2012.03.06 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
MARCH 6, 2012
6:30 p.m. - Call to Order
1. (30 Minutes) Meet with candidates for appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission.
7:00 p.m. - Flag Salute Led by Girl Scout Troop 42215
2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda
3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. AM-4604 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012.
C. AM-4611 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 28, 2012.
D. AM-4603 Approval of claim checks #130587 through #130735 dated February 23, 2012 for
$2,296,824.25, and claim checks #130736 through #130821 dated February 29, 2012 for
$456,407.40.
E. AM-4595 Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Comcast ($423.13), and Janis Cain
($1,630.70).
F. AM-4596 Authorization for the Mayor to sign City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee Tourism
Promotion Agreement awarding the Snohomish County Visitor's Bureau $6,000 for
tourism promotion and support of visitor services to promote Edmonds.
G. AM-4597 Authorization for the Mayor to sign City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee Tourism
Promotion Agreement awarding the Edmonds Center for the Arts $10,000 to attract
visitors to Edmonds through advertising and promoting downtown Edmonds and annual
cultural events/festivals in their 2011/2012 season brochure.
Packet Page 1 of 442
H. AM-4598 Authorization for the Mayor to sign City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee Tourism
Promotion Agreement awarding the Edmonds Visitor's Center $2,500 for tourism
promotion and support of visitor services to promote Edmonds.
I. AM-4601 Proposed Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 3821 to revise the time limit provision
relating to the payment of additional compensation.
J. AM-4613 Proposed Ordinance amending the Citizens' Tree Board Ordinance; adding one
non-voting, ex-officio position to the Citizens' Tree Board to be filled by an Edmonds
City Council Member; and establishing the length of term for an appointee who has filled
a vacancy.
K. AM-4606 Confirmation of four new Historic Preservation Commission members.
4. (5 Minutes)
AM-4605
Proclamation in honor of Girl Scouts 100th Anniversary.
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
6. (60 Minutes)
AM-4602
Public hearing regarding park impact fees.
7. (5 Minutes)
AM-4607
Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Rob Chave as Acting Director of
Development Services and adoption of the proposed Ordinance adopting a
non-financial amendment to the Salary Range Appendix.
8. (30 Minutes)
AM-4608
Presentation on the Short & Long-term Budget Challenges.
9. (30 Minutes)
AM-4610
Continued discussion of proposed Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code Section
10.75.030(A)(2), Extension of Economic Development Commission Sunset Date, and
other items related to the Economic Development Commission.
10. (5 Minutes)
AM-4599
Council appointments to fill three vacancies on the Citizens Tree Board.
11. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
12. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 442
AM-4604 Item #: 3. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
02-21-12 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 03/01/2012 09:33 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2012 09:38 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/29/2012 03:48 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/01/2012
Packet Page 3 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
February 21, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Lora Petso, Council President Pro Tem
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Strom Peterson, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Sharon Cates, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would convene in executive session
regarding 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. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session.
Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto,
Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Petso and Bloom. Others present were Public Works Director Phil Williams,
City Attorney Sharon Cates, City Engineer Rob English, Finance Director Shawn Hunstock and City
Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 6:49 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER
RCW 42.30.140(4)(b) AT THE END OF THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PRO TEM PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Bloom requested Item O be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Packet Page 4 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 2
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 31, 2012.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2 AND 3, 2012.
D. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7, 2012.
E. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, 2012.
F. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #130332 THROUGH #130495 DATED FEBRUARY 9,
2012 FOR $335,303.14, AND CLAIM CHECKS #130496 THROUGH #130586 DATED
FEBRUARY 15, 2012 FOR $196,382.96. APPROVAL OF REPLACEMENT PAYROLL
CHECKS #51192 AND #51193. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
CHECKS #51194 THROUGH #51217 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH
FEBRUARY 15, 2012 FOR $619,031.55.
G. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JENNIFER DOLD
($197.34), DANIELLE LOWE-ANGELO (UNDETERMINED), AND PRECISION
EARTHWORKS ($1,000,000.00).
H. APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD,
JANUARY 2012.
I. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE A REQUEST FOR BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES FOR THE SR 99 INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT ENHANCEMENTS
PROJECT.
J. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR 226TH ST. SW WALKWAY AND
ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
K. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR DAYTON ST. CURED IN PLACE
PIPE (CIPP) STORM PIPE REHABILITATION PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF
THE PROJECT.
L. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE BNSF DOUBLE TRACK AND
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
M. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE MAIN STREET
WATERMAIN PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
N. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE SHELL VALLEY
EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
P. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH SAIC TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE
DAYTON STREET & SR104 DRAINAGE ALTERNATIVES STUDY.
R. AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE EASEMENTS FOR THE SEWER LIFT STATION
REHABILITATION PROJECT.
Packet Page 5 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 3
S. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE A REQUEST FOR BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES FOR THE TALBOT ROAD/PERRINVILLE CREEK DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS.
T. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE A REQUEST FOR BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES FOR THE 76TH AVENUE W WATERLINE INSTALLATION PROJECT.
U. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE A REQUEST FOR BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES FOR THE 2012 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
V. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT FOR CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON
COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS.
W. HUMAN RESOURCES TEMPORARY STAFFING PROPOSAL.
ITEM O: AUTHORIZATION FOR ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING OF A NEW SANITARY
SEWER EASEMENT AND ABANDONMENT OF AN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT AT 620 SUNSET AVENUE.
Councilmember Bloom explained she had questions regarding the content and the process. With regard to
content, she observed this is the release of an easement and the granting of an easement. It was her
understanding the proposed house will be built on top of the sewer line. She asked staff to explain what
that meant and why that was determined to be the best option. Public Works Director Phil Williams
responded this item is the release of an existing sewer easement at 620 Sunset Avenue and
reestablishment of a new easement on that lot. He provided the history, explaining there is a gravity sewer
line that extends from the manhole on Caspers Street parallel to Sunset Avenue and through the backyards
of approximately 5-7 properties. That line intersects another gravity line from the east which then flows to
Sunset Avenue where it enters the City’s right-of-way and into the gravity main. An easement for this
section of gravity sewer line through the residential properties was recorded in 1950. Over the years the
easement has been encroached on throughout its length by buildings and temporary and not-so-temporary
structures built over it and adjacent to it. It would be very difficult to maintain the line from the surface.
This property is at the northern end, the second lot from Caspers. The owner of the property seeks to
extensively remodel and add on to the house and build a 2-story garage. The property owner is not the
only one who has built over the sewer line along its length but he is asking the City’s permission to do so.
Mr. Williams acknowledged this typically would not be seen as a positive step but the City entered into
discussions with the property owner as early as June 2007 when he initially inquired. The City’s former
Public Works Director had discussions with the property owner and responded in writing in December
2007 stating the concept was feasible and identifying the circumstances under which it would be possible.
This included an elaborate sewer line design under the building. Subsequently that project was suspended
for several years, likely due to the economy, and during the last 18 months the property owner has
expressed interest in moving forward with the project.
Staff has negotiated a detailed design with the property owner to include a 30-inch ductal iron sleeve
under the entire building into which a new section of sewer line, made of high density polyethylene,
would be placed at a considerable depth below the structure. Two manholes would also be constructed,
one replacing an existing manhole and one new manhole on the north side of the building to provide
access. The property owner is also providing the City an easement along his driveway from Sunset to
reach the rear of the property and the manhole with a vactor truck. This will all be done at the property
owner’s expense. For all those reasons, staff believes it is a reasonable compromise although Mr.
Williams indicated it was not an ideal situation.
Packet Page 6 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 4
Councilmember Bloom clarified the property owner was paying for all of it and other than staff time,
there were no other costs to the City. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember Bloom asked whether there
would be any increased cost for maintenance as a result of the sewer line under a building. Mr. Williams
answered no, maintenance responsibilities can be fulfilled via access to the two manholes.
Councilmember Plunkett observed this would be a benefit to the property owner. Mr. Williams answered
yes, it will facilitate construction of the property owner’s proposed project. Councilmember Plunkett
pointed out the property owner is Mike Echelbarger; Mr. Echelbarger as well as the City will benefit from
the sewer line. Mr. Williams explained the City receives a new section of sewer line, albeit it has a
structure on top, but it is an upgrade to the quality of the sewer pipe.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether this would set a precedent. Mr. Williams answered he did
not believe so; this is not something the City would normally do and each request would be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis. The City would need to determine that any project would be engineered in a manner
that it would be long lasting and would not create maintenance issues; this proposal meets that standard.
To that extent there is some limited precedent, that the City could not say no out-of-hand but would
consider proposals on a case-by-case basis.
Councilmember Plunkett recused himself from this item. Although this is beneficial to the City, it is also
beneficial to Mr. Echelbarger. Mr. Echelbarger contributed $100 to his previous City Council campaign.
Council President Pro Tem Petso asked for confirmation that this was not setting a precedent. City
Attorney Sharon Cates answered the circumstances of this case are unusual enough that it would not set a
precedent for the future. Mr. Williams explained the current sewer line is in a very difficult place. Even
before the remodel and the addition of the garage, the sewer line runs through this and several other
backyards and it would be very difficult to access the line from the surface. If the sewer line needed to be
replaced in the future, it would likely not be replaced in its current location but would be relocated to
Sunset Avenue. That project is not on the City’s CIP nor is it necessary at this time. It would be nearly
impossible to build a sewer line in the current location through that area.
With regard to process, Councilmember Bloom referred to Section 20.70 which addresses utility
easements, noting part of the process of a vacation of a utility easement is a public hearing. She asked the
City Attorney to explain the difference between a release of a utility easement and vacation of an
easement. Ms. Cates clarified ECC Chapter 20.70 references street vacation which includes vacation of
public rights-of-way that are streets, alleys and public easements; rights-of-way that are used for travel
and access to properties. If the City decides to vacate an easement or a portion of an easement or if
property owners whose property align the right-of-way make application for a vacation, then the process
in this chapter would be followed. A public hearing would be held to ensure other property owners with
an interest in the easement have an opportunity to provide input before the City Council makes its
decision.
Ms. Cates explained when Chapter 20.70.000, the purpose section, addresses vacation of streets, alleys
and public easements, it is talking about public rights-of-way used for travel and access. Utility easements
are different in that they are generally granted to the City by private property owners, a contractual
arrangement between the City and the private property owner. When a determination is made that the City
no longer needs the easement or has not used the easement for a number of years, the property owner can
record an abandonment of easement with the County Auditor showing a sufficient period of non-use. In
this agenda item, an easement is being replaced with another easement for the sake of clarity. The City
and the private property owner have come to a contractual agreement to release the previous easement
and grant a replacement easement.
Packet Page 7 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 5
Councilmember Bloom referred to Section 20.70.030, City easement rights for public utilities and
services, and asked how vacation of a public utility was different from release of a public utility. Ms.
Cates answered this section refers to vacation of a street or alley where there is a utility easement within
the right-of-way and the City wishes to retain the utility easement.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether release of an easement is addressed in the City’s code. Ms. Cates
answered the code addresses the vacation of a public easement with regard to travel and access. She did
not find anything in the code regarding the release of utility easements or other types of easements. That
is appropriate as the City has procedures for dealing with contractual arrangements such as release of a
utility easement. The Council could choose to add procedures for release of utility easements to the code.
Observing there is nothing in the code regarding release of a utility easement, Councilmember Bloom
asked how a determination is made to bring it to Council. Ms. Cates answered because the powers of the
City Council are to be exercised in the acquisition, abandonment and disposition of property, any time the
City enters into an easement it would come before the City Council for approval.
Councilmember Bloom asked why it was necessary to have the release of an easement and the granting of
an easement in the same document. Ms. Cates answered because the original easement was granted in
1950 and the release and grant of the new easement was from the same property owner, it was clearer to
keep it in the same document. Mr. Williams stated that a 10-foot easement on the south property line was
being added. That will allow for utility equipment access from Sunset Avenue on the owner’s proposed
driveway to the manhole on the south side of the property. That easement did not previously exist. It was
felt the easiest way was to have the release and easement in one document.
Council President Pro Tem Petso clarified the reason the public easement in the code sections referenced
by Councilmember Bloom did not apply to this situation was the title of that chapter was streets. Ms.
Cates answered the title and context of that code section appears to relate to public easements of travel
and access. Although the terminology is public easement, taken in the context, her reading of it was that it
applied to travel and access easements and not utility easements.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ITEM O. MOTION CARRIED (4-0). (Councilmember Plunkett did
not participate in the vote).
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, asked about the $600,000 over-budget expenditure on the Haines Wharf Park
project. With regard to the change in the start time of City Council meetings, Mr. Rutledge suggested
reviewing attendance at Council meetings over the past two years. He suggested holding one of the
Council meetings each month at 2:00 p.m.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reported he attended the February 15 Economic Development Commission
(EDC) meeting where the majority of the meeting was regarding the University of Washington
representatives discussing their study. Observing that there were several Planning Board Members present
at the EDC meeting, he preferred that discussion occur at the Planning Board. He envisioned Planning
Board Members would be forming opinions at the EDC meeting and may have already made up their
mind by the time a public hearing was held at the Planning Board. He also observed the public did not
have an opportunity to provide input during the discussion at the EDC meeting. Next, he referred to the
aquatics study that did not consider the old Woodway High School site. It was his understanding that
Marla Miller, Edmonds School District, was opposed to swimming pools. He suggested future
discussions include the old Woodway High School as a site for a swimming pool.
Packet Page 8 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 6
5. DISCUSSION REGARDING CHANGE IN START TIME OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained her interest in considering a change in the start time of
Council meetings was due to the late hour that Council meetings have been concluding which make it
difficult to concentrate/focus. She summarized if Council meetings started earlier, they may conclude
earlier.
Council President Pro Tem Petso commented starting Council meetings earlier and having executive
sessions before the meeting would make it difficult for Councilmembers to attend meetings. Given the
number of lengthy executive sessions the Council has had recently, she was concerned with holding a one
hour executive session before a 6:00 p.m. meeting. She was uncertain whether a 5:00 p.m. executive
session would be convenient for consultants who may attend executive sessions.
Councilmember Yamamoto supported changing the start time of Council meetings. He suggested
audience comments also be scheduled at the beginning of Council meetings. Subsequent agenda items
would then likely occur at an appropriate time for consultants to be present. He suggested the Council
could try a 6:00 p.m. start time and change back to a 7:00 p.m. start time if it did not work well.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed an earlier start time may be inconvenient for citizens who
regularly attend meetings. She supported continuing to consider an earlier start time. If the intent is an
earlier end to meetings, she commented the length of agendas could be reduced. However, reducing the
agenda would also prolong the process. She summarized at 10:00, 11:00, or 12:00 p.m., Councilmembers
are not at 100% after a 3-5 hour meeting.
Councilmember Bloom echoed Council President Pro Tem Petso’s concern, finding it unreasonable to
expect that Councilmembers would have time to have dinner before attending a 5:00 p.m. executive
session. She preferred to retain the existing meeting start time. She also felt a 7:00 p.m. start time allowed
citizens time to get home from work, have dinner, and attend the Council meeting; a 6:00 p.m. start time
would make that more difficult for working citizens.
Council President Pro Tem Petso agreed with Councilmember Yamamoto that the Council could try a
6:00 p.m. start time.
6. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 13 AND 14, 2012.
Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported most of the items discussed by the committee were approved
on tonight’s consent agenda. She highlighted the following:
• Discussion on urban farming – those involved in urban planning will make a presentation to the
City Council and the Planning Board
• Authorization to advertise the SR99 International District Enhancement project
• Report on final construction costs for Dayton Street Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP) Storm Pipe
Rehabilitation Project and acceptance of the project
Finance Committee
Councilmember Yamamoto reported staff provided a General Fund update and the committee discussed
budgeting by priorities.
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
Councilmember Plunkett reported Mayor Earling made a presentation to the committee regarding the
reorganization of the Human Resources Department which the committee endorsed and it was approved
Packet Page 9 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 21, 2012
Page 7
on the consent agenda. The committee also interviewed five applicants for the Council appointed position
on the Citizens’ Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials and selected Brent Hunter.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported staff has been in contact with Mike Bailey, Finance Director, Redmond,
regarding providing a presentation on budgeting by priorities. Mr. Bailey will speak to the Council at
either a workshop or a Council meeting in March.
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported a number of programs operate out of the old Woodway High
School building including the home resource center for homeschooled children, the alternative high
school, pre-vocational training for people with intellectual disabilities ages 15-18 and the vocational
training program VOICE for people with intellectual disabilities ages 18-21. She assured all the buildings
at the old Woodway High School site are utilized by Edmonds School District programs; the buildings are
not vacant waiting for ball fields or a swimming pool.
9. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER RCW
42.30.140(4)(b).
At 7:41 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would convene in executive session
regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). 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. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session.
Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling and Councilmembers Yamamoto,
Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Sharon Cates, Police
Chief Al Compaan, Human Resources Consultant Tara Adams, and City Clerk Sandy Chase.
At 8:20 p.m., City Clerk Sandy Chase announced in the Council Chambers that an additional 15 minutes
would be needed in executive session. The executive session concluded at 8:31 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 8:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Packet Page 10 of 442
AM-4611 Item #: 3. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 28, 2012.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
02-28-12 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 03/01/2012 01:09 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2012 01:39 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 03/01/2012 09:50 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/01/2012
Packet Page 11 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
February 28, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ECON. DEV. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Stacy Gardea
Don Hall
Darrol Haug
Beatrice O’Rourke
Rich Senderoff
Bruce Witenberg
Marianne Zagorski
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Phil Lovell (Chair)
Valerie Stewart (Vice Chair)
Kristiana Johnson
Neil Tibbott
John Reed
William Ellis (Alternate)
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director/Acting
Human Resources Director
Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir.
Carl Nelson, CIO
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant
Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Military Veterans Promotion
Mayor Earling announced tomorrow at noon at City Hall the merchants and Operation Military Family
are launching a year-long program, Military Veterans Promotion, to honor and support veterans via
special promotions and discounts provided by merchants. This program is being launched in Edmonds
with the intent of taking it nationally. Edmonds is challenging mayors in other cities in Snohomish
County, across the state and the nation to participate in the program. Evening Magazine visited the City
today and will air a segment on Military Veterans Promotion tomorrow; several media sources will attend
the kickoff. He invited the community to the kickoff.
1. CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING BOARD AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION:
EDMONDS STRATEGIC PLAN & VISIONING RETREAT #3
Mayor Earling recognized Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton and
Executive Assistant Cindi Cruz for their efforts on the Strategic Plan.
Packet Page 12 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 2
Mr. Clifton welcomed everyone to the Strategic Planning and Visioning Retreat #3. He explained the City
Council, with the assistance of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Planning Board,
initiated a process last year to develop a strategic plan and vision for the city. With the help of community
input, the strategic plan will identify short and mid-term community based priorities, goals and objectives,
in addition to outlining specific methods to achieve them. A plan adopted by the City Council later this
year will also identify performance measures to ensure that the strategic plan’s goals will be realized and
identify those who will be responsible for implementing them. An adopted plan can also be used as a
decision making tool by the City Council for focusing financial resources on key priorities.
Public opinions and priorities are an important part of the strategic planning process. Consequently, the
process calls for the consultant team to conduct a series of interviews and surveys and community
meetings to obtain the opinions of citizens, business owners, employees, retail customers, young adults,
and government officials. These surveys, interviews and community meetings provide opportunities for
the public to contribute ideas and share their priorities, thus helping influence the City’s future. The
following has occurred to date:
• Tom Beckwith and Steve Price, Beckwith Consulting Group, have conducted interviews with the
City’s last and current mayors, recent City Councilmembers, and each Department Director.
• Surveys are ongoing and links to internet-based surveys have been posted on the front page of the
City’s new website, EdmondsWa.gov. Internet-based surveys include adult, youth, employee and
customer. With the help of EDC Commissioner Don Hall, hard copies of customer surveys have been
handed out to many business owners in commercial areas throughout the City. Anyone lacking
internet access may call Mr. Clifton’s office at (425) 775-7724 to request a hardcopy of any survey.
• Hard copy business surveys were inserted in over 1,800 business license renewal notices mailed in
December, 2011. The survey letter included an invitation for all employees to take an internet
employee survey.
• In order to notify/inform as much of the public as possible of the availability of surveys, a press
release was also issued, a notice posted on the City’s government channel, and links posted on the
front page of online newspapers such as My Edmonds News, Edmonds Patch, Edmonds KOMO 4
News, Edmonds Beacon. The City also sent out an email to 11,000 City residents last week.
• To date, 590 people have taken the adult survey, up from 419 at Retreat #2.
• Eighteen stakeholder focus group meetings were held with 80 participants. Examples of focus groups
include the Senior Center, waterfront, downtown, Westgate, Perrinville, Five Corners, Firdale
Village, arts groups, young adults and education, environmental interests, businesses groups,
transportation, two sessions where individuals were invited.
• The agenda for Retreat #3 has been posted on the front page of the City’s website and the City’s
Strategic Planning and Visioning webpages.
Mr. Clifton introduced Tom Beckwith, Eric Hovee and Steve Price, Beckwith Consulting Group, to
present information for Retreat #3.
Mr. Beckwith explained the information presented at this retreat would be divided into five parts:
1. State of Washington cities 2005-2010
2. State of Edmonds 2001-2021
3. Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO)
4. Status Report on focus group sessions and surveys
5. Outline of public charrette process and agenda
State of Washington Cities
Mr. Beckwith explained this is a series of reports done by the Association of Washington Cities (AWC)
and National League of Cities. The purpose of presenting this information is to provide a context of what
is affecting cities in general and particularly in Washington State and their ability to develop fiscal
Packet Page 13 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 3
strategies. He explained AWC conducted surveys in 2005, 2009 and 2010. The content was most
comprehensive in 2005. The 2009 and 2010 surveys updated summary issues to current economic
conditions.
Mr. Beckwith reviewed the following information:
Services cities provide*
Mandatory Discretionary
Public safety – police, fire, planning
and permitting, municipal court
Parks – creation, maintenance, and operations
Streets – maintenance and operations Recreation – for youth, adults, and seniors
Utilities – sewer, water, and storm
drainage
Arts and culture – historical, fine and performing
arts, and civic activities
General administration – of the
above
Library – typically part of a branch system
* The mandatory/discretionary categories were AWC classifications based on RCW definitions in 2005.
The AWC 2009 survey redefined the classifications based on city input to add “Essential Services” which
included parks and recreation and economic development.
How cities measure performance with regard to public safety
Service Level of service % of Budget
Public Safety Response time, patrol level, traffic control, property
surveillance, animal control, officer/population ratio, 24 hour
staffing
43%
Streets Sidewalks, street lighting, traffic signals, signage, and increased
maintenance
23%
Parks and Planning Manicured lawns, paved parking, irrigation, restrooms,
recreation programs, enforcement, current plans and projects
20%
Public Works Centrally-treated water supply, sewer systems, curbside refuse
collection
n/a
What pressures are impacting cities? (2005)
Primary Discretionary
Unfunded mandates – from state and federal
government
Downtown vitality – big box and internet retail,
absentee or disinterested landlords, aging and
outmoded structures and land uses
Budget conditions – lack of revenue and revenue
raising options
Affordable housing – costs beyond what critical
skills (police, fire, teachers) can pay
Infrastructure – aging and deteriorating streets, roads,
utilities, and buildings
General economic conditions – jobs and
employment opportunities for all citizens of all
ages and skills
Staff benefits – cost of health insurance and pensions
How bad is it? (2009)
U.S. Impacts Washington city problems
Worst economic turmoil since the Great Depression Operating budget revenues are not sufficient to
support level of services required to meet federal
and state mandates, citizen expectations, and
community priorities
Burst of a nation-wide housing bubble Aging infrastructure systems inadequate to meet
current needs of businesses and residents, or
Packet Page 14 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 4
sustain and attract growth
Sky-rocketing infrastructure material costs, health
insurance, and volatile energy costs
What have cities been doing about impacts?
Reactive Proactive
Delaying maintenance – including cyclical or life
cycle to the point of deterioration
Economic development – promoting retail,
office, industrial, and other nonresidential
property and sales tax bases
Delaying capital investments – including new or
replacement utilities, facilities, and equipment
Increasing user fees and charges – for utilities,
recreation, permits, licenses, and other services
Reducing programs – including recreation, library,
and other services
Adopting new (dedicated) revenue sources – real
estate excise taxes (REET), transportation benefit
districts (TBD), public facility districts (PFD),
business improvement districts (BID)
Cutting staff – not filling planning, parks, public
works, police, fire, and other functions
Increasing taxes – resetting property tax,
increasing sales tax, levy lid lifts, special
maintenance and operating levies
Using reserves – tapping rainy day and emergency
reserve funds
What do US cities expect in future? (2005)
Worse financial condition than 5 years ago 73%
Conditions will be worse next year 73%
Conditions will worsen in next 5 years 82%
Factors cited by cites:
• Narrowing of tax base as economy transitions to a service base
• Technology shifts to internet sales and other uncollectible forms
• Tax limiting initiatives
• Increased service demands on cities
What are WA cities negative budget influences (2005)?
Tax limiting voter initiatives 61%
Cost of employee health benefits 56%
Infrastructure needs 33%
Amount of state aid to city - declining 29%
State and federal unfunded mandates 18%
Inadequate/declining sales tax base 17%
Mr. Beckwith anticipated if the survey were done today, the same factors would be cited but not
necessarily in that order. The issues most cities would cite today would be sales tax base and lack of state
and federal monetary assistance.
What are Washington cities positive budget influences? (2005)
Availability of reserves 44%
Reliance on user fees 43%
Growing property tax base 39%
Growing city sales tax revenues 36%
Healthy local economy 21%
Business and economic development 20%
Packet Page 15 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 5
What have Washington cities done about tax limiting initiatives?(2005)
Tapped reserves 54%
Increased user fees 46%
Eliminated staff positions 39%
Reduced services 30%
Adopted new user fees 17%
Used service alternatives 13%
Eliminated services 12%
What are Washington cities’ sources of revenue? (2009)
General property tax* 22%
Sales and use taxes* 21%
Business and utility taxes 21%
Interest and investment earnings 10%
Intergovernmental revenues* 9%
Charges and fees for services 7%
Other local taxes 6%
Licenses and permits 4%
*effected by recession and/or initiatives
What are Washington cities revenue limitations? (2009)
Unrestricted revenues Restricted revenues
Property taxes (I-747 1% limitation), can be reset via
voter approved levy lid lift on either a permanent basis
or for a special purpose
Gas tax
Basic and optional sales tax Impact fees
Business and utility taxes Criminal justice sales tax
Lodging tax
What are WA cities share of property taxes?(average Washington city 2009)
$0.13 City share
$0.16 junior taxing districts
$0.17 County
$0.22 State
$0.32 Local schools
What are Washington cities share of sales tax? (based on city sales tax average of
8%)
$0.0085 City share
$0.0015 County share
$0.0050 Local option (cities, counties, etc.)
$0.0650 State
What are US and WA cities conditions in 2010?
U.S. Washington
Improved 7% 5%
No change 18% 21%
Worsened 75% 74%
Packet Page 16 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 6
What are Washington cities doing in 2011 to services as a result?
2009 Washington cities’ service cuts
• Infrastructure 50%
• Public Safety 24%
2011 Washington cities service cuts
• Infrastructure 54%
• Public Safety 45%
What are Washington Cities doing in 2010 to staff as a result?
Washington cities’ 2011 efforts to control personnel costs:
Eliminating salary increases 75%
Imposing travel/training restrictions 65%
Hiring freezes 60%
Increasing health costs 60%
Laying off employees 50%
What are the red flags and what do you do as a result?
AWC’s 15 red flag checklist: (if exceed more than four flags, city has a problem)
5 City has limited economic development options
6 One-time revenues not sufficient to manage long term consequences
10 Growing expenses from mandatory programs with few discretionary programs left to cut
11 City is heavily dependent on property taxes for basic services
12 Annual expenses outpacing revenue
13 City has declining unrestricted fund balance
14 Limited capital for new facilities and significant deferred maintenance
6-10 flag response:
1 Need long range financial planning that includes analysis of potential impacts to service
levels
2 Identify new sources and potential partners
3 Communicate with citizens about potential impacts on services
State of Edmonds
Mr. Beckwith explained some of the information is from the City’s annual financial statement. The
projections through 2016 were recently updated by the Finance Department. He reviewed the following:
• Edmonds governmental revenue sources in 2009
o Taxes (property and sales) – 69%
o Licenses and permits – 4%
o Intergovernmental – 13%
o Charges for services – 10%
o Fines and forfeitures – 2%
o Other revenue – 3%
• Edmonds tax composition in 2009:
o Property Tax – 51.8%
o Sales and use – 18.4%
o Utility – 22.6%
o Excise – 5.6%
o Other – 1.3%
o Lodging – 0.3%
Packet Page 17 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 7
Mr. Beckwith provided graphs of Edmonds’ property tax rate 2000-2012. Property tax rate includes
bonds, EMS and regular property. The rate is going up as a result of EMS passage and to retain 1%
revenue growth as assessed value declined. He reviewed a graph of revenue and expenditures 2001-2010
and total fund balances – governmental funds 2001-2010. Governmental funds include General Fund,
special revenue funds, debt service funds, and capital project funds. He pointed out that while total
revenues have increased over the past 10 years, expenditures are growing faster than revenues. Total fund
balances have been kept stable by issuing debt and transferring in monies from other funds, one time
actions that are not sustainable.
Mr. Beckwith reviewed a graph of projections 2009-2021 (includes $1.3 million Public Safety Reserve
but not $1.927 million Reserve). By year 2021, the General Fund will be depleted. Changing growth rates
on any of the revenue sources will only change the timing of when depletion occurs. For example, if $1
million in new revenue were added in 2013, the ending fund balance would be depleted in 2017 rather
than 2016. A balanced approach requires involving revenue enhancements, cost reductions, and
temporary use of fund balance.
Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO)
BFO has been implemented by Washington State, Snohomish County, Redmond and Bellevue. BFO is
also called Priority-Driven Budgeting (PDB) or Budgeting by Priority (BP) or Performance Based
Budgeting (PBB).
How is BFO different?
Traditional Budgeting BFO
Budgeting begins with: Last year’s budget Community
Focuses on: Cost of services Value of services
Is organized by: Department Priority
Encourages: Low risk “same as before approach New ideas, innovation, cooperation
and improvement
Motivation: Be fair to all, avoid pain Get the best results that match
priorities
How do budget roles change with BFO?
Traditional Budgeting BFO
Departments Build up costs, make cuts
difficult
Link expenditures to results and priorities
Analysis Find unnecessary costs Improve links between results and services.
Facilitate department cooperation. Identify efficiencies.
Elected Officials Cut costs or raise taxes Choose services that provide results citizens are willing
to pay for
Citizens Rally behind special
interests
Help determine priorities
Motivation Be fair to all, avoid pain Get the best results that match priorities
Tasks involved in BFO:
Task Result
1 Identify available resources A common understanding about the maximum amount of
resources available to fund operations, one-time initiatives,
and capital expenditures
2 Identify priorities A set of priorities that are expressed in measurable results that
are of value to the public and are widely agreed to be
legitimate
Packet Page 18 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 8
3 Define priority results Reveal Edmonds identity and the objective meaning of what is
relevant
4 4 Evaluate services against priority
results
Inventory current and proposed programs compared to the
priority results
5 5 Score proposals against priority
results
Evaluate proposed programs and projects for their ability to
achieve priority results
6 6 Compare scores Rank order proposals based on their results
7 7 Allocate resources* Fund proposals according to rank order to the extent allowable
with maximum amount of resources
*BFO allocations subject to final City Council resolution
Mr. Beckwith assured this process was not done independent of elected officials or of citizens. A
community process establishes priorities and measured benchmarks. Ultimately the City Council
determines how resources match priorities and benchmarks.
What BFO tasks will be completed in this strategic plan?
BFO Task Strategic Plan Task
1 Identify available resources Internal scan – retreat #2 Jan/Feb 2012
2 Identify priorities Surveys - retreat #3 February 2012
Charrette – retreat #4 March 2012
Survey voter households – retreat #6 May 2012
3 Define priority results City Council 2014 budget process
4 Evaluate services against priority results City Council 2014 budget process
5 Score proposals against priority results City Council 2014 budget process
6 Compare scores City Council 2014 budget process
7 Allocate resources City Council 2014 budget process
With regard to how the strategic plan will define priorities, Mr. Beckwith provided example priorities
from Bellevue and Redmond such as clean and green environment and a sample statement such as “I want
to live, learn work and play in a clean and green environment.” Edmonds’ priorities will be identified
from the focus group sessions; surveys of employees, customers and students; and the charette.
With regard to how the strategic plan will define results, he provided an example priority such as green
environment and example results such as when Edmonds plans and designs the city’s growth to minimize
emissions, energy usage and other environmental impacts. A sample charette question could be, we
achieve a clean and green environment when…(fill in the blank with the result definitions).
With regard to how the strategic plan will measure progress, Mr. Beckwith provided a sample priority
such as green environment and example benchmarks such as percent of city with overhead tree canopy.
Mr. Beckwith responded to questions:
• Do cities develop specific benchmarks for specific business districts within the city? Yes,
Edmonds could have different benchmarks for Highway 99, Westgate, downtown, around the
hospital, etc. Benchmarks must be unique to the city and what it wants to achieve.
• How do you balance priorities and benchmarks based on what you know about revenues? Do you
determine priorities and then base benchmarks on current economics or forecast? It is a parallel
process. The first step is determining resources under present the financial situation or maximum
revenue. Then focus is on priorities, what you want to achieve (without considering cost), how to
measure what you want to achieve, and then as progress through tasks, determine cost to achieve
that benchmark. As to ranking priorities, determine how it affects maximum revenue. If it
Packet Page 19 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 9
exceeds revenue, determine whether reduce/change of priorities or change benchmarks to fit
maximum resource limits.
• Do you ever look at forecasted revenues or expenditures? Yes, that is part of the first task. Also
done in priorities; for example if you want job production on Hwy 99, what does it cost to get
there, how long will it take and what expenditure level would be required to reach goal. For
example increasing employment will be related to development activity which will be related to
increased property value which will generate property revenue. There are also voluntary
programs that do not involve governmental expenditure.
