buckshnis inquired about the cost of noticing. Mr. Lien answered it was not a significant amount, a recently mailing to for the Westgate public hearing to property owners within 500 feet (approximately 300 properties) was approximately $100. 14. POTENTIAL ACTION ON APPOINTMENT TO FILL COUNCIL VACANCY POSITION #6 Councilmember Bloom observed many people were anxious for the Council to make this decision tonight. She has gone through a lengthy process including an article in Edmonds Forum regarding why she supported Steve Bernheim for appointment to the City Council, how much time she spends doing research, etc. She felt this process had become very contentious and she preferred the decision not be made by the Snohomish County Council. She observed 3 Councilmembers support Steve Bernheim and 3 support 3-4 other candidates; a total of approximately 5 candidates. She preferred not to vote tonight as she anticipated the same result as the last meeting and because she wanted to continue talking with Packet Page 15 of 120 candidates that other Councilmembers have voted for to determine if there was another candidate who would work well with the Council. She suggested the following options: • Interview the candidates that have received 3 votes each either in person or via written questions • Delay a decision for two weeks (Councilmember Peterson will be absent on March 4) to allow Councilmembers an opportunity to talk with other candidates Council President Buckshnis apologized to the candidates who have been attending Council meetings for the past month awaiting the Council’s decision. She has done a tremendous amount of work and has received comments and emails from many people. She proposed several candidates in an effort to reach a compromise. She pointed out Steven Schroeder’s resume includes 30 years in the public sector as a federal prosecutor, numerous complex trials and cases, he has authored 4 books, has 10 years’ experience in coaching fast-pitch softball, and he has received letters of commendation from former FBI directors, assistant secretary and state, the attorney general and the Vice President of the United States. She relayed Councilmembers Peterson and Johnson and her desire for a candidate with no prior positive or negative constituents. Since this process began she received 2 letters of commendation for Mr. Bernheim and 15- 20 opposing him. She spoke in favor of a fresh perspective and expressed her willingness to train a new Councilmember, summarizing the goal is to move the process forward. Councilmember Petso relayed she has also being asking candidates additional questions over the past 4-5 days. She supported delaying a decision for two weeks to allow Councilmember Bloom the opportunity to continue her research. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there has been a lot of talk about flexibility, willingness and compromise and she supported moving in that direction even if it meant eliminating the two strongest candidates to reach a decision. She has also met with candidates during the past week and was willing to postpone a decision to allow Councilmembers to speak with candidates. Councilmember Peterson was encouraged by some of the comments and the willingness to consider other qualified candidates although he was frustrated it had not taken place sooner. He nominated a couple candidates he was prepared to advocate for and thought would be the best but remained willing to consider other candidates. He acknowledged the sense of frustration with how slow government moves. He invited candidates he had not talked with to contact him. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the issue of placing blame and victimizing in the media and at the dais. She recalled 33 votes had been taken in the past in an effort to select a Councilmember without any complaint. She preferred to move forward in a positive manner. Councilmember Johnson thanked the candidates who applied for the Council vacancy. She met with seven candidates and welcomed the opportunity to meet with the remainder if they chose. She is prepared to vet the candidates she feels are the most qualified including some she has not nominated. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO EXTEND THE PROCESS TO A SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 11 PRIOR TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the deadline for the Council to make a decision before it is referred to the Snohomish County Council. City Clerk Scott Passey answered the deadline is March 31. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how long the County Council has to make its decision. Mr. Passey answered the same as the City Council, 90 days. Councilmember Peterson requested the media clearly state that the process would be extended to a special meeting on March 11 at 6:00 p.m. before committee meetings. Packet Page 16 of 120 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 15. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Petso thanked the Historic Preservation Commission for the way they conducted themselves when debating a very difficult issue at a recent meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she was elected Vice Chair of the Snohomish Health District. The Health District is embarking on a strategic planning process and she was proud to provide their consultant with Edmonds’ Strategic Plan. Councilmember Peterson reported a new Councilmembers from Lake Forest Park joined the Lake Ballinger Forum as well as Snohomish County Councilmember Terry Ryan although Snohomish County is not a voting member. The meeting included an update on federal funding sources and the possibility that the Water Resources Development Act may include funding this year. If so, Lake Ballinger Forum would like to send a delegation to Washington DC to meet with legislators who have been supportive of the multi-jurisdictional Lake Ballinger Forum speaking with a single voice. As the City has no travel budget, if a delegation goes to Washington DC, he offered to go if it could be coordinated with his trip to visit friends. The Forum is currently addressing downstream funding; although this does not have an immediate effect on Edmonds residents, those regional partners will be important when issues facing Edmonds residents such as water quality and flooding are addressed. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board asked to present their annual report on April 22. Mr. Taraday will be reviewing the Heritage Tree Program documentation which the Council will review on April 22. The Tree Board also discussed renewing the Tree City USA designation, grant opportunities and annual Tree Board planning. She reported Mr. Lien plans to work with the Tree Board to seek grants. Councilmember Johnson reported the February 10 Port Commission meeting included an introduction of the Comprehensive Plan and Harbor Square Master Plan update. The Port does not anticipate any difficulties with City staff’s review of the Jacobsen Marine building application. Councilmember Bloom reported the February 24 Port Commission meeting included an update by the Jacobsen Marine representative, a report on marina operations and the 2013 annual report. She summarized the Port’s bottom line looks good. Further discussion regarding the Port’s strategic plan was postponed to a future meeting. Councilmember Johnson reported she attended the February 19 Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting as well as met with their leadership. She looked forward to working with the EDC and Councilmember Peterson. Council President Buckshnis reported WRIA 8 sent a letter to legislators thanking them for funding the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Program. She was selected to assist with grants this year. Snohomish County Tomorrow’s upcoming meeting will include updates from the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Economic Alliance of Washington and discussion regarding affordable housing. 16. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported on a meeting he attended with Congressman Rick Larsen along with the mayors of Mukilteo, Everett and Marysville about the additional production of crude oil in North Dakota and Texas and moving oil to refineries for processing. The meeting focused on the potential for increased rail traffic due to oil tankers. Most crude oil currently is moved through pipelines but that has reached a Packet Page 17 of 120 saturation point and more crude oil is being hauled via train. It can be expected over time to have trains up to 100 cars long similar to some of the current freight trains. He noted conversations about coal trains and oil trains are not occurring together. He distributed a handout from Congressman Larsen. Mayor Earling thanked Councilmembers who participated in the Snohomish County Cities meeting last week with Snohomish County Executive Lovick and 60 Mayors and Councilmembers from across the County. 17. COUNCIL COMMENTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROCEED WITH A WARRANT OF ABATEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 8707 236TH STREET SOUTHWEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Buckshnis reported the Council retreat is scheduled for March 14-15. She was discouraged a seventh Councilmember would not be appointed by the retreat; possibly another retreat can be scheduled in May. She invited Councilmembers to contact her with agenda ideas. Councilmember Bloom thanked her fellow Councilmembers for agreeing to postpone the appointment process for two weeks. This is an extremely important decision and she looked forward to more time to work on it. Councilmember Peterson thanked Mayor Earling for his report on crude oil trains. HB 2347 regarding safety concerns, cleanup, etc. will be moving to the Senate. He also thanked Mayor Earling for the State of the City address that is now available online. Student Representative Thea Ocfemia invited the public to Edmonds-Woodway High School’s production of “Life on the Bowery” with performances Thursday through Sunday, tickets are $7. 18. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 19. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 20. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. Packet Page 18 of 120 AM-6623 4. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:03/04/2014 Time:Consent Submitted For:Roger Neumaier Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #207238 through #207321 dated February 27, 2014 for $326,674.58. Approval of reissued check #207322 dated February 27, 2014 for $75.00. Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2014 Revenue: Expenditure:326,674.58 Fiscal Impact: Claims $326,674.58 Reissued check $75.00 Attachments Claim checks 02-27-14 Project Numbers 02-27-14 Reissued claim check Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Sarah Mager 02/28/2014 10:06 AM Packet Page 19 of 120 City Clerk Scott Passey 02/28/2014 10:09 AM Mayor Dave Earling 02/28/2014 01:11 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/28/2014 01:14 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 02/27/2014 09:21 AM Final Approval Date: 02/28/2014 Packet Page 20 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207238 2/27/2014 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9459 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 100,326.90 Total :100,326.90 207239 2/27/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-7280426 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 42.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 4.08 Total :47.03 207240 2/27/2014 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST March 2014 AWC MARCH 2014 AWC PREMIUMS March 2014 AWC premiums 811.000.231.510 58,712.37 Total :58,712.37 207241 2/27/2014 072455 BEAR COMMUNICATIONS INC 4271556 PLANT RADIO REPLACEMENT Replace plant radios - includes 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 12,516.06 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,189.05 Total :13,705.11 207242 2/27/2014 074229 BONNIE AUBUCHON AUBUCHON 17987 JOY OF ART 17987 JOY OF ART 17987 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 280.00 Total :280.00 207243 2/27/2014 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13535153 Lease Council Office printer/copier Lease Council Office printer/copier 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65 Total :30.65 207244 2/27/2014 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-1401 E9GA.SERVICES THRU JANUARY 2014 E9GA.Services thru January 2014 1Page: Packet Page 21 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207244 2/27/2014 (Continued)065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 3,853.50 Total :3,853.50 207245 2/27/2014 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10619 INV#10619 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD ADD PRISONER R&B DEC 2013 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 205.00 PRISONER R&B FOR JAN 2014 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,905.42 Total :2,110.42 207246 2/27/2014 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2638237 CLEANING SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,789.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 170.02 Total :1,959.67 207247 2/27/2014 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3284899 LEGAL AD RFQ COMMUNICATION/OUTREACH Legal ad for RFQ Communication/Outreach 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 218.40 Total :218.40 207248 2/27/2014 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 2/13/14 - 2/26/14 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.237.190 426.00 Total :426.00 207249 2/27/2014 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY DISPLAY CEMETERY DISPLAY 130.000.64.536.20.44.00 58.98 Total :58.98 207250 2/27/2014 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 14-3430 MINUTE TAKING Council Meeting 2/18 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 250.80 MINUTE TAKING14-3431 2Page: Packet Page 22 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207250 2/27/2014 (Continued)064531 DINES, JEANNIE TBD Meeting 2/18 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 56.10 Total :306.90 207251 2/27/2014 072145 DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS INC 18638 BRACKETTS NORTH CLEAR POLYCARBONATE BRACKETTS NORTH CLEAR POLYCARBONATE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,017.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 96.62 Total :1,113.62 207252 2/27/2014 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 13-2240.3 E3JA.TO 13-05 SERVICES THRU 2/16/14 E3JA.TO 13-05 Services thru 2/16/14 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 936.68 Total :936.68 207253 2/27/2014 007253 DUNN LUMBER 2347325 GREEN LINE GREEN LINE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.76 Total :8.77 207254 2/27/2014 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00655 LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST / METER 7 LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65 LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE / METER1-00925 LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65 LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE / METER 91-01950 LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.63 OLD PUBLIC WORKS (NORTH) 200 DAYTON ST /1-03950 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 515.81 3Page: Packet Page 23 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207254 2/27/2014 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 DAYTON ST /1-05350 OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 DAYTON ST 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 77.46 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 92371-05705 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 9237 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 70.53 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 690138971-13975 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 69013897 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 489.43 CITY HALL 115 5TH AVE N / METER 24351-14000 CITY HALL 115 5TH AVE N / METER 2435 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 89.78 LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN / MET2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREAM LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 73.51 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 722-29118 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65 LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW / METE4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.65 Total :1,492.75 207255 2/27/2014 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST / WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 CASPERS ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65 EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST /2-25175 EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 CASPERS ST 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65 PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N / METE2-28275 PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AVE N / 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.65 STAM OVERLOOK PARK FOUNTAIN & IRRIGATION2-37180 STAM OVERLOOK PARK FOUNTAIN & 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.92 4Page: Packet Page 24 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :151.872072552/27/2014 008705 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 207256 2/27/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 096948 COPIER CHARGES C1030 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 15.26 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 15.26 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 15.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 1.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 1.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 1.45 Total :50.11 207257 2/27/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 93690 METER READING Meter Reading 10/21/13-11/21/13 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 13.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.25 Total :14.42 207258 2/27/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD LG543855 INV#LG543855 ACCT#EDH126500 - EDMONDS PD UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AD 02/14/14 001.000.41.521.10.44.00 20.64 Total :20.64 207259 2/27/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD LG543249 NEWSPAPER AD Ord. 3960 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 43.00 Total :43.00 207260 2/27/2014 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD LG543258 Legal Notice - PLN20130075 Prestige Care Legal Notice - PLN20130075 Prestige Care 5Page: Packet Page 25 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207260 2/27/2014 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 110.08 Legal Notice: Pln 2013.0069LG543462 Legal Notice: Pln 2013.0069 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 89.44 Total :199.52 207261 2/27/2014 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU31094 NUTS NUTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.75 #14 1-x2.5 STWAMOU31138 #14 1-x2.5 ST 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 55.00 Total :71.75 207262 2/27/2014 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU30965 Sewer - LS Ladder Install Supplies Sewer - LS Ladder Install Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 78.60 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 7.47 Total :86.07 207263 2/27/2014 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD 443 13601 CORNER PARK TAGS CORNER PARK TAGS 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 18.00 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 1.71 Total :19.71 207264 2/27/2014 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 29.02 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 151.72 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 6Page: Packet Page 26 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207264 2/27/2014 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 281.76 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.53 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.42 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 43.86 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 81.46 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 28.69 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 28.68 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 15.25 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 76.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 64.04 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 64.04 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 85.37 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 58.78 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5TH AVE N425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 53.59 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896 7Page: Packet Page 27 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207264 2/27/2014 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 118.22 Total :1,233.66 207265 2/27/2014 012199 GRAINGER 9348641144 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 37.32 Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.44 Water - Supplies9360405048 Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 37.71 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3.58 Total :82.05 207266 2/27/2014 073533 H2NATION PUBLISHING INC 2203 WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT FOR STAGES OF WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT FOR STAGES OF 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 2,000.00 Total :2,000.00 207267 2/27/2014 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I3563041 Parks - Parts for Sewer Line Parks - Parts for Sewer Line 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 485.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 46.17 Total :532.13 207268 2/27/2014 074638 HEALY, TERESA HEALY 18034 LITTLE FISHES PRESCHOOL LITTLE FISHES PRESCHOOL 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 277.20 Total :277.20 207269 2/27/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1075746 DOORSTOP BRIGHT BRASS DOORSTOP BRIGHT BRASS 8Page: Packet Page 28 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207269 2/27/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.13 DOOR PULLS AND SCREWS2042093 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 6.42 DOOR PULLS AND SCREWS 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 67.54 HYCO BARS2560985 HYCO BARS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.44 KIT FOR CYSTAL HANDEL REPAIR283612 KIT FOR CYSTAL HANDEL REPAIR 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.90 SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL REMODEL3041783 SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL REMODEL 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 98.