The Edmonds Planning Board on Sept. 24 voted to forward the cityapital Facilities Plan (CFP) and six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to the City Council with added requests that project-ranking scores and methodologies be provided to the council and that the council consider funding parks capital-project staffing.

Board members and staff said the CFP/CIP is a planning document that does not itself appropriate money but is needed to make projects eligible for grants and future budgets. "These documents are for planning purposes, not budget documents," said Angie Pesser, Parks, Recreation and Human Services Director, during a staff presentation. "Award funding with them goes through a budget process with the Council."

Why it matters: Planning board members said the city is facing a long-standing maintenance backlog and limited staff capacity that affect whether projects listed in the CFP can be implemented. "We are currently operating right about 60% of our staff capacity, 60% of what it was in 2023," Shannon Burley, deputy director, said. Board members said the plan must be transparent about how projects were prioritized and how the city will staff and sequence work.

Board discussion and staff responses: Parks staff described deferred maintenance examples they want to prioritize, including a closed park bridge with an estimated repair cost of about $100,000 and a basketball court resurfacing that a short fix years ago has escalated to a $20,000–$30,000 job. Burley said most new park projects are being postponed and the department is prioritizing deferred maintenance and ADA compliance. She told the board the CIP includes funding to cover 90% of the salary and benefits for a capital-projects manager in parks to help execute projects: "One of the largest spending increases is funding 90% of salary and benefits for the capital projects manager who will directly work on these projects."

Public works staff summarized the transportation, utilities, facilities and wastewater elements of the CFP and described the prioritization approach used for transportation projects: scores were assigned using criteria such as safety, connections to centers and hubs, accident history and capacity. Transportation engineer Bertrand House said the updated transportation plan generated nearly 90 candidate projects and the CFP includes only the higher-priority subset (roughly 20–30 projects) for the six-year window so they can pursue grants.

The board pressed staff on funding uncertainty. Staff said early years of the CFP reflect funds already obligated or likely to be secured; later years include projects for which grant funding is anticipated but not secured. "If you don't spend them, there's ways to lose it," Public Works staff said of impact fees and grant timing. Staff also described competition for personnel and contractor capacity: engineers and contractors in the private sector often pay 30–50% more than city wages, contributing to schedule slippage.

Public testimony: Resident Theresa Hollis urged the board to accelerate the stormwater comprehensive plan and called for attention to stormwater infrastructure in the Deer Creek aquifer recharge area and for continued use of the CFP/CIP to prioritize major parks spending.

Board action: After discussion the board approved a motion to forward the CFP/CIP to council with two additions: (1) request that staff provide the underlying prioritization criteria, numerical scores and ranking results used to select and schedule projects so Council can review why projects were prioritized; and (2) recommend the council consider funding the parks capital-projects manager position and otherwise address staffing to improve delivery. The boardrecord shows the motion carried with no nays.

What the decision does not do: The planning boardaction is a recommendation to the City Council and does not appropriate funding or change budgets. Staff said appropriation of construction or staffing dollars will proceed through the council's budget process.

Looking ahead: Staff expects the CFP/CIP to be adopted by Council in the budget cycle and asked the board for additional guidance as needed. The board also requested supplemental documentation on scoring to accompany the packet sent to Council.

Ending: The board closed the public hearing and moved on to other agenda items; staff said the CFP/CIP packet going to Council will include replies to board questions and the documents generated for the meeting.