• BFO requires identifying resources and then identifying priorities. As priorities change year to
year, are funds reallocated? The City still must recognize unrestricted/restricted revenue sources.
BFO is a transition to an entirely different way of operating.
Status Report of Focus Groups and Surveys
Mr. Beckwith reviewed participation in outreach events, noting there was no participation at the focus
groups from Highway 99 or developers.
Participation in outreach events
Focus groups 18 subject/interest group sessions involving 80 participants
Adult residents 590 adult residents thus far
Business owners 214 business owners thus far
Employees 70 employee surveys thus far
Retail customers 312 customers thus far
Young adults 32 young adults thus far
Chamber survey 82 members participated in Oct 2011survey
Mr. Price commented Edmonds has an incredible resource in the community; the citizens they met during
the focus groups have a lot of energy, dedication, good ideas, and willingness to help address issues on
community wide basis. That will also be seen in charrette.
Mr. Beckwith advised adult, business owner, employee, retail customer and young adult surveys are still
active and receiving responses at EdmondsWa.gov. They will continue to accept surveys until there is a
week without any response. The only group where there has not been an increase in participation is young
adults.
Emerging priorities and issues
Priorities Key issues
1 Environment Sustainability, low to no impact, native habitat, community gardens,
food production
2 Economic development Employment, Highway 99, Antique Mall, Westgate, fiber optics,
approval process, business recruitment
3 Community development Mixed use requirements, waterfront/downtown linkage, diversity of age,
income, housing, jobs, don’t want to lose Edmonds’ unique qualities
4 Arts & culture Marketing arts and culture, economic impacts and relationships,
wayfinding and gateways, 4th Ave corridor, ECA strategic plan, fine arts
gallery
5 Parks and Recreation Yost Pool, Civic Field, Senior Center, aging facilities, public restrooms,
underused shoreline, follow thorough (implementing parks plan), trail
linkages
6 Transportation Pavement conditions, transit services – bus and rail, non-motorized
roadways, trails, funding
7 Safety Coal train impacts
Packet Page 20 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 10
8 Governance Fiscal strategy, transparency, integrating districts-neighborhoods with
basin, entrenched positions, utilizing nongovernmental entities
Mr. Beckwith remarked Edmonds has more organizational talent than they have seen anywhere; the issue
is how to put it work.
Public Charrette Process and Agenda
The charrettes will be held:
Date Time Location
Wednesday, March 14 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Edmonds Community College Conference Center –
4th & Bell
Monday, March 19 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. Plaza Room, Edmonds Library
Each facility has a maximum seating capacity, therefore, participants must sign up in advance to reserve a
space and receive agenda materials. The charrettes will be facilitated by members of the consultant team
and City staff. Mr. Beckwith encouraged Councilmembers to attend charrettes but not participate in small
group activities.
Charrette workshop process:
Sequence Purpose
Introduction Review purpose, advance materials, outline process, disperse into
small groups (12-20) to work with facilitators.
Like/dislike exercise Each group will identify characteristics they like and dislike (need
improvement) then rank order the needs improvement issues.
Brainstorm mandatory 4 topics Each group will identify the desired end state or result they would
like to see for the mandatory topic; then define required actions to
realize the result including responsible parties; then define
performance measures or benchmarks by which to measure
progress.
Brainstorm optional topic Each group can continue brainstorming working on highest ranked
improvement issue from the like/dislike exercise.
Rank order all priorities at public
open house
Charrette workshop participants and anyone else interested will
reconvene on Wednesday 2 May in the Plaza Room to critique and
rank order a composite list of priority end results, required actions,
responsible parties, and performance measures.
Staff and the consultant will follow the same process for all identified priority topics that cannot be
brainstormed in a time-limited public session for a public review and critique at the May open house.
Example brainstorming topics
Elements Illustrative example for typical parks priority
Desired end state or result Access to quality open spaces, parks, and trails
Required actions An action plan that integrates and plans public, school,
nonprofit, and private resources into a unified, cohesive, and
publicly accessible park and trails network.
Responsible parties City, county, state, port, school district, college, hospital,
community organizations, homeowners associations, …
Performance measure or benchmark Every neighborhood has access to a park and trail within a 0.5
mile radius.
Packet Page 21 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 11
If the strategic plan is to be representative it must define the desired end state through performance
measures or benchmarks for every priority identified from the public outreach events. If the Strategic Plan
is to be effective it must rank order the resulting priorities with the public and elected officials in the
subsequent open house, internet, and voter registration surveys. Mr. Beckwith clarified low priorities are
not necessarily eliminated; they may be achieved in a different fashion.
Mr. Beckwith responded to questions:
• Were there participants from Westgate, Firdale in the focus groups? Yes, but due to the snow,
there were only 3-4.
• Will there be outreach to get people from Hwy 99, etc. to attend the charrette? The outreach list
for Hwy 99 and developers was quite short. Typically if someone does not usually participate in
the process, they will not attend the charrette but they will come to an open house. Everyone who
took the survey provided an email; they will all receive invitations. Mr. Clifton explained
invitations will be sent to all 18 stakeholder groups inviting them to the charrette. If they do not
attend the charrette, they will be sent an invitation to the open house.
• If the City adopts BFO, how do you poll the public regarding priorities in subsequent years?
Most cities who have implemented BFO cannot update the strategic plan every year. There is
usually a six year update and an annual community survey. Council will revisit priorities via the
budgetary process. Councilmember Buckshnis explained if BFO is adopted, the City will change
to a biannual budget due to the amount of effort necessary to create the budget.
• What percentage of the available respondents is the number of adults that responded to the
survey? Do not have that information.
• Who will conduct and facilitate the charrette? The consultant and staff, two per table, one a
facilitator and the other a scribe to record information.
• When is Redmond’s Finance Director planning to describe BFO to the City Council? Mayor
Earling answered a workshop is being scheduled.
• Will Department Directors be involved in BFO workshop? Mayor Earling answered he always
respects questions from directors.
• Will there be any female facilitators? Yes, there will be two.
With regard to where do we go from here, on behalf of the City Council, EDC and Planning Board, Mr.
Clifton urged the public to attend the charrettes in March; their input is definitely wanted. Over the past
few months many people with interest in the City’s future have been participating in this process. Some
have met one-on-one with the consultants, others have participated in focus groups. The next phase in the
community wide strategic and vision process is the charrettes on March 14 and 19. All citizens, property
owners, and business owners are invited to participate in this community wide conversation. The
charrettes will be held:
• Wednesday, March 14, the Edmonds Conference Center (4th & Bell)
• Monday, March 19, 6:30 – 8:30 p.m., in the Library Plaza Room (650 Main Street)
To anyone asking themselves what does this have to do with me, Mr. Clifton explained input obtained
from the charrette will be used to help identify and develop community priorities and strategic policies,
performance measures and work programs. This is a time for Edmonds residents to come together and
help set the course for the next 3-5 and 5-10 years and help shape the preparation of a resulting strategic
plan. The plan will be used as a roadmap that will help influence city priorities, infrastructure decisions,
approach to growth, the types of services and programs to be offered by City government, etc. The
strategic plan will be used as a guide for decision making that affects everyone on a daily basis.
Mr. Clifton urged the community to lend their time and voice to the effort; a 2-hour commitment to share
their views, concerns, priorities for the City, and ideas for keeping the City moving forward in a positive
Packet Page 22 of 442
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 28, 2012
Page 12
direction. From the chorus of citizens’ voices, trends and priorities will begin to emerge which later this
year will be used to set out a new program of goals and initiatives called the Edmonds Strategic Plan.
Mr. Clifton reiterated the meeting rooms hold 150-200 people. It is important for citizens to sign up by
calling Cindi Cruz at (425) 775-7724 or send an email to StrategicPlan@EdmondsWa.gov. Citizens
providing their email address will allow the City to create a database to facilitate emailing materials prior
to the charrettes. The first page of the City’s webpage, EdmondsWa.gov, also has a link to the above
email address.
Mayor Earling referred to Mr. Beckwith’s comment that Edmonds has a very engaged community and his
implication that Edmonds has many smart people. He urged the public to sign up and to attend one of the
charrettes. A 64% voter turnout means the community is engaged; the City needs to hear from them and
that can best be done by their participating in the charrettes. There have been 1100-1200 surveys
completed; he urged the public to continue to complete surveys.
2. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
Packet Page 23 of 442
AM-4603 Item #: 3. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #130587 through #130735 dated February 23, 2012 for $2,296,824.25, and
claim checks #130736 through #130821 dated February 29, 2012 for $456,407.40.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
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:2012
Revenue:
Expenditure:2,753,231.65
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $2,753,231.65
Attachments
Claim Checks 2-23-12
Claim Checks 2-29-12
Project Numbers 2-29-12
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 02/29/2012 03:54 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/29/2012 03:58 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/01/2012 09:33 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2012 09:38 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 02/29/2012 02:29 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/01/2012
Packet Page 24 of 442
Packet Page 25 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130587 2/23/2012 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 303517 1-13992
PEST CONTROL
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 69.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.56
Total :75.56
130588 2/23/2012 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9124 Monthly Wholesale Charges fo
Monthly Wholesale Charges fo
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 99,737.52
Total :99,737.52
130589 2/23/2012 065568 ALLWATER INC 020912034 020912034
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 22.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.67
Total :23.52
130590 2/23/2012 001429 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC 615244.English APWA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL.ENGLISH
APWA Membership Renewal.English
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 159.00
APWA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL.HAUSS666572.Hauss
APWA Membership Renewal.Hauss
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 159.00
APWA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL.SHUSTER666574.Shuster
APWA Membership Renewal.Shuster
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 159.00
APWA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL.DE LILLA693543.DeLilla
APWA Membership Renewal.De Lilla
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 159.00
Total :636.00
130591 2/23/2012 069751 ARAMARK 655-6023040 PW MATS
PW MATS
1Page:
Packet Page 26 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130591 2/23/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-6023041
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
FLEET UNIFORM/ MATS SVC655-6023042
Fleet Uniform Svc
2Page:
Packet Page 27 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130591 2/23/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 6.45
Fleet Mats
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.55
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.61
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-6030410
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86
PW MATS655-6034942
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
3Page:
Packet Page 28 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130591 2/23/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-6034943
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
FLEET UNIFORM/ MATS SVC655-6034944
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 3.55
Fleet Mats
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.45
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.34
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.61
Total :120.97
130592 2/23/2012 069751 ARAMARK 655-6030416 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 70.04
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.65
Total :76.69
130593 2/23/2012 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0265560-IN Fleet - Regular - 6,000 Gal
Fleet - Regular - 6,000 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 16,545.00
St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 2,382.00
4Page:
Packet Page 29 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130593 2/23/2012 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
Diesel - 3,700 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 10,967.17
St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 1,475.01
WA State Svc Fees
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 50.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 4.75
Total :31,423.93
130594 2/23/2012 001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC B08105 FAC - Plumbing Supplies
FAC - Plumbing Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 40.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.83
Total :44.12
130595 2/23/2012 064541 AURORA RENTS INC 297442 Water - Backhoe Rental for 5th &Main
Water - Backhoe Rental for 5th &Main
411.000.654.534.800.450.00 765.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.450.00 72.73
Total :838.33
130596 2/23/2012 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 63464 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 115.44
UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 115.44
UB Outsourcing area #800 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 118.93
UB Outsourcing area #800 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 387.86
UB Outsourcing area #800 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 387.86
5Page:
Packet Page 30 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130596 2/23/2012 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 10.97
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 10.97
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 11.29
Total :1,158.76
130597 2/23/2012 065341 BRIANS UPHOLSTERY 333991 Unit 58 - Rebuild and Recover Seat
Unit 58 - Rebuild and Recover Seat
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 550.00
8.6% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 47.30
Total :597.30
130598 2/23/2012 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 296344 Snow & Ice - Sand
Snow & Ice - Sand
111.000.653.542.710.350.00 4,345.21
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.350.00 412.79
Roadway/Water /Sewer - Sand296360
Roadway/Water /Sewer - Sand
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 655.57
Roadway/Water /Sewer - Sand
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 327.78
Roadway/Water /Sewer - Sand
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 327.78
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 62.28
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 31.14
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 31.14
Roadway/Water/Sewer - Rock296410
Roadway/Water/Sewer - Rock
6Page:
Packet Page 31 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130598 2/23/2012 (Continued)003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 1,397.85
Roadway/Water/Sewer - Rock
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 698.92
Roadway/Water/Sewer - Rock
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 698.92
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 132.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 66.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 66.39
Total :9,254.97
130599 2/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11654033 C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-0572105
Finance dept copier contract charge
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 249.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 23.75
Total :273.74
130600 2/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11654034 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 273.74
COPIER LEASE11654038
COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 30.65
Total :304.39
130601 2/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11654032 LEASE CLERK'S OFFICE COPIER
Lease City Clerk's copier
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 466.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 44.36
RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE11654035
Recpt. desk copier lease
7Page:
Packet Page 32 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130601 2/23/2012 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 20.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 1.91
Total :533.35
130602 2/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11654036 Planning Dept. printer/copier lease for
Planning Dept. printer/copier lease for
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 33.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 3.14
Total :36.16
130603 2/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11654027 Lease Council Office Copier
Lease Council Office Copier
001.000.110.511.100.450.00 30.65
Total :30.65
130604 2/23/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11654031 INV 11654031 CUST 572105 EDMONDS PD
COPIER RENTAL 3/1/12
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60
COPY CHARGES 1/1-1/31/12
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 273.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 81.19
Total :935.93
130605 2/23/2012 068484 CEMEX LLC 9423067538 MILLTOWN CEMENT FOR RAISED PLANTERS
MILLTOWN CEMENT FOR RAISED PLANTERS
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 579.64
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 55.06
Total :634.70
130606 2/23/2012 068484 CEMEX LLC 9423017345 Roadway - Asphalt Cold Mix
Roadway - Asphalt Cold Mix
8Page:
Packet Page 33 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130606 2/23/2012 (Continued)068484 CEMEX LLC
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 596.00
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 54.83
Storm Dump Fees9423060365
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 421.54
Street - Sand9423060366
Street - Sand
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 165.00
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 15.18
Roadway - Asphalt9423077000
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 410.96
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 39.05
Total :1,702.56
130607 2/23/2012 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 177468 Fleet Shop - Supplies
Fleet Shop - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 70.46
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 6.69
Roadway - SuppliesLY 177713
Roadway - Supplies
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 4.50
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 0.43
Water - CO2 SuppliesLY 177860
Water - CO2 Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 45.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.27
Total :131.35
9Page:
Packet Page 34 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130608 2/23/2012 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I12000123 Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 631.80
Water Quality - Water Lab AnalysisI12000307
Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 567.00
Total :1,198.80
130609 2/23/2012 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I12000431 INV I12000431 EDMONDS PD
2012 SHARE OF TRAINING COSTS PER
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 600.00
Total :600.00
130610 2/23/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9177 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
411.000.655.535.800.472.00 27,602.00
Total :27,602.00
130611 2/23/2012 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2392982-1 Fac Maint - Ice Melt
Fac Maint - Ice Melt
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 219.32
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.84
Fac Maint - Seat Covers, Towels, TT,W2397299
Fac Maint - Seat Covers, Towels, TT,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 506.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 48.16
Fac Maint - Spray Bottles, PrayerW2399966
Fac Maint - Spray Bottles, Prayer
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 972.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 92.42
Fac Maint - Cleaner, Seat Covers,TTW2402187
Fac Maint - Cleaner, Seat Covers,TT
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 492.33
10Page:
Packet Page 35 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130611 2/23/2012 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.77
Total :2,399.60
130612 2/23/2012 072848 COPIERS NW INV650421 INV650421 HMH636 EDMONDS PD
BLACK COPIES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 244.16
COLOR COPIES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 343.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 55.85
Total :643.77
130613 2/23/2012 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 133603 Sr Center - Elevator Cert Renewal 2012
Sr Center - Elevator Cert Renewal 2012
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 109.40
Total :109.40
130614 2/23/2012 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 1/25/12 - 2/22/12 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 471.00
Total :471.00
130615 2/23/2012 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 12-3256 Minutetaker for 2012 Council Retreat
Minutetaker for 2012 Council Retreat
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 750.00
Total :750.00
130616 2/23/2012 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 12-1955.1 E2FB.SERVICES THRU 2/12/12
E2FB.Services thru 2/12/12
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 16,065.95
Total :16,065.95
130617 2/23/2012 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1072748 SUPPLIES
SOLID WELDED CORE UNDER FACE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 45.43
11Page:
Packet Page 36 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130617 2/23/2012 (Continued)007253 DUNN LUMBER
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.31
Total :49.74
130618 2/23/2012 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 12-01794 Water Quality - Water Analysis for 12
Water Quality - Water Analysis for 12
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 188.00
Total :188.00
130619 2/23/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 71.71
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 434.84
SPRINKLER1-00875
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER1-02125
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
290 MAIN ST1-03710
290 MAIN ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
SPRINKLER1-03900
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
SPRINKLER1-05125
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
CORNER PARK1-05340
CORNER PARK
12Page:
Packet Page 37 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130619 2/23/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
600 3RD AVE S1-05650
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 854.14
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
350 MAIN ST1-09650
350 MAIN ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
390 DAYTON ST1-09800
390 DAYTON ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
500 MAIN ST1-10780
500 MAIN ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
CORNER PARKS1-16300
CORNER PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
118 5TH AVE N1-16420
118 5TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
CITY HALL TRIANGLE1-16450
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 35.33
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475
13Page:
Packet Page 38 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130619 2/23/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD1-19950
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 60.21
1141 9TH AVE S1-36255
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
Total :1,988.49
130620 2/23/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00655 LIFT ST 7
Lift St 7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57
LIFT STATION #81-00925
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57
LIFT STATION #11-01950
LIFT STATION #1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57
LIFT STATION #21-02675
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.11
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs &Restrooms1-03950
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs &Restrooms
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 522.23
Public Works Meter Shop1-05350
Public Works Meter Shop
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 66.53
LIFT STATION #61-05705
LIFT STATION #6
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 60.19
CITY HALL1-13975
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 431.77
CITY HALL1-14000
14Page:
Packet Page 39 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130620 2/23/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 78.40
Total :1,279.94
130621 2/23/2012 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 102267 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT
Radix Monthly Maint Agreement -
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 152.00
Total :152.00
130622 2/23/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 072906 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER
Meter charges 12/30/11 - 01/30/12 B
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 127.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 12.15
Total :140.02
130623 2/23/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 073114 Council Office copies
Council Office copies
001.000.110.511.100.450.00 14.16
Total :14.16
130624 2/23/2012 072287 EMI FILTRATION PRODUCTS LLC KENT-58644 EDMCIT
CUSTOM PLT FILTERS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 175.92
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 44.98
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.99
Total :241.89
130625 2/23/2012 073936 ENDURO COMPOSITES INC 39863 970212
CARBON ADSORPTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3,575.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 345.00
15Page:
Packet Page 40 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,920.00130625 2/23/2012 073936 073936 ENDURO COMPOSITES INC
130626 2/23/2012 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 497670 Sewer - Supplies
Sewer - Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 137.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 13.07
Total :150.67
130627 2/23/2012 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 18131 Plaza Rm - Repairs
Plaza Rm - Repairs
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 531.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 50.45
Plaza Rm - Repairs18132
Plaza Rm - Repairs
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 1,330.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 126.35
Total :2,037.80
130628 2/23/2012 009800 FACTORY DIRECT TIRE SALES 54004 Fleet Shop - Steel Tape Weights
Fleet Shop - Steel Tape Weights
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.66
Total :53.66
130629 2/23/2012 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU24951 Traffic Control - Supplies for Radar
Traffic Control - Supplies for Radar
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 18.17
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 1.73
Total :19.90
130630 2/23/2012 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0322740 Water Inventory - w-valvci-08-010
16Page:
Packet Page 41 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130630 2/23/2012 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
Water Inventory - w-valvci-08-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1,069.04
Fire Hydrant - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,319.41
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 58.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 104.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 225.91
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 27.01
Water Supplies - 527 3rd S Valve0326424
Water Supplies - 527 3rd S Valve
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,475.33
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 140.16
Water Supplies - 527 3rd S Valve0327417
Water Supplies - 527 3rd S Valve
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 59.21
7.7% sales tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.56
Water Supplies - 527 3rd S ValveCM081933
Water Supplies - 527 3rd S Valve
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 -212.53
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 -20.19
Total :5,250.64
130631 2/23/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-745-4313 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE FIRE ALARM LINE
Meadowdale Club House Fire Alarm Line
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 102.49
Radio Line between Public Works &UB425-775-7865
Radio Line between Public Works &UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 54.12
17Page:
Packet Page 42 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130631 2/23/2012 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
LS 7425-776-2742
LS 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.56
PUBLIC WORKS C0NNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48
Public Works Connection to 911
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78
Total :291.67
130632 2/23/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0423 03 0260 1032797592 07
AFTER HOURS PHONE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 62.02
Total :62.02
130633 2/23/2012 011901 FRONTIER COMM WADP110023 Water- 4" Main Replacement project
Water- 4" Main Replacement project
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 217.13
Storm - Damage RepairsWADP110062
Storm - Damage Repairs
411.000.652.542.400.480.00 261.19
Total :478.32
130634 2/23/2012 070416 GOODSELL POWER EQUIPMENT INC 618741 Sewer - Cut off Saw
Sewer - Cut off Saw
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 799.96
Sales Tax
18Page:
Packet Page 43 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130634 2/23/2012 (Continued)070416 GOODSELL POWER EQUIPMENT INC
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 76.00
Sewer - Sthl Cutoff Saws618844
Sewer - Sthl Cutoff Saws
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 559.94
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 20.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 55.09
Total :1,510.99
130635 2/23/2012 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 103495 Unit 128 - Tires
Unit 128 - Tires
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 214.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.38
Unit 891 - Tires103778
Unit 891 - Tires
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 381.28
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.22
Unit 891 - Tire Disposal Fees103780
Unit 891 - Tire Disposal Fees
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.85
Unit 643 - Tires103844
Unit 643 - Tires
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 458.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 43.51
Unit 336 - Tire Disposal Fees103846
Unit 336 - Tire Disposal Fees
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.04
19Page:
Packet Page 44 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,221.78130635 2/23/2012 063137 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
130636 2/23/2012 012199 GRAINGER 9744000770 GREENHOUSE SUPPLIES
DUCT BOOSTER
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 156.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 14.85
Total :171.10
130637 2/23/2012 012199 GRAINGER 9742075014 Sr Center - Motor
Sr Center - Motor
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 131.95
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.15
FS 16 - Open Air Actuator9742220735
FS 16 - Open Air Actuator
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 159.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.19
Water - Supplies9748715233
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 100.12
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.51
Total :428.69
130638 2/23/2012 012560 HACH COMPANY 7616650 Water Quality Supplies
Water Quality Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,128.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 59.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 112.86
Total :1,300.81
130639 2/23/2012 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 123752 Unit 649- Tire Repair Supplies
20Page:
Packet Page 45 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130639 2/23/2012 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC
Unit 649- Tire Repair Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.41
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.89
Unit 338- Hose Assembly123753
Unit 338- Hose Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 114.66
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.89
Unit 424 - Seal123832
Unit 424 - Seal
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.60
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.25
Unit 776 - Shaft Assembly123845
Unit 776 - Shaft Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 228.64
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.72
Unit 337 - Pan Assembly123864
Unit 337 - Pan Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.26
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.06
Unit 775 - Motor Assembly123911
Unit 775 - Motor Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 64.94
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.17
Unit 34 - Key123985
Unit 34 - Key
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.96
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.04
21Page:
Packet Page 46 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130639 2/23/2012 (Continued)012900 HARRIS FORD INC
Unit 337 - Hose Assembly124317
Unit 337 - Hose Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 114.66
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.89
Total :679.04
130640 2/23/2012 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00358918-H 178323
TECHNICAL
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 1,031.30
Total :1,031.30
130641 2/23/2012 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1034951 PS SUPPLIES
PS SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 55.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.25
MILLTOWN COURTYARD PROJECT FITTINGS1043305
MILLTOWN COURTYARD PROJECT FITTINGS
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 35.34
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 3.36
FAC MAIN SHOP2034873
FAC MAIN SHOP
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 41.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.98
MILLTOWN COURTYARD ASSORTED SUPPLIES264478
MILLTOWN COURTYARD ASSORTED SUPPLIES
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 96.28
FAC MAIN UNIT 5 SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 95.15
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 9.15
9.5% Sales Tax
22Page:
Packet Page 47 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130641 2/23/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.04
FAC MAIN SHOP SUPPLIES3034689
FAC MAIN SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 87.31
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.29
MILLTOWN PARK REBAR3034691
MILLTOWN PARK REBAR
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 39.60
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 3.76
SEWER SUPPLIES3034781
SEWER SUPPLIES
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 14.54
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.38
FAC MAIN UNIT 5 SUPPLIES3041766
FAC MAIN UNIT 5 SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 33.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.17
MILLTOWN COURTYARD SANDERS33547
MILLTOWN COURTYARD SANDERS
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 109.43
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 10.40
FAC MAIN SHOP SANDER4045091
FAC MAIN SHOP SANDER
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 69.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.65
FAC MAIN SHOP FAUCET/FILTER4280289
FAC MAIN SHOP FAUCET/FILTER
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 66.97
23Page:
Packet Page 48 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130641 2/23/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.36
FAC MAIN WADE JAMES SUPPLIES5042744
FAC MAIN WADE JAMES SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.89
FAC MAIN SHOP PRO VAC5280258
FAC MAIN SHOP PRO VAC
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 99.00
FAC MAIN SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 131.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 9.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.46
FAC MAIN UNIT 5 NAILS/SUPPLIES6044778
FAC MAIN UNIT 5 NAILS/SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 98.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.35
FAC MAIN UNIT 5 SUPPLIES6264283
FAC MAIN UNIT 5 SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 77.74
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.39
FAC MAIN UNIT 5 DRILL/BATT6264838
FAC MAIN UNIT 5 DRILL/BATT
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 218.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.71
FAC MAIN SHEATHING7280170
FAC MAIN SHEATHING
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 76.02
24Page:
Packet Page 49 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130641 2/23/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.22
SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT7595759
SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 71.35
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 6.78
PS HOLE COVER8090545
PS HOLE COVER
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 27.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.63
Total :1,724.45
130642 2/23/2012 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 Fac Maint - Towel Supplies
Fac Maint - Towel Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 238.80
City Hall - Door Mat
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 41.60
PW - Admin - Camera
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 138.04
Fleet - Camera
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 138.04
Parks Maint/ Fac Maint - Split for
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 632.00
Parks Maint/ Fac Maint - Split for
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 631.99
Fac Maint - Working Gloves,Chair mats
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 471.53
Total :2,292.00
130643 2/23/2012 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 22798 TASK ORDER 11-01:WOODWAY ELEMENTARY
Task Order 11-01:Woodway Elementary
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 1,140.00
TASK ORDER 11-01:WOODWAY ELEMENTARY22859
25Page:
Packet Page 50 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130643 2/23/2012 (Continued)060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
Task Order 11-01:Woodway Elementary
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 360.00
Total :1,500.00
130644 2/23/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2030564 1099 MAILING ENVELOPES
1099 Mailing envelopes
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 68.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 6.46
Total :74.46
130645 2/23/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2029447 226961
MANILA FOLDERS/COFFEE FILTERS
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 94.36
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 8.97
Total :103.33
130646 2/23/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2028805 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 462.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 43.89
Total :505.89
130647 2/23/2012 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 768328 C/A 768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 1,920.28
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.240.513.110.420.00 1.64
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.240.513.110.420.00 3.91
Total :1,925.83
130648 2/23/2012 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 549712 Fleet Shop Tool
26Page:
Packet Page 51 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130648 2/23/2012 (Continued)069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
Fleet Shop Tool
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 71.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 6.82
Fleet Shop supplies549948
Fleet Shop supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 51.24
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 4.87
Unit K93 - Relay550068
Unit K93 - Relay
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 244.44
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.22
Total :402.39
130649 2/23/2012 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 027748 0068
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 59.71
EMERGENCY LIGHT BULBS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 628.50
Total :688.21
130650 2/23/2012 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 798977 Fleet Shop Supplies
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 11.92
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 1.13
Fleet Shop Supplies799012
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 85.75
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 8.15
Sewer - Batteries874159
Sewer - Batteries
27Page:
Packet Page 52 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130650 2/23/2012 (Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 223.90
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 21.27
Total :352.12
130651 2/23/2012 066032 J BOZEAT & ASSOCIATES LLC J3095A ROTORK ACTUATORS
ROTORK ACTUATORS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,576.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 38.32
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 153.36
Total :1,767.68
130652 2/23/2012 069851 JACKYE'S ENTERPRISES INC 9151 Street/ Storm - Uniform T Shirts
Street/ Storm - Uniform T Shirts
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 875.51
Street/ Storm - Uniform T Shirts
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 875.49
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 83.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 83.17
Total :1,917.35
130653 2/23/2012 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 537196 54278825
CAUSTIC SODA
411.000.656.538.800.310.52 2,395.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.52 227.56
Total :2,622.96
130654 2/23/2012 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13058205-00 FS 16 - Transformer, Ignition
FS 16 - Transformer, Ignition
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 141.08
28Page:
Packet Page 53 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130654 2/23/2012 (Continued)063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.40
Total :154.48
130655 2/23/2012 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD14908 BASIC PHOTOSHOP
BASIC PHOTOSHOP FOR BEGINNERS
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 100.00
Total :100.00
130656 2/23/2012 067330 KAR-VEL CONSTRUCTION INC E0JA/E7JA.Pmt 9 E0JA/E7JA.PMT 9 THRU 1/30/12
E0JA/E7JA.Pmt 9 thru 1/30/12
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 121,670.40
E0JA/E7JA.Ret 9
412.100.000.223.400.000.00 -5,555.73
E1JA.PMT 4 THRU 2/7/12E1JA.Pmt 4
E1JA.Pmt 4 thru 2/7/12
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 275,359.66
E1JA.Ret 4
412.100.000.223.400.000.00 -12,573.49
Total :378,900.84
130657 2/23/2012 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER KLS14914 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASSES
#14914
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 141.60
#14915
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 177.00
#14916
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 283.20
#14918
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 290.28
#14919
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 177.00
#14920
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 601.80
#14921
29Page:
Packet Page 54 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130657 2/23/2012 (Continued)071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 424.80
#14922
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 141.60
#14917
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 106.20
Total :2,343.48
130658 2/23/2012 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 378785-001 Traffic Control - Supplies
Traffic Control - Supplies
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 30.84
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 2.93
Total :33.77
130659 2/23/2012 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 378939-002 INV 378939-002 EDMONDS PD
RECHARGABLE BATTERY PACK
001.000.410.521.710.350.00 95.00
BATTERY PACK CHARGER
001.000.410.521.710.350.00 70.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.710.350.00 15.68
Total :180.68
130660 2/23/2012 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1018474527 Storm - Work Gloves
Storm - Work Gloves
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 16.60
Freight
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 11.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 2.66
Total :30.63
130661 2/23/2012 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 29324 Professional services for Stream
Professional services for Stream
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 5,686.44
30Page:
Packet Page 55 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :5,686.44130661 2/23/2012 017135 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC
130662 2/23/2012 072059 LEE, NICOLE 766 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 123.96
Total :123.96
130663 2/23/2012 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 649388 Unit 130 - Lite Lens
Unit 130 - Lite Lens
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.24
Unit 304 - Gloss Black649506
Unit 304 - Gloss Black
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.69
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.73
Unit 304 - Oil and Fuel Filters649700
Unit 304 - Oil and Fuel Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.11
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.72
Unit 130 - Fuel Line Hose650360
Unit 130 - Fuel Line Hose
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.75
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.35
Unit 98 - Lamp Bulbs650680
Unit 98 - Lamp Bulbs
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.61
Unit 405 - Outlet650884
Unit 405 - Outlet
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.99
9.5% Sales Tax
31Page:
Packet Page 56 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130663 2/23/2012 (Continued)018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.66
Unit 405 - Outlet650903
Unit 405 - Outlet
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.99
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.66
Total :80.40
130664 2/23/2012 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 388496-00 Milltown- Supplies
Milltown- Supplies
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 78.00
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 7.41
Total :85.41
130665 2/23/2012 069610 MARATHON EQUIPMENT 22774 Unit 130 - Valve Supplies
Unit 130 - Valve Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 518.60
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 43.23
Total :561.83
130666 2/23/2012 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 840 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE843
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE868
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.32
Total :264.96
130667 2/23/2012 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 140885 Roadway - Blower Repair Parts
Roadway - Blower Repair Parts
32Page:
Packet Page 57 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130667 2/23/2012 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 20.90
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 1.99
Total :22.89
130668 2/23/2012 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC 1-10245725 Unit 14 - Antenna
Unit 14 - Antenna
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 38.18
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.63
Total :41.81
130669 2/23/2012 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0468755-IN Unit 138 - Battery
Unit 138 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 109.25
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 50.39
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 4.79
Total :174.80
130670 2/23/2012 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S4375644.002 C-386 HYPO PROJECT WIRE
C-386 HYPO PROJECT WIRE
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 1,002.27
9.5% Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.10 95.22
Total :1,097.49
130671 2/23/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-421202 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:PINE STREET PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-421203
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:SIERRA PARK
33Page:
Packet Page 58 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130671 2/23/2012 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-421644
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:CIVIC CENTER
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 194.62
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-421910
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:BRACKETT
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 221.95
Total :641.27
130672 2/23/2012 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 274 Historic Preservation Commission
Historic Preservation Commission
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 128.00
Total :128.00
130673 2/23/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 500082 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 160.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 15.26
Total :175.92
130674 2/23/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 479649 Street - Sign Shop - Ink
Street - Sign Shop - Ink
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 25.72
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 2.44
Total :28.16
130675 2/23/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 513648 INV 513648 ACCT 520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
52X CD-R 100 PACK
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 85.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 8.14
INV 558799 ACCT 520437 250POL EDMONDS PD558799
MONITOR STAND
34Page:
Packet Page 59 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130675 2/23/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 17.27
24 PACK 3X3 POST IT NOTES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 25.94
DYMO WHITE ADDRESS LABELS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 14.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 1.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 3.87
Total :157.35
130676 2/23/2012 073935 OLSON ENERGY SERVICE BLD20120110 Online application Void - not in City
Online application Void - not in City
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 85.00
Total :85.00
130677 2/23/2012 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY 2-136337 Unit 379 - Brake Supplies
Unit 379 - Brake Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 387.06
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.77
Fleet Returns2-138451
Fleet Returns
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -60.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -5.70
Total :358.13
130678 2/23/2012 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00062382 Fleet Return of 12/15/11
Fleet Return of 12/15/11
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -415.29
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -39.45
Unit 106 - Pipe Assembly,Quick Clamp00063057
Unit 106 - Pipe Assembly,Quick Clamp
35Page:
Packet Page 60 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130678 2/23/2012 (Continued)002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 420.26
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 54.46
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.10
Total :65.08
130679 2/23/2012 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 126218 DUMP FEES
CLEAN GREEN DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 63.00
DUMP FEES126231
CLEAN GREEN DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.50
DUMP FEES126236
CLEAN GREEN DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 48.50
DUMP FEES126246
CLEAN GREEN DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.50
Total :216.50
130680 2/23/2012 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 126992 Storm Dump Fees
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 99.75
Storm Dump Fees126996
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 94.50
Storm Dump Fees127003
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 105.00
Storm Dump Fees127006
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 131.25
Storm Dump Fees127011
Storm Dump Fees
36Page:
Packet Page 61 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130680 2/23/2012 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 131.25
Storm Dump Fees127089
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 115.50
Storm Dump Fees127098
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 115.50
Storm Dump Fees127103
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 120.75
Total :913.50
130681 2/23/2012 069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC 8080047 Unit 138 - Gaskets, Sealant Supplies
Unit 138 - Gaskets, Sealant Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 47.83
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.53
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.46
Total :62.82
130682 2/23/2012 069690 PERFORMANCE RADIATOR 3852943 Unit 5 - Radiator
Unit 5 - Radiator
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 319.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.31
Total :349.31
130683 2/23/2012 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20110010.000-6 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 1/29/12
E7AC.Services thru 1/29/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 9,572.69
Total :9,572.69
130684 2/23/2012 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730FB12 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE
Lease 1/30 to 2/28
37Page:
Packet Page 62 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130684 2/23/2012 (Continued)064552 PITNEY BOWES
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 718.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 68.26
Total :786.86
130685 2/23/2012 064167 POLLARDWATER.COM-EAST I313058-IN Water Supplies
Water Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 187.38
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 24.53
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 20.13
Total :232.04
130686 2/23/2012 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 198715 Water - Raydix Return Postage
Water - Raydix Return Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 23.75
Traffic Control -Kar Gor Return Postage199008
Traffic Control -Kar Gor Return Postage
111.000.653.542.640.350.00 13.68
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&199069
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.64
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.64
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.64
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.62
Total :47.97
130687 2/23/2012 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER
Pier StormWater Rent for Feb
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,153.25
UNIT F1 B1 FUEL04371
38Page:
Packet Page 63 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130687 2/23/2012 (Continued)029117 PORT OF EDMONDS
Svc Fee
511.000.657.548.680.320.00 10.00
Total :2,163.25
130688 2/23/2012 065105 PORT SUPPLY 0263683 Unit M16 - Transducer
Unit M16 - Transducer
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 640.25
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.31
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 60.82
Total :710.38
130689 2/23/2012 073644 QUALITY CONTROLS CORP S6127-1 ELECTRICAL PROGRAMMING
ELECTRICAL PROGRAMMING
411.000.656.538.800.410.22 1,260.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.22 119.70
Total :1,379.70
130690 2/23/2012 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 124456 MARKER
MARKER: PEDERSON
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 316.00
MARKER124457
MARKER: PEDERSON
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 316.00
MARKER124458
MARKER: EDWARDS
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 316.00
MARKER124622
MARKER: GINSEY
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 1,604.00
MARKER124743
MARKER: CASERI
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 316.00
39Page:
Packet Page 64 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,868.00130690 2/23/2012 030780 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
130691 2/23/2012 063452 RADIO SHACK CORPORATION 015995 LITHIUM BATTERY
LITHIUM BATTERY
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 54.06
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 5.14
Total :59.20
130692 2/23/2012 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SERVICES 21055 PS - Processor, Reader
PS - Processor, Reader
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 843.88
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 82.01
PS - Processors21056
PS - Processors
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 675.00
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 65.64
Total :1,701.81
130693 2/23/2012 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 00446-610533 Unit 337 - Visor
Unit 337 - Visor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 142.64
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.55
Total :156.19
130694 2/23/2012 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-145540 Unit 136 -Filter and Screen Assemblies
Unit 136 -Filter and Screen Assemblies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.57
9.5% Sales Tax
40Page:
Packet Page 65 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130694 2/23/2012 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.04
Unit 648 - Spark Plugs03-145989
Unit 648 - Spark Plugs
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.60
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.62
Unit 648 - Motor and Fan03-145999
Unit 648 - Motor and Fan
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 193.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.43
Unit 88 - Battery03-146059
Unit 88 - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 108.35
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.29
Unit 495 -Pump and Element Assembly03-146869
Unit 495 -Pump and Element Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 61.74
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.87
Unit 324 - Brake Pad Kit, Rotors03-147227
Unit 324 - Brake Pad Kit, Rotors
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 209.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.89
Unit 680 - Supplies03-147787
Unit 680 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.36
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.41
Unit 680 - Thermostat Assembly,Seal03-147876
Unit 680 - Thermostat Assembly,Seal
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.71
41Page:
Packet Page 66 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130694 2/23/2012 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.30
Unit 679 - Oil Seal,Cylindrical Bearing03-148582
Unit 679 - Oil Seal,Cylindrical Bearing
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.13
Unit 336 - Water Pump Assembly03-149682
Unit 336 - Water Pump Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 73.67
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.00
Unit 424 - Pump Assembly03-150053
Unit 424 - Pump Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 114.09
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.84
Unit 424 - Water Pump Assembly03-150120
Unit 424 - Water Pump Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 73.67
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.00
Unit 424& 776 - Cylindrical Bearing03-150245
Unit 424& 776 - Cylindrical Bearing
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.13
Unit 776 - Trans Fluid03-150699
Unit 776 - Trans Fluid
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 119.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.34
Unit 775 - Motor Assembly03-150703
Unit 775 - Motor Assembly
42Page:
Packet Page 67 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130694 2/23/2012 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.66
Unit 495 - Pump Assembly03-150890
Unit 495 - Pump Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 51.75
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.92
Unit 495 - Supplies03-151100
Unit 495 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.44
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.99
Unit 28 - Spark Plug Assembly,Battery03-151210
Unit 28 - Spark Plug Assembly,Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 125.78
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.95
Unit 102 - Cap03-152170
Unit 102 - Cap
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.29
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.88
Unit 680 - Switch Assemblies03-152668
Unit 680 - Switch Assemblies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 163.01
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.49
Unit 133 - Valve, Gaskets03-152714
Unit 133 - Valve, Gaskets
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 128.76
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.23
Unit 891 - Element Assembly03-153161
43Page:
Packet Page 68 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130694 2/23/2012 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
Unit 891 - Element Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.11
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.82
Unit 537 - Filter Assembly03-153444
Unit 537 - Filter Assembly
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.22
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.88
Unit 413 - Wiper Blades03-153675
Unit 413 - Wiper Blades
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.32
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.31
Unit 776 - Oil03-153752
Unit 776 - Oil
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 58.32
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.54
Fleet Battery Inventory03-154523
Fleet Battery Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 87.63
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 8.32
Fleet Returns05-407623
Fleet Returns
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -171.54
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -16.30
Fleet Returns05-409421
Fleet Returnsg
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -18.02
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -1.71
44Page:
Packet Page 69 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,812.65130694 2/23/2012 066964 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
130695 2/23/2012 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET 236452 Unit 643 - Pump
Unit 643 - Pump
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.52
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.94
Unit 643 - Sensor236453
Unit 643 - Sensor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 93.30
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.86
Unit 643- Pump Kit236454
Unit 643- Pump Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 43.72
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.15
Unit 88 - Cylinder237325
Unit 88 - Cylinder
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 48.45
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.60
Total :248.54
130696 2/23/2012 073859 SIMMONS, SHELLY SIMMONS14957 ZUMBATOMIC
ZUMBATOMIC #14957
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 162.00
ZUMBATOMIC #14954
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 243.00
Total :405.00
130697 2/23/2012 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0133197-IN Units 336,337,650,680 - Microphone
Units 336,337,650,680 - Microphone
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 498.40
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.75
45Page:
Packet Page 70 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130697 2/23/2012 (Continued)068489 SIRENNET.COM
Fleet Returned Console128810A-CM
Fleet Returned Console
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -275.00
Total :237.15
130698 2/23/2012 073942 SKELLY, MARY 8-19225 UTILITY BILLING OVERPAYMENT REFUND
Overpayment Refund
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 547.72
Total :547.72
130699 2/23/2012 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 Q1-2012 Q1-2012 FIRE SERVICES CONTRACT PAYMENT
Q1-2012 Fire Services Contract Payment
001.000.390.522.200.510.00 1,555,694.75
Total :1,555,694.75
130700 2/23/2012 037330 SNO CO PLANNING & DEVLP SERV I000294472 2012 SNOH COUNTY TOMORROW DUES
2012 Snoh County Tomorrow Dues
001.000.390.519.900.490.00 7,154.00
Total :7,154.00
130701 2/23/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-6027-1 9537 BOWDOIN WAY
9537 BOWDOIN WAY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,051.54
8100 190TH ST SW2025-4064-7
8100 190TH ST SW
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.55
Total :1,083.09
130702 2/23/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200398956 fire station # 16
fire station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,743.51
LIFT STATION #9200611317
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 232.80
SIGNAL LIGHT200706851
SIGNAL LIGHT
46Page:
Packet Page 71 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130702 2/23/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.55
SIGNAL LIGHT 961 PUGET DR200723021
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 39.71
BLINKING LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR201431244
BLINKING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.55
TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHT 21531 HWY201441755
Traffic Control Light 21531 Hwy 99
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 90.50
LIBRARY201551744
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,798.80
Public Works201942489
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 90.37
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 343.39
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 343.39
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 343.39
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 343.39
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 343.36
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99202289450
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 201.59
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX202291662
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,888.09
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8602 188TH ST SW202427803
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.55
47Page:
Packet Page 72 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130702 2/23/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
CITY HALL202439246
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,312.91
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS 1400 OLYMPIC AVE202519864
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.55
FIVE CORNERS WATER TOWER203652151
Five Corners Water Tower
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 627.54
Total :15,868.94
130703 2/23/2012 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000294732 SOLID WASTE CHARGES
SOLID WASTE CHARGES~
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 341.00
Total :341.00
130704 2/23/2012 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 02102012 ASH DISPOSAL
ASH DISPOSAL
411.000.656.538.800.474.65 5,489.57
Total :5,489.57
130705 2/23/2012 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2453223-01 Storm - Uniform Jeans (2) M Brown
Storm - Uniform Jeans (2) M Brown
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 63.40
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.83
Storm - Uniform Jeans (3) M Brown2454689-01
Storm - Uniform Jeans (3) M Brown
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 95.10
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 8.75
Storm - Uniform Jacket - M Johnson2455904-01
Storm - Uniform Jacket - M Johnson
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 125.00
9.2% Sales Tax
48Page:
Packet Page 73 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130705 2/23/2012 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 11.50
Street - Work Jeans (5) - T Bach2456280-01
Street - Work Jeans (5) - T Bach
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 209.45
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 19.27
Street - Work Jacket - T Bach2456281-01
Street - Work Jacket - T Bach
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 125.00
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 11.50
Storm - Work Jeans (5) R Wichers4196165-01
Storm - Work Jeans (5) R Wichers
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 201.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 19.18
Street - Uniform Boots - Moles4196301-01
Street - Uniform Boots - Moles
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 169.95
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 16.15
Street - Uniform Jacket - B Sanders4196364-01
Street - Uniform Jacket - B Sanders
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 125.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 11.88
Storm - Uniform Jacket - B Clemens4196366-0001-04
Storm - Uniform Jacket - B Clemens
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 125.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 11.88
Storm - Uniform Jacket - K Harris4196370-01
Storm - Uniform Jacket - K Harris
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 125.00
49Page:
Packet Page 74 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130705 2/23/2012 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 11.88
Storm - Uniform Jeans (5) &Work Jacket4196371-01
Storm - Uniform Jeans (5) &Work Jacket
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 322.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 30.65
Street - Uniform Jacket - P Rochford4196400-01
Street - Uniform Jacket - P Rochford
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 125.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 11.88
Storm - Unform Jacket - R Wichers4196407-01
Storm - Unform Jacket - R Wichers
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 125.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 11.88
Street - Uniform Jacket - P Johnson4196466-01
Street - Uniform Jacket - P Johnson
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 125.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 11.88
Street - Uniform Jacket - J Ward4196498-01
Street - Uniform Jacket - J Ward
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 125.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 11.88
Storm - Uniform Jeans (3) - J Ward4196499-01
Storm - Uniform Jeans (3) - J Ward
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 105.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 9.98
Storm - Uniform Jeans(5) -M Johnson4196610-01
Storm - Uniform Jeans(5) -M Johnson
50Page:
Packet Page 75 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
51
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130705 2/23/2012 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 209.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 19.86
Total :2,737.28
130706 2/23/2012 073549 STERRETT CONSULTING LLC 1201-02 Professional services for Westgate Five
Professional services for Westgate Five
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,447.50
Total :1,447.50
130707 2/23/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100098705.001 FS 17 - Elect Supplies
FS 17 - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 401.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 38.16
Total :439.86
130708 2/23/2012 040480 STUSSER ELECTRIC 2338-485051 44-26787
FISH TAPE W/EYELET
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 297.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 28.23
Total :325.36
130709 2/23/2012 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10272213 Roadway - Rope, Brooms,Fluorescent
Roadway - Rope, Brooms,Fluorescent
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 723.27
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 68.71
Street - Work Gloves18959065
Street - Work Gloves
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 152.55
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 14.49
Total :959.02
51Page:
Packet Page 76 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
52
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130710 2/23/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1765030 Burnstead/PLN20070017&18 Legal Notice
Burnstead/PLN20070017&18 Legal Notice
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 94.60
Miller/PLN20120001 Legal Notice.1765639
Miller/PLN20120001 Legal Notice.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 29.24
Seven Hills/PLN20110077&78 Legal Notice1765641
Seven Hills/PLN20110077&78 Legal Notice
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 86.00
Westgate Shell/STF20110008 Legal Notice1765694
Westgate Shell/STF20110008 Legal Notice
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 72.24
Bannister/PLN20110074 Legal Notices1766130
Bannister/PLN20110074 Legal Notices
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 58.48
Total :340.56
130711 2/23/2012 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 327709 Library - Quad Rings
Library - Quad Rings
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.50
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.56
Total :29.56
130712 2/23/2012 073581 TRUAX, KAILEY 02152012 MONITOR FOR ECON DEV COMMISSION MTG
Monitor for Economic Development
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
130713 2/23/2012 073581 TRUAX, KAILEY TRUAX0219 GYM MONITOR
GYM MONITOR 2/19/12
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 48.00
Total :48.00
52Page:
Packet Page 77 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
53
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130714 2/23/2012 073639 TUCKER, SUE TUCKER0210 REFUND
REFUND -RETURNING CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 11.60
Total :11.60
130715 2/23/2012 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-60840 EDMONDS RT DASHBOARD
Edmonds Add Rt Dash EDEN Dashboard
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 150.00
Total :150.00
130716 2/23/2012 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8814565 INTERURBAN TRAIL IRRIGATION
INTERURBAN TRAIL IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 2,506.34
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 238.10
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES8814566
INTERURBAN TRAIL IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.48
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES8814567
INTERURBAN TRAIL IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.80
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES8815670
INTERURBAN TRAIL IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 42.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.05
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES8815671
INTERURBAN TRAIL IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.38
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.55
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES8815717
53Page:
Packet Page 78 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
54
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130716 2/23/2012 (Continued)061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
INTERURBAN TRAIL IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.47
Total :2,840.58
130717 2/23/2012 062693 US BANK 8313 ENG CREDIT CARD JANUARY 2012
Shuster-Stormwater Seminar~
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 50.51
Shuster-Stormwater Seminar~
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 337.00
Total :387.51
130718 2/23/2012 062693 US BANK 3249 POSTAGE EXPENSE FOR PASSPORTS
POSTAGE EXPENSE FOR PASSPORTS
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 47.50
Total :47.50
130719 2/23/2012 062693 US BANK 3686 MAYOR'S PICTURE FRAMING
IPad Program
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 16.99
Frame & framing for Mayor's picture
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 65.51
Parking -- reimbursed by Mayor
001.000.210.513.100.430.00 2.25
Monthly Mayor's Luncheon,Nile Temple
001.000.210.513.100.430.00 13.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.62
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 6.22
Total :105.59
130720 2/23/2012 062693 US BANK 2985 TRAINING/RANDOLPH/SEBERS/VAUGHAN
TRAINING/RANDOLPH/SEBERS/VAUGHAN
54Page:
Packet Page 79 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
55
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130720 2/23/2012 (Continued)062693 US BANK
411.000.656.538.800.490.71 2,285.78
Total :2,285.78
130721 2/23/2012 062693 US BANK 3462 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD
Misc recorded documents
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 7.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 217.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 217.00
Total :441.00
130722 2/23/2012 062693 US BANK 3355 Amazon Mkt Pl - Traffic Control -JUNO
Amazon Mkt Pl - Traffic Control -JUNO
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 20.93
Gomadic Corp - JUNO Car Charger
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 24.25
Panache - JUNO Stylus Sticks
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 28.40
Fred Meyer - Unit 130 - Supplies3363
Fred Meyer - Unit 130 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.82
Home Depot - Unit 130 - Tread Tape
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.87
Pro-Gard Prod - Unit 338-Dual Stage
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 169.54
Marine Power - Unit M-16 - Elbow
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 497.00
Home Depot - Unit 130 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.36
Home Depot - Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 14.26
Master Park -Vendor Paid Trip Parking
511.000.657.548.680.490.00 51.85
Home Depot Shop Supplies
55Page:
Packet Page 80 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
56
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130722 2/23/2012 (Continued)062693 US BANK
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 67.15
Home Depot - Unir 130 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.95
Fisheries Supplies - Unir 62 - Hose
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 40.39
Bartells - Fac Maint - Alc Pads3405
Bartells - Fac Maint - Alc Pads
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.73
IMSA - Renewal - G Evans
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 40.00
Multi Prod Co - PW - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 190.00
WA St Printer - Fac Maint
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 27.18
BuyOnLine - PW Admin -File Folders3546
BuyOnLine - PW Admin -File Folders
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 144.42
Total :1,374.10
130723 2/23/2012 062693 US BANK 3389 Refreshments for 2012 Council Retreat
Refreshments for 2012 Council Retreat
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 98.28
Lunches for staff and Council for 2012
001.000.110.511.100.430.00 240.43
Logitech keyboard for Petso iPad
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 87.59
Lodging for Bloom/Yamamoto/Peterson AWC
001.000.110.511.100.430.00 358.68
Yamamoto iPad app
001.000.110.511.100.420.00 18.60
Total :803.58
130724 2/23/2012 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE PO Box 2008 2012 Annual Rental Fee for Edmonds
2012 Annual Rental Fee for Edmonds
411.000.654.534.800.450.00 406.66
56Page:
Packet Page 81 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
57
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130724 2/23/2012 (Continued)044300 US POSTAL SERVICE
2012 Annual Rental Fee for Edmonds
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 406.66
2012 Annual Rental Fee for Edmonds
411.000.652.542.900.450.00 406.68
Total :1,220.00
130725 2/23/2012 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 575009 Sewer -Duct Hunter Traceable Roddar
Sewer -Duct Hunter Traceable Roddar
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1,589.95
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 150.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 165.30
Sewer - 4' Measuring Wheel585576
Sewer - 4' Measuring Wheel
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 126.95
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 16.68
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 13.64
Total :2,062.52
130726 2/23/2012 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 1070119-A utility locates - Modem Fees,not paid
utility locates - Modem Fees,not paid
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 10.81
utility locates - Modem Fees,not paid
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 10.81
utility locates - Modem Fees,not paid
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 11.13
Total :32.75
130727 2/23/2012 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 1056672737 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 97.79
Cell Service-Eng
57Page:
Packet Page 82 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
58
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130727 2/23/2012 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 174.22
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 109.80
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.47
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 67.82
Cell Service-PD
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 493.09
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 28.76
Cell Service-PW Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 23.93
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 40.94
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 40.94
Cell Service-PW Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 141.14
Cell Service-PW Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 52.65
Cell Service-WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.94
Total :1,326.49
130728 2/23/2012 073832 WA ST DEPT OF ENTERPRISE SVCS 95-1-826 23104-002
C-322 ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADE
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 31,900.00
Total :31,900.00
130729 2/23/2012 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-8673 Street - 86th & Main - Remove 3 Trees
Street - 86th & Main - Remove 3 Trees
111.000.653.542.710.480.00 480.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.480.00 45.60
58Page:
Packet Page 83 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
59
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130729 2/23/2012 (Continued)067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
Water - Water Tank site 8519 Bowdoin06-8674
Water - Water Tank site 8519 Bowdoin
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 740.00
Total :1,265.60
130730 2/23/2012 068227 WCCFA EDWARDS WCCFA'S SPRING CONFERENCE
CLIFF EDWARDS'REGISTRATION FOR COLLEGE
130.000.640.536.500.490.00 99.00
Total :99.00
130731 2/23/2012 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5424 ENVELOPES
#10 ENVELOPES W/RETURN
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 68.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 6.53
Total :75.29
130732 2/23/2012 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5397 INB 5397 EDMONDS PD
1000 3 PT NCR CRIM TRES FORMS
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 243.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 23.09
INV 5419 EDMONDS PD5419
2000 2 PT NCR SUPP EVIDENCE FORMS
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 698.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 66.31
Total :1,030.40
130733 2/23/2012 068150 WESTERN TIRE CHAIN 21698 Street - Cross Chain Supplies
Street - Cross Chain Supplies
111.000.653.542.660.350.00 933.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.660.350.00 88.64
Units 338,411,649,775,776 Chain Sets21719
59Page:
Packet Page 84 of 442
02/23/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
60
9:00:39AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130733 2/23/2012 (Continued)068150 WESTERN TIRE CHAIN
Units 338,411,649,775,776 Chain Sets
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 710.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 67.45
Total :1,799.09
130734 2/23/2012 068270 WETHERHOLT & ASSOCIATES PS 34815 10-110335A2
C-383 BUILDING ROOF REPLACEMENT
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 2,527.00
Total :2,527.00
130735 2/23/2012 065179 WSAPT TREAS / AMY DONLAN 2012 WSAPT-LINDA WSAPT 2012 Spring Training for Linda
WSAPT 2012 Spring Training for Linda
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 50.00
WSAPT Spring Training Seminar for Marie2012 WSAPT-MARIE
WSAPT Spring Training Seminar for Marie
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 50.00
Total :100.00
Bank total :2,296,824.25149Vouchers for bank code :front
2,296,824.25Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report149
60Page:
Packet Page 85 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130736 2/29/2012 073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC 156958 Periodic testing per agreement -Harris
Periodic testing per agreement -Harris
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 52.00
Total :52.00
130737 2/29/2012 069798 A.M. LEONARD INC C112011192 GARDENING SUPPLIES
SOIL KNIFE, TRANSPLANTER,SCOOPERS
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 344.81
Freight
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 79.99
TRAY PLUGSC112013374
TRAY PLUG 21 STAR DEEP
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 268.47
SUPPLIESC112014468
PRUNER, VALVE SHUT OFF
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 77.91
Total :771.18
130738 2/29/2012 069751 ARAMARK 655-6042436 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86
PW MATS655-6046989
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
1Page:
Packet Page 86 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130738 2/29/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-6046990
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 12.50
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 12.50
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 1.19
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 1.19
FLEET UNIFORM/ MATS SVC655-6046991
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 6.45
Fleet Mats
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.55
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.61
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
Total :93.38
130739 2/29/2012 069751 ARAMARK 655-6030409 UNIFORM SERVICES
2Page:
Packet Page 87 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130739 2/29/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 45.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 4.29
UNIFORM SERVICES655-6042435
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 28.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.74
Total :81.05
130740 2/29/2012 064343 AT&T 7303860502001 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Fax Line
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 2.13
Public Works Fax Line
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 8.09
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 8.09
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 8.09
Public Works Fax Line
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 8.09
Public Works Fax Line
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 8.08
Total :42.57
130741 2/29/2012 064541 AURORA RENTS INC 297600 Sewer - Pipe Sewer Camera w/DVD
Sewer - Pipe Sewer Camera w/DVD
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 220.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 20.90
Total :240.90
130742 2/29/2012 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 63581 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
3Page:
Packet Page 88 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130742 2/29/2012 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 90.78
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 90.78
UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 93.52
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 304.91
UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 304.90
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.62
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.62
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.89
Total :911.02
130743 2/29/2012 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST March AWC Premiums MARCH 2012 AWC PREMIUMS
March 2012 Fire Pension Premiums
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,011.32
March 2012 Retirees Pension Premiums
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 31,067.46
March 2012 AWC Premiums
811.000.000.231.510.000.00 270,339.74
Total :305,418.52
130744 2/29/2012 002100 BARNARD, EARL 22 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 146.00
Total :146.00
130745 2/29/2012 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 896516 INV 896516 EDMONDS PD -COLLINS VEST
2ND CHANCE SUMMIT 2 VEST
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 725.00
9.5% Sales Tax
4Page:
Packet Page 89 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130745 2/29/2012 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 68.88
INV 924512 EDMONDS PD -CAMERON BOOTS924512
DANNER ACADIA BOOTS -CAMERON
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 207.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 19.76
Total :1,021.59
130746 2/29/2012 003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 12021653 MARINA BEACH LEASED LAND
LEASE OF LAND FOR FENCE &RECREATION
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 505.80
Total :505.80
130747 2/29/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11654028 3RD FLOOR COPIER RENTAL -MAYOR
Canon copier IRC1030IF -- Mayor's Office
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 9.33
Canon copier IRC1030IF -- Mayor's Office
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 9.33
Canon copier IRC1030IF -- Mayor's Office
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 9.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 0.88
3RD FLOOR COPIER RENTAL11670419
Canon coper IRC5051 -- 3rd Floor Main
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 83.33
Canon coper IRC5051 -- 3rd Floor Main
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 83.33
Canon coper IRC5051 -- 3rd Floor Main
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 83.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 7.92
5Page:
Packet Page 90 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130747 2/29/2012 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 7.91
Total :304.39
130748 2/29/2012 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 562311 ACCT 7898305185 REF# 562311 EDMONDS PD
FUEL FOR NARC VEHICLES
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 249.21
Total :249.21
130749 2/29/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9216 INV 9216 CUST#1655 EDMONDS PD
VERIZON INTERNET SERVICES -POLE CAMERA
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 43.01
Total :43.01
130750 2/29/2012 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 02/23/2012 SNOHOMISH CTY CITIES MEETING
Sno. Cty Cities February Meeting
001.000.210.513.100.430.00 44.00
Total :44.00
130751 2/29/2012 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC SE79507801 Fac Maint - Key Blanks
Fac Maint - Key Blanks
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 187.50
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.82
Total :206.82
130752 2/29/2012 073667 COBURN, LI COBURN022312 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT
VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 140.00
Total :140.00
130753 2/29/2012 005965 CUES INC 359794 CAMERA REPAIR RETURN FREIGHT
6Page:
Packet Page 91 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130753 2/29/2012 (Continued)005965 CUES INC
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 143.38
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 13.62
SEWER -CAMERA REPAIR SUPPLIES360989
SEWER -CAMERA REPAIR SUPPLIES
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1,060.27
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 30.83
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 103.66
Sewer - Tube Tires361164
Sewer - Tube Tires
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 34.68
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.19
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.97
Total :1,397.60
130754 2/29/2012 067788 CUTTING EDGE TRAINING 2/27/12 APRIL 5, 2012 CLASS DAMIAN SMITH
SUPERVISOR FORCE LIABILITY PREVENTION
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 109.00
Total :109.00
130755 2/29/2012 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 315342 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 2/4/12
E1AA.Services thru 2/4/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 13,746.92
Total :13,746.92
130756 2/29/2012 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 43703 Unit 55 - Radio
Unit 55 - Radio
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 460.00
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 5.00
7Page:
Packet Page 92 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130756 2/29/2012 (Continued)061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 44.18
Total :509.18
130757 2/29/2012 070324 DESTINY SOFTWARE 3183 DESTINY SOFTWARE UPGRADES
Upgrade & install to new server
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 1,450.00
PDF converter
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 500.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 102.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 35.32
Total :2,087.75
130758 2/29/2012 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 12-3257 MINUTE TAKING
2-7 & 2-21 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 213.00
Total :213.00
130759 2/29/2012 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1069611 MILLTOWN COURTYARD SUPPLIES
LUMBER SUPPLIES FOR MILLTOWN
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 226.00
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 21.47
Total :247.47
130760 2/29/2012 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 44228 OIL
OIL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 53.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.04
Total :58.11
130761 2/29/2012 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP ALVAREZ-RAMIREZ YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
8Page:
Packet Page 93 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130761 2/29/2012 (Continued)069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: DAIRA
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 75.00
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPKNAUSS0223
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP:LUKE KNAUSS
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 75.00
Total :150.00
130762 2/29/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57
Total :29.57
130763 2/29/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER2-25175
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
SPRINKLER2-28275
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
MINI PARK2-37180
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 41.32
WATER7-05276
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 117.59
Total :247.62
130764 2/29/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 073486 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE
Maintenance for printers 02/21/12 -
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 312.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 29.64
9Page:
Packet Page 94 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :341.64130764 2/29/2012 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
130765 2/29/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 071083 3RD FLOOR COPIER COPIES
3rd Floor Cannon Copier IRC5051 Copies
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 37.22
3rd Floor Cannon Copier IRC5051 Copies
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 37.22
3rd Floor Cannon Copier IRC5051 Copies
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 37.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 3.54
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 3.54
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 3.53
3RD FLOOR COPIER COPIES --MAYOR071280
3rd Floor Copier Copies -- Mayor
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 3.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 0.31
3RD FLOOR COPIER COPIES --MAIN071938
3rd Floor Cannon Copier Copies
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 10.50
3rd Floor Cannon Copier Copies
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 10.50
3rd Floor Cannon Copier Copies
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 10.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 1.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 0.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 1.00
3RD FLOOR COPIER COPIES --MAYOR072215
3rd Floor Copier Copies -- Mayor
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 9.54
10Page:
Packet Page 95 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130765 2/29/2012 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 0.91
3RD FLOOR COPIER COPIES --MAYOR073115
3rd Floor Copier Copies -- Mayor
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 11.86
3rd Floor Copier Copies -- Mayor
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 11.86
3rd Floor Copier Copies -- Mayor
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 11.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 1.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 1.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 1.12
Total :209.74
130766 2/29/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 073440 METER READING
Recp. desk copier 10/21 to 11/21
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 20.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 1.96
Total :22.61
130767 2/29/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 073573 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 24.22
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 2.30
Total :26.52
130768 2/29/2012 064733 ENVIROSORB COMPANY 119102 Fleet - Universal Absorbant
Fleet - Universal Absorbant
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 180.00
Freight
11Page:
Packet Page 96 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130768 2/29/2012 (Continued)064733 ENVIROSORB COMPANY
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 16.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 17.10
Total :213.10
130769 2/29/2012 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 BLDG 5449 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for March
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 3,000.00
Total :3,000.00
130770 2/29/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE
City Park T1 Line
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 411.10
Total :411.10
130771 2/29/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 27.15
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 27.14
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.32
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 71.61
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 60.16
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 60.16
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 80.20
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 50.60
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896
12Page:
Packet Page 97 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130771 2/29/2012 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 112.00
Total :503.34
130772 2/29/2012 012190 GORSUCH, BRUCE GORSUCH14896 I'M RELATED TO WHOM?