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.37 GRASS SEED FOR TILE JOB3041893 GRASS SEED FOR TILE JOB 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 31.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2.99 STOCK SHOP TOOLS/SUPPLIES3043913 STOCK SHOP TOOLS/SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 81.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.78 RED SAFETY PAINT3260834 9Page: Packet Page 29 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207269 2/27/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES RED SAFETY PAINT 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 21.08 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2.00 ROV BATTERY3586339 ROV BATTERY 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 8.49 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 0.81 ROV BATTERIES3586341 ROV BATTERIES 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 16.98 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1.61 MARKING WAND42603 MARKING WAND 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 39.92 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 3.79 1/2" VSR DRL5040331 1/2" VSR DRL 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 49.97 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.75 SUPPLIES AND TOOLS TO OUTFIT NEW CREW5040355 SUPPLIES AND TOOLS TO OUTFIT NEW CREW 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 643.23 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 61.11 UNIT 5 SUPPLIES5043496 UNIT 5 SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.03 10Page: Packet Page 30 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207269 2/27/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES WIN WALL AND PALLET563482 WIN WALL AND PALLET 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 179.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 17.04 SIDEBOARD PAINT FOR NEW FLATBED TRUCK594077 SIDEBOARD PAINT FOR NEW FLATBED TRUCK 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 28.87 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2.74 ACRYLIC CAULK ETC FOR CITY HALL REMODEL6040163 ACRYLIC CAULK ETC FOR CITY HALL REMODEL 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 79.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.58 SIDEWALK MOSS KILLER6081719 SIDEWALK MOSS KILLER 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 10.27 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 0.98 PLASTIC SPREADERS7034048 PLASTIC SPREADERS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.42 10IN1 RATCHETING DRIVER75806 10IN1 RATCHETING DRIVER 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.61 SILVER SET AND IS CORNERS8044969 SILVER SET AND IS CORNERS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.45 9.5% Sales Tax 11Page: Packet Page 31 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207269 2/27/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.28 22' ALUM PAN AND PVC PEPIPE8045125 22' ALUM PAN AND PVC PEPIPE 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 20.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.92 PVC BUSHELS8045131 PVC BUSHELS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.51 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.14 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SUPPLIES80862 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 59.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.70 SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL REMODEL8283767 SUPPLIES FOR CITY HALL REMODEL 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 92.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.80 ASSORTED SUPPLIES FOR REMODEL9030127 ASSORTED SUPPLIES FOR REMODEL 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 43.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.12 SHUT OFF COUPLINGS AND NOZZLE9074869 SHUT OFF COUPLINGS AND NOZZLE 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 45.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.32 EPOXY PUTTY9081106 EPOXY PUTTY 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.64 12Page: Packet Page 32 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207269 2/27/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES ADJUSTABLE STORAGE SYSTEM 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.64 LEAK STOPPER 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.85 Total :1,920.71 207270 2/27/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2083908 SHARKBITE ELBOW SHARKBITE ELBOW 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 27.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.64 GLOVES2083910 GLOVES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 70.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.68 TORCH KIT3031012 TORCH KIT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 49.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.75 PLUMBING SUPPLIES3042867 PLUMBING SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 226.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.49 PIPE RENCH3042869 PIPE RENCH 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 55.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 5.32 LFA5261424 LFA 13Page: Packet Page 33 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207270 2/27/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.86 RAKE, KEY SET8044995 RAKE, KEY SET 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 31.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.95 Total :526.45 207271 2/27/2014 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 24886 E3JA.TO 13-06 SERVICES THRU 1/31/14 E3JA.TO 13-06 Services thru 1/31/14 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 801.40 Total :801.40 207272 2/27/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2411394 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 13.86 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.32 Total :15.18 207273 2/27/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2411423 Return of office supplies - DSD Return of office supplies - DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 -61.32 Office Supplies - DSD2411588 Office Supplies - DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 455.58 Copy paper DSD2412164 Copy paper DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 172.89 Total :567.15 207274 2/27/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2411057 Office Supplies Office Supplies 14Page: Packet Page 34 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207274 2/27/2014 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 131.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 12.50 Shared office supplies - copier paper2411754 Shared office supplies - copier paper 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 37.00 Shared office supplies- copier paper 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 37.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 3.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 3.51 Total :225.15 207275 2/27/2014 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 11744534 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,987.30 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 6.53 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 10.57 Total :2,004.40 207276 2/27/2014 072728 KAVADAS, JANET KAVADAS 18033 PERSONAL TRAINER PERSONAL TRAINER 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 112.00 Total :112.00 207277 2/27/2014 015535 KELLER SUPPLY COMPANY S007301057.001 PLUMBING SUPPLIES PLUMBING SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 102.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.78 Total :112.66 15Page: Packet Page 35 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207278 2/27/2014 074176 KING CO SUPERIOR COURT CLERK FEB 25 2014 RECORDS REQUEST - EDMONDS PD RECORDS REQUEST 001.000.41.521.11.41.00 10.00 Total :10.00 207279 2/27/2014 066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC 3249109MB EZ STREET ASPHALT EZ STREET ASPHALT 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 1,297.44 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 123.25 Total :1,420.69 207280 2/27/2014 074014 LEIDOS ENGINEERING LLC 51571 E4FA.SERVICES THRU 1/31/14 E4FA.Services thru 1/31/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 6,625.99 Total :6,625.99 207281 2/27/2014 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 861160 WASHERS AND BEARINGS WASHERS AND BEARINGS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 203.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.38 Total :223.34 207282 2/27/2014 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 6822 E1DA.SERVICES THRU 1/31/14 E1DA.Services thru 1/31/14 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 1,930.10 Total :1,930.10 207283 2/27/2014 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 6816 CITY PARK PLAY AND SPRAY REVITALIZATION CITY PARK PLAY AND SPRAY REVITALIZATION 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 6,872.12 Total :6,872.12 207284 2/27/2014 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 73949404 SUPPLIES FOR 500 UPS PROJECT Supplies for 50 ups project - cords, 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 269.37 16Page: Packet Page 36 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207284 2/27/2014 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 95.50 Total :364.87 207285 2/27/2014 063773 MICROFLEX 00021717 01-14 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM TAX AUDIT PROGRAM 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 158.90 Total :158.90 207286 2/27/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 183146 AIR FILTERS AIR FILTERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 74.46 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.07 Total :81.53 207287 2/27/2014 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0514059-IN Fleet Filter Inventory Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 31.19 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 2.97 Total :34.16 207288 2/27/2014 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 49161 BISULFITE Bisulfite 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 442.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 41.99 Total :483.99 207289 2/27/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-855473 TEMPORARY TOLIET DUE TO SEWER LINE TEMPORARY TOLIET DUE TO SEWER LINE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 177.85 SIERRA PARK1-855890 SIERRA PARK 17Page: Packet Page 37 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207289 2/27/2014 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 MARINA BEACH RENTALS1-856729 MARINA BEACH RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,007.20 PINE STREET1-857961 PINE STREET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 CIVIC PLAYFIELD1-858731 CIVIC PLAYFIELD 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 HAINES WHARF PARK RENTALS1-859419 HAINES WHARF PARK RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 220.77 Total :1,742.87 207290 2/27/2014 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 454 HPC Minutetaker 2/13/14 HPC Minutetaker 2/13/14 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 198.00 Total :198.00 207291 2/27/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 675009 INV#675009 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD READY INDEX DIVIDERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 15.31 3X5 RULED INDEX CARDS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2.88 STENO BOOKS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.89 SMALL BINDER CLIPS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2.30 MEDIUM BINDER CLIPS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.40 BLACK RETRACTABLE PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.84 18Page: Packet Page 38 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :67.262072912/27/2014 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 207292 2/27/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 753034 WHITE CARDSTOCK WHITE CARDSTOCK 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 10.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.04 Total :11.92 207293 2/27/2014 074793 PETDATA INC FEB 2014 STARTUP FEE - PET LICENSING - EDMONDS PD 1 TIME STARTUP FEE-PET LICENSING 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 207294 2/27/2014 008350 PETTY CASH PR PETTY CASH 0214 Bags for Math Bags Project Bags for Math Bags Project 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 5.69 Pretend Center Supplies 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 10.91 COOKIES FOR PUBLIC RECEPTION HWY 99 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 22.50 Daycamp ediable astroids 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 15.25 Daycamp Glitter 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 17.27 Salt for projects 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 2.37 Storming the Sound Registration 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 10.00 Tags for spelling craft 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 7.11 Photo backdrop Daddy/Daughter Dance 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 6.50 Daddy /Daughter Dance Sandwich Bags 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 5.48 Daddy /Daughter Dance Pipe Cleaners 19Page: Packet Page 39 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207294 2/27/2014 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 2.17 Parking/Olympia 117.100.64.573.20.43.00 10.50 RUBBING ALCOHOL 001.000.64.575.56.31.00 1.41 Timer for Beam, 2 Sticker Booklets 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 12.34 Black Material for Daddy Daughter Dance 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 2.19 Feathers for Circus 001.000.64.575.55.31.00 15.68 Total :147.37 207295 2/27/2014 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC B625512 PRW ASY-0529 BATTERY Batteries UPS's 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1,206.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 114.57 L-FSE FUSEB676402 specialty fuses 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 75.41 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 7.16 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIESB709712 Various Electrical supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 61.48 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 5.84 TWO RE-BUILD KITS FOR CONTACTSB722191 TWO RE-BUILD KITS FOR CONTACTS - 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1,454.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 138.17 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIESB724561 Electrical Supplies 20Page: Packet Page 40 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207295 2/27/2014 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.58 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 0.63 Total :3,070.24 207296 2/27/2014 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0018167-IN VINYL TUBING Vinyl Tubing 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3.90 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 0.37 Total :4.27 207297 2/27/2014 064468 PUGET SOUND VIDEO 02210014 STATE OF THE CITY VIDEOGRAPHY Videotaping of Mayor's State of the 001.000.21.513.10.41.00 800.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.41.00 76.00 Total :876.00 207298 2/27/2014 074750 QUADRIC SOFTWARE INC 268830 ALIKE STANDARD EDITION SOFTWARE W/2 YR M Alike Standard Edition software w/ 2 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 7,049.00 Total :7,049.00 207299 2/27/2014 074156 RAZZ CONSTRUCTION INC E9GA.Pmt 12 E9GA.PMT 12 THRU 12/31/13 E9GA.Pmt 12 thru 12/31/13 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 11,404.64 Total :11,404.64 207300 2/27/2014 006841 RICOH USA INC 5029561105 Additional Images Additional Images 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 9.24 Total :9.24 207301 2/27/2014 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0251574 MAPLE, CEDAR AND ROCKS MAPLE, CEDAR AND ROCKS 21Page: Packet Page 41 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207301 2/27/2014 (Continued)036955 SKY NURSERY 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 75.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 7.22 Total :83.20 207302 2/27/2014 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 14-108 Q4-13 EMS BILLING & POSTAGE Q4-13 Ambulance billings & postage 001.000.39.522.70.41.00 12,562.42 Total :12,562.42 207303 2/27/2014 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT I000354166 Q4-13 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS & TAXES Quarterly Liquor Board Profits & Taxes 001.000.39.567.00.51.00 2,318.33 Total :2,318.33 207304 2/27/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W / PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W / 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.86 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20829 76TH AVE W / METER 12002-0256-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20829 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 33.39 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 12003-4823-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 89.85 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE2003-9895-6 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,640.69 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W / METER2006-1131-7 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 314.04 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21200 84TH AVE W / METER 12007-0685-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21200 84TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.86 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER 100002007-2302-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER 22Page: Packet Page 42 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207304 2/27/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 41.47 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME2008-6520-2 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 152.12 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR / MET2014-3124-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR / 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.86 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER 100042014-4175-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 91.79 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,645.06 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 12016-1195-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 48.57 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 12017-5147-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 128.06 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 12019-0786-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 45.83 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 96.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 365.03 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 365.03 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 365.03 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 365.03 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 365.03 23Page: Packet Page 43 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207304 2/27/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 10002020-8787-0 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 242.09 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8912-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 122.95 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8945-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 178.94 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,553.35 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3,409.32 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)2028-0763-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 35.53 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY2036-5215-1 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 696.27 Total :17,489.11 207305 2/27/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2030-9778-7 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 1000135381 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 1000135381 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 25,437.23 Total :25,437.23 207306 2/27/2014 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 54672 INV#54672 - EDMONDS PD - BUCKINGHAM LOCKER MAGNET - BUCKINGHAM 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 4.50 MAILBOX MAGNET - BUCKINGHAM 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 6.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 2.50 24Page: Packet Page 44 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207306 2/27/2014 (Continued)038100 SNO-KING STAMP 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 1.24 Total :14.24 207307 2/27/2014 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO 358351 0001 MARCH 2014 STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUM March 2014 Standard Insurance premium 811.000.231.550 430.19 MARCH 2014 STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUM358351 0003 March 2014 Standard Insurance Premium 811.000.231.550 698.88 MARCH 2014 STANDARD INSURANCE358351 0005 March 2014 Standard Insurance Premiums 811.000.231.550 855.60 MARCH 2014 STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUMS377655 0001 March 2014 Standard Insurance Premium 811.000.231.550 7,159.81 MARCH 2014 STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUM637479 0001 March 2014 Standard Insurance Premiums 811.000.231.550 2,808.00 Total :11,952.48 207308 2/27/2014 074794 STEPHEN SHAPIRO COMM APPRAISAL 2013-276 APPRAISAL OF SHARAWY PROPERTY BEACH APPRAISAL OF SHARAWY PROPERTY BEACH 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 4,750.00 Total :4,750.00 207309 2/27/2014 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100775577.001 Fac Maint - Wire, Supplies Fac Maint - Wire, Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 80.59 City Hall - Elect Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 210.50 Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.64 Fac Maint - Wire, SuppliesS100775577.006 Fac Maint - Wire, Supplies 25Page: Packet Page 45 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207309 2/27/2014 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -80.59 City Hall - Elect Suplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -210.50 Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -22.64 Fac Maint - Wire, SuppliesS100805066.001 Fac Maint - Wire, Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 80.59 City Hall - Elect Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 210.