I'M RELATED TO WHOM? #14896
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
130773 2/29/2012 073533 H2NATION PUBLISHING INC 2313 MONTHLY WEB MAINTENANCE
Monthly web maintenance
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 250.00
Total :250.00
130774 2/29/2012 073944 HARRISON, JOAN HARRISON14888 ZUMBA
ZUMBA #14888
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 43.20
Total :43.20
130775 2/29/2012 073946 HOLY ROSARY SCHOOL 022212 FULL PAGE ADS
TWO FULL PAGE ADS IN 2012 AUCTION
001.000.640.574.200.440.00 200.00
Total :200.00
130776 2/29/2012 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1041538 0205
TAPE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.41
02052032814
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 36.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.46
020531601
13Page:
Packet Page 98 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130776 2/29/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 269.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 25.60
02054264890
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 21.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.08
020545789
FASTSET
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.95
02056040833
STEEL STUD
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.32
02057040556
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 49.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.66
02057043643
AK FASTSET
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 49.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.73
GARDENING SUPPLIES7265062
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 263.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 24.99
14Page:
Packet Page 99 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130776 2/29/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
02058040389
FITTING, BIT SET
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.54
02059040113
CEMETERY SUPPLIES
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 90.64
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 8.61
Total :891.61
130777 2/29/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2033777 Office supplies - DSD
Office supplies - DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 313.24
Office supplies - DSD2036056
Office supplies - DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 270.27
Total :583.51
130778 2/29/2012 068401 KING CO OFFICE OF FINANCE WRIA8- 5809 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WATERSHED PLANNING
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WATERSHED PLANNING
411.000.652.542.900.510.00 13,218.00
Total :13,218.00
130779 2/29/2012 070478 LANE COMMUNICATIONS INC 1987 RICK STEVES BLDG FIBER RUN
Rick Steves Bldg - installation of
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 2,276.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 216.26
Total :2,492.66
130780 2/29/2012 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 2012-244 ENGINE OIL
ENGINE OIL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 104.97
15Page:
Packet Page 100 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130780 2/29/2012 (Continued)068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.97
Total :114.94
130781 2/29/2012 072059 LEE, NICOLE 782 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 123.96
Total :123.96
130782 2/29/2012 073938 LYLE GRANT, MAPLE LEAF DESIGN cra20120005 Refund of Critical Areas Determination
Refund of Critical Areas Determination
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 155.00
Total :155.00
130783 2/29/2012 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 869 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE870
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE873
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32
Total :264.96
130784 2/29/2012 073641 MCCLURE, GLENDA MCCLURE0226 GYM MONITOR
GYM MONITOR 2/26/12
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 72.00
Total :72.00
130785 2/29/2012 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 141987 CONCRETE VIBRATOR
CONCRETE VIBRATOR FOR MILLTOWN PROJECT
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 60.00
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 5.70
16Page:
Packet Page 101 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :65.70130785 2/29/2012 020900 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
130786 2/29/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-420973 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:WILLOW CREEK FISH
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 140.00
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-423529
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:HAINES WHARF PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 220.77
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-424484
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:YOST PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 228.72
Total :589.49
130787 2/29/2012 066628 NORTHWEST DISTRIBUTING CO 0010012927 Fleet - Supplies
Fleet - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 274.34
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 3.33
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 26.38
Total :304.05
130788 2/29/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 640044 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 76.61
Total :76.61
130789 2/29/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 640044 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 76.61
Total :76.61
130790 2/29/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 602522 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 90.57
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 8.61
17Page:
Packet Page 102 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :99.18130790 2/29/2012 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
130791 2/29/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 619120 INV 619120 ACCT# 520437 250POL EDMONDS
TWO REAMS BLUE COPY PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 8.38
DOZEN 3X5 MEMO PA~
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.27
DOZEN 5X8 LEGAL PADS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.27
DOZEN STENO BOOKS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.54
BOX LETTER FILE FOLDERS 1/3 CUT
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.96
24 PACK OF 1.5X2 POST IT NOTES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.81
Total :55.47
130792 2/29/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 668934 ENVELOPES
PARK MAINTENANCE ENVELOPES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.78
PAPER692317
8.5 X 14 PAPER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 10.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.95
Total :31.57
130793 2/29/2012 068709 OFFICETEAM 34981310 Deborah Pinney - HR Assistant work
Deborah Pinney - HR Assistant work
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 350.24
Total :350.24
18Page:
Packet Page 103 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130794 2/29/2012 064070 PALMATIER, LISA PALMATIER0212 CONCERT COORDINATOR
CONCERT COORDINATOR ~
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 512.00
Total :512.00
130795 2/29/2012 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 14-78575 E7AA.SERVICES THRU 1/28/12
E7AA.Services thru 1/28/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 34,412.95
Total :34,412.95
130796 2/29/2012 007800 PETTY CASH FebruaryPettyCash REIMBURSEMENT OF PETTY CASH
Knee Pads
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 19.67
Parking @ ICC Meeting
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 14.00
Coffe & Donuts for Mayors meeting
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 35.15
I Pad Carry Case
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 21.89
Stylus
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 32.84
Flashlight
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 16.41
Monthly Mayors Luncheon
001.000.210.513.100.430.00 10.16
Parking for Director @ TPA Meeting.
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 6.00
Mileage to DOE Conference/Renton
001.000.620.532.200.430.00 25.64
Pentel Pens
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 22.97
Mileage Legislative Conference
001.000.110.511.100.430.00 77.70
Registration for Grant Training
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 50.00
Parking for ICC Meeting
19Page:
Packet Page 104 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130796 2/29/2012 (Continued)007800 PETTY CASH
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 6.00
Total :338.43
130797 2/29/2012 028400 PITNEY BOWES INC 334422 POSTAGE METER SUPPLIES
Ink for postage Meter
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 131.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 12.53
Total :144.44
130798 2/29/2012 070160 POETS & WRITERS INC 2012-4079 WRITE ON THE SOUND ADVERTISING
MAGAZINE DISPLAY AD FOR WRITE ON THE
123.000.640.573.100.440.00 1,200.00
Total :1,200.00
130799 2/29/2012 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 168.65
Total :168.65
130800 2/29/2012 073943 ROCK ROOFING INC bld2012.0124 Refund - not replacing sheeting on a
Refund - not replacing sheeting on a
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 240.50
Total :240.50
130801 2/29/2012 073937 SCOTT & HEATHER SUND cra20120004 Refund of Critical Areas Determination
Refund of Critical Areas Determination
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 155.00
Total :155.00
130802 2/29/2012 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0133969-IN Unit eq71po - LED angle bracket,clear
Unit eq71po - LED angle bracket,clear
511.000.657.594.480.640.00 244.60
Freight
511.000.657.594.480.640.00 13.75
20Page:
Packet Page 105 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :258.35130802 2/29/2012 068489 068489 SIRENNET.COM
130803 2/29/2012 036850 SMITH, SHERLUND D 24 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 2,532.25
Total :2,532.25
130804 2/29/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547 SIGNAL LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W
SIGNAL LIGHT 21930 95th AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.55
SCHOOL LIGHT 20829 76TH W200202562
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 32.05
SIGNAL LIGHT 84TH & 220TH200348233
Signal Light at 84th & 220th
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 79.74
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN200865202
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 126.14
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT 8400 219201151412
School Flashing Light 8400 219th St SW
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.55
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH W201611951
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 44.28
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 9932 220TH ST SW201751476
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 9932 220th ST SW
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 116.71
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH SW201907862
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 42.50
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St202087870
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 346.84
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99202289120
SIGNAL LIGHT
21Page:
Packet Page 106 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130804 2/29/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 116.87
Fire station #16 Light202807632
Fire station #16 Light
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 32.75
Total :1,000.98
130805 2/29/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-9314-6 19827 89TH PL W
19827 89TH PL W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.55
24000 78TH AVE W2026-2041-5
24000 78TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 65.82
Total :97.37
130806 2/29/2012 073945 SPECTOR, FRAN SPECTOR0224 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO CANCELLED CLASS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 10.33
Total :10.33
130807 2/29/2012 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO March 2012 Standard MARCH 2012 STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUMS
March 2012 Standard Insurance Premiums
811.000.000.231.550.000.00 13,746.92
Total :13,746.92
130808 2/29/2012 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3114493 WATER/SEWER -SHOVEL HANDLES
WATER/SEWER -SHOVEL HANDLES
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 32.21
WATER/SEWER -SHOVEL HANDLES
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 32.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.06
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.06
WATER/SEWER - BAR3115352
WATER/SEWER - BAR
22Page:
Packet Page 107 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130808 2/29/2012 (Continued)009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 38.61
WATER/SEWER - BAR
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 38.61
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.67
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.67
SEWER - CABLE SUPPLIES3117283
SEWER - CABLE SUPPLIES
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 638.04
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 60.62
Total :853.76
130809 2/29/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100113482.001 City Hall - Elect Supplies
City Hall - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.91
Total :22.04
130810 2/29/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100111312.001 MILLTOWN COURTYARD SUPPLIES
MILLTOWN COURTYARD SUPPLIES
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 74.12
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 7.04
GREENHOUSE SUPPLIESS100112423.001
SUPPLIES FOR GREENHOUSE
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 52.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 5.01
Total :138.89
130811 2/29/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1767099 NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3871
23Page:
Packet Page 108 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130811 2/29/2012 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 37.84
NEWSPAPER AD1767101
Ordinance 3872
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 24.08
NEWSPAPER AD1767102
Ordinance 3873
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 30.96
NEWSPAPER AD1767103
Ordinance 3874
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 25.80
NEWSPAPER ADS1767748
Hearing on Park Impact fees
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 56.00
Total :174.68
130812 2/29/2012 072800 TOYOTA LIFT NORTHWEST 24071772 Unit 4 - Repairs
Unit 4 - Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 608.63
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 57.82
Total :666.45
130813 2/29/2012 063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-60084 EDEN CASHIERING, HR,WEB LICENSE
EDEN Software Updates -Cashiering
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 5,849.99
EDEN Software Updates -Cashiering
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5,849.99
EDEN Software Updates -Cashiering
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5,850.02
EDEN Software Updates -Cashiering
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 1,950.00
EDEN Software Updates -Cashiering
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,950.00
EDEN Software Updates -Cashiering
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1,950.00
24Page:
Packet Page 109 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130813 2/29/2012 (Continued)063939 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC
EDEN Software Updates -Cashiering
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 11,822.77
EDEN Software Updates -Cashiering
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 3,777.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 555.75
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 741.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 741.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 185.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 1,123.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 358.84
Total :42,705.00
130814 2/29/2012 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 596462 SEWER - 4'METAL MEASURING WHEEL
SEWER - 4'METAL MEASURING WHEEL
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 253.90
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 30.16
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 26.99
Total :311.05
130815 2/29/2012 047200 WA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC 12-087 JOB POSTING
POSTING FOR POOL MANAGER
001.000.640.575.510.490.00 50.00
Total :50.00
130816 2/29/2012 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 46754 INV 46754 EDMONDS PD CASE 12-0584
TOW 2002 SUBARU LEGACY 67018
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
25Page:
Packet Page 110 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
130816 2/29/2012 (Continued)067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total :173.01
130817 2/29/2012 026510 WCIA 2012 StorageTankIns 2012 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK INSURANCE
2012 PW Underground Storage Tank
511.000.657.548.680.460.00 1,697.12
Total :1,697.12
130818 2/29/2012 026510 WCIA ED-19684471 Training for Land Use Boot Camp for
Training for Land Use Boot Camp for
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 195.00
Total :195.00
130819 2/29/2012 073137 WELCH-LANG, CAROLE LANG0225 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 2/25/12
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
130820 2/29/2012 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5419A Reminder cards for bldg. div.
Reminder cards for bldg. div.
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 240.90
Total :240.90
130821 2/29/2012 073479 WU, THOMAS 749 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 148.43
INTERPRETER FEE750
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 148.43
Total :296.86
Bank total :456,407.4086Vouchers for bank code :front
456,407.40Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report86
26Page:
Packet Page 111 of 442
02/29/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
7:40:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
27Page:
Packet Page 112 of 442
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
STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program
WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
STM E1FG c348 2011 Citywide Drainage Imp.-Snohomish County Conservation District Support
STM E1FB c337 2011 Citywide Drainage Improvement Project-12th Ave Storm
STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
WTR E2CA c388 2012 Street Overlay Program
WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
SWR E1GA c347 Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
SWR E8GC c300 BNSF Double Track Project
STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FI c351 Dayton Street Storm Rehab CIPP
WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail
STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
Revised 2/29/2012Packet Page 113 of 442
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain
PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E7FG m013 NPDES
SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM E1FK c357 Piezometer Data Evaluation
WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair
WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
STM E1FL c373 Public Works-Updated Decant Facility
PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs
SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program
General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support
STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STM E1FA c336 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E9FB c307 Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements
STM E1FE c350 W. Dayton Emergency Storm Repair 2011
Revised 2/29/2012Packet Page 114 of 442
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements
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 c300 E8GC BNSF Double Track Project
SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements
SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
STM c307 E9FB Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements
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 c336 E1FA SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM c337 E1FB 2011 Citywide Drainage Improvement Project-12th Ave Storm
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
Revised 2/29/2012Packet Page 115 of 442
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
SWR c347 E1GA Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
STM c348 E1FG 2011 Citywide Drainage Imp.-Snohomish County Conservation District Support
STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support
STM c350 E1FE W. Dayton Emergency Storm Repair 2011
STM c351 E1FI Dayton Street Storm Rehab CIPP
STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements
STM c357 E1FK Piezometer Data Evaluation
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
SWR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM c373 E1FL Public Works-Updated Decant Facility
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 Street Overlay Program
WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair
SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM m013 E7FG NPDES
Revised 2/29/2012Packet Page 116 of 442
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 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
STM 2011 Citywide Drainage Imp.-Snohomish County Conservation District Support c348 E1FG
STM 2011 Citywide Drainage Improvement Project-12th Ave Storm c337 E1FB
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
WTR 2012 Street Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
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
SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 E8GC
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Dayton Street Storm Rehab CIPP c351 E1FI
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
Revised 2/29/2012Packet Page 117 of 442
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Piezometer Data Evaluation c357 E1FK
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
STM Public Works-Updated Decant Facility c373 E1FL
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Stormwater Development Review Support c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB
STM W. Dayton Emergency Storm Repair 2011 c350 E1FE
Revised 2/29/2012Packet Page 118 of 442
PROJECT NUMBERS
(Phase and Task Numbers)
Phases and Tasks (Engineering Division)
Phase Title
ct Construction
ds Design
pl Preliminary
sa Site Acquisition & Prep
st Study
ro Right-of-Way
Task Title
196 Traffic Engineering & Studies
197 MAIT
198 CTR
199 Engineering Plans & Services
950 Engineering Staff Time
970 Construction Management
981 Contract
990 Miscellaneous
991 Retainage
stm Engineering Staff Time-Storm
str Engineering Staff Time-Street
swr Engineering Staff Time-Sewer
wtr Engineering Staff Time-Water
prk Engineering Staff Time-Park
Packet Page 119 of 442
AM-4595 Item #: 3. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Comcast ($423.13), and Janis Cain ($1,630.70).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Claims for Damages have been received from the following:
Phoenix Loss Control
For: Comcast
P.O. Box 271504
Littleton, CO 80127
Janis Cain
8210 Sierra Drive
Edmonds, WA 98026
($1,630.70)
Attachments
Comcast Claim
Cain Claim
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 03/01/2012 09:33 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2012 09:38 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/21/2012 04:42 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/01/2012
Packet Page 120 of 442
Packet Page 121 of 442
Packet Page 122 of 442
Packet Page 123 of 442
Packet Page 124 of 442
Packet Page 125 of 442
AM-4596 Item #: 3. F.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Frances Chapin Submitted By:Cindi Cruz
Department:Economic Development
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee Tourism Promotion
Agreement awarding the Snohomish County Visitor's Bureau $6,000 for tourism promotion and support
of visitor services to promote Edmonds.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
In the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s annual budget review and approval process the Committee
allocated funds to the Economic Development Department including $6,000 awarded to the Snohomish
County Visitor’s Bureau for tourism promotion and support of visitor services to promote Edmonds for
the year 2012. Staff is requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the promotion agreement.
Attachments
2012 Snohomish County Visitor Bureau Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/28/2012 09:26 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/29/2012 02:33 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/29/2012 04:00 PM
Form Started By: Cindi Cruz Started On: 02/23/2012 10:17 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/29/2012
Packet Page 126 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 1 ~
TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into the day of , 20 by and
between the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Snohomish County Visitor’s
Bureau (“Promoter”).
RECITALS
A. The City established a Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 120 (“Fund”) under Ordinance Number
2010. The proceeds in the Fund are derived from a special excise tax of two percent on the sale
or charge made for the furnishing of lodging by a hotel, rooming house, tourist court, motel
trailer camp, and granting of any similar license to use real property pursuant to Chapter 3.34 of
the Edmonds City Code and Chapter 67.28 RCW.
B. The use of the tax is restricted to tourism promotion and acquisition and/or maintenance
of tourism-related facilities, including operation of tourism promotion agencies that serve the
community
C. Under the Ordinance, the Edmonds Lodging Tax Advisory Committee assists in
administration of the Fund.
D. The Committee has recommended and approved, funding in the form of an agreement for
services to Promoter for promotion of tourism in Edmonds and support of visitor services to
promote Edmonds (as described in the attached Exhibit A.)
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and
obligations hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows:
1. Award of Funds. The City provides a grant in the form of an agreement for
services in accord with statutory requirements (“Grant”) in the amount of Six Thousand
Dollars ($6,000.00) to Promoter and Promoter accepts the Grant. The City shall issue a
check to Promoter for the Grant within three weeks after the City receives the
documented receipts - for the work performed as agreed to in Exhibit A of the executed
original of this Agreement. See Exhibit A for the payment schedule.
2. Scope of Use. Promoter may only use the Grant for cultural and artistic activities
designed to increase tourism and tourist activity in the City and to promote the City. The
Promoter may use the Grant for:
a) advertising, publicizing or otherwise distributing information for the purpose of
attracting visitors and encouraging tourist expansion in the City;
b) operating activities at the Visitor Information Center in order to distribute tourism
promotional information .
3. Final Reports. Pursuant to the requirements of RCW 67.28.1816, an annual report
regarding the economic impact of the Grants must be made to the Washington State
Packet Page 127 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 2 ~
Department of Commerce. As a condition of this Grant, the Promoter shall provide the
City a draft report (See Exhibit B) by January 15, 2013 for City review, approval and
filing with the Department of Commerce by May 1st of the following year. The report
shall include:
3.1 The total revenue received by the Promoter pursuant to this Agreement;
3.2 A list of the festivals, special events, or nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6)
organizations that receive funds under this chapter;
3.3 A list of the festivals, special events or tourism facilities sponsored or
owned by the Promoter that receive funds under this chapter;
3.4 The amount of revenue expended on each festival, special event or tourism
related facility owned or sponsored by a nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or
jurisdiction;
3.5 The estimated number of tourists, persons traveling over 50 miles to the
destination, persons remaining at the destination overnight and lodging stays generated
per festival, special event, or tourism related facility owned or sponsored by a nonprofit
501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or jurisdiction; and
3.6 Any other measurements which the Promoter feels demonstrate the impact
of increased tourism attributable to the festival, special event, or tourism related facility
owned or sponsored by a nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or local
jurisdiction.
4. Time of Performance. Promoter shall complete all Promotions of the Event no
later than December 31, 2012. “Grant year” shall mean January 1, 2012 to December 31,
2012.
5. Credit to City. Any publications produced as a result of the Grant will
prominently feature the following message:
FUNDED IN PART BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING
TAX FUND.
6. Intellectual Property Rights. Where activities supported by the Grant produce
original books, articles, manuals, films, computer programs or other materials, the
Promoter may copyright or trademark such materials upon obtaining the prior written
approval of the City; provided, that the City receives a royalty-free, non-exclusive and
irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or use such materials. Where such license is
exercised, appropriate acknowledgement of Promoter’s contribution will be made.
7. Modifications. This Agreement may only be modified by a written amendment to
be executed by both parties.
Packet Page 128 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 3 ~
8. Access to Books/Records. The City may, at reasonable times, inspect the
books and records of the Promoter relating to the performance of this Agreement.
9. Hold Harmless. The Promoter shall protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and
defend, at its own expense, the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers,
employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever,
arising out of the performance of this Agreement and the use of the Grant, including
claims by Promoter's, employees or third parties, except for those damages solely caused
by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
10. Legal Requirements. The Promoter shall comply with all applicable Federal,
State and local laws in performing this Agreement; including but not limited to, State,
Federal and local laws regarding discrimination.
11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and venue shall be in an appropriate
court in Snohomish County.
12. Termination.
(a) If the Promoter breaches any of its obligations under this agreement, and fails to cure
the same within five (5) days of written notice to do so by the City, the City may
terminate this Agreement, in which case the Promoter shall return of the unused portion
of the Grant within five (5) business days after termination.
(b) The City may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) written days notice to the
Promoter for any reason other than that stated in subsection (a) of this section, in which
case, the Promoter shall return the unused portion of the Grant within five (5) business
days after termination.
13. Waiver. The failure of a party to insist upon strict adherence to any term of
this Agreement on any occasion shall not be considered a Waiver thereof or deprive that
party of the right thereafter to insist upon strict adherence to that term or any other term
of this Agreement.
14. Assignment. This Agreement is personal in nature and shall not be assigned by
the Promoter.
15. Records. The Promoter must maintain adequate records to support its use of the
Grant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, Chapter 67.28 RCW, the ECC and
the Resolution. Promoter’s records shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after
termination of this Agreement. The City or any of its duly authorized representatives
shall have access to any books, documents, or papers and records of the Promoter that are
directly related to this Agreement for the purposes of audit examinations, excerpts, or
transcripts.
Packet Page 129 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 4 ~
16. Reimbursement. Use of the Grant by the Promoter that is determined not to be in
compliance with the terms of this Agreement, Chapter 67.28 RCW, the ECC and the
Ordinance must be reimbursed to the City. The Promoter shall reimburse the requested
funds within five (5) business days after the City sends its request for reimbursement.
17. Independent Contractor. Promoter is an Independent Contractor and not an agent,
employee or servant of the City. The Promoter is not entitled to any benefits or rights
enjoyed by employees of the City. Promoter has the right to direct and control its own
activities in using the Grant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
18. Recitals. The Recitals of this Agreement are incorporated in this Agreement by
this reference.
19. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the
parties.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties executed this Agreement as of the date first shown above.
CITY OF EDMONDS PROMOTER
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
David O. Earling, Mayor
121 – 5th Avenue
Edmonds, WA 98020 ____________________________________
Print Name
Print Address
Approved as to Form:
____________________________________
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Page 130 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 5 ~
EXHIBIT A
The 2012 approved budget for the Lodging Tax Fund includes funding for the Snohomish
County Tourism Bureau’s Visitor Services Program. The funding supports the four, visitor
information centers in the county ensuring the distribution of marketing materials promoting
Edmonds in addition to our own brochures and including: the official Snohomish County
Visitors Guide, bi-annual Calendar of Events, and the Arts, Culture & Heritage brochure.
See attached letter from Snohomish County Tourism.
Payment Schedule:
June 30, 2012 $3,000 upon receipt of invoice
December 15, 2012 $3,000 upon receipt of invoice
Packet Page 131 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 6 ~
EXHIBIT B
Event or Tourism Activity Report Worksheet
Official Report Form is due: January 15, 2013
NOTE: It is very important that you fill this report out as completely as possible to ensure you
are eligible to receive support through Lodging Tax in the future. The City of Edmonds is
required to provide this information to the State. Please plan now how you will collect this
information. Questions? Call 425-775- 7724
1. Organization __________________________________
2. This report covers:
Event Name: _________________________________ Date: _________________
Tourism Facility: _______________________________ Date: _________________
3. Total Lodging Tax Funds Allocated to this event of facility $ ____________________
4. Estimated total event attendance or user count for the facility: _____________________
Describe methodology used to determine this figure
5. Estimated percentage of total attendance for event or facility by:
a. Tourists (total number of guests from outside Edmonds) ______% OR # _______
b. Traveled more than 50 miles ______% OR # _______
c. Overnight stays associated with event ______% OR # _______
Describe methodology used to determine this figure
6. Estimated total hotel or B & B room nights generated _________
Describe methodology used to determine this figure (eg: arrangement with hotel to report visitors,
surveys of participants, etc.)
7 Any other information that demonstrates the impact of the festival, events or tourism-
related facility owned by a non-profit organization or local jurisdiction (please describe, eg:
restaurant or shop patronage, etc):
Packet Page 132 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 7 ~
Submitted by: ____________________________________
Date: _________________
E-mail or phone number: ___________________________________________________
Packet Page 133 of 442
AM-4597 Item #: 3. G.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Frances Chapin Submitted By:Cindi Cruz
Department:Economic Development
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee Tourism Promotion
Agreement awarding the Edmonds Center for the Arts $10,000 to attract visitors to Edmonds through
advertising and promoting downtown Edmonds and annual cultural events/festivals in their 2011/2012
season brochure.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
In the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s annual budget review and approval process the Committee
allocated funds to the Economic Development Department including $10,000 awarded to the Edmonds
Center for the Arts to place advertising in their 2012/2013 season brochure to promote cultural events and
lodging in downtown Edmonds. Staff is requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the promotion
agreement.
Attachments
2012 ECA Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/28/2012 09:26 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/29/2012 02:33 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/29/2012 04:00 PM
Form Started By: Cindi Cruz Started On: 02/23/2012 10:25 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/29/2012
Packet Page 134 of 442
{CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/}
Promotion Agreement 1
TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into the____ day of , 2012 by and between the
City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Edmonds Center for the Arts.
(“Promoter”).
RECITALS
A. The City established a Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 120 (“Fund”) under Ordinance Number
2010. The proceeds in the Fund are derived from a special excise tax of two percent on the sale
of or charge made for the furnishing of lodging by a hotel, rooming house, tourist court, motel,
trailer camp, and the granting of any similar license to use real property pursuant to Chapter 3.34
of the Edmonds City Code and Chapter 67.28 RCW.
B. The use of the tax is restricted to fund, facilitate, or promote events that will serve to
attract visitors to the community.
C. Under the Ordinance, the Edmonds Lodging Tax Advisory Committee administers the
Fund.
D. The Committee has recommended and approved funding in the form of an agreement for
services to Promoter for promotion of the 2012/13 Season through a brochure that includes
information to attract visitors to Edmonds (described in the attached Exhibit A - hereinafter
the “Event”) through the following method(s) Printing Season Brochures. (“Promotion”).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and
obligations hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows:
1. Award of Funds. The City provides a grant in the form of an agreement for
services in accord with statutory requirements (“Grant”) in the amount of Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000.00) to Promoter and Promoter accepts the Grant. The City shall issue a
check to Promoter for the Grant within three weeks after the City receives the
documented receipts for the work performed as agreed to in Exhibit A of the executed
original of this Agreement.
2. Scope of Use. Promoter may only use the Grant for cultural and artistic activities
designed to increase tourism and tourist activity in the City and to promote the Event.
The Promoter may use the Grant for:
a) advertising, publicizing or otherwise distributing information for the purpose of
attracting visitors and encouraging tourist expansion in the City;
b) funding Marketing of the Event in the City.
3. Final Reports. Pursuant to the requirements of RCW 67.28.1816, an annual report
regarding the economic impact of the grants must be made to the Washington State
Department of Commerce. As a condition of this Grant, the Promoter shall provide the
Packet Page 135 of 442
{CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/}
Promotion Agreement 2
City a draft report (See Exhibit B) by January 15, 2013 for City review, approval and
filing with the Department of Commerce by May 1st of the following year. The report
shall include:
3.1 The total revenue received by the Promoter pursuant to this Agreement;
3.2 A list of the festivals, special events, or nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6)
organizations that receive funds under this chapter;
3.3 A list of the festivals, special events or tourism facilities sponsored or
owned by the Promoter that receive funds under this chapter;
3.4 The amount of revenue expended on each festival, special event or tourism
related facility owned or sponsored by a nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or
jurisdiction;
3.5 The estimated number of tourists, persons traveling over 50 miles to the
destination, persons remaining at the destination overnight and lodging stays generated
per festival, special event or tourism related facility owned or sponsored by a nonprofit
501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or jurisdiction; and
3.6 Any other measurements which the Promoter feels demonstrate the impact
of increased tourism attributable to the festival, special event, or tourism related facility
owned or sponsored by a nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or local
jurisdiction.
4. Time of Performance. Promoter shall complete production of the season brochure
no later than December 31, 2012 .
5. Credit to City. Any publications produced as a result of the Grant will include the
City logo where possible and will prominently feature the following message:
FUNDED IN PART BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
LODGING TAX FUND.
6. Intellectual Property Rights. Where activities supported by the Grant produce
original books, articles, manuals, films, computer programs or other materials, the
Promoter may copyright or trademark such materials upon obtaining the prior written
approval of the City; provided, that the City receives a royalty-free, non-exclusive and
irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or use such materials. Where such license is
exercised, appropriate acknowledgement of Promoter’s contribution will be made.
7. Modifications. This Agreement may only be modified by a written amendment to
be executed by both parties.
Packet Page 136 of 442
{CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/}
Promotion Agreement 3
8. Access to Books/Records. The City may, at reasonable times, inspect the books
and records of the Promoter relating to the performance of this Agreement.
9. Hold Harmless. The Promoter shall protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and
defend, at its own expense the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers,
employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever,
arising out of the performance of this Agreement and the use of the Grant, including
claims by Promoter's employees or third parties, except for those damages solely caused
by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
10. Legal Requirements. The Promoter shall comply with all applicable Federal,
State and local laws in performing this Agreement; including but not limited to, State,
Federal and local laws regarding discrimination.
11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and venue shall be in an appropriate
court in Snohomish County.
12. Termination.
(a) If the Promoter breaches any of its obligations under this agreement, and fails to cure
the same within five (5) days of written notice to do so by the City, the City may
terminate this Agreement, in which case the Promoter shall return of the unused portion
of the Grant within five (5) business days after termination.
(b) The City may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) written days notice to the
Promoter for any reason other then that stated in subsection (a) of this section, in which
case, the Promoter shall return the unused portion of the Grant within five (5) business
days after termination.
13. Waiver. The failure of a party to insist upon strict adherence to any term of
this Agreement on any occasion shall not be considered a Waiver thereof or deprive that
party of the right thereafter to insist upon strict adherence to that term or any other term
of this Agreement.
14. Assignment. This Agreement is personal in nature and shall not be assigned by
the Promoter.
15. Records. The Promoter must maintain adequate records to support its use of the
Grant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, Chapter 67.28 RCW, the ECC and
the Ordinance. Promoter’s records shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after
termination of this Agreement. The City or any of its duly authorized representatives
shall have access to any books, documents, or papers and records of the Promoter that are
directly related to this Agreement for the purposes of audit examinations, excerpts, or
transcripts.
Packet Page 137 of 442
{CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/}
Promotion Agreement 4
16. Reimbursement. Use of the Grant by the Promoter that is determined not to be in
compliance with the terms of this Agreement, Chapter 67.28 RCW, the ECC and the
Ordinance must be reimbursed to the City. The Promoter shall reimburse the requested
funds within five (5) business days after the City sends its request for reimbursement.
17. Independent Contractor. Promoter is an Independent Contractor and not an
agent, employee or servant of the City. The Promoter is not entitled to any benefits or
rights enjoyed by employees of the City. Promoter has the right to direct and control its
own activities in using the Grant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
18. Recitals. The Recitals of this Agreement are incorporated in this Agreement by
this reference.
19. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including Exhibits A and B attached hereto,
constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties executed this Agreement as of the date first shown above.
CITY OF EDMONDS PROMOTER
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
Dave Earling, Mayor
121 – 5th Avenue
Edmonds, WA 98020 ____________________________________
Print Name
ATTEST:
____________________________________ ____________________________________
Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk Print Address
Approved as to Form:
____________________________________
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Page 138 of 442
{CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/}
Promotion Agreement 5
EXHIBIT A
The 2012 approved budget for the Lodging Tax Fund includes funding for the Edmonds Center
for the Arts 2012-13 season brochure, as recommended by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
to promote tourism and economic development in Edmonds. The Edmonds Center for the Arts is
a publicly owned facility and the City contracts with them to promote the City as a whole
through their season brochure which includes two pages dedicated to promoting Edmonds and
special events held throughout the year that attract tourists.
The funding is to be used for an expanded listing of annual community events with short
descriptions, and an expanded “Welcome to Edmonds” stay, shop, and dine section.
As part of the “grant” agreement the Edmonds Center for the Arts will draft copy for approval by
the City of Edmonds Economic Development Director before printing, and submit a final report
on the marketing efforts, including information on distribution of the season brochure, overnight
stays, and other information on tourism impacts as available, by December 15, 2012. All
receipts will be submitted and reviewed before reimbursement.
See attached letter from the Edmonds Center for the Arts.
Packet Page 139 of 442
{CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/}
Promotion Agreement 6
EXHIBIT B
Event or Tourism Activity Report Worksheet
Official Report Form is due: January 15, 2013
NOTE: It is very important that you fill this report out as completely as possible to ensure you
are eligible to receive Tourism Promotion Funds supported through Lodging Tax in the future!
The City of Edmonds is required to provide this information to the State. Please plan now how
you will collect this information. Questions? Call 425-775-7724
1. Organization __________________________________
2. This report covers:
Event Name: _________________________________ Date: _________________
Tourism Facility: _______________________________ Date: _________________
3. Total Lodging Tax Funds Allocated to this event of facility $ ____________________
4. Estimated total event attendance or user count for the facility: _____________________
Describe methodology used to determine this figure
5. Estimated percentage of total attendance for event or facility by:
a. Tourists (total number of guests from outside Edmonds) ______% OR # _______
b. Traveled more than 50 miles ______% OR # _______
c. Overnight stays associated with event ______% OR # _______
Describe methodology used to determine this figure
6. Estimated total hotel or B & B room nights generated _________
Describe methodology used to determine this figure (eg: arrangement with hotel to report visitors,
surveys of participants, etc.)
7 Any other information that demonstrates the impact of the festival, events or tourism-
related facility owned by a non-profit organization or local jurisdiction (please describe, eg:
restaurant or shop patronage, etc):
Packet Page 140 of 442
{CDI425609.DOC;1/00006.900120/}
Promotion Agreement 7
Submitted by: ____________________________________
Date: _________________
E-mail or phone number: ___________________________________________________
Economic Development – Brochures
Packet Page 141 of 442
AM-4598 Item #: 3. H.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Frances Chapin Submitted By:Cindi Cruz
Department:Economic Development
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee Tourism Promotion
Agreement awarding the Edmonds Visitor's Center $2,500 for tourism promotion and support of visitor
services to promote Edmonds.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
In the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee’s annual budget review and approval process the Committee
allocated funds to the Economic Development Department including $2,500 awarded to the Edmonds
Visitor’s Center for tourism promotion and support of visitor services to promote Edmonds for the year
2012. Staff is requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the promotion agreement.
Attachments
2012 Edmonds Chamber Visitor's Center Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/28/2012 09:26 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/29/2012 02:33 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/29/2012 04:00 PM
Form Started By: Cindi Cruz Started On: 02/23/2012 10:26 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/29/2012
Packet Page 142 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 1 ~
TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
City of Edmonds Lodging Tax Committee
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into the day of , 2012 by and between the
City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
Edmonds Visitors Center (“Promoter”).
RECITALS
A. The City established a Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 120 (“Fund”) under Ordinance Number 2010.
The proceeds in the Fund are derived from a special excise tax of two percent on the sale or charge
made for the furnishing of lodging by a hotel, rooming house, tourist court, motel trailer camp, and
granting of any similar license to use real property pursuant to Chapter 3.34 of the Edmonds City Code
and Chapter 67.28 RCW.
B. The use of the tax is restricted to tourism promotion and acquisition and/or maintenance of
tourism-related facilities, including operation of tourism promotion agencies that serve the community.
C. Under the Ordinance, the Edmonds Lodging Tax Advisory Committee assists in administration
of the Fund.
D. The Committee has recommended and approved, funding in the form of an agreement for
services to Promoter for promotion of tourism in Edmonds and support of visitor services at the
Edmonds Visitor Center to promote Edmonds (as described in the attached Exhibit A.)
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and
obligations hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows:
1. Award of Funds. The City provides a grant in the form of an agreement for services in
accord with statutory requirements (“Grant”) in the amount of Two Thousand Five Hundred
Dollars ($2,500.00) to Promoter and Promoter accepts the Grant.The City shall issue a check
to Promoter for the Grant within three weeks after the City receives the documented receipts -
for the work performed as agreed to in Exhibit A of the executed original of this Agreement.
See Exhibit A for the payment schedule.
2. Scope of Use. Promoter may only use the Grant for activities designed to increase
tourism and tourist activity in the City and to promote the City. The Promoter may use the
Grant for:
a) advertising, publicizing or otherwise distributing information for the purpose of attracting
visitors and encouraging tourist expansion in the City;
b) operating activities at the Visitor Information Center in order to distribute tourism
promotional information .
3. Final Reports. Pursuant to the requirements of RCW 67.28.1816, an annual report
regarding the economic impact of the grants must be made to the Washington State Department
of Commerce. As a condition of this Grant, the Promoter shall provide the City a draft report
(See Exhibit B) by January 15, 2013 for City review, approval and filing with the Department
of Commerce by May 1st of the following year. The report shall include:
Packet Page 143 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 2 ~
3.1 The total revenue received by the Promoter pursuant to this Agreement;
3.2 A list of the festivals, special events, or nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6)
organizations that receive funds under this chapter;
3.3 A list of the festivals, special events or tourism facilities sponsored or owned by
the Promoter that receive funds under this chapter;
3.4 The amount of revenue expended on each festival, special event or tourism
related facility owned or sponsored by a nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or
jurisdiction;
3.5 The estimated number of tourists, persons traveling over 50 miles to the
destination, persons remaining at the destination overnight and lodging stays generated per
festival, special event, or tourism related facility owned or sponsored by a nonprofit 501(c)(3)
or 501(c)(6) organization or jurisdiction; and
3.6 Any other measurements which the Promoter feels demonstrate the impact of
increased tourism attributable to the festival, special event, or tourism related facility owned or
sponsored by a nonprofit 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(6) organization or local jurisdiction.
4. Time of Performance. Promoter shall complete all Promotions of the Event no later
than December 31, 2012. “Grant year” shall mean January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012.
5. Credit to City. Any publications produced as a result of the Grant will prominently
feature the following message:
FUNDED IN PART BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING TAX
FUND.
6. Intellectual Property Rights. Where activities supported by the Grant produce
original books, articles, manuals, films, computer programs or other materials, the
Promoter may copyright or trademark such materials upon obtaining the prior written
approval of the City; provided, that the City receives a royalty-free, non-exclusive and
irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or use such materials. Where such license is
exercised, appropriate acknowledgement of Promoter’s contribution will be made.
7. Modifications. This Agreement may only be modified by a written amendment to
be executed by both parties.
8. Access to Books/Records. The City may, at reasonable times, inspect the books and
records of the Promoter relating to the performance of this Agreement.
9. Hold Harmless. The Promoter shall protect, hold harmless, indemnify, and defend, at
its own expense, the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents,
from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, arising out of the performance of
this Agreement and the use of the Grant, including claims by Promoter's, employees or third
parties, except for those damages solely caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the
City.
Packet Page 144 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 3 ~
10. Legal Requirements. The Promoter shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and
local laws in performing this Agreement; including but not limited to, State, Federal and local
laws regarding discrimination.
11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and venue shall be in an appropriate court
in Snohomish County.
12. Termination.
(a) If the Promoter breaches any of its obligations under this agreement, and fails to cure the
same within five (5) days of written notice to do so by the City, the City may terminate this
Agreement, in which case the Promoter shall return of the unused portion of the Grant within
five (5) business days after termination.
(b) The City may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) written days notice to the
Promoter for any reason other than that stated in subsection (a) of this section, in which case,
the Promoter shall return the unused portion of the Grant within five (5) business days after
termination.
13. Waiver. The failure of a party to insist upon strict adherence to any term of this
Agreement on any occasion shall not be considered a Waiver thereof or deprive that party of
the right thereafter to insist upon strict adherence to that term or any other term of this
Agreement.
14. Assignment. This Agreement is personal in nature and shall not be assigned by the
Promoter.
15. Records. The Promoter must maintain adequate records to support its use of the Grant
in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, Chapter 67.28 RCW, the ECC and the
Resolution. Promoter’s records shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after
termination of this Agreement. The City or any of its duly authorized representatives shall
have access to any books, documents, or papers and records of the Promoter that are directly
related to this Agreement for the purposes of audit examinations, excerpts, or transcripts.
16. Reimbursement. Use of the Grant by the Promoter that is determined not to be in
compliance with the terms of this Agreement, Chapter 67.28 RCW, the ECC and the Ordinance
must be reimbursed to the City. The Promoter shall reimburse the requested funds within five
(5) business days after the City sends its request for reimbursement.
17. Independent Contractor. Promoter is an Independent Contractor and not an agent,
employee or servant of the City. The Promoter is not entitled to any benefits or rights
enjoyed by employees of the City. Promoter has the right to direct and control its own
activities in using the Grant in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
18. Recitals. The Recitals of this Agreement are incorporated in this Agreement by this
reference.
Packet Page 145 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 4 ~
19. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the
parties.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties executed this Agreement as of the date first shown above.
CITY OF EDMONDS PROMOTER
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
David O. Earling, Mayor
121 – 5th Avenue
Edmonds, WA 98020 ____________________________________
Print Name
Print Address
Approved as to Form:
____________________________________
Office of the City Attorney
Packet Page 146 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 5 ~
EXHIBIT A
The 2012 approved budget for the Lodging Tax Fund includes funding for operations at the Edmonds
Visitor’s Center. The Edmonds Visitor’s Center is located in a City facility (log cabin) and is operated
by the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce. The Visitor Center serves the entire City and promotes
tourism in the City. Receipts for all eligible expenses must be submitted for review prior to issuing
reimbursement. Eligible operational expenses are limited to telephone service, postage, computer
related items (internet access, software, hardware), training fees for volunteers, and office supplies.
See attached letter from Edmonds Chamber of Commerce.
Payment Schedule:
June 30, 2012 Partial payment up to $1250 upon receipt of documented invoice
December 15, 2012 Final Payment not to exceed total award of $2500 upon receipt of documented
invoice
Packet Page 147 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 6 ~
EXHIBIT B
Event or Tourism Activity Report Worksheet
Official Report Form is due: January 15, 2013
NOTE: It is very important that you fill this report out as completely as possible to ensure you are
eligible to receive Tourism Promotion Funds supported through Lodging Tax in the future! The City
of Edmonds is required to provide this information to the State. Please plan now how you will
collect this information. Questions? Call 425-771-0228
1. Organization __________________________________
2. This report covers:
Event Name: _________________________________ Date: _________________
Tourism Facility: _______________________________ Date: _________________
3. Total Lodging Tax Funds Allocated to this event of facility $ ____________________
4. Estimated total event attendance or user count for the facility: _____________________
Describe methodology used to determine this figure
5. Estimated percentage of total attendance for event or facility by:
a. Tourists (total number of guests from outside Edmonds) ______% OR # _______
b. Traveled more than 50 miles ______% OR # _______
c. Overnight stays associated with event ______% OR # _______
Describe methodology used to determine this figure
6. Estimated total hotel or B & B room nights generated _________
Describe methodology used to determine this figure (eg: arrangement with hotel to report visitors,
surveys of participants, etc.)
7 Any other information that demonstrates the impact of the festival, events or tourism-
related facility owned by a non-profit organization or local jurisdiction (please describe, eg:
restaurant or shop patronage, etc):
Submitted by: ____________________________________
Date: _________________
Packet Page 148 of 442
{WSS735706.DOC;1\00006.900000\} ~ 7 ~
E-mail or phone number: ___________________________________________________
Economic Development – Brochures
Packet Page 149 of 442
AM-4601 Item #: 3. I.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Public Safety/Personnel
Finance
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 3821 to revise the time limit provision relating to the
payment of additional compensation.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council approve changes to Ordinance 3821.
Previous Council Action
Both Public Safety/Personnel Committee and the Finance Committee reviewed the temporary Human
Resources staffing proposal from Mayor Earling on February 14th. These two committees forwarded the
proposal to full Council for authorization.
Council authorized the temporary HR staffing proposal on February 21st.
Narrative
As part of the Human Resources Staffing Proposal authorized on Februrary 21, 2012, Mayor Earling
requested that Council amend the current Ordinance #3821 in order to proceed with the proposal.
This ordinance that was adopted last year by Council allows for "acting " pay to be granted for a limited
time of six months. Because of the circumstances, the amendment to this ordinance will allow the Mayor
to implement the temporary Human Resources staffing proposal authorized previously.
Attachments
Ordinance 3821 amendment
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/29/2012 02:22 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/29/2012 02:32 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/29/2012 04:00 PM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 02/29/2012 12:17 PM
Final Approval Date: 02/29/2012
Packet Page 150 of 442
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF
ORDINANCE NO. 3821 SECTION 1.3 TO REVISE THE TIME
LIMIT PROVISION RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION, AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds adopted Ordinance No. 3821, pursuant to the
provisions of RCW 35A.33.050, to include salary ranges for various non-represented and exempt
personnel positions at the City in the annual budget ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 3821 included a limit of six (6) months on the
payment of additional compensation to non-represented employees who cover additional duties
during a job vacancy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an amendment to Ordinance
No. 3821 is appropriate to revise this limitation; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 3821, Section 1.3 thereof, is hereby amended to read as
follows (deleted language is shown in strike-through and new language is underlined):
1.3 When a non-represented employee is assigned to cover
additional duties of another position during a job vacancy, the Mayor
may, but is not required to, approve additional compensation of five
percent (5%) or a salary equal to that provided for the vacant
position, whichever is greater. The additional compensation shall be
payable only if the duties are covered for a period of thirty (30) days
or longer. This additional compensation shall be temporary and shall
not exceed six (6) months or will cease when the vacant position has
been filled, or earlier at the Mayor’s discretion, whichever comes
Packet Page 151 of 442
first. Up to one week of additional compensation may be paid if the
designated employee assists in training the new hire.
Section 2. Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 152 of 442
3
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2012, the City Council of the City of
Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said
ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF
ORDINANCE NO. 3821 SECTION 1.3 TO REVISE THE
TIME LIMIT PROVISION RELATING TO THE
PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2012.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 153 of 442
AM-4613 Item #: 3. J.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Ordinance amending the Citizens' Tree Board Ordinance; adding one non-voting, ex-officio
position to the Citizens' Tree Board to be filled by an Edmonds City Council Member; and establishing
the length of term for an appointee who has filled a vacancy.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
During the 2012 Council Retreat, it was the consensus of the Council to add a Council liaison to the Tree
Board and to
make it a paid committee position. (Attachment 1)
Narrative
The attached amendment addresses the appointment of a Councilmember to the Tree Board. It was
discovered during the drafting of the amendment there was no provision for filling vacancies. In
paragraph B the following wording was added to address vacancies: Should a vacancy occur, a new
member shall be appointed for the duration of the term he or she is fulfilling.
This amendment has been placed on the Consent Agenda for approval.
Attachments
Attachment 1: 2012 Approved Council Retreat Minutes
Attachment 2: Tree Board Amendment Ord.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/01/2012 04:10 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/02/2012 10:03 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/02/2012 10:09 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 03/01/2012 03:17 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/02/2012
Packet Page 154 of 442
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 2-3, 2011
Page 17
before the Council is first a committee meeting or work session. Issues that have a financial impact will be
discussed at a work session rather than just by the Finance Committee.
It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Community Services/Development Services
Committee to the Public Works, Parks and Planning Committees.
• Mission Statements
Committees will determine whether to develop a mission statement. Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto
will develop a mission statement for the Finance Committee.
• Clarify the Public Safety/Human Resources Committee
It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Public Safety/Human Resources to Committee to
the Public Safety and Personnel Committee.
• Community Outreach, Tree Board
Council President Peterson explained there has been a proposal to restart the Community Outreach Committee.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Community Outreach Committee was discontinued after 3 years; no new
methods of communicating were identified. Mayor Earling commented on the potential for an electronic
newsletter.
Discussion followed regarding whether to form a code rewrite committee so that the code rewrite is Council and
citizen driven, technical expertise required for the code rewrite, having staff make periodic presentations at
Council work sessions regarding the rewrite, the proposal by staff to restructure the code, providing opportunity
for citizen comment but having professionals assemble the changes, citizen knowledge that could benefit the
process, concern with citizens participating for their own benefit or at least that perception, proposal to have
user groups test the model, ability for any citizen to identify code conflicts regardless of whether there is a
committee structure, and asking staff whether forming a committee in the future could be helpful.
The Council agreed to seek feedback from Planning Manager Rob Chave and Building Official Leonard
Yarberry regarding forming a code rewrite committee and schedule further discussion on a work session agenda.
Council President Peterson suggested enhancing the Council portion of the website with more updates, etc. and
working with the Mayor on an electronic newsletter and then consider whether a Community Outreach
Committee is needed. It was the consensus of the Council to add a Council liaison to the Tree Board and to
make it a paid committee position.
• Ethics
Council President Peterson recalled there has been discussion about developing a code of ethics for
Councilmembers. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Bloom and Petso offered to serve on an ad hoc committee
that would review other cities’ codes and present a draft to the Council.
• Miscellaneous
Mr. Taraday explained a special meeting notice must be issued for Tuesday committee meetings that begin at
6:00 p.m. If the Council wished to continue holding committee meetings at 6:00 p.m., he suggested revising the
code to reflect that start time.
Packet Page 155 of 442
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITIZENS’ TREE BOARD
ORDINANCE; ADDING ONE NON-VOTING, EX-OFFICIO
POSITION TO THE CITIZENS’ TREE BOARD TO BE FILLED
BY AN EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEMBER;
ESTABLISHING THE LENGTH OF TERM FOR AN
APPOINTEE WHO HAS FILLED A VACANCY; AND FIXING
A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has adopted Chapter 10.95 to establish a
Citizens’ Tree Board; and
WHEREAS, the Citizens’ Tree Board consists of up to seven members plus one
alternate as established by Chapter 10.95.010; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 10.95 does not set forth the length of the term for an
appointed member who is filling in a vacancy due to resignation of a member; and
WHEREAS, the City would like to add one non-voting, ex-officio position to the
Tree Board to be filled by an Edmonds City Council member; and
WHEREAS, the City would like to establish that the length of the term for an
appointee who is serving the term of a vacancy, will expire when the term for whom the
appointee replaced expires; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ECC 10.95.010 is hereby amended to read as follows (new text shown
in underline; deleted text shown in strike through.)
Packet Page 156 of 442
10.95.10 Board created – Membership.
A. There is hereby created a Citizens’ Tree Board consisting of up to seven members plus one
alternate and one (1) non-voting, ex-officio position to be filled by an Edmonds City council
member. Citizens must be Edmonds residents. It is recommended the board include citizens
from throughout the city (representing different watersheds and neighborhoods). Additionally,
those with professional or hobbyist interest/experience in urban forestry, horticulture, and habitat
enviroscaping are preferred; these may include arborists, botanists, horticulturists, native plant
experts, master gardeners, wildlife experts, and related. The members shall be appointed in the
following manner: Within 30 days after the ordinance codified in this chapter is passed, the city
shall draft and publish an announcement seeking applicants for board membership. The standard
city of Edmonds citizen board and commission application will be used. Prospective board
members will have 30 days to submit their application. Initially, each councilmember will
appoint one tree board member within 30 days following the close of the application period. The
alternate member shall be appointed by the council president or mayor (as determined by the
council). The selections shall be made based on the qualifications described per the applications;
councilmembers may also interview applicants at their discretion. Subsequent to the initial
appointments, recommendations for renewal/replacements, when required, will be made by the
full council.
B. The term of appointment shall be four years. However, initially, to ensure transitional
consistency three members shall be appointed to four-year terms and four members (plus the
alternate) shall be appointed to two-year terms. Councilmembers whose terms expire in 2011
shall appoint members to initial two-year terms. Councilmembers whose terms expire in 2013
shall appoint members to initial four-year terms. Thereafter, appointments shall coincide with the
terms of newly elected councilmembers. Each member, at his or her discretion, may seek
renewal for one additional term. Should a vacancy occur, a new member shall be appointed for
the duration of the term he or she is fulfilling.
Section 2: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
Packet Page 157 of 442
APPROVED:
________________________________
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
____________________________________
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY _________________________________
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ________
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ________
PUBLISHED: ________
EFFECTIVE DATE: ________
ORDINANCE NO. ________
Packet Page 158 of 442
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of _______________, 2012, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. ____. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITIZENS’ TREE BOARD
ORDINANCE; ADDING ONE NON-VOTING, EX-OFFICIO
POSITION TO THE CITIZENS’ TREE BOARD TO BE FILLED
BY AN EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEMBER;
ESTABLISHING THE LENGTH OF TERM FOR AN
APPOINTEE WHO HAS FILLED A VACANCY; AND FIXING
A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this ___ day of ____________, 2012.
_______________________________
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4824-6888-6030, v. 1
Packet Page 159 of 442
AM-4606 Item #: 3. K.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Confirmation of four new Historic Preservation Commission members.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended by the Mayor and staff that the four applicants be confirmed.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
In January of 2012 the Council expanded the membership of the Historic Preservation Commission to
accommodate community interest and provide more membership for this ‘working’ commission. At this
time four new candidates have been interviewed by the Commission and the Mayor and recommended
for confirmation by City Council. The four new candidates are:
Margaret (Meg) A. Keogh
William R. (Bill) Muller
Tim Raetzloff
Gerald W. Tays
Attachments
M. Keogh
W. Muller
T. Raetzloff
G. Tays
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2012 01:39 PM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 03/01/2012 08:19 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/01/2012
Packet Page 160 of 442
Packet Page 161 of 442
Packet Page 162 of 442
Packet Page 163 of 442
Packet Page 164 of 442
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
5
o
f
4
4
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
6
o
f
4
4
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
7
o
f
4
4
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
8
o
f
4
4
2
AM-4605 Item #: 4.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of Girl Scouts 100th Anniversary.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
March 12, 2012 marks the 100th anniversary of the Girls Scouts of the United States of America which
began in 1912 when Savannah, Georgia native, Juliette "Daisy" Gordon Low gathered 18 girls to provide
them the opportunity to develop physically, mentally, and spiritually. For 100 years Girl Scouting has
helped build millions of girls and women of courage, confidence, and character who act to make the
world a better place.
Attachments
Girl Scout Proclamation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2012 01:39 PM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 03/01/2012 08:00 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/01/2012
Packet Page 169 of 442
Packet Page 170 of 442
AM-4602 Item #: 6.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Public Safety/Personnel
Finance
Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing regarding park impact fees.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
City Council hold a public hearing on Park Impact Fees. Discuss next steps.
Previous Council Action
Park Impact Fees were discussed at the Finance Committee meeting in April and June of last year. The
Finance Committee requested a presentation be brought to the full Council to start exploring impact fees.
This presentation happened on September 20, 2011. Randy Young from Henderson Young and Company
was here and made a very thorough presentation of what Park Impact Fees are, how they are calculated,
what they could be used for, and answered Council questions. At this time, Council requested that a
Public Hearing be held to hear from citizens, developers, real estate professionals, etc. before deciding
next steps.
Narrative
Attached are several materials for Council review in preparation for the Public Hearing:
1. Overview of Park Impact Fees
2. Listing of all Washington State cities that have Park Impact Fee, and the amount of that fee.
3. Examples from several cities of Park Impact Fee Rate Studies.
4. Powerpoint presentation that will be provided preceding the Public Hearing. This presentation
incorporates answers to previous Council questions, i.e. projected trends, how impact fees would/could be
used in Edmonds, historical building activity.
Attachments
Overview of Park Impact Fees
List of Cities with Park Impact Fees
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Study
Samammish Park Impact Fee Study
Renton Park Impact Fee Study
Poulsbo Park Impact Fee Study
Sequim Park Impact Fee Study
Presentation - Edmonds Parks Impact Fees 2012
Form Review
Packet Page 171 of 442
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 03/01/2012 09:43 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/01/2012 01:10 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/01/2012 01:40 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/01/2012 02:00 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2012 02:07 PM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 02/29/2012 12:51 PM
Final Approval Date: 03/01/2012
Packet Page 172 of 442
1
Memorandum To: City Council, Mayor From: Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Date: March 6, 2012 Re: Park Impact Fees Overview in preparation for Public Hearing
What is an Impact Fee? An impact fee is a fee charged by a city or county to developers to pay for the costs of providing public facilities or of improving existing ones needed as a result of the new development. Developers are generally responsible for the entire cost of on-site improvements within the development that primarily serve residents of development. Impact fees are a mechanism for assuring that developers to pay a share of the costs of off-site facilities that serve the development. For example, new developments may create the need for new, expanded or improved public facilities such as parks, new or widened roads and sidewalks, schools, fire protection facilities, and utilities in the vicinity of the development. In addition to the new demands on public facilities, the new development also will increase ongoing costs for public services, programs, and facilities operation and maintenance. For example, additional teachers, and firemen, as well as expanded recreation programs, may be needed as a result of the new development. Such ongoing expenses must be covered by funding sources other than impact fees.
Impact Fees as Applied in Washington In Washington, impact fees are specifically authorized for those jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (RCW 82.02.050 - .110). However, GMA impact fees are only authorized for public streets and roads; publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities; school facilities; and fire protection facilities. In addition, payments to "mitigate" direct impacts of development, including those on public facilities, are authorized as part of "voluntary agreements" under RCW 82.02.020, and under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA - Ch. 43.21C RCW). See Types of Impact Fees Authorized by Washington Statutes for more information on these and other impact fee or mitigation alternatives. In any case, impact fees must be reasonably related to the demand created by the new development - they may not exceed the development's proportionate share of the public facilities' costs. They must directly benefit the new development, and they may not be used to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities. See Impact Fees for relevant state statutes and case law.
Packet Page 173 of 442
2
Research of impact on growth
( Referenced from MRSC )
Growth costs money. And increasingly many municipalities have turned to impact fees—one-time charges against new development—to pay the costs of growth. Traditionally, these costs have been financed by property taxes. However, those revenues have proven mostly inadequate to fund the roads, water and sewer infrastructure, and schools required by new residential and commercial development. Impact fees, though, are not universally accepted. Some private interests and public officials could be concerned that impact fees constrain local economic development, serving as a de facto "tax" on capital, stifling investment, and driving job growth to other fee-free jurisdictions. Supporters argue impact fees act as an investment in the community, spurring economic growth through the timely provision of new infrastructure and the expansion of buildable land. Given that impact fees often pay for public infrastructure projects, understanding the relationship between impact fees and local economic development, defined here as local job growth, is key. This report addresses the controversy around impact fees by reviewing the academic literature concerning the effect of impact fees on employment and the economy generally. In addition, the report presents a new analysis of the relationship between impact fees and job creation by assessing impact fee and economic data, assembled for the period 1993 to 1999, for the 67 counties of Florida. Overall, the research finds that:
• Property tax revenues increasingly fail to cover the full costs of the
infrastructure needed to serve new development. More and more, political resistance to property taxes compromises the conventional way to pay for infrastructure needs brought on by new development. Consequently, new property values would have to be very high or property tax rates raised across the board to pay for the full array of infrastructure needs For example, one study of a rapidly growing city in Georgia in the 1990s found that the city faced a 50 percent shortfall in funding the new infrastructure demanded by new development and would need to raise $90 million more than it projected in total revenues from all state and federal transfers and property taxes.
• Impact fees, like user fees, offer a more efficient way to pay for infrastructure
than general taxes, and ensure benefits to those who pay them. Academic
literature suggests that the aggregate benefits of impact fees improve efficiency
in the provision of infrastructure. While impact fees often do not reflect the full price of infrastructure improvements, fees do make the economic linkage between those paying for and those receiving benefits more direct, and so promote economic efficiency. The obvious direct economic benefits include the actual infrastructure
Packet Page 174 of 442
3
investment, such as new roads, new schools, and new water and sewer extensions. Indirect benefits include improved predictability in the marketplace, knowing when and where infrastructure investment will occur, and that all developers are treated equitably.
• Impact fees increase the supply of buildable land. In the absence of impact fees, local governments may not have the revenue necessary to accommodate growth. With impact fees, they gain necessary infrastructure¾ water, sewer, drainage, and road facilities¾ to open new parcels of land development. One study also found that impact fees may reduce uncertainty and risk for developers by giving them a reasonably predictable supply of buildable land.
• Impact fees have complex effects on housing prices. One particularly thorough study of the effect of impact fees on housing prices found that fees reduced land prices by the amount of fees paid but also raised finished house prices by about half again the fee amount. One interpretation is that while impact fees lower raw land prices as predicted by conventional economic theory, the amount of the fee reflecting infrastructure value is recovered in the sales price. Additionally, the increment above the fee represents the value of the infrastructure as a whole and/or the certainty perceived by the market that facilities will be provided at a desired level and quality of service (i.e. no congestion) regardless of growth pressures.
• Impact fees do not slow job growth. In this study, we find, at minimum, that impact fees are not a drag on local economies. At most, impact fees are the grease that helps sustain job growth in the local economy. While impact fees will continue to draw detractors, this discussion shows that impact fees are a practical and valuable tool for financing local infrastructure needs. Without them, growing communities may not be able to sustain growth. In short, impact fees can directly fund vital infrastructure improvements, while increasing the supply of buildable land, improving predictability in the development process, and indirectly promoting local employment at the same time. Faced with the growing demand for investment and the public resistance to tax increases, localities in growing regions that institute impact fees may become more prosperous in the long run than communities in such regions that do not have them.
Park Impact Fees in Edmonds? In order to consider imposing park impact fees, the City Council would need to determine that new residential growth and development in the city will create additional demand and need for public facilities, namely parks. In addition, the City Council will need to agree that this new residential growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. The park impact fee rate is usually determined through a comprehensive rate study using a current per capita formula. This formula is then applied to future need and determined by City Council. For cities across Washington State, it varies widely, ranging from $500-5000 for single family units.
Packet Page 175 of 442
Henderson,
Young &
Company Janury 2011
Park Impact Fees: Washington Cities
Fee Fee
City (SFDU)(MFDU)Type Source
Issaquah 6,604.99 4,160.62 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Bellingham 4,808.35 3,523.53 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Monroe 4,579.45 3,901.02 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Snohomish 4,150.00 3,600.00 Imp Fee 2008 Mill Crk Survey
Duvall 4,068.00 4,068.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Olympia 4,012.00 2,425.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Carnation 4,000.00 3,470.00 Imp Fee 2006 AWC Survey
Mill Creek 3,887.73 2,819.67 Imp Fee 2006 AWC Survey
Kirkland 3,845.00 2,515.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Tumwater 3,726.86 2,413.12 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Auburn 3,500.00 3,500.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Sultan 3,175.00 3,175.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Bonney Lake 2,985.00 2,985.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Edgewood 2,939.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Redmond 2,812.00 2,261.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
Airway Heights 2,775.00 1,700.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
Sammamish 2,605.82 1,505.35 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Mukilteo 2,438.00 1,611.00 Imp Fee 2008 Mill Crk Survey
Roy 2,372.00 2,372.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Lake Stevens 2,363.00 1,733.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Kenmore 2,329.26 1,522.98 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
Camas 2,290.00 1,717.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Vancouver 2,084.00 1,523.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
La Center 2,042.00 2,042.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Mountlake Terrace 2,026.00 2,026.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Bellevue 2,000.00 SEPA 1997 AWC Survey
Brier 2,000.00 Imp Fee 2004 AWC Survey
Sequim 1,975.00 2,129.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Ridgefield 1,933.09 1,533.14 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Yacolt 1,800.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
Woodinville 1,726.00 1,726.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Fife 1,700.00 1300-1450.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Oak Harbor 1,673.00 1,344.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Gig Harbor 1,500.00 1,500.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Ellensburg 1,487.50 1,275.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Cheney 1,482.00 570-1482.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Bothell 1,345.00 1,883.00 Imp Fee 2008 Mill Crk Survey
Marysville 1,251.00 884.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Everson 1,200.00 960.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Woodland 1,116.00 831.00 Imp Fee 2006 AWC Survey
Winlock 1,112.00 882.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Algona 1,000.00 1,000.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
Blaine 1,000.00 1,000.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
SedroWolly 1,000.00 1,000.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
Lynden 936.00 546.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Coupeville 870.00 557.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Kennewick 870.00 800-900.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Gold Bar 866.00 589.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
West Richland 860.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
Mount Vernon 855.00 789.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Orting 830.00 830.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Richland 663.00 445.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Pasco 644.00 644.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Stanwood 640.80 453.90 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Anacortes 615.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Washougal 600.00 Imp Fee 1997 AWC Survey
North Bend 591.00 415.00 Imp Fee 2006 AWC Survey
Renton (current)530.76 354.51 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Burlington 500.00 500.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
Poulsbo 500.00 500.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Puyallup 491.00 323.00 Imp Fee 2004 AWC Survey
Arlington 484.00 436.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
Pacific 468.00 468.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
Buckley 447.00 Imp Fee 1997 AWC Survey
Ferndale 405.00 664.00 Imp Fee 2004 AWC Survey
Eatonville 400.00 400.00 SEPA 2010 AWC Survey
Enumclaw 400.00 Imp Fee 2008 AWC Survey
University Place 322.00 231.00 Imp Fee 2002 AWC Survey
Medical Lake 316.00 175.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Quincy 250.00 Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Sumner 250.00 SEPA 1997 AWC Survey
Ephrata 5.00%5.00%Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Yelm 0.77/sq ft 0.77/sq ft Imp Fee 2006 AWC Survey
Zillah 0.10/sq ft 0.10/sq ft Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Maple Valley varies Imp Fee 2010 AWC Survey
Packet Page 176 of 442
RATE STUDY
FOR
IMPACT FEES
FOR
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
CITY OF KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON
March 27, 2007
Packet Page 177 of 442
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................1
1. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................................5
2. CAPITAL PROJECT CAPACITY COSTS .....................................................................12
3. ELIGIBLE COST PER CAPITA .....................................................................................21
4. ELIGIBLE COST AND IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT ..........................................23
APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................25
APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................29
Packet Page 178 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to establish the rates for impact fees for park land
and recreation facilities in the City of Kirkland, Washington.
Rates
The rates for park land and recreation facilities residential impact fees are:
Type Dwelling Unit Impact Fee
Single Family1
Multi-Family2
$ 3,621
$ 2,368
Types of Parks and Recreational Facilities
The City of Kirkland has adopted standards for five types of parks and
recreational facilities:
1. Community Parks
2. Nature Parks
3. Indoor Non-Athletic Recreation Space
4. Neighborhood Parks
5. Indoor Athletic Recreation Space
The first three are eligible for impact fees, as explained in the study. The impact
fee rates are based on improvements for community parks, nature parks, and
indoor non-athletic recreation space. The specific projects that are the basis of
the impact fee calculation are listed in the study.
Impact Fees vs. Other Developer Contributions
Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local
governments for the capital cost of public facilities that are needed to serve
new development and the people who occupy or use the new development.
Throughout this study, the term "developer" is used as a shorthand expression to
describe anyone who is obligated to pay impact fees, including builders, owners
or developers.
The impact fees that are described in this study do not include any other forms
of developer contributions or exactions, such as mitigation or voluntary
1 Single family includes detached dwelling units.
2 Multi-family includes attached, stacked and assisted living units.
Packet Page 179 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 2
payments authorized by SEPA (the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C),
system development charges for water and sewer authorized for utilities (RCW
35.92 for municipalities, 56.16 for sewer districts, and 57.08 for water districts),
local improvement districts or other special assessment districts, linkage fees, or
land donations or fees in lieu of land.
Adjustments for Other Sources of Revenue for Parks and Recreation Facilities
The impact fees in this study recognize the existence of other sources of revenue
that are available to pay for the capital cost of park land and recreation
facilities. These other revenues are accounted for by adjusting (i.e., reducing)
the amount of the impact fee rates to adjust for the portion of park land and
recreation facility costs that are paid by the other revenues.
Credits for Other Contributions by Developer
A developer who contributes land, improvements or other assets may receive a
"credit" which reduces the amount of impact fee that is due. This credit is in
addition to the adjustment for other revenues described in the preceding
paragraph.
Who Pays Impact Fees
Impact fees are paid by new development. Impact fee rates for new
development, including a change in land use, are based on the type of land
use. Due to the statutory requirement regarding the relationship between
impact fees and the development that pays--and benefits from--the fees, only
new residential development (i.e., houses, , condominiums, apartments, mobile
home parks, and other residential construction) is charged impact fees for parks
and recreational facilities. Non-residential new development is not charged
park and recreational facilities impact fees, as explained in Chapter 1.
Service Areas for Impact Fees
Impact fees in some jurisdictions are collected and expended within service
areas that are smaller than the jurisdiction that is collecting the fees. Impact
fees are not required to use service areas unless such “zones” are necessary to
establish the relationship between the fee and the development. Park land and
recreation facilities impact fees are collected and expended throughout the
boundaries of the City of Kirkland because of the size of the City and the
accessibility of its park system to all residences.
Timing of Payment of Impact Fees
Impact fees are usually collected at the time the local government issues a
permit or order allowing land to be developed (i.e., subdivision plat or building
permit). In the City of Kirkland impact fees are collected prior to issuance of the
building permit for each unit in a development, or prior to occupancy for a
Packet Page 180 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 3
change in land use when no building permit is required.
Uses of Impact Fee Revenue
Impact fee revenue can be used for the capital cost of public facilities. Impact
fees cannot be used for operating or maintenance expenses. The cost of public
facilities that can be paid for by impact fees include park planning,
architectural and/or engineering design studies, land surveys, land acquisition,
engineering, permitting, financing, administrative expenses, construction, site
improvements, necessary off-site improvements, applicable impact fees or
mitigation costs, and capital equipment pertaining to recreation facilities.