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 27.65 Total :318.74 207310 2/27/2014 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 376052 ROUGH CHROME WOODFORD ROUGH CHROME WOODFORD 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 156.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.90 Total :171.78 207311 2/27/2014 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-102651 Tyler - applicant tracking license fee Tyler - applicant tracking license fee 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 6,000.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 570.00 Total :6,570.00 207312 2/27/2014 062693 US BANK 2813 Fisheries Supplies - Unit M-16 - Fisheries Supplies - Unit M-16 - 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.42 Fisheries - Unit 14 - Antifreeze 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.26 OReillys - Unit 338 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 52.43 26Page: Packet Page 46 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207312 2/27/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK Home Depot - EQ74PO - Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 51.90 Unit EQ74PO - Fisheries - Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 36.90 Costco - Unit EQ74PO - Backup Camera 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 218.99 Squad Fitters- Unit 582 - Engine Guard 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 70.86 Transglobal - Unit 449 - Hands Free Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 98.98 Amazon - Unit 449 - Blue Tooth 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 349.00 Home Depot - Unit k93 - Tarp 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 36.11 Unit M16 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.19 Fleet Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 58.06 OReillys - Unit 106 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.27 OReillys - Unit 129 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.31 OReillys - Unit 66 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 36.69 Home Depot - Unit 129 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 37.20 Fisheries - Unit 39 - Solenoid 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 29.19 Crest Chev - Unit 5 - Seatbelt 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 64.11 Total :1,204.87 207313 2/27/2014 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0526016-WA NON-DOT EMPLOYMENT SCREEN NON-DOT EMPLOYMENT SCREEN 27Page: Packet Page 47 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207313 2/27/2014 (Continued)068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 118.00 Total :118.00 207314 2/27/2014 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9719984082 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service-Bldg 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 74.38 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 172.64 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 111.78 Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 24.37 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 57.87 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 355.21 Cell Service-PD 104 Fund 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 188.84 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 73.18 Cell Service-PW Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 29.65 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 46.14 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 46.14 Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 111.19 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 75.84 Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 51.53 Total :1,418.76 207315 2/27/2014 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 30527293 ADMIN SUPPORT 28Page: Packet Page 48 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207315 2/27/2014 (Continued)069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP Admin Support 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 271.44 Total :271.44 207316 2/27/2014 068227 WCCFA EDWARDS 2014 2014 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION EDWARDS 2014 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION EDWARDS 130.000.64.536.20.49.00 99.00 Total :99.00 207317 2/27/2014 064800 WEHOP 467532 PANSY AND VIOLETS PANSY AND VIOLETS 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 113.73 Freight 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 24.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 13.08 BEGONIAS AND SALVIA467625 BEGONIAS AND SALVIA 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 532.06 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 50.55 Total :733.42 207318 2/27/2014 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6183 BUSINESS CARDS-KRISTIN JOHNS Business Cards-Kristin Johns250-00312 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 20.25 Rob Chave250-00312 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 20.25 Tammy Rankins250-00312 001.000.64.571.21.49.00 20.25 Jesse Curran250-00312 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 20.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 3.85 9.5% Sales Tax 29Page: Packet Page 49 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 7:45:10AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207318 2/27/2014 (Continued)073552 WELCO SALES LLC 001.000.64.571.21.49.00 1.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 1.92 Total :88.70 207319 2/27/2014 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 7192 LONGLEAF MAHONIA LONGLEAF MAHONIA 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 192.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 18.31 Total :211.06 207320 2/27/2014 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR 70029 RAIN GEAR RAIN GEAR 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 242.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.35 Total :265.32 207321 2/27/2014 074226 WOOD, LISA WOOD 18193 BELLY DANCE CLASS BELLY DANCE CLASS 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 155.00 Total :155.00 Bank total :326,674.5884 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 326,674.58Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report84 30Page: Packet Page 50 of 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c426 E4FD WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA Revised 2/27/2014 Packet Page 51 of 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB Revised 2/27/2014 Packet Page 52 of 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 2/27/2014 Packet Page 53 of 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Revised 2/27/2014 Packet Page 54 of 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project FAC c393 E3LA Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 E3FA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 E3FE Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC c419 E3LB ESCO III Project STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk Revised 2/27/2014 Packet Page 55 of 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c422 E4JA 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STR c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR c424 E3DC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR c425 E3DD 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STM c426 E4FD 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM c430 E3FH SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c433 E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvements STM c434 E4FB LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM c435 E4FC 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 2/27/2014 Packet Page 56 of 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System Revised 2/27/2014 Packet Page 57 of 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c426 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program Revised 2/27/2014 Packet Page 58 of 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 2/27/2014 Packet Page 59 of 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c426 E4FD STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB Revised 2/27/2014 Packet Page 60 of 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA Revised 2/27/2014 Packet Page 61 of 120 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA Revised 2/27/2014 Packet Page 62 of 120 02/27/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 9:43:56AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 207322 2/27/2014 074636 TERAN, OSCAR TERAN 10222013 PARTIAL REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT PARTIAL REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 75.00 Total :75.00 Bank total :75.001 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 75.00Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report1 1Page: Packet Page 63 of 120 AM-6624 6. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:03/04/2014 Time:20 Minutes Submitted By:Doug Fair Department:Municipal Court Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title 2013 Municipal Court Report Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative Please see attachment. There is a PowerPoint that accompanies the report but that cannot be downloaded into AgendaQuick. It will be sent separately Attachments 2013 Annual Report Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 02/27/2014 12:07 PM Mayor Dave Earling 02/27/2014 12:18 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/27/2014 01:27 PM Form Started By: Doug Fair Started On: 02/27/2014 11:35 AM Final Approval Date: 02/27/2014 Packet Page 64 of 120 EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT 2013 COUNCIL REPORT _______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Filings This year we saw our filings return to the normal range (7,700 to 7,900) with filings totaling 7,809. As you may recall in 2012, our filings dipped to 6,325. That was largely as a result of officer injuries; three of the four traffic officers were injured and off duty during significant portions of 2012. All of those officers were back in 2013 and, predictably, filings went back up. Both traffic infractions and parking infractions were up significantly over 2012. In fact, parking infractions were at the highest levels since 2005, the year I first began. Despite the legalization of marijuana, criminal filings also rose between 2012 and 2013. Revenues and Expenses In 2013 our gross revenues totaled $1,260,024. This was an increase of $70,047 over 2012. The increase is a natural result of more filings. The resulting net revenue to the City, after reimbursements to the State, was $812,274. We had projected revenue at $689,484. Obviously we were very conservative with our revenue estimates and wound up at about 18% over our estimates. Our net revenue from 2013 exceeded our net revenue from 2012 by $68,770. Packet Page 65 of 120 On the expense side of the ledger, the Court spent $730,889 which was $1,386 over our original budget estimate. This was a variance of less than two-tenths of one percent. Overall in 2013 our net revenues exceeded our net expenses by $81,385. This was far better than in 2012 when the difference was $19,817. Passports Since March of 2002, when the Edmonds Municipal Court received its Passport Agent Designation Certificate from the US Bureau of Consular Affairs, we have processed 10,544 passport applications. Last year, the Court processed 467 applications, grossing $11,675. Since inception passport revenue has grossed $298,615. EHM and SCRAM Monitoring The Edmonds Municipal Court utilizes Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM) as a jail alternative. This enables the judge to be more flexible when determining jail options. EHM eligibility is determined by using written criteria based on a statutory scheme developed for felony offenses. We outsource virtually all of our EHM except in very rare cases of the truly indigent. In those cases we simply collect enough to cover the costs of the monitoring. Likewise, we do not collect any money on the outsourced EHM. However, we do save the amount of money that would be spent were these defendants in jail. In 2013, 29 defendants used the EHM program saving 497 jail days. We also use an alcohol sensor-monitoring bracelet called a SCRAM bracelet. This device routinely monitors a defendant for the consumption of alcohol and immediately reports any violations. This Packet Page 66 of 120 is a useful tool in providing a pre-trial release option for defendants who might otherwise be held in custody. In 2013, 16 defendants utilized this program saving 1346 jail days. In 2013 the City of Edmonds paid $65.94 a day for a defendant who was incarcerated in the Snohomish County Jail. In addition, every time a defendant reports to the Snohomish County Jail a one-time booking fee of $94.95 is charged to the City. Many of these expenses were saved when EHM or SCRAM is ordered in lieu of jail. Using conservative estimates ($66 a day without booking fees) the citizens of Edmonds saved $121,638 because of the days that were not served in jail. In reality, not all of those days would be saved. Some of the EHM is required by statute on DUI and physical control cases. Also, some of the SCRAM defendants may have made bail so they would not have been in custody for the entire time they were on a SCRAM bracelet. However, this is the best estimate we are able to provide. Even if the number were half of that amount, it would still be significant. Community Service In addition to EHM, the Court offers community service options to defendants. A defendant may provide eight hours of service to a non-profit agency in lieu of a day in jail. Community service is ideal for a defendant who has received a short jail sentence on a minor offense or for probation violations. It provides an excellent alternative to using jail space and spending tax dollars to house offenders. This program provides an opportunity to “give-back” to our community. In 2013, 124 defendants provided 6,203 hours of community service. This was a savings of 775 jail days and saved the City $51,150 in jail costs. Between EHM, SCRAM and community service the total savings for 2013 was $172,788. Packet Page 67 of 120 Court Improvement Account Funds As you may recall, the City receives money from the State by virtue of having the judicial position an elected position. The City has received $89,610 from the State since 2006. This money has been set aside in a court improvement account. As of December 31, 2013 $39,090 has been expensed from this account. Between 2006 and 2012 these funds were used to make the following improvements: • Pour concrete steps and handrail outside the back entrance to the administrative office. • Provide a keyless entry to the backdoor and chambers. • Reconfigure the probation office for increased safety by routing probationers through an outside door, not the main entrance to the Court’s administrative office. • Offset payments on an update to the security alarm system used in the public safety facility. • Purchased “panic buttons” for emergency dispatch in case of an emergency in court or at the counter • Wireless headsets for staff to use so they are not tethered to their desks • An enhanced probation monitoring program • Video court equipment for in-custody court hearings • Rewired the generator in the public safety complex to provide service to the court/council chambers and office during a power outage. Packet Page 68 of 120 The video court equipment continues to meet its objectives: increase safety, timely hearings for defendants and cost savings. Since its inception in January, 2010, we have only brought a few inmates down for a court proceeding. Over the course of a normal year that number would be approximately 500. The safety implications are obvious. We doubled our capacity to hear in-custody proceedings. Not only does this reduce jail costs, it provides more timely hearings for the defendants. Police overtime expenses for transport dropped from $28,604 in 2009 to $2,651 in 2010 and were negligible since then. That is a savings of over $100,000 since inception. At the end of 2013 we now we have $50,520 in our court improvement account. In 2013 we had anticipated that a large portion of that money would be combined with funds available from the City Clerk’s office to initiate a document retention and retrieval system. However, the system that is being used by the City Clerk (Laserfiche) does not appear to have the necessary functionality for the court. As such, we continue to work with IT to develop a system for the court. An appropriate retention and retrieval system will further our goal of moving to electronic filing. This program will eliminate the need for paper files. This will not eliminate all use of paper but it will certainly reduce it. It will also result in staff time-savings. Once a file is created, a file and any documents in it will only need to be handled once. As it currently stands, a file is often handled numerous times before it is closed and stored in the archives. Staffing and Workload The Court employs an administrator, a probation clerk and five full- time clerk positions. This is an increase of one part-time clerk from 2012. We thank the Council for returning us to our normal staffing levels in light of the increase in filings between 2012 and 2013. Packet Page 69 of 120 The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has calculated the judicial workload to be 0.85 of a judicial full-time equivalent (FTE). For the four years preceding 2013 the estimated FTE has averaged .97. The drop in last year’s FTE estimate is commensurate with the reduction in filings. It is anticipated that the FTE estimate will rise to historic levels for 2014. In other words, based on the number and types of cases filed, Edmonds should have at or near a full-time judge. My position is currently reimbursed at .55 judicial FTE. In a recent survey of comparison cities, Edmonds’ judicial reimbursement was one of the lowest of all comparable cities. The judicial salary is probably the only salary in the City that is not at or near the mean of comparable cities. This disparity should be addressed this year. Future Budget Impacts Although these items are not in the court’s budget, two things should be noted in the criminal justice system that may impact the City’s general fund budget. First, and you are all aware of this, public defender caseload standards. The standards are set to go into effect at the end of this year. Between the standards and a recent federal court decision, cases are already being handled in a different manner. For example, a public defender no longer will plead out a defendant at a first appearance jail calendar even if the recommendation is for credit for time served. This may result in additional jail time (and expense) while the case is continued for the defendant to meet with the attorney before his or her next court date. This is not anyone’s fault; it is simply the result of systematic attempts to insure that the right to an attorney has actual significance and meaning. Packet Page 70 of 120 Second, the City can expect increasing jail costs. The jail has been operating at or above capacity for some time. Recently they have even stopped accepting misdemeanor warrants for booking during times when they have exceeded capacity. The jail will be terminating contracts with cities that are not in Snohomish County and may commence a tiered charging system. It is likely that the jail will start to charge more across the board and set even higher rates for those that require extra care at the jail. Any defendant with special medical needs or mental health issues will cost the cities more to house at the jail. While we do not have many that fall into the more expensive categories, any that do will cost the City an inordinate amount of money. Packet Page 71 of 120 AM-6543 7. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:03/04/2014 Time:60 Minutes Submitted For:Council President Buckshnis, Councilmembers Bloom and Petso Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee: Type: Potential Action Information Subject Title Discussion and potential action regarding modifying or terminating Sunset Walkway Project Recommendation To determine an outcome for the Sunset Walkway Project based on Council deliberation. Previous Council Action November 15, 2011 Council Meeting: This item was discussed (minutes attached). June 4, 2013 Council Meeting: This item was discussed (minutes attached). December 3, 2013 Council Meeting: This item was discussed (minutes attached). January 14, 2014 PPP Committee Meeting: This item was discussed (minutes attached). Narrative The Administration has provided information to this project in varying forms since 2009. The information provided was not specific in detail until in late 2013. After review of the preliminary designs of the project, more questions occurred requiring a closer look (see attached drawings). Concern was voiced by citizens and some Council Members regarding a number of issues that were explained in the January 14, 2014 PPP Committee. Those items briefly are as follows: 1) the removal of 10 to 12 horizontal parking spots; 2) year to year lease commitment with BNSF; 3) What about a Plan B where the sidewalk on the East side is utilized where the street is narrow on the “rail line” section; 4) the issue of water and how the City will shore up the bluff, putting in vaults along the railroad side for water retainage; 5) making the path a multi-use path will not create any problem as there will be five feet of a bluff so the multi-use path will be where the horizontal parking was on the leased BNSF land; 6) there should be no need for a fence as the City will shore up that five feet buffer by stabilizing the slope and adding barriers; 7) there should be no issue regarding using grant money on leased property; 8) Casper Street will have a new sidewalk on north side continuing from where there is the cross over to Casper Street and 3rd avenue; 9) there might be a slight modification to the size of the path at the corner of Sunset and Casper Street. Also, in the April 2013 minutes the Council approved a resolution relating to Hwy 99 and the Sunset overlook and cost stated projected at $700,000. A Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) application Packet Page 72 of 120 submitted in August 2013 identified that the project was now at $1.3MM. This cost does not include any shoring up of the bluff which is owned by BNSF. Questions regarding the completion of the PSRC application had some inconsistencies relative to the public notice for the initial meeting; the fact that negative comments had been obtained and the application stating “no negative comments” and that there was no right-away issues (see attached). BNSF has shored up their own bluffs all along the shore to the north and south when there has been mudslides or degradation of soil caused by water, rain, etc,. As part of this project, the Administration brought it to our attention that the City will pick up this cost at our expense to our Utility Fund. Concern is noted that any storm water issues might be prioritized to areas where there is flooding such as Hwy 104 and Dayton and near the Edmonds Marsh. The thought of Haines Wharf and land issues can be used as an example. Concern has also been voiced about the use of a multi-path on the West and the fact that there will be no fencing barrier between the end of the bluff and the path. Considering the path might at any point in time have bicyclist, strollers and people and dog-walkers, it would seem that the owner of that property may conclude that a fence is necessary. So, the uncertainty surrounding public safety still remains a key variable. Concern has been voiced regarding the leasing of the land and the potential future use of the property by BNSF and that the City is committed to a year-by-year lease option. Also, what happens should grant money be used for the multi-use path and the path is later destroyed so as BNSF can add a third rail? Lastly, it would be advantageous to see an alternative designs, including but not but not limited the following: 1. Varying the width of the multi-use path. 2. Making the path a pedestrian only sidewalk for all or part of the route. 