The public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees are "system
improvements” (which are typically outside the development), and designed to
provide service to service areas within the community at large" as provided in
RCW 82.02.050(9)), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically
provided by the developer on-site within the development or adjacent to the
development”), and designed to provide service for a development project,
and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users
of the project" as provided in RCW 82.02.050(6).
Expenditure Requirements for Impact Fees
Impact fees must be spent on capital projects contained in an adopted capital
facilities plan, or they can be used to reimburse the City for the unused capacity
of existing facilities. Impact fee payments that are not expended within 6 years
must be refunded. In order to verify these two requirements, impact fee
revenues must be deposited into separate accounts of the City, and annual
reports must describe revenue and expenditures.
Developer Options
A developer who is liable for impact fees has several options. The developer
can pay the fee adopted by the City, or submit data and or/analysis to
demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the
impacts calculated in this rate study. The developer can appeal the impact fee
calculation by the City of Kirkland. If the City fails to expend or encumber the
impact fee payments within 6 years of receipt of such payments, the developer
can obtain a refund of the impact fees. The developer can also obtain a refund
if the development does not proceed and no impacts are created.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
This impact fee rate study contains four chapters, and an appendix:
• Chapter 1 summarizes the statutory basis for developing impact fees,
discusses issues which must be addressed, and presents the
Packet Page 181 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 4
methodology and formulas for determining the amount of the impact
fee.
• Chapter 2 documents the capital project capacity costs and
calculates the eligible cost per unit (acre, square foot, linear foot, mile,
individual recreational facility, etc.) for park land and recreational
facilities.
• Chapter 3 documents the standards for levels of service, and
calculates the eligible costs on a per capita basis.
• Chapter 4 documents the number of persons per dwelling unit and
calculates the eligible cost and impact fee per dwelling unit of park
land and recreational facilities.
• Appendix A documents the need for additional park land and
recreational facilities, including identification of existing deficiencies in
facility capacity for current development, capacity of existing facilities
available for new development, and additional facility capacity
needed for new development, as specified in RCW 82.02.050(4).
Packet Page 182 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 5
1. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY
Local governments charge impact fees for several reasons: 1) to obtain revenue
to pay for some of the cost of new public facilities; 2) to implement a public
policy that new development should pay a portion of the cost of facilities that it
requires, and that existing development should not pay all of the cost of such
facilities; and 3) to assure that adequate public facilities will be constructed to
serve new development.
This study of impact fees for park land and recreation facilities for Kirkland,
Washington describes the methodology that is used to develop the fees,
presents the formulas, variables and data that are the basis for the fees, and
documents the calculation of the fees. The methodology is designed to comply
with the requirements of Washington State Law.
This study uses data and levels of service standards from the City’s adopted
Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan; City of Kirkland Park, Open
Space, and Recreation Plan; and City of Kirkland Capital Improvement
Program.
STATUTORY BASIS FOR IMPACT FEES
The Growth Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 17, Washington Laws, 1990, 1st
Ex. Sess.) authorizes local governments in Washington to charge impact fees.
RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 contain the provisions of the Growth Management
Act that authorize and describe the requirements for impact fees.
The impact fees that are described in this study are not mitigation payments
authorized by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). There are several
important differences between impact fees and SEPA mitigations. Two aspects
of impact fees that are particularly noteworthy are: 1) the ability to charge for
the cost of public facilities that are "system improvements" (i.e., that provide
service to the community at large) as opposed to "project improvements"
(which are "on-site" and provide service for a particular development); and 2)
the ability to charge small-scale development their proportionate share,
whereas SEPA exempts small developments.
The following synopsis of the most significant requirements of the law includes
citations to the Revised Code of Washington as an aid to readers who wish to
review the exact language of the statutes.
Types of Public Facilities
Four types of public facilities can be the subject of impact fees: 1) public streets
and roads; 2) publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities; 3)
Packet Page 183 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 6
school facilities; and 4) fire protection facilities (in jurisdictions that are not part of
a fire district). RCW 82.02.050(2) and (4), and RCW 82.02.090(7)
Types of Improvements
Impact fees can be spent on "system improvements" (which are typically outside
the development), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically
provided by the developer on-site within the development). RCW
82.02.050(3)(a) and RCW 82.02.090(6) and (9)
Benefit to Development
Impact fees must be limited to system improvements that are reasonably
related to, and which will benefit new development. RCW 82.02.050(3)(a) and
(c). Local governments must establish reasonable service areas (one area, or
more than one, as determined to be reasonable by the local government), and
local governments must develop impact fee rate categories for various land
uses. RCW 82.02.060(6)
Proportionate Share
Impact fees cannot exceed the development's proportionate share of system
improvements that are reasonably related to the new development. The
impact fee amount shall be based on a formula (or other method of calculating
the fee) that determines the proportionate share. RCW 82.02.050(3)(b) and RCW
82.02.060(1)
Reductions of Impact Fee Amounts
Impact fees rates must be adjusted to account for other revenues that the
development pays (if such payments are earmarked for or proratable to
particular system improvements). RCW 82.02.050(1)(c) and (2) and RCW
82.02.060(1)(b) Impact fees may be credited for the value of dedicated land,
improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in
the adopted CFP and are required as a condition of development approval).
RCW 82.02.060(3)
Exemptions from Impact Fees
Local governments have the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees
for low-income housing and other "broad public purpose" development, but all
such exemptions must be paid from public funds (other than impact fee
accounts). RCW 82.02.060(2)
Developer Options
Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to
demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the
Packet Page 184 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 7
impacts calculated in this rate study. RCW 82.02.060(5). Developers can pay
impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee calculations. RCW
82.02.060(4) and RCW 82.02.070(4) and (5). The developer can obtain a refund
of the impact fees if the local government fails to expend the impact fee
payments within 6 years, or terminates the impact fee requirement, or the
developer does not proceed with the development (and creates no impacts).
RCW 82.02.080
Capital Facilities Plans
Impact fees must be expended on public facilities in a capital facilities plan
(CFP) element (or used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of
existing facilities). The CFP must conform to the Growth Management Act of
1990, and must identify existing deficiencies in facility capacity for current
development, capacity of existing facilities available for new development, and
additional facility capacity needed for new development. RCW 82.02.050(4),
RCW 82.02.060(7), and RCW 82.02.070(2) The City of Kirkland adopted its initial
CFP in 1995. In each subsequent year the City has updated its CFP.
New Versus Existing Facilities
Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(1)(a) and
for the unused capacity of existing public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(7) subject to
the proportionate share limitation described above.
Accounting Requirements
The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies,
expend the money on CFP projects within 6 years, and prepare annual reports
of collections and expenditures. RCW 82.02.070(1)-(3)
ISSUES RELATING TO IMPACT FEES
Prior to calculating impact fee rates, several issues must be addressed in order
to determine the need for, and validity of such fees: responsibility for public
facilities, the need for new revenue for additional park land and recreation
facilities, the benefit of new park land and recreation facilities to new
development, and low-cost housing.
Responsibility for Public Facilities
In general, local governments that are authorized to charge impact fees are
responsible for specific public facilities for which they may charge such fees.
The City of Kirkland is legally and financially responsible for the park land and
recreation facilities it owns and operates within its jurisdiction. In no case may a
local government charge impact fees for private facilities, but it may charge
impact fees for some public facilities that it does not administer if such facilities
Packet Page 185 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 8
are "owned or operated by government entities" (RCW 82.02.090 (7). Thus, a city
or county may charge impact fees for park land and recreation facilities, and
enter into an agreement with school districts for the transfer, expenditure, and
reporting of parks impact fees for park land and recreational facilities at school
sites.
Need for Additional Park Land and Recreation Facilities
The need for additional park land and recreation facilities is determined by using
standards for levels of service for park land and recreation facilities to calculate
the quantity of facilities that are required. The required quantity is then
compared to the existing inventory to determine needed new facilities. The
analysis of needed park land and recreation facilities must comply with the
statutory requirements of identifying existing deficiency, reserve capacity and
new capacity requirements for facilities. An analysis of the need for additional
park land and recreation facilities is presented in Appendix A.
Need for New Revenue for Additional Park Land and Recreation Facilities
The need for new revenue for park land and recreation facilities is demonstrated
by comparing the cost of new facilities for the next 6 years to the existing
sources of revenue for the same 6 years. The City's 6-year CFP for park land and
recreation facilities does not have enough revenues from other sources to pay
needed costs without impact fees.
Determining the Benefit to Development
The law imposes three tests of the benefit provided to development by impact
fees: 1) proportionate share, 2) reasonably related to need, and 3) reasonably
related to expenditure (RCW 80.20.050(3)).
1. Proportionate Share.
First, the "proportionate share" requirement means that impact fees can
be charged only for the portion of the cost of public facilities that is
"reasonably related" to new development. In other words, impact fees
cannot be charged to pay for the cost of reducing or eliminating
deficiencies in existing facilities.
Second, there are several important implications of the proportionate
share requirement that are not specifically addressed in the law, but
which follow directly from the law:
• Costs of facilities that will be used by new development and existing
users must be apportioned between the two groups in determining the
amount of the fee. This can be accomplished in either of two ways: (1)
by allocating the total cost between new and existing users, or (2)
calculating the cost per unit (i.e., acre of park land, square foot of
Packet Page 186 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 9
indoor recreation space, mile of trail, individual recreational facility,
etc.), and applying the cost only to new development when
calculating impact fees.
• Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity should
be based on the government's actual cost, rather than the
replacement cost of the facility. Carrying costs may be added to
reflect the government's actual or imputed interest expense.
The third aspect of the proportionate share requirement is its relationship
to the requirement to provide adjustments and credits to impact fees,
where appropriate. These requirements ensure that the amount of the
impact fee does not exceed the proportionate share.
• The "adjustments" requirement reduces the impact fee to account for
past and future payments of other revenues (if such payments are
earmarked for, or proratable to, the system improvements that are
needed to serve new growth).
• The "credit" requirement reduces impact fees by the value of
dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the
developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP and are required as
a condition of development approval). The law does not prohibit a
local government from establishing reasonable constraints on
determining credits. For example, the location of dedicated land and
the quality and design of a donated public facility can be required to
conform to local standards for such facilities.
Without such adjustments and credits, the fee-paying development might
pay more than its proportionate share.
2. Reasonably Related to Need.
There are many ways to fulfill the requirement that impact fees be
"reasonably related" to the development's need for public facilities,
including personal use and use by others in the family or business
enterprise (direct benefit), use by persons or organizations who provide
goods or services to the fee-paying property (indirect benefit), and
geographical proximity (presumed benefit). These measures of
relatedness are implemented by the following techniques:
• Impact fees for park land and recreation facilities are charged to
properties which need (i.e., benefit from) new park land and
recreation facilities. The City of Kirkland provides Park land and
recreation facilities to all kinds of property throughout the City
regardless of the type of use of the property. Impact fees for park land
and recreation facilities, however, are only charged to residential
development in the City, which includes residential construction,
Packet Page 187 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 10
because the dominant stream of benefits redounds to the occupants
and owners of dwelling units. Due to the lack of systematic data
quantifying the benefit of parks to commercial property, the City of
Kirkland elects as a matter of policy not to charge park impact fees to
non-residential properties. Additional research and analysis would
need to be undertaken to document this relationship.
• The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in
establishing fee amounts (i.e., single family dwelling units versus multi
family dwelling units, etc.).
• Feepayers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate that their
development will have less impact than is presumed in the impact fee
schedule calculation for their property classification. Such reduced
needs must be permanent and enforceable (i.e., via land use
restrictions).
Kirkland’s system of parks and recreational facilities serve the entire City,
therefore the impact fees for these parks and recreational facilities are
based on a single district which encompasses the City.
3. Reasonably Related to Expenditures.
Two provisions of the law tend to reinforce the requirement that
expenditures be "reasonably related" to the development that paid the
impact fee. First, the requirement that fee revenue must be earmarked
for specific uses related to public facilities ensures that expenditures are
on identifiable projects, the benefit of which can be demonstrated.
Second, impact fee revenue must be expended within 6 years, thus
requiring timeliness to the benefit to the feepayer.
Low Income Housing
A fundamental premise of impact fees is that growth should pay for its fair share
of the public facilities that it needs. One possible drawback to impact fees paid
by residential development is the potential negative effect of the impact fees
on the affordability of housing.
The effect of an impact fee on the affordability of housing varies according to
the cost of the house. The more expensive the house, the smaller the effect
because the impact fee (which is the same for all dwelling units, regardless of
cost) adds a smaller percentage to the cost of the house. Thus, the least effect
is on the highest price housing and the largest effect is on low income housing.
Any given impact fee will be a larger percentage of the cost of a low priced
home, and the inelasticity of income of buyers of low income housing may
cause some to be priced out of the market if relief is not provided.
The City’s ordinance provides an exemption from park impact fees for low
Packet Page 188 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 11
income housing. As required by state law, the City pays the impact fees on
behalf of the exempt low income housing using public revenues (excluding
impact fees).
Methodology and Relationship to Capital Facilities Plan
Impact fees for park land and recreation facilities begin with the list of projects
in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), or the City’s financial records
for parks and recreational facilities previously acquired by the City and which
have capacity to serve new development. The projects are analyzed to identify
capacity costs attributable to new development. The costs are adjusted to
reflect other sources of revenue paid by the new development (and any
payments that reduce the cost of the facility that is to be paid by impact fees).
The costs are calculated per unit of capacity of park land and recreation
facility. The costs per unit of capacity are applied to the standard for units of
capacity per person (using the same standard for levels of service as is used to
develop the projects in the CFP). The amount of the fee is determined by
charging each fee-paying development for the number of units of demand that
it generates.
Calculation of Impact Fee Amounts
Five formulas are used to determine the amount of impact fees for park and
recreational facilities that are required as a result of new development:
1. Park Non- Park
Project - Capacity = Capacity
Costs Costs Costs
2. Park Non-Impact Fee Eligible
Capacity - Revenues = Capacity
Costs Costs
3. Eligible Units Eligible
Capacity ÷ of Park = Cost
Costs Capacity per Unit
4. Eligible Standard Eligible
Cost x per = Cost
per Unit Capita per Capita
5. Eligible Persons Impact Fee
Cost x per Dwelling = per
per Capita Unit Dwelling Unit
Packet Page 189 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 12
2. CAPITAL PROJECT CAPACITY COSTS
This chapter includes a description of the first three formulas and each variable
that is used in the formulas, an explanation of the use of data in the formulas,
and the calculation of the park land and recreational facilities capital cost,
using formulas 1 – 3 (described above). The three formulas are applied
separately to each type of park and recreational facility for which additional
capacity is required to serve new development.
The City of Kirkland has adopted standards for five types of parks and
recreational facilities:
1. Community Parks
2. Nature Parks
3. Indoor Non-Athletic Recreation Space
4. Neighborhood Parks
5. Indoor Athletic Recreation Space
The first 3 are included in the impact fee calculation because the needs
analyses in Tables A-2 through A-4 of Appendix A meet the requirements of RCW
82.02. Specifically, each of the three types has sufficient capacity to maintain
the level of service for the existing population and enough additional “reserve”
capacity to serve new development. As authorized by RCW 82.02.060 (7), the
City may impose an impact fee for system improvement costs previously
incurred by the City to the extent that new growth and development will be
served by the previous improvements.
The other two types, neighborhood parks and indoor athletic recreation space
are omitted from the impact fee calculations because the inventory in each
category, together with any capacity projects in the Capital Facilities Plan, are
not sufficient to maintain the adopted level of service standard. In other words,
the City has an existing deficiency of neighborhood parks and indoor athletic
recreation space, and impact fees cannot be used to eliminate existing
deficiencies. Furthermore, the City’s CFP does not have enough projects to
eliminate the existing deficiency and serve new development, therefore there is
no basis for an impact fee for these two types of parks and recreational facilities.
This chapter is divided into three sections: 1. community parks, 2. nature parks,
and 3. indoor non-athletic recreation space. Each section uses formulas 1-3 to
calculate the eligible capital cost per unit (acre of community and nature park,
square foot of indoor non-athletic recreation space) for capital projects which
provide capacity to serve new development. (Eligible means total cost less any
non-impact fee revenue used to pay for park land and recreational facilities).
Packet Page 190 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 13
1. COMMUNITY PARKS
FORMULA 1: CAPACITY COSTS PER TYPE OF FACILITY
The capacity costs are calculated by subtracting the non-capacity project
costs from the total cost of eligible community park project costs.
1. Park Non- Park
Project - Capacity = Capacity
Costs Costs Costs
There is one variable that requires explanation: (A) the costs of parks and
recreational facilities.
Variable (A) Costs of Parks and Recreational Facilities
The City’s community parks contain enough acreage to achieve the adopted
level of service standard for the existing population, and enough additional
(“reserve”) acreage to achieve the same adopted standard for new
development. As noted above, the City may charge an impact fee for reserve
capacity that will serve new growth and development. The cost to be used in
the impact fee is the cost of the parks acquired most recently because those
are the parks that exceed current needs and create reserve capacity to serve
new development.
Some parks projects may provide capacity (i.e., additions to the City's inventory)
and others may be non-capacity projects (i.e., repair, maintenance of the
existing inventory of park and recreational facilities). Some parks projects may
include both capacity and non-capacity elements. The Parks Department has
identified the portion of projects that is capacity and the portion that is non-
capacity.
The costs of parks and recreational facilities used in this study may include both
the land costs and facility development costs, appropriate to the specific
capital improvement project.
The cost of parks and recreational facilities does not include any costs for
interest or other financing.
CALCULATION OF CAPACITY COSTS
Table 1A presents the most recent community park capacity projects. Columns
1 and 2 list each CIP project and its total cost. If the project is a non-capacity
project, the non-capacity cost is shown in Column 3. If the project will add
capacity (i.e., acres), the capacity project cost is shown in Column 4. The cost
Packet Page 191 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 14
of any project that has both capacity and non-capacity elements is allocated
to Columns 3 and 4.
TABLE 1A
COMMUNITY PARKS
RECENT CAPACITY CAPITAL PROJECT COSTS
CITY OF KIRKLAND
(1) (2) (3) (4)
TOTAL
NON-
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
CAPITAL PROJECT COST COST COST
McAuliffe Park 5,750,000 0 5,750,000
Total 5,750,000 0 5,750,000
FORMULA 2: ELIGIBLE CAPACITY COST
The eligible capacity cost is determined by subtracting non-impact fee
revenues from the capacity costs for each type of park and recreational facility.
2. Park Non-Impact Fee Eligible
Capacity - Revenues = Capacity
Costs Costs
There is one new variable used in formula 2 that requires explanation: (B) non-
impact fee capital improvement project revenues.
Variable (B): Non-Impact Fee Revenues
Impact fee rate calculations must recognize and reflect non-impact fee
revenue from new development that are earmarked or proratable to a
particular impact fee project. These sources of revenue include locally
generated revenues (e.g., taxes, fees or charges, etc.) which are paid by new
development and committed to the same parks and recreational facility
projects that will serve new development.
Revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs are not
included because impact fees are not used for such expenses. Revenues for
payments of past taxes paid on vacant land prior to development are not
included because recent capital projects have little, if any, prior costs, and the
prior taxes on vacant property is not a material portion of the cost of recent
projects. If a developer believes that substantial tax payments were made that
meet the criteria of RCW 82.02.060(1)(b), the City's impact fee ordinance allows
an applicant to submit supporting information and request a special review.
Packet Page 192 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 15
For the purpose of this impact fee study, it is assumed that new development’s
payment of revenue for parks capacity is the same percent as new
development’s share of the total population. From 2006 to 2011, the City’s
population is forecast to grow by 2,612 (not counting annexations). The growth
of 2,612 people is 5.2% of the total population of 49,792, therefore it is assumed
that 5.2% of revenues to pay for park capacity will be paid by growth.
CALCULATION OF ELIGIBLE CAPACITY COST
The calculation of eligible capacity costs for community parks is presented in
Table 1B. Columns 1 and 2 list the capacity projects and costs from Table 1A.
The capacity costs are reduced by the amount of non-impact fee revenues in
Column 3 (calculated at 5.2% of costs). The non-impact fee revenues are
subtracted from the capacity costs, and the eligible balance is shown in
Column 4.
TABLE 1B
COMMUNITY PARKS
ELIGIBLE CAPACITY CAPITAL PROJECT COSTS
CITY OF KIRKLAND
(1) (2) (3) (4)
CAPACITY
COST NON
(From
Column 4
IMPACT
FEE
ELIGIBLE
CAPACITY
CAPITAL PROJECTS on Table 1A) REVENUE COSTS
McAuliffe Park 5,750,000 299,000 5,451,000
Total: Eligible Capacity Costs 5,750,000 299,000 5,451,000
3: ELIGIBLE COST PER UNIT OF PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY
The eligible cost per unit of park and recreational facility (i.e., acre of park land,
square foot of indoor recreational facility, etc.) is determined by dividing the
eligible cost of capacity projects by the amount of project capacity.
3. Eligible Units Eligible
Capacity ÷ of Park = Cost
Costs Capacity per Unit
There is one new variable presented in formula 3 that requires explanation: (C)
units of park capacity.
Packet Page 193 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 16
Variable (C): Units of Park Capacity
Capacity is a measurement of the size of a capital project, such as number of
acres of community and nature parks, and square feet of indoor recreation
space. The units of capacity are consistent with the uniform quantity/number of
facility(ies) in the City's standards for level of service, as shown in the Capital
Facilities Plan Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
CALCULATION OF ELIGIBLE COST PER UNIT OF PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY
Table 1C presents the calculation of community parks eligible cost per acre.
Columns 1 and 2 contain the eligible capacity costs from Table1B. Column 3
identifies the number of acres of capacity for each project. In Column 4, the
total eligible capacity cost of all community parks projects is divided by the total
number of acres to determine the average eligible cost per acre.
TABLE 1C
COMMUNITY PARKS
ELIGIBLE COST PER ACRE
CITY OF KIRKLAND
(1) (2) (3) (4)
ELIGIBLE
CAPACITY
UNITS
OF
ELIGIBLE
COST ($)
CAPITAL PROJECTS COST CAPACITY PER UNIT
McAuliffe Park 5,451,000 11.60 See Below
Total: Community Parks 5,451,000 11.60 469,913.79
2. NATURE PARKS
In this section of Chapter 2, the first three formulas are applied to nature parks.
Formulas 1-3 and an explanation of the variables in each formula are described
in the first section (community parks) of this Chapter.
CALCULATION OF CAPACITY COSTS (Formula 1)
Table 2A presents recent nature park acquisitions. Columns 1 and 2 list each
project and its total cost. If the project is a non-capacity project, the non-
capacity cost is shown in Column 3. If the project will add capacity (i.e., acres),
the capacity project cost is shown in Column 4. The cost of any project that has
both capacity and non-capacity elements is allocated to Columns 3 and 4.
Packet Page 194 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 17
TABLE 2A
NATURE PARKS
RECENT CAPACITY CAPITAL PROJECT COSTS
CITY OF KIRKLAND
(1) (2) (3) (4)
TOTAL
NON-
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
CAPITAL PROJECT COST COST COST
Heronfield Wetlands 850,000 0 850,000
Yarrow Bay Wetlands 157,000 0 157,000
Total 1,007,000 0 1,007,000
CALCULATION OF ELIGIBLE CAPACITY COST (Formula 2)
The calculation of eligible capacity costs for nature parks is presented in Table
2B. Columns 1 and 2 list the capacity projects and costs from Table 2A. The
capacity costs are reduced by the amount of non-impact fee revenues from
new development in Column 3. The non-impact fee revenues are subtracted
from the capacity costs, and the eligible balance is shown in Column 4.
TABLE 2B
NATURE PARKS
ELIGIBLE CAPITAL PROJECT COSTS
CITY OF KIRKLAND
(1) (2) (3) (4)
CAPACITY
COST NON
(From
Column 4
IMPACT
FEE
ELIGIBLE
CAPACITY
CAPITAL PROJECTS on Table 2A) REVENUE COSTS
Heronfield Wetlands 850,000 44,200 805,800
Yarrow Bay Wetlands 157,000 8,164 148,836
Total: Eligible Capacity Costs 1,007,000 52,364 954,636
CALCULATION OF ELIGIBLE COST PER UNIT OF PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY
(Formula 3)
Table 2C presents the calculation of nature parks eligible cost per acre.
Columns 1 and 2 contain the eligible capacity costs from Table2B. Column 3
Packet Page 195 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 18
identifies the number of acres of capacity for each project. In Column 4, the
total eligible capacity cost of all nature park projects is divided by the total
number of acres to determine the average eligible cost per acre.
TABLE 2C
NATURE PARKS
ELIGIBLE COST PER ACRE
CITY OF KIRKLAND
(1) (2) (3) (4)
ELIGIBLE
CAPACITY
UNITS
OF
ELIGIBLE
COST
CAPITAL PROJECTS COST CAPACITY PER UNIT
Heronfield Wetlands 805,800 7.50 See Below
Yarrow Bay Wetlands 148,836 3.61 See Below
Total: Eligible Capacity Costs 954,636 11.11 85,925.83
3. INDOOR NON-ATHLETIC RECREATION SPACE
In this section of Chapter 2, the first three formulas are applied to indoor non-
athletic recreation space. Formulas 1-3 and an explanation of the variables in
each formula are described in the community parks section of this Chapter.
CALCULATION OF CAPACITY COSTS (Formula 1)
Table 3A presents the most recent indoor recreation space project. Columns 1
and 2 list each CIP project and its total cost. Column 3 lists any non-capacity
costs. Capacity costs (i.e., added square feet), are shown in Column 4. The
cost of any project that has both capacity and non-capacity elements is
allocated to Columns 3 and 4.
TABLE 3A
INDOOR RECREATION SPACE
RECENT CAPACITY CAPITAL PROJECT COSTS
CITY OF KIRKLAND
(1) (2) (3) (4)
TOTAL
NON-
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
CAPITAL PROJECT COST COST COST
Kirkland Teen Union Building 1,500,000 1,500,000
Total 1,500,000 1,500,000
Packet Page 196 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 19
CALCULATION OF ELIGIBLE CAPACITY COST (Formula 2)
The calculation of eligible capacity costs for indoor recreation space is
presented in Table 3B. Columns 1 and 2 list the capacity projects and costs from
Table 2A. The capacity costs are reduced by the amount of non-impact fee
revenues in Column 3. The non-impact fee revenues are subtracted from the
capacity costs, and the eligible balance is shown in Column 4.
TABLE 3B
INDOOR RECREATION SPACE
ELIGIBLE CAPACITY CAPITAL PROJECT COSTS
CITY OF KIRKLAND
(1) (2) (3) (4)
CAPACITY
COST NON
(From
Column 4
IMPACT
FEE
ELIGIBLE
CAPACITY
CAPITAL PROJECTS on Table 3A) REVENUE COSTS
Kirkland Teen Union Building 1,500,000 78,000 1,422,000
Total: Eligible Capacity Costs 1,500,000 78,000 1,422,000
CALCULATION OF ELIGIBLE COST PER UNIT OF PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY
(Formula 3)
Table 3C presents the calculation of indoor recreation space eligible cost per
square foot. Columns 1 and 2 contain the eligible capacity costs from Table2B.
Column 3 identifies the number of square feet of capacity for each project. In
Column 4, the total eligible capacity cost of all indoor recreation space projects
is divided by the total number of square feet to determine the average eligible
cost per square foot.
Packet Page 197 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 20
TABLE 3C
INDOOR RECREATION SPACE
ELIGIBLE COST PER SQUARE FOOT
CITY OF KIRKLAND
(1) (2) (3) (4)
ELIGIBLE
CAPACITY
UNITS
OF
ELIGIBLE
COST ($)
CAPITAL PROJECTS COST CAPACITY PER UNIT
Kirkland Teen Union Building 1,422,000 6,885 See Below
Total: Indoor Recreation Space 1,422,000 6,885 206.54
Packet Page 198 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 21
3. ELIGIBLE COST PER CAPITA
In this chapter the eligible cost per unit (acre and square foot) from Chapter 2 is
converted to the eligible cost per capita. As in the previous chapter, this
chapter includes a description of the formula and each variable that is used in
the formula, an explanation of the use of data in the formula, and the
calculation of the eligible cost per capita, using formula 4.
FORMULA 4: PARKS ELIGIBLE COST PER CAPITA
The eligible cost of parks per person is calculated by multiplying the eligible cost
per acre or square foot by the standard per capita for community and nature
parks, and indoor non-athletic recreation space:
4. Eligible Standard Eligible
Cost x per = Cost
per Unit Capita per Capita
Variable (D) Level of Service (LOS) Standards for Park Land and Recreational
Facilities
The City has adopted a level of service (LOS) identified in the City’s Capital
Facilities Plan for each category of park land and development projects. These
adopted LOS standards are listed below in Table 4:
TABLE 4
PARK LAND AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Park Land/Facility Standard
Community Parks 2.1 acres per 1,000 population
Nature Parks 5.7 acres per 1,000 population
Indoor Recreation Space 500 square feet per 1,000 population
CALCULATION OF PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ELIGIBLE COST PER
CAPITA
The eligible cost per capita is calculated for each park and facility by
multiplying the standard for park land and facilities per capita times the cost per
unit of park land or facility. Table 5 contains the calculations: each standard is
divided by 1,000 to compute the standard per capita and the result is multiplied
Packet Page 199 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 22
by the eligible cost per unit (from tables in Chapter 2), and the result is the
eligible cost per capita.
Table 5 also includes an adjustment to conform to the requirement in RCW
82.02.050 (2) that financing for public improvements to serve new development
“… cannot rely solely on impact fees.” This requirement prohibits the City from
charging 100% of growth’s proportionate share to new development, but the
statute does not specify how much less than 100% may be charged. Earlier, in
Tables 1B, 2B, and 3B, the impact fee calculations reduced growth’s share by
5.2% to account for other taxes, fees, etc. that are paid by growth for the same
public facilities as the impact fee. Arguably, the remaining 91.9% is within the
parameters of 82.02.050 (2). However, in order to be extra conservative in our
calculations, Table 5 subtracts an additional 10% so that no more than 90% of
the eligible cost per capita is charged to new development in the form of
impact fees.
TABLE 5
PARK LAND AND FACILITIES
ELIGIBLE COSTS PER CAPITA
CITY OF KIRKLAND
(1) (2) (3) (4)
STANDARD ELIGIBLE ELIGIBLE
PER 1,000 COST ($) COST ($)
COMPONENT POPULATION PER UNIT PER CAPITA
Community Parks (acres) 2.1 469,913.70 986.82
Nature Parks (acres) 5.7 85,925.83 489.78
Indoor Recreation Space (sf) 500 206.54 103.27
Eligible Cost per Capita 1,579.86
Percent Not Charged to Growth 10.0%
Amount Not Charged to Growth 157.99
Portion Charged to Growth 1,421.88
Packet Page 200 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 23
4. ELIGIBLE COST AND IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT
In this chapter the eligible cost per capita (from chapter 3) is converted to the
eligible cost per dwelling unit. As in the previous chapter, this chapter includes a
description of the formula and each variable that is used in the formula, an
explanation of the use of data in the formula, and the calculation of the park
land and facility development capital cost per dwelling unit, using formula 5.
FORMULA 5: PARK ELIGIBLE COST AND IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT
The eligible cost of parks per dwelling unit is determined by multiplying the park
eligible cost per person times the number of persons per dwelling unit:
5. Eligible Persons Impact Fee
Cost x per Dwelling = per
per Capita Unit Dwelling Unit
The formula uses different numbers of persons per dwelling unit for different types
of housing (i.e., single family and multi family). There is one new variable used in
formula 5 that requires explanation: (E) persons per dwelling unit.
Variable (E) Persons per Dwelling Unit.
The number of persons per dwelling unit is the factor used to convert the eligible
cost of parks and recreational facilities per capita into impact fees per dwelling
unit. The eligible cost per capita (from formula 4) is multiplied by the number of
persons per dwelling unit to calculate the impact fee per dwelling unit of each
type of park and recreational facility.
The number of persons per dwelling unit in the City of Kirkland ranges from 2.547
persons per single family detached dwelling unit to 1.666 persons per multi-
family, attached or stacked unit, according to the City of Kirkland. (The number
of persons per dwelling unit is sometimes referred to as persons per household in
U.S. census information. These terms are interchangeable in this study). Specific
numbers of persons per dwelling unit for various types of housing is shown in
Column 3 of Table 6.
CALCULATION OF ELIGIBLE COST AND IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT
The calculation to establish the eligible cost and impact fee per dwelling unit
involves multiplying the eligible cost per capita from Table 5 by the number of
persons per dwelling unit. Table 6 presents the eligible cost and impact fee per
dwelling unit.
Packet Page 201 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 24
TABLE 6
PARK LAND AND FACILITIES
ELIGIBLE COSTS AND IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT
City of Kirkland
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Eligible Average Impact
Cost Persons Per Fee Per
Type of Housing Per Capita Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1,421.88 2.547 3,621.52
Multi-Family 1,421.88 1.666 2,368.85
Packet Page 202 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 25
APPENDIX A
6-YEAR PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES NEEDS
6-Year Need for Additional Parks and Recreational Facilities
RCW 82.02 requires impact fees to identify existing deficiencies in facility
capacity for current development, capacity of existing facilities available for
new development, and additional facility capacity needed for new
development). The purpose of this appendix is to summarize existing
deficiencies and reserves, and needs for additional capacity for new
development (based on data provided in the City's comprehensive plan).
The need for additional parks and recreational facilities is determined by using
standards for levels of service for each type of park and recreational facility to
calculate the quantity of facilities that are required. The required quantity is
then compared to the existing inventory to determine needed new land and
facilities.
The park land and recreational facilities system in the City of Kirkland consists of
five types of parks and recreational facilities. Table A-1 summarizes the current
inventory.