3. Moving the path to the east. 4. Expanding the right-of-way on the east side. 5. Using a robust path on the south end of the project only and crossing to the east side for the narrow section. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2014 Revenue:Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: Potential additional design expenditure. Attachments Wash Utilities & Transportation Commission 2001 Document 11-15-2011 Budget Amendment Agenda Memo re Sunset Walkway 11-15-2011 Approved City Council Minutes 6-4-2013 Approved City Council Minutes Resolution 1291 12-3-2013 Approved City Council Minutes Proposed Plans Proposed Cross Sections Packet Page 73 of 120 PSRC Application 01-14-14 PPP Committee Minutes 01-14-14 PPP Committee Q&A Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 02/28/2014 09:37 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 02/28/2014 09:38 AM Mayor Dave Earling 02/28/2014 01:11 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/28/2014 01:14 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 01/30/2014 02:27 PM Final Approval Date: 02/28/2014 Packet Page 74 of 120 39 SERVICE DATE JAN 0 9 2D01 BEFORE T`HE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION In the Matter of the Petition of the WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY and THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, for Modification of Order regulating the Speed of Passenger and Freight Trains in Edmonds, Washington DOCKET NO. TR-940288 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY PRIOR ORDER; DENYING MOTION TO RESCIND PRIOR ORDER Synopsis: The Commission in this Order grants a request to modify a prior order and approves in principle an agreed proposal by the parties. The result is substitution of a natural (vegetation) barrier for a fence previously ordered by the Commission as a condition to increasing train speed through a portion of the City of Edmonds. The Commission rejects a request by the railroad and the state Department of Transportation that the Commission rescind the eazlier order for lack of jurisdiction. Procedural History This docket was originally brought on by the request of three petitioners -- the railroad (now the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, or BNSF), the state Department of Transportation (WSDO'1~, and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) -- to increase the speed limit for trains through the City of Edmonds, Washington. AMTRAK was not represented in this request for modification or rescission. The Commission ordered in April, 1995, in this docket that the train speed petition should be granted. It also found the existence of unique local conditions and approved a request by the City of Edmonds to require fencing at two locations to prevent trespassing as a condition of the speed increase.l On August 30, 2000, the petitioners asked the Commission to rescind or modify the order, asking that the Commission allow the parties to substitute a natural vegetation barrier for the fencing required in the prior order. The City filed a request to join the ' "Fences should be constructed on the bluff parallel to Sunset Avenue and the parking area on Ocean Avenue." Commission Decision and Order of April 12, 1995, Page 8. Packet Page 75 of 120 ~Oi DOCKET NO. TR-940288 PAGE 2 petition on the following day, asking that the Commission reopen the proceeding and modify the prior order to allow the natural barrier. The Commission convened a prehearing conference on October 26, 2000, before Administrative Law Judge C. Robert Wallis at which the parties made representations of fact and arguments of law, accepted the opportunity to file additional arguments, and agreed to submit the matter directly to the Commission on the pleadings, the transcript of the prehearing conference, and the prior record. The parties appeared as follows: Burlington Northern Santa Fe, by Robe Walkley, attorney, Sammamish; Washington State Department of Transportation, y Jeff Stier, asst. attorney general, Olympia; City of Edmonds, by W. Scott Snyder, Ogden, Murphy, Wallace, Seattle; Teresa Vehey, intervenor, by Bradford Cattle, attorney, Everett; and the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission, by Jonathan Thomas, asst. attorney general, Olympia. Background The Commission has twice rejected or conditioned an increase of train speeds within the City of Edmonds, Washington, because of unique local circumstances at the site. 8 In 1990, the Commission denied an AMTRAK petition to increase speeds at this location, citing unique local circumstances rendering the increased speed a hazard. In its July 23, 1990 Commission Order in consolidated dockets TR-2311 and TR-2248, the Commission stated, Edmonds is a major Puget Sound port. Over 8.3 million gallons of refined fuel are delivered monthly by tankers to the Edmonds terminal dock. The second-largest ferry terminal in state, used annually by more than one and one-half million passengers, is in the City of Edmonds. Over 800 private boats are moored at the Edmonds Marina, and over 200,000 people per year use Edmonds waterfront facilities, including beaches and fishing piers. Members of the public use the beach area in Edmonds next to the track and north of the ferry dock .... The azea is not, for the most part, a public area. However, public use is substantial, numbering in the hundreds each day during nice weather. People generally gain access to this area by crossing the tracks. In addition, people using the beach may be trapped by a high tide and are forced to walk along the tracks to return to town. .. . Packet Page 76 of 120 DOCKET NO. TR-940288 PAGE 3 Just south of MP 18 is Bracketts Landing, a public beach and underwater park which is heavily utilized. ... A fence sepazates the park from the railroad right of way, although some trespassing still occurs there. The Washington State Ferry dock is south of the park. The ferry holding lanes are one block from the railroad track, and the traffic signals and the dock axe coordinated with the train signals. Nearly all ferry traffic uses the Main Street railroad crossing. The Amtrak depot, at which passenger trains stop, is just north of MP 17.50. Across the tracks, on the waterfront, is another commercial complex, developed with public funds. Also in that area is a public fishing pier and restaurants, as well as public beaches. These waterfront amenities are on Port of Edmonds's property. The initial order in this docket references the provisions quoted above. Summarizing, the initial order notes that, This record shows that the Edmonds waterfront, separated from the rest of town by the railroad tracks that run right along the shoreline, is still a hub of activity for the City. The Edmonds-Kingston ferry terminal is a point of departure and arrival for hundreds of passengers each day, all of whom must cross the railroad tracks. There are restaurants, an underwater dive park, a senior center, and many other facilities along the waterfront, all on the west side of the tracks, while the main part of town is to the east of the tracks. 10 The initial order in this docket found that the Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the issue, and proposed to grant the speed increase request. The City of Edmonds sought administrative review of the initial order, asking that the speed increase be conditioned on construction of fences to restrict pedestrian access to tracks. The Commission agreed and imposed the condition. 11 The parties have asked that the matter be reopened under RCW 80.04.200, Rehearing before commission. They have recounted a history of litigation involving the fencing requirement — a shoreline application for authority to build a fence was litigated to a judicial decision approving the application by neighbors who believed that the fence would impede. their view. The parties in this matter disclose that an alternative to a fence has been agreed to by property owners near one of the proposed locations of the fence, as well as by the City, by the railroad, and by the Commission Staff. lZ The parties ask approval of the natural barrier alternative, in lieu of the fence . mandated in the Commission order. BNSF, joined by the state Department of Transportation, also asks the Commission to find that the Commission has no authority under federal law to decide the question, and to rescind the order. Packet Page 77 of 120 ~2 - DOCKET NO. TR-940288 PAGE 4 The Petition to Reopen and Modify the Prior Order 1,~ The parties ask reopening, in summary, because relevant parties have agreed that at one of the locations noted for barriers a natural barrier will likely be more effective than would a barrier engineered and constructed by humans.2 A natural barrier, the parties urge, would also be less visually intrusive than a fence. ~q The Commission grants the request. We may take administrative notice of the commonly known fact in western Washington that certain natural flora, such as blackberry bushes, can be substantially more effective at impeding access than most fences of human construction. We do note that in the initial order in this docket the Administrative Law Judge found that existing vegetation —which included thorned berry bushes —was insufficient to impede pedestrian traffic. We trust. and require that the parties will monitor the effectiveness of the barrier and will maintain it in a manner that will in fact prevent pedestrian access. The interest that the Commission acted in its order to protect was a reduction of the risk of injury and death to pedestrians in unique circumstances. The Commission accepts the parties' proposal, which is agreed to be a reasonable and effective approach to accomplishing the goal of reduced risk. /S 16 r4. Bamers are required at two locations. The parties may, at their option, install a natural barrier at both locations. The railroad, the CiTy, and the intervenor Verhey have entered a, stipulation agreeing to the substitution of the term "fencing or vegetative barriers reasonably designed and installed to discourage trespass" for the term "fences" in the earlier order. The Commission declines to accept the stipulation. Other patties were not signatories and their absence raises questions. In addition, while not expecting the parties to be insurers and while understanding that people can overcome any barrier, the term "discourage" is less emphatic than the Commission believes appropriate. The Motion to Rescind the Prior Order BNSF and the Department of Transportation ask the Commission to rescind the prior order and dismiss this proceeding on the basis that federal law preempts state jurisdiction. The railroad cites 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20106, et seq. and 49 CFR Part 213.9. The Department of Transportation supports the railroad in its motion. 18 Among other things, the petitioners contend that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) clarified after the final order in this docket that local speed regulations are Z The parties were free in their praise of the railroad for developing the natural barrier proposal; the Commission also commends the railroad for creative thinking and the parties for their cooperation. Packet Page 78 of 120 y3 DOCKET NO. TR-940288 PAGE 5 presumptively improper, that difficulty in securing permits which have already been granted was an unforeseen injurious result of the order, and that facts found in the 1990 order have no relevance to this docket. jg Commission Staff opposes the rescission request. First, Staff notes that the law by its very terms provides for state review and action in the event of "essentially local safety hazards."3 Commission Staff cites judicial authority4 defining rather broadly the "essenrially local" exemption from federal preemption. Zp The Commission declines to rule that it has been deprived of jurisdiction to address this matter at all. First, the issue of jurisdiction was clearly decided earlier in this docket.5 The petitioners bring no intervening change in circumstances to the Commission's attention that would alter its consistent prior analysis. A case they cite, CSX Transportation v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993), was decided a year before the entry of the Commission final order. They also cite to FR.A interpretations of the law made after entry of the Commission order. Even if the FR.A analysis were applied retroactively, the Commission believes that the local circumstances supporting the decision in this docket are sufficient to overcome a presumption against local authority. 21 Second, the department of transportation challenges the facts found in this initial and final orders in this docket. The parties had ample opportunity to contest the factual basis for the final order in this docket and failed to do so. Challenges aze cleazly inappropriate at this juncture. The nature of the facts found by the administrative law judge and the derivation of references to the prior order clearly indicate the continued existence of prior circumstances. Rehearing is an opportunity to address changed circumstances, not to relitigate matters that could and should have been litigated r` earlier. See, RCW 81.04.200.;Y*_.,µ: '~.3x; 22 Third, the Washington statutes give the Commission the responsibility to establish~~ speed limits in cities and towns and at railway-highway crossings at grade. RCW 81.48.030 and -.040. This is a matter important to the public health, safety, and 'k 3 49 U.S.C. 20106. ~~,* 4 The case is In the Matter of the Speed Limit for the Union Pacific Railroad through the Ciry of '~ Shakopee, State of Minnesota, 610 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. Ct. App., May 2000). The railroad argues that `~-`~ it is not ersuasive because it is a state and not a federal decision, but cites no federal decisions to the~' P contrary. There, as here, a combination of factors that might individually be commonplace rendered '; ~ the situation an essentially local safety hazard. :~ "''' S Mr. Walkley argued at the prehearing conference that the matter of jurisdiction was not addressed in '' the final order. While the Commission's jurisdiction to decide the matter was stated in the final order, parties' arguments were discussed in the initial order and resolved against challenges to jurisdiction. ~'7w:: ' No party raised the jurisdictional issue in seeking administrative review of the initial order. The issue1; therefore was decided in this docket and appears to be foreclosed from consideration at this time. Packet Page 79 of 120 DOCKET NO. TR-940288 PAGE 6 welfare. RCW 81.48.040. We should not lightly choose to decline that responsibility because the safety of the public of the state may depend upon our decisions. 2,? The federal law itself specifically provides for local decisions when needed to deal with essentially local safety hazards. We recognize the limited nature of such local circumstances, and do not lightly find that essentially local safety hazards have been shown. That is a different matter, however, from saying we aze preempted from all jurisdiction as a matter of law. Our prior decisions regarding this law in effect hold that the Commission has jurisdiction to determine whether unique circumstances exist and, upon an affirmative answer to that question, to address those circumstances. Zq The Commission in entering its order in this docket acted responsibly and only to the extent necessary to address the unique local circumstances. The circumstances associated with the track in question are not a single factor that commonly occurs, as the railroad contends, but involve a number of factors that, in combination, demonstrate a uniquely site-specific circumstance. The circumstances include the existence of double main line track, a nearby rail curve, the separation of busy and attractive public facilities from the population they serve by the track, the lack of parking facilities at the site of the waterfront facilities, forcing a large population to walk between vehicles on one side of the tracks and the attractions on the other side; and a history of accidents and incidents at the site.6 25 The Commission found in light of all of those risk factors that the circumstances of this location are unique and justify Commission action. The Commission took only the action least intrusive on the operation of the railroad — it did not set a lower speed limit —but it did at the City's request take action that was necessary to protect the public by imposing a condition to mitigate the risks. Conclusion 26 The Commission finds that a natural vegetation barrier, as proposed by the parties to this proceeding will, if properly monitored and maintained, be no less effective as a condition to increased train speeds than the fence previously ordered. The Commission concludes from that finding that the proposed natural barrier will adequately protect the public and that its construction will adequately protect the public health and safety and will satisfy the condition imposed by the Commission on increasing train speeds at the Edmonds, Washington location that is the subject of this proceeding. The .Commission orders, therefore, that the prior order be modified pursuant to RCW 80.04.210 to provide that construction and maintenance of natural barriers as described will satisfy the conditions imposed in the prior order, and that 6 The initial order cites ten accidents or other incidents at the location in the five years prior to the hearing. Packet Page 80 of 120 ~~~ DOCKET NO. TR-940288 PAGE 7 upon the completion and acceptance of natural barriers, train speeds may increase pursuant to the original request. The Commission declines to rescind its prior order, ruling that it does have jurisdiction to address unique local circumstances affecting train speed and to impose appropriate conditions on train speed increase requests in light of essentially local safety hazards. ORDER 27 The Commission grants the request to modify the earlier Commission order. That order is hereby modified; construction of natural barriers consistent with the evidence and representations in this reopened matter, including the regular monitoring and maintenance of such barriers, will deter access to the rail right of way by trespassers at least as effectively as a fence and will satisfy the conditions imposed by the Commission for action prior to increase of train speed through the City of Edmonds, Washington. 28 The Commission denies the request that the Commission rescind the prior order in this docket and rules that it does have jurisdiction to address the issues. DATED at Olympia, Washington and effective thisl~'day of January, 2001. WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATI COMMISSION /~ //~~.i MARZL`f N SI~OWALTE irwoman k RICHARD HEMSTAD, Commissioner NOTICE TO PARTIES: This is a final Order of the Commission. In addition to judicial review, administrative relief may be available through a petition for reconsideration, filed within 10 days of the service of this Order pursuant to RCW 34.05.470 and WAC 480-09-810, or a petition for rehearing pursuant to RCW 80.04.200 or RCW 81.04.200 and WAC 480-09-820(1). Packet Page 81 of 120 AM-4369 6. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:11/15/2011 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Roger Neumaier Submitted By:Debra Sharp Department:Finance Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type: Information Subject Title 2011 November Budget Amendment. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the November 2011 Budget Amendment Previous Council Action November Finance Committee Narrative The budget amendment was reviewed by the Finance Committee on November 7th. During the committee meeting a few additional items were addressed and are at the end of the budget amendment. The items added were a reduction to interfund transfers from both the Multimodal Fund and the Utility Fund to the General Fund, a reduction to both REET 1 and REET 2 revenue forecast for 2011 and finally the additional funds requested by the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The committee also wanted to review adding the General Fund and Street Fund B-Fund contribution back into the 2011 budget. There are two ordinances attached, one with the B-Fund contribution and one without. The Finance Committee also questioned a few of the capital project amendments. Additional notes were added or the narrative clarified in the following three budget amendments - Fund 116 Additional Expenditures, Re-allocate funds for capital projects, and the Sunset Walkway Project. The remainder of the budget amendment is unchanged. The first section of the budget amendment includes expenditure increases that are offset by grant revenues. There are four requests by the police department to increase their overtime expense due to grant funded special enforcement programs. The final grant reimbursement is related to the final energy efficient vehicle. The grant revenue was recorded into the General Fund and needs to be transferred to the Equipment Rental Fund where the vehicle was purchased. The next section of the budget amendment relates to items that have previously been before Council. Council approved the purchase of the Karlston Property on March 1, 2011. A motion to appropriate funds was made at that time. The second item was a motion made during the budget process last December to approve traffic calming devices funded by a transfer from the General Fund. A budget was added to the Packet Page 82 of 120 Street Construction Fund but the transfer from the General Fund to the Street Construction Fund was not part of the adopted budget. The final section of the budget amendment includes new items. The majority of these items relate to the construction funds but there are a few General Fund amendments that will change ending fund balance. First there is a budget amendment to reduce the appropriated budget for the compensation consultant in 2011. There will be a request to reappropriate the funds in 2012. The second item is an increase for hydrant costs. The General Fund is required to reimburse the Utility Fund for actual costs paid from the utility for hydrant work. There is also a request for a budget amendment that relates to merchant bankcard fees due to a change in process that was addressed at the end of 2010. The departments have budgeted for these costs in 2012. Attachments 2011 November Budget Amendment 2011 November Budget Amendment with B-Fund Contribution Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance hunstock 11/09/2011 03:44 PM Finance hunstock 11/09/2011 03:44 PM City Clerk chase 11/10/2011 08:55 AM Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 11/10/2011 10:11 AM Finalize for Agenda chase 11/10/2011 10:21 AM Form Started By: Debra Sharp Started On: 11/09/2011 01:00 PM Final Approval Date: 11/10/2011 Packet Page 83 of 120 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 15, 2011 Page 8 Clerk’s Office, he was inclined not to add to the barebones budget. He preferred to continue to squeeze whatever possible from the annual appropriations and have funds leftover at the end of the year if possible. Mayor Cooper explained the Governor plans to propose cuts to the State budget next Monday and the Council is scheduled to adopt the budget on Tuesday. Depending on what the legislature adopts as a result of their special session, the City could lose over $250,000 next year due to the Governor’s plans to pursue capturing the liquor profit dollars from cities, a reduction of approximately $500,000 a year. The Governor’s proposal is to make some of the reductions in the liquor profits in June/July 2012. The numbers in the preliminary budget and the Executive Summary do not include any cuts the legislature may approve in the special session or the 2012 legislative session. He summarized it appears the Governor and legislature are inclined to balance the state’s budget on the backs of cities and counties. Council President Peterson agreed with Councilmember Bernheim’s comments but supported the amendment for the records management system and upgrades to the EDEN software. He pointed out one of the Council’s biggest frustrations has been financial reports; it is important to upgrade that system to make the information more readily available. He concluded although the budget is tight, those are wise expenditures. Council President Peterson requested Councilmembers submit amendments so that they can be included in next week’s packet. 6. 2011 NOVEMBER BUDGET AMENDMENT Finance Director Shawn Hunstock explained page 278 of the Council packet contains a summary of the effect of budget amendments on the adopted budget by fund. The sum of all the budget amendments results in a decrease in revenue of $45,000 and an increase in expenses of $364,000 for a total change to the General Fund of $410,000. The Council packet contains two versions of the ordinance, one that includes the B Fund contribution and another that does not include the B Fund contribution. Council President Peterson asked Mr. Hunstock to comment on the benefit of funding the B Fund in 2011. Mr. Hunstock explained the City’s budget is currently projected to have a surplus at the end of 2011 of approximately $600,000. That will be impacted by the amendments in this ordinance. The Council can choose to use some of the current year surplus to fund the B Fund contribution. The City can generally get by for two years without funding the B Fund contribution; any longer than that impacts the actual replacement of vehicles and equipment. The 2012 budget does not have funding for the B Fund contribution. If the B Fund contribution were funded in 2011, the Council could choose not to make the contribution in a future year. Councilmember Bernheim asked the deadline for adopting the budget amendment. Mr. Hunstock answered it must be adopted by the end of the year. Councilmember Petso inquired about the $600,000 surplus that could be used to fund the B Fund contribution. Mr. Hunstock advised the estimate in the preliminary 2012 budget projected a surplus for 2011 of $680,000. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3857, THE VERSION THAT INCLUDES MAKING THE B FUND CONTRIBUTION, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3831 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Packet Page 84 of 120 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 15, 2011 Page 9 Council President Peterson was confident the amendment had been vetted by the Finance Committee. It is appropriate to fund the B Fund contribution this year while the funds are available and give the City a little breathing room while the economy stabilizes. He was hopeful the B Fund contribution could be made again at the end of 2012. Councilmember Petso provided assurance the Finance Committee reviewed the amendment in detail at their meeting last week. Some of the Finance Committee’s suggestions were incorporated into the amendment. She was satisfied everything in the amendment had been approved by the Council, intended or was required to reflect reality over the course of the year. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. CHANGE ANIMAL BENEFIT FUND TO AN ANNUAL APPROPRIATION. Finance Director Shawn Hunstock explained this ordinance amends Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.05 that established the Animal Benefit Fund. This was never established as a separate fund according to accounting definition; it was set up as an account within the General Fund. There is approximately $3,500 in the account. The ordinance closes that out into fund balance and it becomes part of the City’s reserves. One of the adjustments to the 2012 budget is an annual $300 appropriation to fund the intent of the Animal Benefit Fund. There has been no use of the fund this year other than a reimbursement last week of approximately $50. It may be used more often if residents were aware it was available and if necessary the appropriation could be increased beyond $300/year. Councilmember Plunkett asked how the fund reached this dollar amount. Mr. Hunstock responded the amount originally appropriated receives interest each year. The minimal use of the original amount has been offset by interest and the total amount has not changed over time. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the original funds were donations. Mr. Hunstock was not certain. If that is the case, a fund could be created via a 2012 budget amendment. Councilmember Plunkett recalled himself and 5,000 people over the objection of the City Council created a fund to assist with spay and neuter of animals. He created a political action committee to run a campaign to gather the 5,000 signatures on a petition. He thought the remaining money from that fund was placed in the Animal Benefit Fund. It was his impression the fund would generate interest and be self-sustaining. The intent of the funds was to offset the cost of spay/neuter of a pet that could be adopted at that time for approximately $20. The cost to adopt a pet now is approximately $100 because the shelter must provide medical care and have it spayed/neutered. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether $300/year would be sufficient. Mr. Hunstock answered $300 is a good initial estimate. There has been no use of the fund this year until last week. If use of the funds increase in the future, a budget amendment can be proposed in 2012 to increase the amount. Councilmember Plunkett trusted the Council to recognize this is as a worthy cause and to provide additional funds if necessary. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3858, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ANIMAL BENEFIT FUND PROVISIONS OF ECC 5.05.127.2; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 85 of 120 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 12 agreed that the City was prohibited from imposing larger buffers, notwithstanding the built environment. From a practical standpoint, the reality is if extremely large buffers are imposed in an area that is already developed, the end result will be a perpetuation of the existing use forever because it will be the most economic use of the property. No one will ever want to redevelop as redevelopment will not pencil out because it will result in the loss of currently usable property. It may be more effective to achieve restoration via an incentive program for redevelopment rather than imposing a huge buffer on the property that already includes a great deal of developed landscape. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the impervious pavement at Harbor Square represented the footprint. Mr. Lien answered yes, for the most part. He identified areas that are within the setbacks and buffers on an aerial image. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Lien clarified the current footprint is all the impervious surface. Councilmember Johnson asked about the sequencing of the Comprehensive Plan update and the SMP as it relates to options for Harbor Square redevelopment. Mr. Lien answered there are two important issues with regard to how the SMP update relates to Harbor Square, 1) the buffer setback area, and 2) the Urban Mixed Use III environment. One of the reasons the Urban Mixed Use III environment was proposed rather than one of the existing Mixed Use environments was the Port’s consideration of residential development. It also addresses 4-5 other office/residential parcels north of Main Street. As the City considers moving forward with the Harbor Square Master Plan and has to move forward with the SMP, the biggest issue is residential development and whether to allow it long term on this site. The City must act on the SMP this year; Harbor Square may take longer. Mayor Earling summarized further discussion will be scheduled on a future agenda. 10. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON IN STRONG SUPPORT OF A 2013 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PACKAGE. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained topics for the State special legislative session include balancing the operating budget and a statewide transportation funding package that will provide additional funding opportunities for the State, WSDOT and local governments. The package is evolving; there are currently a number of projects that would directly and indirectly benefit Edmonds. There are two specific capital projects for which bonding would be issued, 1) $700,000 for a walkway on Sunset Avenue, and 2) $10 million to begin the plan and fund the first phase of access, safety, and mobility improvements on Highway 99. Another key feature of the transportation package is a proposed increase in the State gas tax of $0.10 over a 4 year period, $0.05 the first year, $0.02 the second and third years, and $0.01 the fourth year. This would provide a substantial amount of funding for State and local projects. Edmonds would receive an additional approximately $140,000; the City currently receives approximately $900,000 from the State gas tax. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about BNSF with regard to the Sunset project. Mr. Williams answered he had not given up hope of additional help from BNSF as the project proceeds into detailed design. If nothing changes the walkway can be built within the existing footprint of Sunset Avenue. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1291, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, IN STRONG SUPPORT OF A 2013 TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PACKAGE. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this has been a long time coming, particularly for Highway 99. She observed there were limited sidewalks on Highway 99 and asked if the proposed project would include sidewalks. Mr. Williams answered the intent would be to include pedestrian and bicycle amenities and bring the existing amenities up to ADA standards as well as solve numerous safety problems that Packet Page 86 of 120 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 4, 2013 Page 13 exist on the corridor. It would be a huge and long project; this would be just the first phase. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the first step is the right step for Edmonds. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported flower baskets are being put up downtown. Next, he thanked the Council for confirming his appointment of Roger Neumaier as Finance Director and for approving the resolution in support of a 2013 Transportation Investment Package. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson reported the Rotary Waterfront Festival was a great community event. For the first time there was food recycling thanks to the work of Corrine Rubenkonig, the Waste Warriors and the City’s Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher. She noted John Rubenkonig has been involved in recycling with the boy scouts for ten years. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the Port of Edmonds and the boaters for allowing the Rotary to use the area for the Waterfront Festival. She thanked the citizens who contacted her and encouraged them to contact all Councilmembers. Councilmember Peterson expressed appreciation for the appointment of Roger Neumaier as the City’s Finance Director. He looked forward to working with him, noting he brings an incredible wealth of experience. He thanked Ron Cone for serving as the City’s Interim Finance Director. He also congratulated Snohomish County Executive Lovick on his appointment. He looked forward to new direction at Snohomish County and to working with Executive Lovick and the County Council on issues facing Edmonds. Council President Petso reported pursuant to Council direction she arranged a small meeting with Councilmembers Peterson and Fraley-Monillas, Port Commissioners Faires and Orvis, and Planning Board Member Phil Lovell. They had a lively discussion seeking commonality regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan and how to move ahead. There was not a lot of commonality and she planned to contact Councilmembers to discuss how to address the Harbor Square Master Plan issue in the future. She thanked the Councilmembers, Port Commissioners and Planning Board Member for their participation and opinions. Councilmember Yamamoto welcomed Roger Neumaier as Finance Director. He looked forward to working with him as the Chair of the Finance Committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she was at the Waterfront Festival much of Friday. She thanked the Edmonds Police and Fire District 1 for their efforts to keep everyone calm and safe. She congratulated County Executive Lovick on his appointment and wished him the best. 14. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(c), AND PENDING AND POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). At 8:51 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c) and pending and potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 10 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley- Packet Page 87 of 120 Packet Page 88 of 120 Packet Page 89 of 120 Packet Page 90 of 120 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, suggested Edmonds return to the sign code that kept the City tidy for many years; the first step would be to prohibit sandwich-board signs in the public right-of-way which was the rule in Edmonds for many years and still is in many cities. Exceptions to that rule would be a one-time 60 day period for new businesses to display a sandwich-board sign and possibly for special events. She suggested the signs require a permit and when the permit expires, the Planning Department notify the business they have five days to comply and impose a $50/day fine for each day of non-compliance. She summarized the sign code has a number of problems but this is the most critical. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said the code rewrite is the biggest issue facing the City. Establishing a comprehensive, accurate, consistent and easy to administer City code is critical to the City’s efforts to provide a high level of government service that invites economic and other beneficial activities. He described the difference between the Edmonds City Code (ECC), also known as the Edmonds Municipal Code, that consists of Title 1-10 that address issues such as health, safety, finance, officials,, boards and commissions; and Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that consists of Titles 15-23 that address building, planning, land use, public works, design and natural resources. Both parts of the code require update. He referred to discussion of Chapter 2.10 regarding confirmation and duties of City officers on tonight’s agenda, explaining the process began in 2012 and he spent over 100 hours researching this code section. He urged the Council to give the complex code rewrite the attention it deserved. Next, he relayed the State Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors has established a precedent that it will take no corrective action against surveyors who produce preliminary plat maps that violate City of Edmonds standards. Therefore the City has a responsibility to careful review the accuracy of surveyors work. He offered to meet with Councilmembers to discuss this in more detail. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSSION OF THE SUNSET AVE WALKWAY PROJECT Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the reasons for this project include view access, safety and accessibility. He displayed several photographs of the view from the west edge of Sunset Avenue, of people walking in the street and a bicycle riding the wrong way on Sunset Avenue to illustrate safety issues, and of the dirt path on the west side of the curb to illustrate accessibility issues. Mr. Williams described what is included in the project: • 2,000 foot long multi-use pathway on Sunset o For use by wheelchairs, stroller, roller blades, bicycles, Segways, walkers and other non- motorized traffic • Another 500 feet of improvements will be constructed on Caspers • 100% ADA accessible • Benches, art work • Continued access to parking Mr. Williams described what is not included in the project: • Trees • Tall or unshielded lights • Fencing (some limited railing will be necessary) Mr. Williams described the public process/information to date: • Project placed on City’s CIP 2011 – public comment. • Project also placed on 2012 and 2013 CIP • Added to TIP in 2011 after public comment and Council approval Packet Page 91 of 120 • Council resolution adopted to apply for funding – 2011 • Public survey and public meeting – 2011 • Sunset Avenue Overlook project in PROS Plan since 2008 • Press release may have been issued when grant received Mr. Williams identified issues to be addressed: • Parking • Circulation • Driveway access and turning radii • Emergency vehicles, refuse trucks and other delivery vehicles • Options/geometry on Caspers Street • Adequate public outreach and involvement, next meeting December 18 • Specific design features ie: artwork benches railing crosswalks, etc. • BNSF coordination Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the photograph of the proposed sidewalk connecting to an existing sidewalk, relaying it was her understanding the dirt path would not be disturbed. Mr. Williams explained the City owns the property west of the curb on both the northern end and the southern ends of the project; the property the City owns narrows to the north where it encounter the BNSF right-of-way. BNSF has offered a lease to allow use of the property on the railroad’s right-of-way that the City has already been using. The multi-use pathway would be in the location of the dirt path for some distance and then would move to the east. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether it was a 10-foot or 12-foot walkway, noting a 2-foot difference was a lot in a 30 foot street. Mr. Williams answered none of the decisions are cast in concrete but typically a multi-use pathway is approximately 12 feet. The consultant believes state regulations would allow it to be signed as a multi-use pathway down to 10 feet. There may be locations where the pathway would be 10 feet due to the geometry. He summarized it makes sense to have a 12-foot pathway where there is room to do so. Councilmember Buckshnis assumed a 12-foot pathway would eliminate the angle parking. Mr. Williams responded the hope is to duplicate what currently exists. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the roadway would be changed to one-way. Mr. Williams answered the same two-way and one-way areas would be maintained. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a fence was installed at the dog park after two dogs were killed. She asked whether staff planned to ask BNSF for a statement that they will not install a fence. Mr. Williams answered staff would try but it was difficulty to get BNSF to commit to anything long term. BNSF has a long term plan for a third track which would require cutting the bank and part of the street and building a wall. BNSF has been satisfied for the past 20 years with the plantings in this area and the ability of the plants to discourage access to the railroad tracks from Sunset Avenue. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how much has been spent to date on this walkway project. Mr. Williams responded the City received a $159,000 grant from Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ); the City signed a contract with MacLeod Reckord, an architectural design firm, for $62,000 to develop preliminary concepts that could inform the public process. Approximately $55,000 of the $62,000 pre-design contract has been expended to develop 2D drawings that can be displayed and commented on at public meetings and adjusted as necessary. Staff has heard the City will soon be offered an additional $90,000 grant that can be added to the $159,000 to complete a full design process on whatever project is eventually scoped. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the design in the PROS Plan would be used. Mr. Williams answered that version was tailored to the funding source at the time, Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), and the project needed to look and function like a trail. The Packet Page 92 of 120 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the source of these two grant opportunities, are not concerned that the project looks like an expanded sidewalk. Councilmember Buckshnis observed this was not a Complete Streets project but was designed to increase tourism. Mr. Williams answered it definitely was a Complete Streets themed project. It greatly enhances access to this corridor for non-motorized users and keeps users safer while maintaining vehicular functions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether a long-term lease of the property would prevent BNSF from installing a fence if they found the walkway increased their liability. Mr. Williams answered no, explaining BNSF was not offering a long term lease; they have offered a one-year revocable lease. He assumed they also retained the right to install a fence. Staff has been clear with BNSF that the reason for the lease is to develop this multi-use pathway. If BNSF saw the pathway as inconsistent with the operation of the railroad, he was certain they would not offer a lease. He anticipated discussions with BNSF regarding ways to reduce the temptation to access the water from the bank via softscaping. He recalled 20 years ago, the fence was related to increased speeds on the railroad tracks. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out even if the City did not install the walkway, BNSF could still install a fence. Mr. Williams agreed, anticipating the same public outcry as occurred 20 years ago. He summarized he doubted BNSF would sign a document giving away any future rights regardless of how unlikely it was they would avail themselves of those rights. Council President Petso asked whether the original request for a fence was initiated by the City and referred to documents she found that indicate that may have been the case. Mr. Williams answered he did not study all the documents; the idea of a fence was related to the Utility and Transportation Commission’s (UTC) evaluation of BNSF’s request to increase speeds. Council President Petso offered to provide the documents to Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams explained staff has talked with and walked the alignment with BNSF representatives; he did not sense any alarm on their part about the proposal. BNSF was not aware the street was partially in their right-of-way until the recent survey. Mayor Earling opened the opportunity for public comment. Bruce Jones, Edmonds, commented a 12-foot wide sidewalk will not work with the geography of the street. He anticipated the FHWA has seen many 5-foot sidewalks and questioned why the design started with fitting everything around a 12-foot wide sidewalk. Marilyn Lindberg, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, expressed her strong opposition to the proposed sidewalk for Sunset Avenue. She anticipated a 10-12 foot sidewalk, 7-foot parking, 3-foot bike lane in the existing 30 feet would prevent her from backing out of her driveway. She foresaw chaos on a sidewalk on the west side with walkers, runners, skateboarders, strollers, wheelchairs, bicyclist and dogs on leashes. She recommended the grant either be cancelled or rescinded as the project is not desirable for this street. Sally Wassall, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, said Sunset is 32’10” wide in front of their house. She questioned how parking and access for cars and trucks could be provided if the width was reduced by 12 feet for a sidewalk. She feared BNSF or WUTC would request a fence which was successfully prevented in the past. A fence would also be detrimental due to the sandy loom soil that is prone to slides. She summarized the walkway was a bad idea and they would like it to go away. Thalia Moutsanides, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, referred to photographs she provided the Council that illustrate an oil truck making a delivery and the limited space for a car to go around. If a 10-12 foot wide sidewalk were construction on the west side, a vehicle could not pass. Sunset is 30 feet wide in front of her house, 10-12 feet for a sidewalk, 2 foot buffer zone, 8’5” parallel parking equals more than 20-22 Packet Page 93 of 120 feet, leaving less than 8-10 feet for vehicular traffic; oil trucks and emergency vehicles are 8 feet wide. Her photographs also illustrate an area where construction vehicles parked on both sides, making the road nearly impassible. Most people who walk on Sunset are opposed to the walkway. She was concerned with altering the fragile embankment, traffic, water problems, etc. She was strongly opposed to the project. Rick Hedges, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, requested the Council rethink the walkway. Although he was opposed to the walkway project, if it proceeded he preferred a 5-foot wide sidewalk rather than 12- feet. He questioned how a pathway on the bank side of Sunset that combined bicycles, children, dogs on leash, etc. would work and feared it would encourage access to the railroad tracks. Northbound vehicular access would be negatively impacted by a narrowed roadway shared with bicycles, garbage trucks, etc. The current configuration is calm and enjoyable; he estimated a gravel trail to replace the dirt trail would be much less expensive. Jim Wassall, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, explained in the past neither BNSF nor the City wanted the fence, it was proposed by WUTC due to BNSF’s request to increase train speeds. The requirement for a fence along Sunset was rescinded following a public outcry. He asked the cost of the one-year, renewable lease BNSF has offered the City. He relayed a car drives the wrong way on Sunset once a day on average; that would create a dangerous situation if the roadway is narrowed 12-feet. He was opposed to the proposed walkway. Carol Nickisher, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, explained she moved to Sunset from Magnolia 2½ years ago due to the natural embankment that is part of the historic character of Edmonds. She has three large west-facing windows in her house and walks with her dog on the west side of Sunset daily and could not fathom a multi-use pathway that combined dogs, bicycles, roller blades, Segway and children. If there are safety concerns, it would be less expensive to install speed bumps although in her experience vehicles do not speed on Sunset. She doubted a promenade would attract more tourists, anticipating tourists would come anyway for the view. She estimated 80% of the people who visit Sunset will oppose this improvement. She relayed the remark of one person who said it’s beautiful as it is, leave it alone. She opposed the walkway. Jim Wilkinson, Edmonds, owner of multiple properties on Sunset, felt the proposal was trying to do too much in the available space. He has heard of car doors hitting cars where the roadway was narrowed on Main between 5th and 6th and did not want that to occur on Sunset. If improvements were made, he preferred a pedestrian-friendly, no parking area. The pathway will not go anywhere and will increase congestion. He asked that the City address a van with a handicap permit that parks and performs household tasks on Sunset for 6-10 hours every day. Edmonds allows vehicles with handicapped permits unlimited parking; federal law allows a 4-hour limits. He pointed out a 12-foot walkway on the west side would move parking to the crown of the street, further reducing views from one-story houses on Sunset as well as creating a sloped driving lane. Mike Echelbarger, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, agreed with his neighbor’s concerns regarding parking, fencing, lighting, etc. He was not opposed to the proposal, noting there was only a plan to develop a proposal. He commented there are thousands of people walking on Sunset on a sunny weekend day. Of the thousands, only a small minority walk on the sidewalk; most walk in the bike path, the west side of the curb or the east side of the parked cars. The City needs to develop a plan to address the serious safety issue posed by people walking in the street. Although the speed limit is only 20 mph, drivers are looking at the view, not the roadway. He was not opposed to developing a plan to determine whether all the concerns could be addressed. He encouraged the City to seek input on this project from all users of Sunset, anticipating the use of Sunset will increase as the population increases. John Segelbaum, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, said the question for the Council is to analyze the pros and cons of the proposal. Increasing pedestrian, bicycle, rollerblade, etc. traffic on Sunset is both a pro Packet Page 94 of 120 and a con as it will create congestion, increase risk of accidents between bicycles and motorists and create a traffic nightmare by decreasing the width of the roadway. Safety has never been a significant issue on Sunset; narrowing the roadway will increase conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. Moving the parking 13 feet east will either destroy or significantly restrict residents’ ability to back onto Sunset Avenue as well as restrict access by service vehicles. The walkway will likely result in the elimination of the on-street parking that residents depend on. Over 100 years Sunset and Front Street have served three purposes, moving vehicular and pedestrian traffic from Main to Caspers and ingress and egress for residents without impacting views. He concluded the proposed walkway would undo the character of Sunset Avenue. Jerry Tays, Edmonds, a former federal land manager, said he would have been unable to carry out such a project because a yearly lease would not be sufficient to spend federal funds on improvements. He questioned how city or state funds could be spent on property that the City does not own either in fee or a long term lease or how the City’s investment would be protected in the future. Jen Antilla, Edmonds, a regular user of Sunset, said Sunset’s natural environment is what appeals to people using the area. She suggested allowing only local access on Sunset, explaining many who park on Sunset leave their engines running which is disruptive to the environment, residents and pedestrians. Lisa Barern, Edmonds, relayed her family moved to Edmonds from the mid-west and they often visit waterfront parks. She did not anticipate a walkway would attract more visitors; people enjoy it now. She supported a gravel path or small sidewalk to provide ADA accessibility. She feared increasing activity on the west side would create a need for a fence to protect users from the bluff. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he has enjoyed Sunset in its current configuration since the mid-70s and it will be a sad day for Edmonds if the current situation changes. He suggested involving the public earlier in the process such as notification before projects are added to the CIP, CFP or TIP; notice mailed to residents within a certain radius of a project; or notification before the City seeks a grant. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT AND DISCUSSION ON THE SR-104/RAILROAD CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Public Works Director Phil Williams relayed staff is recommending the City seek funding to analyze alternatives that could resolve the current conflicts caused by at-grade railroad crossings located at Main and Dayton Streets on the waterfront. BNSF is projecting a very significant increase in train traffic over the next 8-18 years, increasing from the current 35-40 trains per day to 70 days per day in 2020 and 104 trains per day by 2030. These trains cross the two rail crossings, often blocking them both at the same time. These numbers do not include the near-term potential addition of up to 18 trains per day hauling coal for export from the proposed expanded terminal near Bellingham. Rail traffic already presents significant conflicts, delays and safety hazards that will become debilitating as train numbers increase rapidly over the next decade: • Passing trains prevent the timely delivery of emergency services to the water side of the BNSF tracking where there is a busy senior center, 700 slip marina, nationally significant saltwater dive park, three City parks, several office buildings, two 2-5 story condominium buildings, several single family homes, a popular dog park, 3 restaurants and the ferry dock, all frequent users of emergency services. Delayed responses of several minutes or more are not uncommon and will be more frequent in the future. • Each train passing through Edmonds sounds its whistle at approximately 115 decibels, 8 times in a quarter mile distance as it passes the above developments. These blasts are deafening and disruptive to the enjoyment of the Edmonds waterfront. This will likely limit the desirability of future development on the Antique Mall and Harbor Square properties, significant keys to Edmonds’ economic future. Packet Page 95 of 120 Packet Page 96 of 120 Packet Page 97 of 120 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program - PSRC Regional Application P1 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program PSRC Regional Application Form **Please read this section before completing the application** The importance of complete and accurate information on every application cannot be overemphasized. The evaluation and scoring of all submitted projects will be based on the answers provided in this application. A project’s suitability for regional funding may be compromised if the application is found to have omissions or inaccuracies. Sponsors of projects recommended for funding as a result of the competition should be aware that information provided on this application will be used in the future to monitor compliance with PSRC’s adopted project tracking policies. It is also important to remember that funds are awarded to projects, not agencies. Please refer to PSRC’s website for more information on the project tracking program: http://www.psrc.org/transportation/tip/tracking. Submitting Applications There is no set page limit for applications submitted to the regional competition. It is important to provide complete, detailed responses, but please be as concise as possible. Additional supporting information such as maps and other diagrams are encouraged, but other attachments such as comprehensive plan materials are unnecessary. Attach your completed application to an email and send it to TAP@psrc.org. Applications must be received by PSRC by 5:00 PM on Monday, August 26, 2013. Please name the file "2013 Alternatives-[agency]- [project title]." It is requested that two copies of the application be submitted, one in the original format (please note: there is both a Word application and an Excel spreadsheet required to be completed as part of the application materials) and one saved as a combined PDF. Electronic copies of all applications are required, as they will be posted to PSRC’s website. For questions or to confirm receipt of your application, contact Sasha Anderson, 206-971-3051. Sponsors of projects that are awarded funds from this competition will be required to submit a more detailed application in order to program the funds into the State and Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Please refer to the Schedule in the Call for Projects for more information. Packet Page 98 of 120 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program - PSRC Regional Application P2 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 PROJECT TITLE: Edmonds Sunset Avenue Overlook Trail 2 TRANSPORTATION 2040 ID#: This project is consistent with the adopted regional transportation policies and supports Policy MPP-T-1 by providing a safer movement of people and a more efficient movement of all the transportation modes. The trail will significantly improve non-motorized transportation conditions along this corridor. The improvements will also encourage use of alternate modes of transportation such as transit by improving access to the Community Transit bus routes located on both ends of the project (Policy MPP-T-24). To be eligible for federal funding, a project must be in, or consistent with, Transportation 2040, the region’s long-range metropolitan transportation plan. Projects adding capacity to the regional system must be explicitly identified as projects in Transportation 2040; for the 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program, this would apply to projects such as separated regional trails. Current Transportation 2040 projects may be found at http://www.psrc.org/assets/4889/T2040_AppendixM_FINAL.pdf. Some projects may be connected to more than one Transportation 2040 project; if this is the case, sponsors may add additional ID #s. Projects not adding capacity to the regional system may indicate “n/a” in the ID# field above. For more information on this topic, please refer to http://www.psrc.org/transportation/t2040/projects-and-approval/. For assistance or questions regarding these issues, contact Kimberly Scrivner at (206) 971-3281 or kscrivner@psrc.org. 3 SPONSORING AGENCY: City of Edmonds a. Co-sponsor(s) if applicable: N/A For the purposes of this application and competition, “co-sponsor” refers to any agency that would receive a portion of the funding if the requested grant were to be awarded. b. Does sponsoring agency have “Certification Acceptance” status from WSDOT? Yes No c. If not, which agency will serve as your CA sponsor? For more information on Certification Acceptance and to find a listing of current CA agencies, please refer to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/LocalPrograms/LAG/CA.htm 4 PROJECT CONTACT: Robert English, P.E. Address: 121 5th Ave.N., Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: 425-771-0220 Email: Robert.English@ci.edmondswa.gov 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Please distinguish between the scope of the project and the justification and/or need for the project. a. Project scope: Please describe clearly and concisely the individual components of this project. What will be the specific outcome of this project? What will be built, purchased or provided with this grant request? For example, if this is part of a larger project, please be specific as to what portion on which the grant funds will be used. The project proposes 2,200 feet of waterfront trail/sidewalk on the west side of Sunset Avenue from Bell Street to Caspers Street, and extending on Caspers Street to 3rd Avenue North. The project provides dedicated facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, in a corridor that currently mixes these heavy non-motorized uses with motorized traffic. Improvements include ADA-compliant walkways and ramps; new curb/gutter and curb extensions to reduce pedestrian crossing distances; stormwater facilities with updated water quality improvement function; completion of a missing sidewalk link between Main St. and 3rd Avenue North/SR-524; new street crossings to improve safety and accessibility of connections between adjacent residential/commercial and downtown Edmonds to the waterfront trail/sidewalk; wayside/viewpoints of the Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains; benches, trash receptacles, picnic tables, parking and signage. Packet Page 99 of 120 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program - PSRC Regional Application P3 The south end of this trail section is anchored in a major regional transportation hub that includes one of the busiest terminals on the Washington State Ferry System and facilities for Sound Transit, Amtrak, Community Transit, and the Port of Edmonds Marina. The project will enhance existing and provide new non-motorized commuting/recreation opportunities along an important view corridor of Edmonds' waterfront; will expand on Edmonds' well-established existing 1-mile long waterfront promenade/trail system; and will provide for safer non-motorized use and traffic calming on this residential/commercial street. b. Project justification, need or purpose: Please explain the intent, need or purpose of this project. What is the goal or desired outcome? Accessibility along the waterfront/west side of Sunset Avenue between Bell Street and Caspers Street, and on Caspers Street to 3rd Avenue North for pedestrians is currently very limited due to the narrow non-ADA compliant dirt path atop a hillside bluff and missing sidewalk. In addition, bicyclists do not have a continuous, defined path within the motorized corridor. Just south of the project limits, there exists wide sidewalk connections and bike lanes to various transportation facilities (Edmonds Ferry Terminal, Edmonds Train Station, and recently completed Edmonds Community Transit Bus Terminal) as well as Downtown Edmonds, however none of these services are currently fully accessible from the west side of Sunset Avenue. Immediately north of the project there are connections to an extensive Community Transit system and bike route along 3rd Avenue North/SR- 524 (w/route 196), however these services are not fully accessible along the length of Caspers Street. Sunset Avenue is a low-speed one-way local street with a 20 mph speed limit and the 85th percentile speed of 29.5 mph. The wide lane width, up to 20' in some areas, encourages vehicle speeding and creates unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists attempting to traverse along, or cross, the roadway. Pedestrian conditions are even more unsafe with the non-standard curb heights on both sides of the street, ranging from 2" to 4" in height, and unmarked crossings at Bell Street and Edmonds Street. This project will provide safer and more inviting access to the Edmonds waterfront by connecting existing sidewalk facilities and providing a continuous bicycling corridor between important commuter and recreational destinations. A fully compliant ADA facility will enhance accessibility of the entire system by providing access for users of all abilities, and will support the intent of the City's Complete Street ordinance. Connection to the full range of transportation facilities (ferry, bus, train) immediately south of the project will be enhanced, and serve local users, commuters, and even provide for a new tourist attraction due to the remarkable Puget Sound/Olympic Mountain views. New curb/gutter will be installed, and meet the 6" height standard, and motorized travel lane width will be reduced to provide safer non-motorized transportation conditions. Pedestrian crossings within the project limits will be improved with the addition of curb extensions and/or speed tables to improve pedestrian visibility and provide traffic calming. Functional and safety improvements within this corridor will make connection to well developed non- motorized facilities on both the north and south ends, thus encouraging greater numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists to use one of those modes along Sunset Avenue and Caspers Street as their commute route instead of driving, thus reducing the number of commute trips. These non- motorized improvements will enhance recreational opportunities as well, providing for a safe pedestrian/bicycle loop within Downtown Edmonds and an extension of the Edmonds Waterfront Promenade/Trail system. Lastly, with an enhanced facility atop this picturesque bluff, the project will benefit tourism and provide a measure of economic benefit to the community. 