TABLE A-1
PARK LAND AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES INVENTORY
City of Kirkland
Park Land/Facility Inventory3
1. Community Parks 140.34 acres
2. Nature Park 295.45 acres
3. Indoor Non-Athletic Recreation Space 28,685 square feet
4. Neighborhood Parks 87.88 acres
5. Indoor Athletic Recreation Space 0. square feet
3 See Appendix B for listing of parks and recreation spaces in the City’s inventory.
Packet Page 203 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 26
TABLE A-2
COMMUNITY PARKS
CITY OF KIRKLAND
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) = 2.1 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
ACRES COMMUNITY
REQUIRED @ PARK NET
CITY-WIDE 0.0021 ACRES RESERVE OR
TIME PERIOD POPULATION PER CAPITA AVAILABLE* DEFICIENCY
2006 ACTUAL 47,180 99.08 140.34 41.26
2007-2011 GROWTH 2,612 5.48 0.00 -5.48
TOTAL AS OF
2011 49,792 104.56 140.34 35.78
TABLE A-3
NATURE PARKS
CITY OF KIRKLAND
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) = 5.7 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
ACRES NATURE
REQUIRED @ PARK NET
CITY-WIDE 0.0057 ACRES RESERVE OR
TIME PERIOD POPULATION PER CAPITA AVAILABLE* DEFICIENCY
2006 ACTUAL 47,180 268.93 295.45 26.52
2007-2011 GROWTH 2,612 14.88 0.00 -14.88
TOTAL AS OF
2011 49,792 283.81 295.45 11.64
*See Appendix B for listing of parks and recreation spaces in the City’s inventory.
Packet Page 204 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 27
TABLE A-4
INDOOR NON-ATHLETIC RECREATION SPACE
CITY OF KIRKLAND
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) = 500 SQUARE FEET PER 1,000 POPULATION
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
SQ. FT. INDOOR NON-
REQUIRED @ ATHLETIC NET
CITY-WIDE 0.5 SQ. FT. RESERVE OR
TIME PERIOD POPULATION PER CAPITA AVAILABLE* DEFICIENCY
2006 ACTUAL 47,180 23,590 28,685 5,095
2007-2011 GROWTH 2,612 1,306 0.00 -1,306
TOTAL AS OF
2011 49,792 24,896 28,685 3,789
TABLE A-5
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
CITY OF KIRKLAND
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) = 2.1 ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD
REQUIRED @ PARK NET
CITY-WIDE 0.0021 ACRES RESERVE OR
TIME PERIOD POPULATION PER CAPITA AVAILABLE* DEFICIENCY
2006 ACTUAL 47,180 99.08 87.88 -11.20
2007-2011 GROWTH 2,612 5.48 0.00 -5.48
TOTAL AS OF
2011 49,792 104.56 87.88 -16.68
*See Appendix B for listing of parks and recreation spaces in the City’s inventory.
Packet Page 205 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 28
TABLE A-6
INDOOR ATHLETIC RECREATION SPACE
CITY OF KIRKLAND
ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) = 700 SQUARE FEET PER 1,000 POPULATION
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
SQ. FT. INDOOR
REQUIRED @ ATHLETIC NET
CITY-WIDE 0.7 SQ. FT. RESERVE OR
TIME PERIOD POPULATION PER CAPITA AVAILABLE* DEFICIENCY
2006 ACTUAL 47,180 33,026 0.00 -33,026
2007-2011 GROWTH 2,612 1,828 0.00 -1,828
TOTAL AS OF
2011 49,792 34,854 0 -34,854
*See Appendix B for listing of parks and recreation spaces in the City’s inventory.
Packet Page 206 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 29
APPENDIX B
Inventory of Kirkland Parks and Recreational Facilities
Park Name Park Address Size
Community Parks
Crestwoods 1818 Sixth Street 26.63
Everest 500 Eighth Street S 18.58
Heritage Park 111 Waverly Way 10.12
McAuliffe Park 11609 & 11615 108th Avenue NE 11.60
Peter Kirk Park 202 Third Street 12.48
School Sites 60.93
Total Acres 140.34
Nature Parks/Open Space
Heronfield Wetlands NE124th and 120th 28.12
Juanita Bay 2201 Market Street 110.83
Watershed 4500 110th Avenue NE 73.37
Yarrow Bay Wetlands NE Points Drive 73.33
South Norway Hill Park NE 145th & 124th Ave NE 9.80
Total Acres 295.45
City Recreation Facilities (Non-Athletic)
North Kirkland Community Center 12421 103rd Ave NE 12,000
Peter Kirk Community Center 352 Kirkland Ave 9,800
Kirkland Teen Union Building 348 Kirkland Ave 6,885
Total Square Feet 28,685
Neighborhood Parks
Brookhaven 100th Ave NE & about 126th/128th 0.95
Carillon Woods NE 55th & 106 Ave NE 8.71
Cedar View Park 11400 NE 90th St 0.20
Cotton Hill Park (undeveloped) NE 100th & 110 Ave NE 1.91
Forbes Creek 11615 NE 106th Lane 2.02
Highlands 11210 NE 102nd Street 2.73
Houghton Neighborhood / Phyllis Needy 10811 NE 47th Street 0.50
Mark Twain 10625 132nd Avneu NE 6.60
North Kirkland Community Center 12421 103rd Avenue NE 5.49
North Rose Hill Woodlands Park 9930 124th Avenue NE 20.96
Ohde Pea Patch 300 Ohde Avenue 0.89
Reservoir 1501 Third Street 0.62
Rose Hill Meadows 8300 124th 4.10
Snyders Corner NE 70th & 132nd Avenue NE 4.50
South Rose Hill Park 12730 NE 72nd Street 2.19
Spinney Homestead 11710 NE 100th Street 6.54
Terrace 10333 NE 67th Street 1.81
Tot Lot 111 Ninth Avenue 0.52
Van Aalst 335 13th Avenue 1.59
School Sites 15.05
Total Acres 87.88
Packet Page 207 of 442
Kirkland Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson, City of Kirkland, Washington
Young & March 27, 2007
Company Page 30
Park Name Park Address Size
City Recreation Facilities (Athletic)
No facilities Total Square Feet 0.00
Waterfront Parks
David E. Brink 555 Lake Street S 0.87
Forbes Lake Park (undeveloped) 9500 124th Ave NE 7.32
Houghton Beach 5811 Lake Washington Blvd 3.80
Juanita Beach Park 9703 Juanita Drive 21.94
Kiwanis 1405 10th Street W 2.57
Lake Avenue West Lake Avenue West 0.25
Marina Park 25 Lakeshore Plaza 3.59
Marsh Park 6605 Lake Washington Blvd NE 4.18
Settlers Landing/10th Street 10th Street 0.10
Street End Park 501 Lake Street South 0.10
Waverly Beach 633 Waverly Park Way 2.76
Total Acres 47.48
Packet Page 208 of 442
RATE STUDY
FOR
IMPACT FEES
FOR
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
CITY OF SAMMAMISH, WASHINGTON
September 16, 2005
Packet Page 209 of 442
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................1
1. Statutory Basis and Methodology......................................................................................4
2. Level of Service Standard .................................................................................................13
3. Park and Recreational Facility Needs ............................................................................17
4. Impact Fees ..........................................................................................................................21
Appendix A: Deficiency or Reserve Capacity of Parks and Recreation Facilities .23
List of Tables
Table 1: Level of Service Standard .......................................................................................15
Table 2: Value of Parks and Recreational Facilities Needed for Growth ....................18
Table 3: Investment Needed in Parks and Recreational Facilities for Growth ..........19
Table 4: Investment in Parks and Recreational Facilities to be Paid by Growth ......20
Table 5: Growth Cost per Person...........................................................................................21
Table 6: Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit ................................................................................22
Packet Page 210 of 442
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 6, 2005
Company Page 1
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study is to establish the rates for impact fees for parks and
recreation facilities in the City of Sammamish, Washington.
Rates
The rates for impact fees for park land and recreation facilities are:
Type Dwelling Unit Impact Fee
Single Family
Multi-Family
Mobile Home
$ 2,681.42
1,549.13
1,410.69
Impact Fees vs. Other Developer Contributions
Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local governments for
the capital cost of public facilities that are needed to serve new development and the
people who occupy the new development. Throughout this study the term
"developer" is used as a shorthand expression to describe anyone who is obligated to
pay impact fees, including builders, owners or developers.
The impact fees that are described in this study do not include any other forms of
developer contributions or exactions, such as mitigation or voluntary payments
authorized by SEPA (the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C), system
development charges for water and sewer authorized for utilities (RCW 35.92 for
municipalities, 56.16 for sewer districts, and 57.08 for water districts), local
improvement districts or other special assessment districts, linkage fees, or land
donations or fees in lieu of land.
ADJUSTMENTS FOR OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR PARK LAND AND RECREATION
FACILITIES
The impact fees in this study recognize the existence of other sources of revenue that
are available to pay for the capital cost of park land and recreation facilities. These
other revenues are accounted for by adjusting (i.e., reducing) the cost of capital
investment for parks and recreational facilities to account for the portion of costs
that are paid by the other sources of revenue.
CREDITS FOR OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS BY DEVELOPER
A developer who contributes land, improvements or other assets may receive a
Packet Page 211 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 2
"credit" which reduces the amount of impact fee that is due. This credit is in
addition to the adjustment for other revenues described in the preceding paragraph.
WHO PAYS IMPACT FEES
Impact fees are paid by new development. Impact fee rates for new development are
based on the type of land use: residential, retail, office, commercial, industrial, and
other types of new construction. Due to the statutory requirement regarding the
relationship between impact fees and the development that pays--and benefits
from--the fees, only new residential development (i.e., houses, apartments, mobile
home parks, and other residential construction) is charged impact fees for parks and
recreational facilities. Non-residential new development is not charged park and
recreational facilities impact fees, as explained in Chapter 1.
SERVICE AREAS FOR IMPACT FEES
Impact fees in some jurisdictions are collected and expended within service areas
that are smaller than the jurisdiction that is collecting the fees. Impact fees are not
required to use service areas unless such “zones” are necessary to establish the
relationship between the fee and the development. Park land and recreation
facilities impact fees are collected and expended in a single service area throughout
the boundaries of the City of Sammamish because of the compact configuration of
the City and the accessibility of its park system to all residences.
TIMING OF PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES
Impact fees are usually collected at the time the local government issues a permit or
order allowing land to be developed. In the City of Sammamish impact fees are
calculated at the time the application is submitted for a building permit. Impact
fees are collected at the time the building permit is issued.
USES OF IMPACT FEE REVENUE
Impact fee revenue will be used for the capital cost of public facilities. Impact fees
cannot be used for operating or maintenance expenses. The cost of public facilities
that can be paid for by impact fees include park and facilities planning, design,
engineering, land acquisition, site improvements, necessary off-site improvements,
construction, permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact
fees or mitigation costs, and capital equipment pertaining to park land and
recreation facilities.
The public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees are "system improvements"
(which are typically outside the development "and designed to provide service to
service areas within the community at large" as provided in RCW 82.02.050(9)), as
Packet Page 212 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 3
opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically provided by the developer on-
site within the development or adjacent to the development "and designed to provide
service for a particular development project and that are necessary for the use and
convenience of the occupants or users of the project" as provided in RCW
82.02.050(6).
EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPACT FEES
Impact fees must be spent on capital projects contained in an adopted capital
facilities plan, or they can be used to reimburse the government for the unused
capacity of existing facilities. Impact fee payments that are not expended within 6
years must be refunded. In order to verify these two requirements, impact fee
revenues must be deposited into separate accounts of the government, and annual
reports must describe revenue and expenditures.
DEVELOPER OPTIONS
Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to
demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the
impacts calculated in this rate study. Developers can pay impact fees under protest
and appeal impact fee calculations. The developer can obtain a refund of the impact
fees if the local government fails to expend the impact fee payments within 6 years,
or terminates the impact fee requirement, or the developer does not proceed with the
development (and creates no impacts).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 Summarizes the statutory basis for developing impact fees, discusses
issues, and presents the methodology and formulas for determining the
amount of the impact fee.
Chapter 2 Describes and documents the level of service standard for the parks and
recreational facilities which is measured by the amount of capital
investment per person.
Chapter 3 Documents the value of parks and recreational facilities that are needed
to serve growth that is forecast in Sammamish, net of any existing
reserves and/or any City investment in parks and recreational facilities.
Chapter 4 Documents the growth cost per person and calculates the impact fee per
dwelling unit.
Appendix A documents the need for park land and recreational facilities using
categories specified in RCW 82.02.050(4).
Packet Page 213 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 4
1. Statutory Basis and Methodology
Local governments charge impact fees for several reasons: 1) to obtain revenue to
pay for some of the cost of new public facilities; 2) to implement a public policy that
new development should pay a portion of the cost of facilities that it requires, and
that existing development should not pay all of the cost of such facilities; and 3) to
assure that adequate public facilities will be constructed to serve new development.
This study of impact fees for park land and recreation facilities for Sammamish,
Washington describes the methodology that is used to develop the fees, presents the
formulas, variables and data that are the basis for the fees, and documents the
calculation of the fees. The methodology is designed to comply with the
requirements of Washington State Law.
Definition and Rationale of Impact Fees
Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local governments for
the capital cost of public facilities that are needed to serve new development and the
people who occupy the new development. New development is synonymous with
“growth.”
Local governments charge impact fees on either of two bases. First, as a matter of
policy and legislative discretion, they may want new development to pay the cost of
its share of new public facilities because that portion of the facilities would not be
needed except to serve the new development. In this case, the new development is
required to pay for the cost of its share of new public facilities, subject to the
limitations of RCW 82.02.050 et seq.
On the other hand, local governments may use other sources of revenue to pay for the
new public facilities that are required to serve new development. If, however, such
revenues are not sufficient to cover the entire costs of new facilities necessitated by
new development, the new development may be required to pay an impact fee in an
amount equal to the difference between the total cost and the other sources of
revenue.
There are many kinds of "public facilities" that are needed by new development,
including fire protection facilities, parks, schools, roads, water and sewer plants,
libraries, and other government facilities. This study covers parks and recreation
facilities in the City of Sammamish, Washington. Impact fees for parks and
recreation facilities are charged to all residential development within the City of
Sammamish.
Packet Page 214 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 5
Statutory Basis for Impact Fees
The Growth Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 17, Washington Laws, 1990, 1st Ex.
Sess.) authorizes local governments in Washington to charge impact fees. RCW
82.02.050 - 82.02.090 contain the provisions of the Growth Management Act which
authorize and describe the requirements for impact fees.
The impact fees that are described in this study are not mitigation payments
authorized by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). There are several
important differences between impact fees and SEPA mitigations. Two aspects of
impact fees that are particularly noteworthy are: 1) the ability to charge for the cost
of public facilities that are "system improvements" (i.e., that provide service to the
community at large) as opposed to "project improvements" (which are "on-site" and
provide service for a particular development), and 2) the ability to charge small-
scale development their proportionate share, whereas SEPA exempts small
developments.
The following synopsis of the most significant requirements of the law includes
citations to the Revised Code of Washington as an aid to readers who wish to review
the exact language of the statutes.
TYPES OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
Four types of public facilities can be the subject of impact fees: 1) public streets and
roads; 2) publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities; 3) school
facilities; and 4) fire protection facilities (in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire
district). RCW 82.02.050(2) and (4), and RCW 82.02.090(7)
TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS
Impact fees can be spent on "system improvements" (which are typically outside the
development), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically provided by
the developer on-site within the development). RCW 82.02.050(3)(a) and RCW
82.02.090(6) and (9)
BENEFIT TO DEVELOPMENT
Impact fees must be limited to system improvements that are reasonably related to,
and which will benefit new development. RCW 82.02.050(3)(a) and (c). Local
governments must establish reasonable service areas (one area, or more than one,
as determined to be reasonable by the local government), and local governments
must develop impact fee rate categories for various land uses. RCW 82.02.060(6)
Packet Page 215 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 6
PROPORTIONATE SHARE
Impact fees cannot exceed the development's proportionate share of system
improvements that are reasonably related to the new development. The impact fee
amount shall be based on a formula (or other method of calculating the fee) that
determines the proportionate share. RCW 82.02.050(3)(b) and RCW 82.02.060(1)
REDUCTIONS OF IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS
Impact fees rates must be adjusted to account for other revenues that the
development pays (if such payments are earmarked for or proratable to particular
system improvements). RCW 82.02.050(1)(c) and (2) and RCW 82.02.060(1)(b)
Impact fees may be credited for the value of dedicated land, improvements or
construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP and
are required as a condition of development approval). RCW 82.02.060(3)
EXEMPTIONS FROM IMPACT FEES
Local governments have the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees for
low-income housing and other "broad public purpose" development, but all such
exemptions must be paid from public funds (other than impact fee accounts). RCW
82.02.060(2)
DEVELOPER OPTIONS
Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to
demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the
impacts calculated in this rate study. RCW 82.02.060(5). Developers can pay
impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee calculations. RCW 82.02.060(4)
and RCW 82.02.070(4) and (5). The developer can obtain a refund of the impact fees
if the local government fails to expend the impact fee payments within 6 years, or
terminates the impact fee requirement, or the developer does not proceed with the
development (and creates no impacts). RCW 82.02.080
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANS
Impact fees must be expended on public facilities in a capital facilities plan (CFP)
element (or used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing
facilities). The CFP must conform with the Growth Management Act of 1990, and
must identify existing deficiencies in facility capacity for current development,
capacity of existing facilities available for new development, and additional facility
capacity needed for new development. RCW 82.02.050(4), RCW 82.02.060(7), and
RCW 82.02.070(2)
Packet Page 216 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 7
NEW VERSUS EXISTING FACILITIES
Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(1)(a)) and for
the unused capacity of existing public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(7)) subject to the
proportionate share limitation described above.
ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS
The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies, expend the
money on CFP projects within 6 years, and prepare annual reports of collections and
expenditures. RCW 82.02.070(1)-(3)
Issues Relating to Impact Fees
Prior to calculating impact fee rates, several issues will be addressed in order to
determine the need for, and validity of such fees: responsibility for public facilities,
the need for additional park land and recreation facilities, the need for new revenue
for additional park land and recreation facilities, and the benefit of new park land
and recreation facilities to new development.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES
In general, local governments that are authorized to charge impact fees are
responsible for specific public facilities for which they may charge such fees. The
City of Sammamish is legally and financially responsible for the parks and
recreation facilities it owns and operates within its jurisdiction.
In no case may a local government charge impact fees for private facilities, but it
may charge impact fees for some public facilities that it does not administer if such
facilities are "owned or operated by government entities" (RCW 82.02.090 (7 ).
Thus, a city or county may charge impact fees for parks and recreation facilities, and
enter into an agreement with school districts for the transfer, expenditure, and
reporting of parks impact fees for parks and recreational facilities at school sites.
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PARK LAND AND RECREATION FACILITIES
The need for additional park land and recreation facilities is determined by using
standards for levels of service for park land and recreation facilities to calculate the
quantity of facilities that are required. The required quantity is then compared to
the existing inventory to determine the need for additional land and facilities. The
analysis of needed park land and recreation facilities must comply with the
statutory requirements of identifying existing deficiency, reserve capacity and new
capacity requirements for facilities. An analysis of the need for additional park land
and recreation facilities is presented in Appendix A.
Packet Page 217 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 8
NEED FOR NEW REVENUE FOR ADDITIONAL PARK LAND AND RECREATION FACILITIES
The need for new revenue for park land and recreation facilities is demonstrated by
comparing the cost of new facilities for the next 5 years to grant revenue forecast for
the same 5 years. The City does not have enough revenues from other sources to pay
needed park land and recreation facilities costs without impact fees.
DETERMINING THE BENEFIT TO DEVELOPMENT
The law imposes three tests of the benefit provided to development by impact fees:
1) proportionate share, 2) reasonably related to need, and 3) reasonably related to
expenditure (RCW 80.20.050(3)).
1. Proportionate Share.
First, the "proportionate share" requirement means that impact fees can be
charged only for the portion of the cost of public facilities that is "reasonably
related" to new development. In other words, impact fees cannot be charged to
pay for the cost of reducing or eliminating deficiencies in existing facilities.
Second, there are several important implications of the proportionate share
requirement that are not specifically addressed in the law, but which follow
directly from the law:
•Costs of facilities that will be used by new development and existing users
must be apportioned between the two groups in determining the amount of
the fee. This can be accomplished in either of two ways: (1) by allocating
the cost between new and existing users, or (2) calculating the cost per unit
(i.e., acre of park land, etc.), and applying the cost only to new development
when calculating impact fees.
•Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity should be
based on the government's actual cost, or the replacement cost of the
facility in order to account for carrying costs of the government’s actual or
imputed interest expense.
The third aspect of the proportionate share requirement is its relationship to
the requirement to provide adjustments and credits to impact fees, where
appropriate. These requirements ensure that the amount of the impact fee
does not exceed the proportionate share.
•The "adjustments" requirement reduces the impact fee to account for past
and future payments of other revenues (if such payments are earmarked
Packet Page 218 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 9
for or proratable to the system improvements that are needed to serve new
growth).
•The "credit" requirement reduces impact fees by the value of dedicated
land, improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such
facilities are in the adopted CFP and are required as a condition of
development approval). The law does not prohibit a local government from
establishing reasonable constraints on determining credits. For example,
the location of dedicated land and the quality and design of a donated
public facility can be required to conform to adopted local standards for
such facilities.
Without such adjustments and credits, the fee-paying development might pay
more than its proportionate share.
2. Reasonably Related to Need.
There are many ways to fulfill the requirement that impact fees be
"reasonably related" to the development's need for public facilities, including
personal use and use by others in the family or business enterprise (direct
benefit), use by persons or organizations who provide goods or services to the
fee-paying property (indirect benefit), and geographical proximity (presumed
benefit). These measures of relatedness are implemented by the following
techniques:
•Impact fees for park land and recreation facilities are charged to
properties which need (i.e., benefit from) new park land and recreation
facilities. Park land and recreation facilities are provided by the City of
Sammamish to all kinds of property throughout the City regardless of the
type of use of the property. Impact fees for park land and recreation
facilities, however, are only charged to residential development in the City,
because the dominant stream of benefits redounds to the occupants and
owners of dwelling units. As a matter of policy, the City of Sammamish
elects not to charge park impact fees to non-residential properties because
there is insufficient data to document the proportionate share of parks and
recreational facilities reasonably needed by non-residential development.
•The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in
establishing fee amounts (i.e., single family dwelling units versus multi
family dwelling units, etc.).
Packet Page 219 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 10
•Feepayers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate that their
development will have less impact than is presumed in the calculation of
the impact fee schedule for their property classification. Such reduced
needs must be permanent and enforceable (i.e., through land use
restrictions).
•RCW requires one or more service areas as a way of connecting a unit of
development and a parks and recreation facility. All impact fees paid by
new development in the service area would be required to be spent on new
parks and recreation facilities in the same service area. Sammamish
parks and recreation facilities serve the entire City, therefore the impact
fees for these parks and recreational facilities are based on a single
district.
3. Reasonably Related to Expenditures.
Two provisions of the law tend to reinforce the requirement that expenditures
be "reasonably related" to the development that paid the impact fee. First,
the requirement that fee revenue must be earmarked for specific uses related
to public facilities ensures that expenditures are on identifiable projects, the
benefit of which can be demonstrated. Second, impact fee revenue must be
expended within 6 years, thus requiring a timeliness to the benefit to the fee-
payer.
Methodology and Relationship to Capital Facilities Plan
Impact fees for parks and recreation facilities in the City of Sammamish are based
on the value per capita of the City’s existing investment in parks and recreational
facilities for the current population of the City. New development will be provided
the same investment per capita, to be funded by a combination of grant revenue and
impact fees. The amount of the impact fee is determined by charging each new
development for the average number of persons per dwelling unit multiplied times
the amount of the investment per capita that is to be paid by growth.
The investment for future population is made through park projects listed in the
City's Capital Facilities Plan. The total value of the projects in the current CFP
exceeds the amount needed to sustain the investment per capita standard, therefore
(1) the standard is a reasonable, and conservative, basis for the impact fee, and (2)
the investment in excess of the standard will raise the standard for existing
residents (which can be adjusted in future updates of the impact fee rates).
Packet Page 220 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 11
Calculation of Impact Fee Amounts
Six formulas are used to determine the amount of impact fees for parks and
recreational facilities that are required as a result of new development:
1. Park and Recreation Capital Investment Per Person
Value of
Parks &
Recreation
Inventory
/
Current
Population =
Capital
Investment
Per Person
2. Value Needed for Growth
Capital
Investment
per Person
x
Forecast
Population
Growth
=
Value
Needed
for Growth
3. Investment Needed for Growth
Value
Needed
for Growth
-
Value of
Existing
Reserve
Capacity
=
Investment
Needed
for Growth
4. Investment to be Paid by Growth
Investment
Needed
for Growth
-
City
Investment
for Growth
=
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
5. Growth Cost Per Person
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
÷
Growth
Population =
Growth
Cost
per Person
6. Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit
Growth
Cost
Per Person
x
Average
Persons per
Dwelling Unit
=
Impact Fee
Per
Dwelling Unit
Packet Page 221 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 12
Data Sources and Calculation
DATA SOURCES
The data in this study of impact fees for parks and recreation facilities in the City of
Sammamish, Washington was provided by the City of Sammamish unless a
different source is specifically cited.
DATA ROUNDING
The data in this study was prepared using computer spreadsheet software. In some
tables in this study, there will be very small variations from the results that would
be obtained using a calculator to compute the same data. The reason for these
insignificant differences is that the spreadsheet software was allowed to calculate
results to more places after the decimal than is reported in the tables of these
reports. The calculation to extra places after the decimal increases the accuracy of
the end results, but causes occasional differences due to rounding of data that
appears in this study.
Packet Page 222 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 13
2. Level of Service Standard
This chapter includes a description of the first formula and each variable that is
used in the formula, an explanation of the use of data in the formulas, and the
calculation of the level of service standard for park land and recreational facilities,
using formula 1.
FORMULA 1: Park and Recreation Capital Investment Per Person
The capital investment per person is calculated by multiplying the capacity of parks
and recreational facilities times the average costs of those items.
Value of
Parks &
Recreation
Inventory
/
Current
Population =
Capital
Investment
Per Person
There is one variable that requires explanation: (A) value of parks and recreation
inventory
VARIABLE (A): VALUE OF PARKS AND RECREATION INVENTORY
The value of the existing inventory of parks and recreation facilities is calculated by
determining the value of each park as well as the facilities within the park. The
sum of all of the values equals the current value of the City’s parks and recreation
system. Any park and recreation facility that is not complete or operational but for
which the City has committed funding towards is also included in the ‘current”
value.
The costs in this study come from a variety of information, depending on the status
of the park or recreation facility. Most of the valuations of the current inventory of
park land and recreation facilities are from the City’s fixed asset inventory. Actual
costs were used for recent acquisitions and construction. King County’s assessed
valuation was used for one park for which no value appeared in the fixed asset
inventory. The costs of 2005 committed park projects are from the City’s 2005
budget.
The cost of each new park includes land, design, landscaping, site improvements,
some recreational facilities (e.g., equipment or apparatus not separately listed in
this study), and legal and administrative costs (which includes contingency). The
cost of recreational facilities includes design, site preparation, construction, and
Packet Page 223 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 14
legal and administrative costs (which includes contingency). The cost of facilities
does not include land if the facilities are customarily located at a park. If the facility
is usually located at any site other than a park, the cost includes land.
The cost of new parks and recreation facilities in this rate study does not include any
costs for interest or other financing. If borrowing is used to “front fund” the costs
that will be paid by impact fees, the carrying costs for financing can be added to the
costs, and the impact fee can be recalculated to include such costs.
CALCULATION OF PARK AND RECREATION CAPITAL INVESTMENT PER PERSON
Table 1 lists the inventory of park land and facilities that make up the existing City
of Sammamish park system. Each park, including it’s size (acres) is listed along
with the inventory of recreation facilities at each park site. The value of the park
land and facilities is shown in Column 4. The total value for the current existing
inventory of park land and facilities of $32,041,590 is divided by the current (2005)
population to calculate an inventory value or investment of $829 per person.
The table also includes those park projects that are being constructed during 2005
(“Committed 2005 Parks Projects). The value of these projects ($7,718,000) is
divided by the 2005 population to show an additional $200 value or investment per
person during 2005. The bottom line of Table 1 is a combined current and
committed value or investment of $1,029 per person.
Packet Page 224 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 15
Table 1: Level of Service Standard
(1)
Park
(2)
Acres
(3)
Facilities
(4)
Value
CURRENT PARK PROPERTY
Pine Lake Park 16 $ 2,860,000
Restroom/Bathhouse 208,000
Dock 9,950
Picnic Shelter 6,900
Baseball/Soccer Field 220,000
Basketball Court (full)11,000
Play Areas (4)115,000
Bill Reams/ESP 19 964,000
Restroom 85,140
Tennis Court (2)28,950
Baseball Field (2)63,000
Soccer Field (1)40,000
Play Area (1)35,000
Picnic Shelter 19,950
Batting Cages (2)8,000
Beaver Lake Park 83 15,908,100
Lodge 459,140
Maint. Shop 69,850
Baseball Field (3)97,300
Restroom 93,300
Play Area 35,000
Picnic Shelter (Lake)241,560
Picnic Shelter (Fields)51,900
NE Sammamish Park 5 253,000
Tennis Courts (2)28,950
Basketball Court
(half)
5,600
Play Area 50,000
Sammamish Commons 30 3,000,000
Ebright Creek Park 12 980,000
Beaver Creek Preserve 57 3,000,000
Evans Creek Preserve 175 1,500,000
Waterfront Park Property 4 1,593,000
Value of Current Parks $ 32,041,590
2005 Population 38,640
Value per Capita $ 829
Packet Page 225 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 16
Table 1 (continued): Level of Service Standard
(1)
Park
(2)
Acres
(3)
Facilities
(4)
Value
COMMITTED 2005 PARK PROJECTS
Community Sports Field at EHS 3 $ 2,500,000
Lighting
Synthetic Turf
Multi-Use Sports Facility
Soccer Fields (2)
Baseball Field (1)
Sammamish Commons
Development
Playfield 2,718,000
Civic Plaza
Skatepark
Basketball Court
Climbing Wall
Restroom
Play Area
View Tower
Ebright Creek Park Development Playfield (1)2,500,000
Play Area
Sports Court
Picnic Shelter
Restroom
Climbing Boulder
Boardwalk Trail
Value of Committed Projects $ 7,718,000
2005 Population 38,640
Value per Capita $ 200
Total Value $ 39,759,590
2005 Population 38,640
Value per Capita $ 1,029
The City of Sammamish standard is $1,029 per person of capital investment in
park land and recreational facilities. By using the total as the standard the City
maintains the flexibility to develop parks and recreational facilities that are most
appropriate for each site without being required to maintain arbitrary ratios of each
facility at each park site. The City’s flexibility also allows it to be responsive to
changing needs and priorities. For example, modern park systems have skateboard
parks and climbing walls that did not exist until a few years ago.
Packet Page 226 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 17
3. Park and Recreational Facility Needs
In this chapter the value is calculated of parks and recreational facilities that are
needed to serve growth that is forecast in Sammamish, and that value is reduced by
the value of any existing reserves and future investments the City will make in
parks and recreational facilities that serve growth.
As in the previous chapter, this chapter includes a description of formulas and each
variable that is used in the formulas, an explanation of the use of data in each
formula, and the calculations that result from using formulas 2 - 4.
FORMULA 2: Value Needed for Growth
Impact fees must be related to the needs of growth, as explained in Chapter 1. The
first step in determining growth’s needs is to calculate the total value of parks and
recreational facilities that are needed for growth. The calculation is accomplished
by multiplying the investment per person (from Table 1) times the number of new
persons that are forecast for the City’s growth.
Capital
Investment
per Person
x
Forecast
Population
Growth
=
Value
Needed
for Growth
There is one new variable used in formula 2 that requires explanation: (B) forecasts
of future population growth.
VARIABLE (B): FORECAST POPULATION GROWTH
As part of the City of Sammamish long-range planning process, including its
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the City prepares
forecasts of future growth. The City’s 2005 population is estimated to be 38,640 and
the forecast for the year 2010 is 41,950. The forecast growth is the difference: 3,310.
CALCULATION OF VALUE NEEDED FOR GROWTH
Table 2 shows the calculation of the value of parks and recreational facilities needed
for growth. Column 1 lists the level of service standard for capital investment per
person from Table 1, Column 2 shows the growth in population that is forecast, and
Column 3 is the total value of parks and recreational facilities that is needed to
serve the growth that is forecast for Sammamish.
Packet Page 227 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 18
Table 2: Value of Parks and Recreational Facilities Needed for Growth
(1)
Capital
Investment
per Person
(2)
Forecast
Population
Growth
(3)
Value
Needed
for Growth
$ 1,029 3,310 $ 3,405,907
Table 2 shows that Sammamish needs parks and recreational facilities valued at
$3,405,907 in order to serve the growth of 3,310 additional people who are expected
to be added to the City’s existing population. The future investment needed for
growth will be $3,405,907 unless the City has existing deficiency or existing reserve
capacity in its parks and recreational facilities.
FORMULA 3. Investment Needed for Growth
The investment needed for growth is calculated by subtracting the value of any
existing reserve capacity from the total value of parks and recreational facilities
needed to serve the growth.
Value
Needed
for Growth
-
Value of
Existing
Reserve
Capacity
=
Investment
Needed
for Growth
There is one new variable used in formula 3 that requires explanation: (C) value of
existing reserve capacity of parks and recreational facilities.
VARIABLE (C): VALUE OF EXISTING RESERVE CAPACITY
The value of reserve capacity is the difference between the value of the City’s
existing inventory of parks and recreational facilities, and the value of those assets
that are needed to provide the level of service standard for the existing population.
The value of the reserve capacity is detailed in Appendix A.
CALCULATION OF INVESTMENT NEEDED FOR GROWTH
Table 3 shows the calculation of the investment in parks and recreational facilities
that is needed for growth. Column 1 lists the value of parks and recreational
facilities needed to serve growth (from Table 2), Column 2 shows the value of
existing reserve capacity (from Appendix A), and Column 3 is the remaining
investment in parks and recreational facilities that is needed to serve the growth.
Packet Page 228 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 19
Table 3: Investment Needed in Parks and Recreational Facilities for Growth
(1)
Value
Needed
for Growth
(2)
Value of
Existing
Reserve
Capacity
(3)
Investment
Needed
for Growth
$ 3,405,907 $ 0 $ 3,405,907
Table 3 shows that Sammamish needs to invest $3,405,907 in additional parks and
recreational facilities in order to serve future growth. The future investment in
parks and recreational facilities that needs to paid by growth may be less that
$3,405,907 if the City has other revenues it invests in its parks and recreational
facilities.