6 PROJECT LOCATION: Sunset Avenue North, Edmonds, WA County(ies) in which project is located: Snohomish Answer the following questions if applicable: a. Crossroad/landmark nearest to beginning of project (identify landmark if no crossroad): Sunset Avenue Packet Page 100 of 120 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program - PSRC Regional Application P4 North and Bell Street. b. Crossroad/landmark nearest to end of project (identify landmark if no crossroad): Caspers Street and 3rd Avenue North. Map: Please include a legible project and vicinity map, if available. Photographs, diagrams, etc. may also be submitted. Please attach these materials to the email and submit along with the application. 7 PROJECT TYPE: Please select 1 or more of the following eligible Transportation Alternatives Program categories: Facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation Infrastructure-related projects providing safe routes for non-drivers Conversion and use of abandoned railway corridors for trails Safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicycles (for K-8 Safe Routes to Schools program only) Historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities Archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a transportation project (mitigation) Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing Areas Inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising Vegetation management practices in transportation right of way Mitigation to address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention related to highway construction or highway runoff Reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats PLAN CONSISTENCY All projects must be consistent with a comprehensive plan that has been certified by PSRC as being consistent with the Growth Management Act, VISION 2040 and Transportation 2040. Projects must be consistent with the comprehensive plan of each jurisdiction in which the project is located. If a comprehensive plan has not been certified, projects located in that jurisdiction may not be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. For more information, please refer to http://www.psrc.org/growth/planreview or contact Yorik Stevens-Wajda, 206-464-6179. 8 The questions in this section must be answered by all applicants. If you need assistance, please contact staff at the local jurisdiction in which the project is located. Information on the current certification status of a local plan is available on PSRC’s web site at http://www.psrc.org/growth/planreview. a. Is the project specifically identified in a local comprehensive plan? Yes. Indicate (1) plan name, (2) relevant section(s), and (3) page number where it can be found: 2013–2018 Transportation Improvement Plan; Page 2 No. Describe how the project is consistent with the applicable local comprehensive plan, citing specific local policies and provisions the project supports. Please include the actual text of all relevant policies or information on where it can be found, e.g. the policy document name and page number. b. Please check all boxes that apply to the project's location. If portions of the project are located in more than one of the locations listed, please check all appropriate boxes. The project is located outside the designated urban growth area (refer to map of the Central Puget Sound region at http://www.psrc.org/assets/8452/PSRCcities.pdf for more information). The project is located within the designated urban growth area. The project is located within one or more designated regional, countywide or local centers. Please identify the center(s) in the space below; refer to http://www.psrc.org/growth/centers for more information on regionally designated centers. Packet Page 101 of 120 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program - PSRC Regional Application P5 REGIONAL PROJECT EVALUATION Projects will be evaluated and scored based on the information provided in Parts 1 and 2 which follow. Refer to the “2013 Transportation Alternatives Program Regional Project Evaluation Criteria” in the Call for Projects for guidance and details on scoring before completing these sections of the application. Instructions: Part 1: Complete all three sections in Part 1 (sections A, B and C). Part 2: Choose the one project category that best fits your project and complete the corresponding section (D1, D2 or D3). PART 1: CRITERIA FOR ALL PROJECTS Instructions: Complete all three sections in Part 1(sections A, B and C) and then proceed to Part 2. A. Support for Centers Describe the relationship of the project to the center(s) it is intended to support. Is it located within a designated regional, countywide or local center, or is it located along a corridor connecting to one of these areas? While the history and character of development in Edmonds does not support its designation as one of the regional centers (growth or manufacturing/industrial), the concepts developed in Vision 2040 are supported in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The approach proposed in Edmonds is to strategically plan for future development in two activity centers. The Sunset Avenue Overlook Trail project is located within the "Downtown Waterfront Activity Center" and serves to address many of the goals established for that Center. Describe how the project helps the center develop in a manner consistent with the adopted policies and plans for the center, as identified in the comprehensive plan of the local jurisdiction. For example, does the project help support or implement the center’s plans and/or goals for land use, affordable housing, context sensitive design, economic development, alternative forms of transportation, environment, etc.? Packet Page 102 of 120 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program - PSRC Regional Application P6 This project will help the City of Edmonds develop in a manner consistent with goals and adopted policies and plans as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Noted below are specific goals (some abbreviated/annotated for brevity) that support the project. The project will help support the goals for Land Use in the following ways: (1) Provides a pedestrian-oriented streetscape environment for residential and commercial activity; (2) Builds on historical character and natural relationships, such as access to and view of the waterfront; (3) Encourages transit service and access; (4) Provides a context for urban design guidelines that maximize predictability while assuring a consistent character of development (consistency in pedestrian and bicycle design standards). The project will help support the goals of Community Sustainability in the following ways: (1) Reduces the use of fuel and energy in transportation, and encourages various modes of transportation that reduce reliance on automobiles; (2) Promotes seamless transportation linkages between Edmonds community and the rest of the Puget Sound region. The project will help support multiple goals of the Transportation Plan in the following ways: (1) Improves non- motorized transportation faciities and services; (2) Provides transportation services that enhance community safety and maximize use of the existing street system; (3) Develop transportation improvements that support commuting in a way that discourages the motorized use of local streets; (4) Provides alternatives for transportation that enable all persons to have reasonable access to locations of employment, health care, education, and community business and recreational facilities; (5) Enhances the movement of people, services and goods…and encourage the use of travel alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle. The project will help support the goals of Economic Development in the following ways: (1) Strengthens the quality of life and vitality of the community for residents, workers, and visitors to enjoy; with policies directed at promoting the visitor/tourism sector through development of facilities that attract tourism and expand recreational opportunities. The Shoreline Master Program, currently being updated in Edmonds, will identify goals relating to encouraging public access and providing connections between the Downtown and upland neighbors to the shoreline. The trail project would be considered a water-enjoyment or water-oriented use because it overlooks Puget Sound. B. Community Support Describe the public review process for the project and actions taken to involve stakeholders in the project’s development. Describe the outreach and engagement of all stakeholders, including populations of minority, low-income, senior, disabled and limited English proficiency individuals. To date, the project has been advanced through a conceptual stage, so the public review process has been limited to one public meeting to introduce the concept and discuss alternatives and priorities. A survey, developed jointly by Parks and Public Works, was circulated identifying the scope of the project, and posed specific questions and asked for general opinions about the project. Moving forward with the project, the public outreach process will continue with an expansion of outreach efforts that will target specific issues (such as user needs, ADA challenges, potential conflicts within both the motorized and nonmotorized environment, local connections, etc.) as well as the broad base of the Edmonds community population. Public meetings will be held in common gathering locations and/or at community-based organization centers to get a broad spectrum of input. Information will be provided via tailored public service announcements to reach out to underrepresented communities, as census data reflects the need, by broadcasting announcements in multiple languages through language-specific media outlets. Edmonds has had considerable success in providing information prior to, and throughout, the design and construction process via online technologies (Web, social media, and social networking). These outreach efforts will not be solely limited to online tools, but will be distributed to a wide range of local gathering and meeting locations. Describe the public comments received (both positive and negative), letters of support, and/or other partnerships for the project. Provide the dates, times and locations of all public presentations, including to the stakeholder groups described above. Packet Page 103 of 120 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program - PSRC Regional Application P7 Public comment was received at a meeting held on April 11, 2012, and followed up with written survey results that were collected April 25, 2012. The response was overwhelmingly positive, with all respondents supporting the concept of a dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facility in this corridor. The majority stated additional support for park and trail amenities such as benches, picnic tables, and artwork, and several stated the project would provide significant economic benefit to the nearby businesses. Some requested that additional information be provided when plans were ready to be advanced, and some individuals wanted to be informed about the progress of decisions throughout the planning stages of the project. To date, there have been no negative comments recorded. C. Project Readiness / Financial Plan There are two parts to this section, with specific questions for each part identified below: the project’s readiness to obligate PSRC funds, and the project’s financial plan. The primary objective of the evaluation is to determine whether a sponsor has assembled all of the funding needed to complete the project or phase(s), and when the sponsor will be ready to obligate the requested regional funding. All questions must be completely and accurately filled out in order for this information to be properly assessed. The information will be used to determine:  When the sponsor can complete all prerequisites needed to obligate the requested PSRC funding.  When the sponsor plans to obligate requested PSRC funding.  The amounts and sources of secured funding for the project.  The amounts and sources of reasonably expected but unsecured funding for the project.  Whether PSRC’s federal funds will complete the project or a phase of the project. For assistance completing this section, contact Mark Braseth at mbraseth@psrc.org, or (206)971-3287. Identify the amount of PSRC’s Transportation Alternatives Program funding requested by phase, and identify the estimated year of obligation (2014, 2015 or 2016). Please note: a minimum required match of 13.5% is required at the time of application, and all phases for which funds are requested must be completed with the requested grant funding plus other available funds. Phase Amount Estimated Year of Obligation PE/Design $90,903.00 2014 Construction $1,372,983.00 2015 [select phase] C1: Project Readiness PSRC recognizes that the complexity of some projects can trigger a variety of prerequisites that must be satisfied before federal funding is typically eligible to obligate. These questions are designed to identify those requirements and assist sponsors to:  Identify which requirements apply to their specific project.  Identify which requirements have already been satisfied at time of application.  Provide an explanation and realistic completion date for all requirements not yet completed. In the section below, sponsors will be asked to provide complete information on the status of necessary milestones for the project seeking PSRC funds. Past experience has shown that delays in one phase often result in a delay to subsequent phases. PSRC’s project tracking policies require that funds be obligated within a set timeframe or be returned for redistribution. Consequently, sponsors are encouraged to carefully consider the complexity of their project and develop a project schedule that is realistic. Based on the phase(s) for which PSRC funds are being requested, please answer the questions below. If funds are requested for Planning or Preliminary Engineering/Design only, this section is not required. C1a: What is the status of Preliminary Engineering/Design?  Is the P/E-Design phase complete? No Packet Page 104 of 120 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program - PSRC Regional Application P8  If not, identify all relevant milestones, including the current status and estimated completion date of each. For example: o What is the level of environmental documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for this project?  Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)  Environmental Assessment (EA) Possibly required if impacts are deemed more significant  Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) More likely, due to relatively little impact, and possible review as a safety project  Categorical Exclusion (CE) o Has the NEPA documentation been approved? Please provide the date of approval, or the anticipated date of completion. Anticipated date of completion July 2014 o At what stage of completion is your design?  Have Preliminary Plans been submitted to WSDOT for approval? No  If not, when is this milestone scheduled to be complete? August 2014  When are Preliminary Plans expected to be approved? October 2014 o Are there any other PE/Design milestones not listed above? Please identify and provide estimates dates of completion. Finalize 100% PS&E December 2014 C1b: What is the status of Right of Way? (If Right of Way is not required for this project, this section may be left blank)  How many parcels do you need?  What is the zoning in the project area (e.g., commercial, residential, etc.)?  Discuss the extent to which your schedule reflects the possibility of condemnation and the actions needed to pursue this.  Identify all relevant right of way milestones, including the current status and estimated completion date of each. For example: o True cost estimate of Right of Way o Right of Way Plans (stamped) o Relocation Plan (if applicable) o Right of Way Certification o Right of Way Acquisition o Certification Audit by WSDOT Right of Way Analyst o Relocation Certification, if applicable C1c: What is the status of the milestones for the construction phase?  Do you have an Engineer’s Estimate? Please provide a copy if available. Yes, see attachment (5) for planning level estimate.  Identify the environmental permits needed for the project and when they are scheduled to be acquired. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (April 2014 completion, October 2014 acquisition); Documentation for NEPA may include Cultural Resource Assessment,Environmental Justice Technical Memo, Visual Quality Assessment (July 2014 completion, November 2014 acquisition); NPDES and local permits (September 2014 completion, November 2014 acquisition).  Is PS&E approved? Please provide the date of approval, or the date when PS&E is scheduled to be submitted for approval. Anticipate submittal for approval October 2014.  When is the project scheduled to go to ad? Anticipated January 2015. Note: for projects awarded PSRC funds through this competition, the information provided above for each milestone will be incorporated into the project’s Quarterly Progress Report for future monitoring, as part of PSRC’s project tracking program. Packet Page 105 of 120 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program - PSRC Regional Application P9 C2: Financial Plan – Project Budget and Schedule Using the Excel spreadsheet provided in the Call for Projects, please provide information on the project’s complete financial budget and schedule, including all phases. Attach the completed spreadsheet along with this application to the email submitted to PSRC by the deadline of August 26, 2013. Please note: this spreadsheet must be included in the application materials or the application will be considered incomplete. PART 2: CATEGORY SPECIFIC CRITERIA Instructions: Choose the one project category that best fits your project and complete the corresponding section (D1, D2 or D3). D1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Describe how your project addresses the following criteria:  The project extends or completes a regional or local bicycle and pedestrian system, and/or adds facilities to an existing bicycle and pedestrian system or network.  The project addresses a need in the community and reduces key barriers to use and functionality – i.e., safety, distance, slope, gaps, etc. The facility connects to other multimodal facilities (for example, high capacity or other transit stations, ferry terminals, etc.).  The level of public access to the project (for example, current and future land use in the vicinity of the facility such as schools, residences, commercial, retail, tourist areas, etc. that would be expected to provide utilization of the facility).  The user groups that will benefit from the project, including commuters, residents, commercial users, minority and low-income populations as identified in the President’s Order for Environmental Justice, seniors, people with disabilities, and limited English proficiency populations.  The resource is threatened; there will be a loss of opportunity if this project is not funded. The City of Edmonds has a well-established waterfront promenade/trail system extending from its south city limits to Bell Street, terminating at the south end of this project, a distance of approximately 1 mile. Amenities over its length include 3 waterfront public parks and adjacent salt-water beaches, a major public boat launch and marina at Port of Edmonds, a Community Transit hub with park and ride facilities, the Amtrak/Sounder Train Station, WSDOT's Ferry Terminal, restaurants, shops, and offices. This project proposes to start at Bell Street, and extend promenade/trail improvements another (nearly) half mile to make connection to single and multifamily residential, and other intersecting corridors with developed sidewalks and bike lanes that connect to downtown, parks, churches, and places of employment. The project will serve to extend a popular local bicycle and pedestrian system, and provide opportunities for a loop system through the downtown area. Immediately north and south of the current project site there are developed sidewalks, bike lanes, and bike routes that currently provide pedestrian and bicycle access to the site, yet the project site lacks those same facilities. The result is a startling lack of continuity and safety for users trying to make those important connections. This project will complete those connections and improve safety and legibility of the overall non-motorized system. The project, with the addition of dedicated non-motorized facilities, curb extensions, and ADA-compliant ramps will reduce key barriers to use and functionality both within the corridor and connecting to intersecting corridors. As noted above, this project will provide needed non-motorized connections from existing sidewalks, bike lanes, and bike routes that are north and east of the project to multimodal facilities (train, bus, park & ride, and ferry) located south of the project. Attachment 2 Project Area Map shows the range of land use areas surrounding the project. This project falls in the northern half of the city's local center "Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center". The project will benefit from a significant level of activity that will only increase as the center grows. East and north of Packet Page 106 of 120 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program - PSRC Regional Application P10 the project are single family residential and high density multi-family residential developments, all with a significant need for quality public access to the waterfront and to the concentration of multimodal facilities to the south of the project. In addition, the completion of this project will allow residents and tourist alike to expand their use of the waterfront promenade/trail and loop of similar facilities through Downtown. User groups that would benefit from the project include commuters, residents, and tourists. Commuters include those on foot or bike, north and east of the project, who chose to travel along routes with minimal topography and lower speed/volume of traffic. Providing dedicated non-motorized facilities will serve their needs and encourage others to commute via foot or bike. Local residents will benefit from the project because it will offer more than just a recreational route, but will be a viewpoint/overlook, from which to view mountains, water, parks, and a spectacular sunset. Views take in not only the Olympics to the west, but Mount Baker/Cascades to the north, and the extension of Puget Sound to the south. There are views of the beach parks below the bluff, the marine park beyond, and the busy traffic of the rail line and ferry system. This site has the potential to be 'the place' a resident will take an out- of-town visitor to show off Edmonds and all it has to offer. Minority and low-income populations, typically located in upland medium to high-density multi-family residential housing areas, have full access to the project corridor and connections beyond, as project improvements include connections to the intersecting streets that extend east from the project. Tourists will benefit for the same reasons - taking advantage of the site for viewing, recreational walking and cycling. With non-motorized improvements including curb extensions, well marked crossings, narrower travel lanes, viewing areas, and other traffic calming measures, the corridor will become more pedestrian friendly to all users. The resource is not threatened in the traditional sense, but the safety of the non-motorized community of Edmonds is at stake. As the population continues to grow there is greater demand for a broader range of multimodal options, to ease congestion and improve quality of life. Non-motorized facilities provide both. The transition away from building wider streets to accommodate more vehicles is occurring nationwide, and with each successful project that transforms a motorized-only corridor into a more Complete Street, there is greater impetus to embark on the next successful project. This project represents an opportunity to showcase a successful transformation that other communities might emulate. D2. Historic Resources Projects Describe how your project addresses the following criteria:  The current or former transportation use of the facility.  The historic significance of the facility. This could include designation as a local, state or national landmark; listing as a contributing part of a local, state or National Register historic district; or a determination of eligibility for listing in the National Register.  The planned use of the facility; the project’s relationship to the transportation system.  The project is part of a larger historic preservation plan.  The level of public access to the project, including for minority and low-income populations as identified in the President’s Order for Environmental Justice, seniors, people with disabilities, and limited English proficiency populations.  The resource is threatened; there will be a loss of opportunity if this project is not funded.  Long-term preservation and/or maintenance plans for the facility. Packet Page 107 of 120 2013 Transportation Alternatives Program - PSRC Regional Application P11 D3. Environmental Projects Describe how your project addresses the following criteria:  The relationship of the project to the transportation system.  The level of public access to the project, including for minority and low-income populations as identified in the President’s Order for Environmental Justice, seniors, people with disabilities, and limited English proficiency populations.  The need for the project.  How well the project goes over and above what is normally required.  Long-term maintenance plans for the project.  There will be a loss of opportunity if this project is not funded. Other Considerations Please describe any additional aspects of your project not previously addressed in the application that could be relevant to the final project recommendation and decision-making process. No points will be given to this section. The attachments include the following: (1) Vicinity map, (2) Project map, (3) Site photographs of the project corridor, (4) Preliminary typical proposed cross section, and (5) Engineer's estimate. The photographs tell an important part of the story for this corridor - it is heavily used by local residents, commuters, park users, and tourists, especially those traveling via Washington State Ferries with time on their hands. The Sunset Avenue corridor is an easy walk from the train/bus station and ferry terminal and provides visitors with a breathtaking view of Puget Sound and the Olympic Range. This is an ideal vantage point for watching activity in the waterfront parks below the bluff, in the marine park off shore, and at the ferry terminal and along the rail lines; This project will provide benefits to a broad range of users, Packet Page 108 of 120 Project Sponsor: Project Title: Phase Funding Source(s) Secured / Unsecured Amount Schedule Planning n/a Planning Planning Planning TOTAL:‐$ Preliminary Engineering / Design FHWA/CMAQ secured 159,000$ Preliminary Engineering / Design Edmonds secured 25,000$ Preliminary Engineering / Design PSRC/TAP unsecured 90,903$ Preliminary Engineering / Design Edmonds unsecured 14,187$ Preliminary Engineering / Design TOTAL:289,090$ 12/31/2014 Right of Way n/a Right of Way Right of Way Right of Way TOTAL:‐$ Construction PSRC/TAP unsecured 1,372,983$ Construction Edmonds unsecured 214,281$ Construction Construction Construction TOTAL 1,587,264$ 10/31/2015 Other N/A Other Other TOTAL:‐$ TOTAL Estimated Project Cost, All Phases:1,876,354$ 10/31/2015 City of Emdonds, Robert English, City Engineer Edmonds Sunset Avenue Overlook Trail You may add additional rows as needed; if a phase is not required for the project, indicate "n/a." If you need assistance completing this section, contact Mark Braseth at (206) 971‐3287 or mbraseth@psrc.org. Complete all entries below; identify sponsor and title, and answer questions C2a, b and c. Project Budget and Schedule C2a. Project Budget and Schedule In the table below please provide information on the financial budget and schedule for the entire project. Please indicate amounts and sources of both secured and unsecured funds, by phase. Include all phases in the project, from start to finish, and indicate when each phase will be completed. The requested PSRC funds identified in the application must also be reflected in the table below. Use as many rows per phase as necessary to reflect the financial plan for each phase. Estimated Phase Completion Date: Estimated Project Completion Date: Estimated Phase Completion Date: Estimated Phase Completion Date: Estimated Phase Completion Date: Estimated Phase Completion Date: 2012 Project Selection Process Page 1 of 2 Packet Page 109 of 120 FHWA CMAQ funds for City of Edmonds Sunset Avenue Overlook Trail CM‐2542(001) C2b. Provide documentation and/or an explanation of the secured funds identified above. For example, provide web links to a grant award notification, provide the page number of local funds identified for the project in the local 6‐year transportation program or transit plan, etc. For more information on the definition of secured/unsecured funds, refer to: C2c. Provide additional information on any funds identified in the table above as unsecured. For example, identify the estimated approval date of funds for the project into the local 6‐year program; if applying for future grants, indicate when you will apply and to what program; if pursuing a limited improvement district, bonding, or other local funding mechanism, when will that occur and what additional steps are required; etc. For more information on the definition of secured/unsecured funds, refer to : www.psrc.org/assets/7911/Definitions_SecuredandUnsecuredFunding.pdf www.psrc.org/assets/7911/Definitions_SecuredandUnsecuredFunding.pdf 2012 Project Selection Process Page 2 of 2 Packet Page 110 of 120 Packet Page 111 of 120 Packet Page 112 of 120 Packet Page 113 of 120 Packet Page 114 of 120 Packet Page 115 of 120 Prepared by: C. Reckord 8/26/2013 ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION OF ITEM EST QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PREPARATION 1 MOBILIZATION (10%)1 L.S.$92,498 $92,498 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 1 L.S.$10,000 $10,000 3 REMOVE CEMENT CONC. CURB 2,219 L.F.$8 $17,752 4 REMOVE ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT 4,134 S.Y.$10 $41,342 5 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCLUDING HAUL 2,756 C.Y.$12.00 $33,074 6 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL 2,067 TN.$15.00 $31,007 SURFACING 7 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE - CONCRETE UNDERLAY 878 TN.$22.00 $19,321 8 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE - HMA UNDERLAY 508 TN.$22.00 $11,183 9 VACANT 10 NEW HMA 254 TN.$125.00 $31,771 STORM SEWER 11 FILTERRA 6 EA $15,000 $90,000 12 CATCH BASIN TYPE I 8 EA $1,200 $9,600 13 CATCH BASIN TYPE II 3 EA $2,500 $7,500 14 STORM SEWER (12" PVC)2,200 LF $22 $48,400 15 ADJUST MANHOLE 8 EA $500 $4,000 EROSION CONTROL AND PLANTING 16 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 1 L.S.$8,000 $8,000 17 TESC PLAN 1 L.S.$2,500 $2,500 18 PLANT BED AREA (PSIPE 1 YEAR)1,393 S.Y.$50 $69,650 19 TOPSOIL 18" DEPTH 697 C.Y.$35 $24,378 TRAFFIC 20 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 L.S.$40,000 $40,000 21 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER 2,219 L.F.$18 $39,942 22 SIGNING AND STRIPING 1 L.S.$15,000 $15,000 23 WHEEL STOPS 26 EA.$250 $6,500 24 SPEED TABLE CROSSINGS 1 EA.$16,000 $16,000 OTHER ITEMS 25 INTERPRETIVE SIGNS 3 EA.$2,000 $6,000 26 ENTRANCE SIGNS 2 EA.$2,500 $5,000 27 BENCHES 5 EA.$2,000 $10,000 28 PICNIC TABLES 4 EA.$2,000 $8,000 29 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK 10' - 12' WIDE 2,635 S.Y.$45 $118,560 30 CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP 6 EA.$6,000 $36,000 31 DECORATIVE GUARD RAIL 1,550 L.F.$90 $139,500 32 VIEWING AREAS 1 EA.$25,000 $25,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,017,477 CONTINGENCY (30%)$305,243 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,322,720 OTHER COSTS 22 SURVEY 1 L.S.$28,000 $28,000 23 GEOTECHNICAL 1 L.S.$23,000 $23,000 24 DESIGN, PUBLIC OUTREACH & PERMITTING (18%)1 L.S.$238,090 $238,090 25 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (15%)1 L.S.$198,408 $198,408 26 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ADMIN (5%)1 L.S.$66,136 $66,136 27 $0 SUBTOTAL OTHER COSTS $553,634 GRAND TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,876,354 CONSTRUCTION COSTS CITY OF EDMONDS - SUNSET AVENUE OVERLOOK TRAIL PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE 8/26/2013 1 MacLeod Reckord Packet Page 116 of 120 D R A F T M I N U T E S Public Works, Parks and Planning Committee Meeting January 14, 2014 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Council Member, Diane Buckshnis Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Stephen Clifton,Community Services and Economic Development Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Director The committee convened at 6:00 p.m. A. Docket of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and proposed re-zone for Unocal lower yard. Council member Buckshnis raised questions about whether this proposal relates to proposed buffers and the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Messrs. Chave and Clifton stated that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and re-zone for the Unocal lower yard is a separate issue and discussions on shoreline buffers and building setbacks are part of the SMP review. ACTION: Council member Buckshnis requested this item be moved to the February 11, 2014 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee. She also requested that the letters from Washington State Department of Transportation and Chevron be included in the agenda packet. B. Authorization for Mayor to sign a grant agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement project. Mr. English provided information on the TIB grant and how the funding will be used in the construction phase. ACTION: Moved to consent agenda for approval. C. Authorization for Mayor to sign Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement with KPG for the 236th St. SW Walkway project Professional Service Agreements for the 15th St. SW Walkway and 238th St. SW Walkway projects. Mr. English briefly reviewed the scope of each project and how all three projects were funded by the Safe Routes to School Grant Program. ACTION: Moved to consent agenda for approval. D. Discussion and potential action regarding modifying or terminating Sunset Walkway Project. Mr. Williams answered questions related to the BNSF right of way, stormwater improvements, proposed cross section on the north end of Sunset, raised pedestrian table, parking and funding. ACTION: Continue discussion at the February PPP committee meeting. Packet Page 117 of 120 February 24th, 2014 Prepared by Rob English and Phil Williams for attachment to Sunset Avenue Discussion agenda item at the March 4th, 2014 Edmonds City Council Meeting: The questions below were asked by Councilmember Buckshnis at the January 14th Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee during a discussion about the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project. Councilmember Buckshnis forwarded the questions below to Staff and has asked us to provide the responses given at the meeting, in writing, to help expand on the detail provided in the official minutes for that meeting. Ms. Buckshnis, Council President, was the only Councilmember present at the meeting since Councilmember Bloom was away on an excused absence, and a second member for the committee has not been named as a result of the vacancy that currently exists on the Council. 1) How many parking spots will be removed? Where will these spots be lost? The proposed layout will nominally remove 12 of the 55 existing parking stalls that exist currently on Sunset Avenue. With more detailed design and coordination with residents, it may be possible to reduce the number of lost parking stalls to as low as 4. The areas where parking could be retained or added to the current proposal are on Sunset between Bell St. and 344 Sunset and on Caspers St. between 2nd and 3rd Avenues. There are also 71 existing parking stalls on Edmonds St and Bell St between Sunset and 3rd Avenue in close proximity to the project. 2) Is there only a year to year lease commitment? The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) has offered to lease the portion of their property already developed as Sunset Avenue so the City can re-purpose a portion of it to build the multi-use pathway. The current footprint of the street, to a greater or lesser extent, overlaps their property (defined as 100 feet from the centerline of the original track alignment) from approximately the northerly end of the existing angled parking area to the turn on to Caspers street. This property has been occupied by the City for use as Sunset Avenue for perhaps 70 years or so. The lease terms offer a perpetual lease, terminable by either party upon 12 months’ notice. BNSF is aware of the City’s desire to re-purpose portions of Sunset Avenue to build the walkway project and are prepared to lease to the City the property required to do so. Further details will need to be worked out with BNSF but doing so will require a higher level of design than the conceptual layout produced during this initial planning phase for the project. 3) Why is there not a plan b where we have the sidewalk on the East side? Construction of a multi-use pathway (or even a wider sidewalk) on the east side of the street is not recommended for several reasons: • Any non-motorized pathway on the east side of the street would, by necessity, be crossed by approximately 20 separate driveways. Each of these would be a new conflict point between Packet Page 118 of 120 non-motorized traffic and automobiles. This creates a new and significant safety hazard rather than an improvement. • Building a facility on the east side of the street is not what we have received funding to do. It is unlikely we could get funding from any of the currently available grant programs to build something on the east side since the public benefit (view access for all citizens) is reduced and safety would be compromised. • Even if an improved pathway was built on the east side of Sunset it is likely that many, if not most, of the non-motorized traffic would end up on the west side anyway since the views and the overall experience is better. 4) What about water-run off and the deteriorating bluff? The slope between Sunset Ave. and the BNSF tracks is one where erosion has and is taking place. This is commonplace along the entire section of trackage from south of Edmonds through the City of Everett. BNSF and WSDOT are developing plans to improve many of these locations where slides occur which have either shut down rail traffic or endangered private property. The section of trackage along Sunset Avenue is not identified for significant or early work under this program since the size and steepness of the slopes are not severe, rail traffic has not been interrupted here, and there are no significant structures on the west side of the street other than the City’s pump station. Issues related to the soils near the pump station were addressed during its last upgrade. The concept behind this project will be to improve the current geotechnical situation. The proposed pathway will effectively capture all of the rainfall hitting the path and direct it to an improved City storm drain system. This will prevent drainage from both running over the bluff and eroding the slope as well as infiltrating and wetting the soils comprising the bluff and increasing the risk of failure during any seismic activity. That is an improvement over the current conditions. Also, vehicle traffic and parking will be moved somewhat further east away from the bluff. During detailed design additional time will be spent analyzing existing soil conditions and designing improvements that are compatible with those conditions. 5) Won't a multi-use path be problematic on the West side with the bluff? Can we make the path narrower? Can we make it not multi-use? Locating a multi-use pathway on the west side of the street should reduce rather than increase potential conflicts and hazards. Much of the pedestrian traffic on the west side currently takes place on the established dirt path. That path is, of course, much narrower and even closer to the bluff than the new multi-use path would be. This is where pedestrians, strollers, wheelchairs, people with walkers, and slow-moving bicyclists will all want to be. As such, there will be less of this traffic moving along the street itself. That inherently increases safety. During detailed design additional analysis can be done to see if there is a need for any additional cross walks between those proposed for Edmonds and Bell streets and those identified on Caspers. It could be that one or two additional cross walks could further reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and increase overall safety along this route. 6) With a multi-use path on the west side, I would think a fence would be needed? It is the intent of the project to maintain a 5-foot shoulder area adjacent to the water side of the path. That is possible for all but approximately 150 feet of the 2,000+ feet of walkway along Sunset. For this section (near the low point of the street) we hope to work with the railroad to reinforce the bank to allow space for a shoulder to eliminate the need for a railing at this point. This would likely involve a short section of Mechanically Stabilized Embankment (MSE wall). It is believed BNSF would see benefit Packet Page 119 of 120 in this approach. If so, no fence or railing would be required here. There would be no need for a fence or railing on the balance of the alignment. 7) What about grant money being used on leased property? This could be an issue. It depends on the grant source whether or not this is possible. Our preference would be a direct legislative appropriation for the project. This could be part of a statewide transportation funding package or some other legislation. That would be the simplest way to get construction funding. It may also be possible, once the project has been designed, to get BNSF to add some additional lease language that could, for example, limit their ability to cancel the lease to a triggering event such as the construction of a third track. Ultimately, what is needed is a risk analysis that looks at reasons why BNSF might want to cancel a lease with the City. It would seem that construction of additional trackage is the most likely reason and the difficulties in doing that along this alignment would be much greater than any issue associated with this walkway. If they built a third track it could compromise the existence of Sunset Avenue itself, for example, and not just the walkway. If you look beyond Edmonds at the immense challenges and costs involved with building a third track landward on this coastal alignment it is clear the issues, both environmental and financial, are daunting. The second track is not even built out yet and may not be for many years. 8) What about the corner of Casper and Sunset and the continuation of the path on the north side? Enough room? There is sufficient room at the corner of Caspers and Sunset to continue the pathway around the corner onto Caspers street. At that point the design concept includes development of a shared street with a delineated at-grade walkway with a width of 8 feet out to 3rd Avenue. 9) What will happen on all of Casper for this project? See also the answer to #8 above. The “shared street” concept is envisioned to generally capture the way Caspers street operates today but marking and signing it more clearly so pedestrians and motorists better understand what the expectations are in this area. There would be two areas where a formal raised crosswalk area would be constructed. This will slow traffic and provide both the motorist and the pedestrian a signal where they should expect to meet. Different surface treatments are anticipated to help underscore this message. A lower speed limit is also expected to be established during design. Packet Page 120 of 120