FORMULA 4. Investment to be Paid by Growth
The investment to be paid by growth is calculated by subtracting the amount of any
revenues the City invests in infrastructure for growth from the total investment in
parks and recreational facilities needed to serve growth.
Investment
Needed
for Growth
-
City
Investment
for Growth
=
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
There is one new variable used in formula 4 that requires explanation: (D) revenues
used to fund the City’s investment in projects that serve growth.
VARIABLE (D): CITY INVESTMENT OF NON-IMPACT FEE REVENUES
Impact fee rate calculations must recognize and take into account revenues which
are earmarked or proratable to projects that are funded with impact fees. The City
of Sammamish has historically used a combination of state grants and local
revenues to pay for the cost of park and recreational capital facilities. The City’s
policy for the future is to apply grant revenue as a credit against the cost of facilities
for growth, but to apply local revenues to increasing the standard for existing
residents.
Future use of grant revenues is accounted for by reducing the investment needed for
growth in the fourth formula for computing impact fees. These reductions are the
"adjustments" required by law for future taxes or other payments. An analysis was
prepared of the City’s park and recreational facility capital funding for the past 5
Packet Page 229 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 20
years. Between 2000 and 2005, the City spent a total of $18,025,000 on park and
recreational facilities capital projects. During the same time, the City received
$2,465,000 in grants. The grant revenue was 13.68% of the total investment.
For the purpose of this impact fee study, it is assumed that the City will continue to
receive grants for parks and recreational facilities, and that the grants will fund
13.69% of future projects that are needed to serve new development. This amount
will constitute an adjustment of the investment to be paid by growth.
Revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs are not used to
reduce impact fees because they are not used, earmarked or prorated for the system
improvements that are the basis of the impact fees. Revenues from past taxes paid
on vacant land prior to development are not included because new capital projects do
not have prior costs, therefore prior taxes did not contribute to such projects.
The other potential credit that reduces capacity costs (and subsequent impact fees)
are donations of land or other assets by developers or builders. Those reductions
depend upon specific arrangements between the developer and the City of
Sammamish. Reductions in impact fees for donations are calculated on a case by
case basis at the time impact fees are to be paid.
CALCULATION OF INVESTMENT TO BE PAID BY GROWTH
Table 4 shows the calculation of the investment in parks and recreational facilities
that needs to be paid by growth. Column 1 lists the investment in parks and
recreational facilities needed to serve growth (from Table 3), column 2 shows the
value of City investment for growth (calculated at 0% of the investment needed for
growth), and column 3 is the remaining investment in parks and recreational
facilities that will be paid by growth.
Table 4: Investment in Parks and Recreational Facilities to be Paid by Growth
(1)
Investment
Needed
for Growth
(2)
City
Investment
for Growth
(3)
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
$ 3,405,907 $ 465,928 $ 2,939,979
Table 4 shows that growth in Sammamish needs to pay $3,405,907 for additional
parks and recreational facilities to maintain the City’s standards for future growth.
The City expects to receive $465,928 in grant revenue towards this cost, and the
remaining $2,939,979 will be paid by growth.
The portion to be paid by each new dwelling unit is presented in the next chapter.
Packet Page 230 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 21
4. Impact Fees
In this chapter, the investment in additional parks and recreational facilities to be
paid by growth (from chapter 3) is converted to impact fees per dwelling unit. As in
the previous chapter, this chapter includes a description of the formulas and each
variable that is used in each formula, an explanation of the use of data in the
formula, and the calculation of the impact fee per dwelling unit, using formulas 5
and 6.
FORMULA 5: Growth Cost Per Person
The growth cost per person is calculated by dividing the investment in parks and
recreational facilities that is to be paid by growth by the amount of population
growth.
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
÷
Growth
Population =
Growth
Cost
per Person
There are no new variables used in formula 5. Both variables were developed in
previous formulas.
CALCULATION OF INVESTMENT TO BE PAID BY GROWTH
Table 5 shows the calculation of the cost per person of parks and recreational
facilities that needs to be paid by growth. Column 1 lists the investment in parks
and recreational facilities needed to be paid by growth (from Table 4), column 2
shows the growth population (see Variable B, Formula 2, above), and column 3 is
the growth cost per person.
Table 5: Growth Cost per Person
(1)
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
(2)
Growth
Population
(3)
Growth
Cost
per Person
$ 2,939,979 3,310 $ 888.21
Table 5 shows that cost per new person for parks and recreational facilities that will
be paid by growth is $888.21. The amount to be paid by each new dwelling unit
depends on the number of persons per dwelling unit.
Packet Page 231 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 22
FORMULA 6: Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit
The impact fee per dwelling unit is calculated by multiplying the growth cost per
person by the number of persons per dwelling unit.
Growth
Cost
per Person
x
Average
Persons per
Dwelling Unit
=
Impact Fee
per
Dwelling Unit
There is one new variable used in formula 6 that requires explanation: (E) average
number of persons per dwelling unit.
VARIABLE (E): AVERAGE PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT
The number of persons per dwelling unit is the factor used to convert the growth cost
of parks and recreational facilities per person into impact fees per dwelling unit.
According to the 2000 Census, the number of persons per dwelling unit in the City of
Sammamish ranges from 3.02 persons per single family dwelling unit to 1.59
persons per mobile home.
CALCULATION OF IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT
Table 6 shows the calculation of the parks and recreational facilities impact fee per
dwelling unit. Column 1 lists the types of dwelling units, column 2 shows the
average persons per dwelling unit, and column 3 is the impact fee per dwelling unit
calculated by multiplying the number of persons per dwelling unit times the growth
cost per person from Table 5.
Table 6: Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit
(1)
Type of
Dwelling
Unit
(2)
Average
Persons per
Dwelling Unit
(3)
Impact Fee
per Dwelling Unit @
$888.21 per Person
Single Family 3.02 $ 2,681.42
Multi-Family 1.74 1,549.13
Mobile Home 1.59 1,410.69
Packet Page 232 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 23
Appendix A: Deficiency or Reserve Capacity of Parks and Recreation
Facilities
The need for additional park land and recreation facilities is determined by using
standards for levels of service for park land and recreation facilities to calculate the
total quantity of facilities that are required. The required quantity is then
compared to the existing inventory to determine if there is an existing deficiency
that must be made up without regard to growth, or if there is reserve capacity that
can serve growth. The deficiency or reserve is applied to the total requirement in
order to determine the net need for new capital investments to serve growth. This
analysis complies with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050(4).
Value Required for Existing Population
The table below shows the calculation of the value of parks and recreational
facilities needed for the City’s current population. Column 1 lists the level of service
standard for capital investment per person from Table 1, column 2 shows the City’s
2005 population, and column 3 is the total value of parks and recreational facilities
that is needed to serve the existing population.
Value of Parks and Recreational Facilities Needed for Existing Population
(1)
Capital
Investment
per Person
(2)
2005
Population
(3)
Value
Needed for
Existing Population
$ 1,029 38,640 $ 39,759,590
Value of Sammamish 2005 Inventory of Parks and Recreational
Facilities
The value of the City’s current inventory, including those 2005 projects for which
funding is committed is calculated by totaling the value or cost of the acres and
recreational facilities the City owns or has committed funding to building or
purchasing during 2005. The detailed inventory and values of each park and its
recreational facilities is shown in Table 1. A summary of Table 1 is shown in the
table on the following page.
Packet Page 233 of 442
Park Impact Fee Rate Study
Henderson,City of Sammamish
Young &September 16, 2005
Company Page 24
Value of 2005 Parks and Recreational Facilities
Type of Inventory Inventory Value
Current Park Property $ 32,041,590
Committed 2005 Park Projects 7,718,000
Total Value 39,759,590
Deficiency or Reserve Capacity of Parks and Recreational Facilities
The deficiency or reserve capacity is the difference between the value of park and
recreational facility assets that are needed to provide the level of service standard
for the existing population and the value of the City’s existing inventory of parks and
recreational facilities, As of 2005, Sammamish has no deficiency and no reserve
capacity:
Value of 2005 Inventory $39,759,590
Value Required for 1999 Population 39,759,590
Deficiency or Reserve Capacity Value 0
Packet Page 234 of 442
RATE STUDY
FOR
IMPACT FEES
FOR
TRANSPORTATION,
PARKS,
and
FIRE PROTECTION
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
August 26, 2011
Packet Page 235 of 442
Packet Page 236 of 442
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................5
2. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................7
3. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES ................................................................................................................15
4. PARK IMPACT FEES ...........................................................................................................................................30
5. FIRE IMPACT FEES .............................................................................................................................................40
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: IMPACT FEE RATES PER DWELLING UNIT .......................................................................................................5
TABLE 2: STREET PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES ............................................................................................16
TABLE 3: COST OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES .................................................................................................................19
TABLE 4: COST OF FUTURE RESERVE CAPACITY .........................................................................................................21
TABLE 5: TOTAL PROJECT COST ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES......................................................................................22
TABLE 6: GROWTH TRIPS (P.M. PEAK HOUR) ON THE STREET NETWORK .....................................................................26
TABLE 7: COST PER GROWTH TRIP ..............................................................................................................................26
TABLE 8: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATES PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT ...........................................................28
TABLE 9: ASSET INVENTORY AND CAPITAL VALUE PER PERSON ................................................................................31
TABLE 10: VALUE OF PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES NEEDED FOR GROWTH.................................................33
TABLE 11: INVESTMENT NEEDED IN PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR GROWTH ........................................34
TABLE 12: INVESTMENT IN PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES TO BE PAID BY GROWTH .....................................36
TABLE 13: GROWTH COST PER PERSON .........................................................................................................................36
TABLE 14: COST PER DWELLING UNIT ..........................................................................................................................37
TABLE 15: PARK IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT ......................................................................................................39
TABLE 16: FIRE PROTECTION APPARATUS INVENTORY ................................................................................................41
Packet Page 237 of 442
TABLE 17: FIRE AND BLS BUILDING INVENTORY ........................................................................................................42
TABLE 18: ANNUALIZED APPARATUS COST .................................................................................................................43
TABLE 19: APPARATUS COST PER RESPONSE ...............................................................................................................44
TABLE 20: ANNUAL FIRE AND BLS INCIDENTS ............................................................................................................45
TABLE 21: FIRE INCIDENT RESPONSE BY TYPE OF APPARATUS ...................................................................................45
TABLE 22: TOTAL APPARATUS COST PER FIRE INCIDENT ............................................................................................46
TABLE 23: ANNUALIZED STATION COST PER SQUARE FOOT........................................................................................47
TABLE 24: STATION COST PER FIRE AND BLS INCIDENT .............................................................................................47
TABLE 25: FIRE INCIDENTS............................................................................................................................................49
TABLE 26: FIRE INCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LAND USES ....................................................................................................49
TABLE 27: TRAFFIC RELATED FIRE INCIDENTS (ALLOCATED TO LAND USES)..............................................................50
TABLE 28: TOTAL ANNUAL FIRE INCIDENTS BY LAND USE..........................................................................................51
TABLE 29: ANNUAL FIRE INCIDENTS BY LAND USE .....................................................................................................52
TABLE 30: ENGINE COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ...........................................53
TABLE 31: LADDER COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..........................................54
TABLE 32: AID VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..................................55
TABLE 33: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES.56
TABLE 34: BRUSH TRUCK COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ................................57
TABLE 35: STAFF VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ...............................58
TABLE 36: OTHER APPARATUS/EQUIPMENT COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ....59
TABLE 37: FIRE STATION COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES .................................60
TABLE 38: EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION OF TOTAL CAPITAL COST FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ...........60
TABLE 39: TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..............................61
TABLE 40: BLS INCIDENT RESPONSE BY TYPE OF APPARATUS ....................................................................................62
TABLE 41: TOTAL APPARATUS COST PER BLS INCIDENT .............................................................................................63
TABLE 42: BLS INCIDENTS ............................................................................................................................................64
TABLE 43: BLS INCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LAND USES ....................................................................................................64
TABLE 44: TRAFFIC RELATED BLS INCIDENTS (ALLOCATED TO LAND USES)..............................................................65
Packet Page 238 of 442
TABLE 45: TOTAL ANNUAL BLS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE..........................................................................................66
TABLE 46: ANNUAL BLS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE .....................................................................................................67
TABLE 47: ENGINE COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ...........................................68
TABLE 48: LADDER COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..........................................69
TABLE 49: AID VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..................................70
TABLE 50: STAFF VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ...............................71
TABLE 51: OTHER APPARATUS/EQUIPMENT COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ....72
TABLE 52: FIRE STATION COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..................................73
TABLE 53: EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION OF TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS FOR A SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE .............................................................................................................................................73
TABLE 54: TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES ..............................74
TABLE 55: TOTAL COST OF RESPONSE O FIRE AND BLS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE CATEGORY....................................75
TABLE 56: FIRE IMPACT FEES BY LAND USE ................................................................................................................77
Packet Page 239 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 5
Company
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to establish the rates for impact fees in the City of
Renton, Washington for three types of public facilities authorized by RCW1
82.02.090(7). The following list provides the statutory name of each type of
public facility and in parentheses the short name used in this study for each type
of impact fee:
• public streets and roads (transportation)
• publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities (parks)
• fire protection facilities (fire)
Summary of Impact Fee Rates
Impact fees are paid by all types of new development2. Impact fee rates for
new development are based on, and vary according to the type of land use.
The following table summarizes the impact fee rates for several frequently used
land use categories. Rates for other non-residential development are presented
in the sections of this study for each type of public facility.
Table 1: Impact Fee Rates per Dwelling Unit
(1)
Type of
Development
(2)
Unit
(3)
Transportation
(4)
Parks
(5)
Fire
(6)
Total
Single-Family dwelling unit $ 8,579.24 $ 2,740.07 $ 718.56 $ 12,037.87
Multi-Family dwelling unit 5,592.71 2,224.29 718.56 8,535.56
Office sq. ft. 14.82 none 0.21 15.03
Retail (shopping) sq. ft. 9.66 none 0.88 10.54
Industrial sq. ft. 10.72 none 0.12 10.84
Restaurant sq. ft. 33.65 none 2.67 36.32
Impact Fees vs. Other Developer Contributions
Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local
governments for the capital cost of public facilities that are needed to serve
new development and the people who occupy or use the new development.
Throughout this study, the term "developer" is used as a shorthand expression to
describe anyone who is obligated to pay impact fees, including builders, owners
1 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is the state law of the State of Washington.
2 The impact fee ordinance may specify exemptions for low-income housing and/or “broad
public purposes”, but such exemptions must be paid for by public money, not other impact
fees. The ordinance may specify if impact fees apply to changes in use, remodeling, etc.
Packet Page 240 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 6
Company
or developers.
Local governments charge impact fees for several reasons: 1) to obtain revenue
to pay for some of the cost of new public facilities; 2) to implement a public
policy that new development should pay a portion of the cost of facilities that it
requires, and that existing development should not pay all of the cost of such
facilities; and 3) to assure that adequate public facilities will be constructed to
serve new development.
The impact fees that are described in this study do not include any other forms
of developer contributions or exactions, such as: mitigation or voluntary
payments authorized by SEPA (the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C);
system development charges for water and sewer authorized for utilities (RCW
35.92 for municipalities, 56.16 for sewer districts, and 57.08 for water districts);
local improvement districts or other special assessment districts; linkage fees; or
land donations or fees in lieu of land.
Organization of the Study
This impact fee rate study contains five chapters:
• Chapter 1 provides a summary of impact fee rates for frequently used
land use categories, and other introductory materials.
• Chapter 2 summarizes the statutory requirements for developing impact
fees, and describes the compliance with each requirement.
• Chapters 3 – 5 present impact fees for transportation (Chapter 3), parks
(Chapter 4), and fire (Chapter 5). Each chapter provides the
methodology that is used to develop the fees, presents the formulas,
variables and data that are the basis for the fees, and documents the
calculation of the fees. The methodology is designed to comply with the
requirements of Washington state law.
Packet Page 241 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 7
Company
2. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter summarizes the statutory requirements for impact fees in the State
of Washington, and describes how the City of Renton’s impact fees comply with
the statutory requirements.
Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees
The Growth Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 17, Washington Laws, 1990, 1st
Ex. Sess.) authorizes local governments in Washington to charge impact fees.
RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 contain the provisions of the Growth Management
Act that authorize and describe the requirements for impact fees.
The impact fees that are described in this study are not mitigation payments
authorized by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). There are several
important differences between impact fees and SEPA mitigations. Three
aspects of impact fees that are particularly noteworthy are: 1) the ability to
charge for the cost of public facilities that are "system improvements" (i.e., that
provide service to the community at large) as opposed to "project
improvements" (which are "on-site" and provide service for a particular
development); 2) the ability to charge small-scale development their
proportionate share, whereas SEPA exempts small developments; and 3) the
predictability and simplicity of impact fee rate schedules compared to the cost,
time and uncertain outcome of SEPA reviews conducted on a case-by-case
basis.
The following synopsis of the most significant requirements of the law includes
citations to the Revised Code of Washington as an aid to readers who wish to
review the exact language of the statutes.
Types of Public Facilities
Four types of public facilities can be the subject of impact fees: 1) public
transportation and roads; 2) publicly owned parks, open space and recreation
facilities; 3) school facilities; and 4) fire protection facilities (in jurisdictions that
are not part of a fire district). RCW 82.02.050(2) and (4), and RCW 82.02.090(7)
Types of Improvements
Impact fees can be spent on "system improvements" (which are typically outside
the development), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically
provided by the developer on-site within the development). RCW
82.02.050(3)(a) and RCW 82.02.090(6) and (9)
Packet Page 242 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 8
Company
Benefit to Development
Impact fees must be limited to system improvements that are reasonably
related to, and which will benefit new development. RCW 82.02.050(3)(a) and
(c). Local governments must establish reasonable service areas (one area, or
more than one, as determined to be reasonable by the local government), and
local governments must develop impact fee rate categories for various land
uses. RCW 82.02.060(6)
Proportionate Share
Impact fees cannot exceed the development's proportionate share of system
improvements that are reasonably related to the new development. The
impact fee amount shall be based on a formula (or other method of calculating
the fee) that determines the proportionate share. RCW 82.02.050(3)(b) and RCW
82.02.060(1)
Reductions of Impact Fee Amounts
Impact fees rates must be adjusted to account for other revenues that the
development pays (if such payments are earmarked for or proratable to
particular system improvements). RCW 82.02.050(1)(c) and (2) and RCW
82.02.060(1)(b) Impact fees may be credited for the value of dedicated land,
improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in
the adopted CFP as system improvements eligible for impact fees and are
required as a condition of development approval). RCW 82.02.060(3)
Exemptions from Impact Fees
Local governments have the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees
for low-income housing and other "broad public purpose" development, but all
such exempt fees must be paid from public funds (other than impact fee
accounts). RCW 82.02.060(2)
Developer Options
Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to
demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the
impacts calculated in this rate study. RCW 82.02.060(5). Developers can pay
impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee calculations. RCW
82.02.060(4) and RCW 82.02.070(4) and (5). The developer can obtain a refund
of the impact fees if the local government fails to expend or obligate the
impact fee payments within 10 years, or terminates the impact fee requirement,
or the developer does not proceed with the development (and creates no
impacts). RCW 82.02.080
Packet Page 243 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 9
Company
Capital Facilities Plans
Impact fees must be expended on public facilities in a capital facilities plan
(CFP) element or used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of
existing facilities. The CFP must conform to the Growth Management Act of
1990, and must identify existing deficiencies in facility capacity for current
development, capacity of existing facilities available for new development, and
additional facility capacity needed for new development. RCW 82.02.050(4),
RCW 82.02.060(7), and RCW 82.02.070(2)
New Versus Existing Facilities
Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(1)(a) and
for the unused capacity of existing public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(7) subject to
the proportionate share limitation described above.
Accounting Requirements
The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies,
expend or obligate the money on CFP projects within 10 years, and prepare
annual reports of collections and expenditures. RCW 82.02.070(1)-(3)
Compliance With Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees
Many of the statutory requirements listed above are fulfilled in Chapters 3 - 5 of
this study that present the calculation of each type of impact fee. Some of the
statutory requirements are fulfilled in other ways, as described below.
Types of Public Facilities
This study contains impact fees for three of the four types of public facilities
authorized by statute: transportation, parks and fire. This study does not contain
impact fees for schools.
In general, local governments that are authorized to charge impact fees are
responsible for specific public facilities for which they may charge such fees.
The City of Renton is legally and financially responsible for the transportation,
parks and fire facilities it owns and operates within its jurisdiction. In no case may
a local government charge impact fees for private facilities, but it may charge
impact fees for some public facilities that it does not administer if such facilities
are "owned or operated by government entities" (RCW 82.02.090 (7). Thus, a city
or county may charge impact fees for transportation, and enter into an
agreement with the State of Washington for the transfer, expenditure, and
reporting of transportation impact fees for state roads. A city may only charge
and use impact fees on State roads if it has an agreement with the State, and
the City CFP includes the state road projects.
Packet Page 244 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 10
Company
Types of Improvements
The impact fees in this study are based on system improvements that are
described in Chapters 3 – 5 for each type of impact fee. No project
improvements are included in this study.
The public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees are "system
improvements” (which are typically outside the development), and "designed
to provide service to service areas within the community at large" as provided in
RCW 82.02.050(9)), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically
provided by the developer on-site within the development or adjacent to the
development), and "designed to provide service for a development project,
and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users
of the project" as provided in RCW 82.02.050(6). The capital improvements costs
contained in Chapters 3 – 5 comply with these requirements.
Impact fee revenue can be used for the capital cost of public facilities. Impact
fees cannot be used for operating or maintenance expenses. The cost of public
facilities that can be paid for by impact fees include design studies,
engineering, land surveys, land and right of way acquisition, engineering,
permitting, financing, administrative expenses, construction, applicable
mitigation costs, and capital equipment pertaining to capital improvements.
Benefit to Development, Proportionate Share and Reductions of Fee Amounts
The law imposes three tests of the benefit provided to development by impact
fees: 1) proportionate share, 2) reasonably related to need, and 3) reasonably
related to expenditure (RCW 80.20.050(3)). In addition, the law requires the
designation of one or more service areas (RCW 82.02.060(6)
1. Proportionate Share.
First, the "proportionate share" requirement means that impact fees can
be charged only for the portion of the cost of public facilities that is
"reasonably related" to new development. In other words, impact fees
cannot be charged to pay for the cost of reducing or eliminating
deficiencies in existing facilities.
Second, there are several important implications of the proportionate
share requirement that are not specifically addressed in the law, but
which follow directly from the law:
• Costs of facilities that will benefit new development and existing users
must be apportioned between the two groups in determining the
amount of the fee. This can be accomplished in either of two ways: (1)
by allocating the total cost between new and existing users, or (2)
calculating the cost per unit and applying the cost only to new
development when calculating impact fees.
Packet Page 245 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 11
Company
• Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity should
be based on the government's actual cost. Carrying costs may be
added to reflect the government's actual or imputed interest expense.
The third aspect of the proportionate share requirement is its relationship
to the requirement to provide adjustments and credits to impact fees,
where appropriate. These requirements ensure that the amount of the
impact fee does not exceed the proportionate share.
• The "adjustments" requirement reduces the impact fee to account for
past and future payments of other revenues (if such payments are
earmarked for, or proratable to, the system improvements that are
needed to serve new growth). Each impact fee calculated in this
study includes an adjustment that accounts for any other revenue that
is paid by new development and used by the City to pay for a portion
of growth’s proportionate share of costs. This adjustment is in response
to the limitations in RCW 82.02.060 (1)(b) and RCW 82.02.050(2).
• The "credit" requirement reduces impact fees by the value of
dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the
developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP, identified as the
projects for which impact fees are collected, and are required as a
condition of development approval). The law does not prohibit a local
government from establishing reasonable constraints on determining
credits. For example, the location of dedicated land and the quality
and design of donated street, park or fire public facilities can be
required to be acceptable to the local government.
2. Reasonably Related to Need.
There are many ways to fulfill the requirement that impact fees be
"reasonably related" to the development's need for public facilities,
including personal use and use by others in the family or business
enterprise (direct benefit), use by persons or organizations who provide
goods or services to the fee-paying property or are customers or visitors at
the fee paying property (indirect benefit), and geographical proximity
(presumed benefit). These measures of relatedness are implemented by
the following techniques:
• Impact fees are charged to properties which need (i.e., benefit from)
new public facilities. The City of Renton provides its infrastructure to all
kinds of property throughout the City, therefore impact fees have been
calculated for all types of property with one exception: park impact
fees are not calculated for non-residential property because the
dominant stream of benefits redounds to the occupants and owners of
dwelling units and there is insufficient data to document the
proportionate share of parks and recreational facilities reasonably
needed by non-residential development.
Packet Page 246 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 12
Company
• The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in
establishing fee amounts (i.e., different impact values for different
types of land use). Chapter 3 uses different trip generation rates for
each type of land use, Chapter 4 uses different persons per dwelling
unit, and Chapter 5 uses different emergency response rates for each
type of land use.
• Feepayers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate that their
development will have less impact than is presumed in the impact fee
schedule calculation for their property classification. Such reduced
needs must be permanent and enforceable (i.e., via land use
restrictions).
3. Reasonably Related to Expenditures.
Two provisions of Renton’s impact fee ordinance comply with the
requirement that expenditures be "reasonably related" to the
development that paid the impact fee. First, the requirement that fee
revenue must be earmarked for specific uses related to public facilities
ensures that expenditures are on specific projects, the benefit of which
has been demonstrated in determining the need for the projects and the
portion of the cost of needed projects that are eligible for impact fees as
described in this study. Second, impact fee revenue must be expended
or obligated within 10 years, thus requiring the impact fees to be used to
benefit to the feepayer and not held by the City.
4. Service Areas for Impact Fees
Impact fees in some jurisdictions are collected and expended within
service areas that are smaller than the jurisdiction that is collecting the
fees. Impact fees are not required to use multiple service areas unless
such “zones” are necessary to establish the relationship between the fee
and the development. Because of the compact size of the City of Renton
and the accessibility of its transportation, parks and fire systems to all
property within the City, Renton’s transportation, parks and fire systems
serve the entire City, therefore the impact fees are based on a single
service area corresponding to the boundaries of the City of Renton.
Exemptions
The City’s impact fee ordinance addresses the subject of exemptions.
Exemptions do not affect the impact fee rates calculated in this study because
of the statutory requirement that any exempted impact fee must be paid from
other public funds. As a result, there is no increase in impact fee rates to make
up for the exemption because there is no net loss to the impact fee account as
a result of the exemption.
Packet Page 247 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 13
Company
Developer Options
A developer who is liable for impact fees has several options regarding impact
fees. The developer can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the
impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in
this rate study. The developer can appeal the impact fee calculation by the
City of Renton. If the local government fails to expend the impact fee
payments within 10 years of receipt of such payments, the developer can
obtain a refund of the impact fees. The developer can also obtain a refund if
the development does not proceed and no impacts are created. All of these
provisions are addressed in the City’s impact fee ordinance, and none of them
affect the calculation of impact fee rates in this study.
Capital Facilities Plan
There are references in RCW to the “capital facilities plan” (CFP) as the basis for
projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees. Cities often adopt
documents with different titles that fulfill the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et.
seq. pertaining to a “capital facilities plan”. The Transportation Element, Park
Element and Capital Facilities Plan Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan
fulfill the requirements in RCW, and are considered to be the “capital facilities
plan” (CFP) for the purpose of this impact fee rate study. In addition, the City’s
Capital Investment Program (CIP) section of the City’s Budget provides up-to-
date and detailed information about the projects in the CFP. The City also
produces an annual update of the multi-year Transportation Improvements Plan
(TIP) All references to a CFP in this study are references to the Comprehensive
Plan elements, City CIP and TIP documents listed above.
The requirement to identify existing deficiencies, capacity available for new
development, and additional public facility capacity needed for new
development is determined by analyzing levels of service for each type of
public facility. Chapters 3 – 5 provide this analysis for each type of public facility.
New Versus Existing Facilities, Accounting Requirements
Impact fees must be spent on capital projects contained in an adopted capital
facilities plan, or they can be used to reimburse the government for the unused
capacity of existing facilities. Impact fee payments that are not expended or
obligated within 10 years must be refunded unless the City Council makes a
written finding that an extraordinary and compelling reason exists to hold the
fees for longer than 10 years. In order to verify these two requirements, impact
fee revenues must be deposited into separate accounts of the government,
and annual reports must describe impact fee revenue and expenditures. These
requirements are addressed by Renton’s impact fee ordinance, and are not
factors in the impact fee calculations in this study.
Packet Page 248 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 14
Company
Data Sources
The data in this study of impact fees in Renton, Washington was provided by the
City of Renton, unless a different source is specifically cited.
Data Rounding
The data in this study was prepared using computer spreadsheet software. In
some tables in this study, there may be very small variations from the results that
would be obtained using a calculator to compute the same data. The reason
for these insignificant differences is that the spreadsheet software was allowed
to calculate results to more places after the decimal than is reported in the
tables of these reports. The calculation to extra places after the decimal
increases the accuracy of the end results, but causes occasional minor
differences due to rounding of data that appears in this study.
Packet Page 249 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 15
Company
3. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
Impact fees for transportation begin with the list of projects in the Transportation
Element and Capital Facilities Plan Element of City's Comprehensive Plan and
the City’s CIP and TIP (which are the “CFP”, as noted in Chapter 2). The projects
in these elements are analyzed to identify capacity costs attributable to new
development. The costs are apportioned between existing deficiencies (if any)
and growth capacity. The capacity costs for growth are further apportioned to
eliminate the cost of future reserve capacity. The costs are adjusted to reflect
other sources of revenue that reduce the cost of the facility that is to be paid by
impact fees. The eligible costs are divided by the growth in trips to calculate the
cost per growth trip. The cost per growth trip is applied to the unique trip
generation rates for each type of land use. The amount of the fee is
determined by charging each fee-paying development for cost of the number
of growth trips that it generates.
These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables
of data, and explanation of calculations of transportation impact fees.
Formula T-1: Transportation Projects Eligible for Impact Fees
The City has many projects in its transportation plan. Only those that add
capacity to the streets in order to maintain the City’s adopted standard for level
of service are eligible for impact fees.
T-1. All Capital
Projects -
Non-Capacity
Projects or Not
Needed for Level
of Service
= Projects Eligible for
Impact Fees
There is one variable that requires explanation: (A) street capacity projects, and
needed for level of service.
Variable (A): Street Capacity Projects
RCW 82.02.050 (4)(c) requires identification of public facility improvements
needed to serve new development. Projects in the Transportation Element and
Capital Facilities Plan Element, the CIP and TIP, and previously constructed
projects are not eligible for impact fees if they do not add capacity to the City's
current street system.
In addition, capacity projects that are not needed for level of service are also
not eligible for impact fees. For each capacity project, the future traffic volume
(the amount of traffic on the street) was compared to the current capacity of
the street (the amount of traffic the street is designed to carry without
exceeding the adopted level of service standard). If the future volume is
Packet Page 250 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 16
Company
greater than the current capacity, the project is needed in order to increase the
capacity to serve the future volume, and the project is included in the impact
fee. If, however the future volume is less than the current capacity, the City
does not need the project for level of service, therefore the project is not eligible
for impact fees3.
A similar analysis was conducted of level of service for previously constructed
projects eligible for “reimbursement” impact fees. RCW 82.02.050 (4)(b) requires
this analysis of the additional demands placed on existing public facilities by
new development.
Table 2 lists the transportation projects that are eligible for impact fees. projects
1 – 13 are new projects that will be built in the future. Projects A – C were
completed by the City and they have unused capacity that is available to serve
new development (“reimbursement projects”)4.
Table 2: Street Projects Eligible for Impact Fees
(1)
#
(2)
Street
(3)
From
(4)
To
(5)
Description
New Projects
1 156th Ave SE NE 4th St SE 143rd St
Widen existing 2-lane
roadway to provide 4 lanes
with left turn lanes at
intersection and two-way left
turn lane where needed.
2 Benson Road South 26th St South 31st St Arterial widening
3 Carr Rd/ Benson Rd (SR 515) intersection
Widen Carr Road between
105th Ave SE and 109th Ave
SE to provide an additional
EB lane; at the 108th Ave SE
intersection, widen the Carr
Road EB approach to provide
2left turn lanes and 3 thru
lanes; at the 108th Ave SE
intersection, widen the WB
approach to provide 2 left
turn lanes, a separate right
turn lane, 2 WB lanes, and 3
EB lanes; widen the 108th SE
approach at the Carr Road
3 The City may have other reasons to build the project, and the project may provide additional
capacity, but the project cannot be included in the impact fee if it is not needed for level of
service.
4 RCW 82.02.060(7) authorizes the City to impose impact fees for system improvement costs
previously incurred by the City to the extent that new growth and development will be served
by the previously constructed improvements. RCW 82.02.060 (1)(d) authorizes the cost of
existing public facilities improvements in the calculation of impact fees.
Packet Page 251 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 17
Company
(1)
#
(2)
Street
(3)
From
(4)
To
(5)
Description
intersection to provide a
separate right turn lane;
widen Benson Drive (SR515)
between Carr Road
intersection and 108th Way
SE (old Benson Road) to
provide a separate NB right
turn lane
4 Carr Road Central West of Talbot
Road 108th Pl
Add turn lanes at Talbot
intersection; Widen to add EB
lane between Talbot and
Benson
5 Carr Road West Lind Avenue West of Talbot
Road
New SR 167 SB Off-ramp;
new collector-distributor road;
Add EB lane between Lind
and Talbot
6 Grady Way Talbot Road Rainier Ave Arterial improvements
7 Lake Washington Blvd Park Ave N Coulon Park
Entrance
Widen existing roadway to
provide dual SB left turn
lanes on Lk Washington Blvd
approach to Logan Ave/
Garden Ave/ N Park Dr
intersection and a NB left turn
lane on Lk Washington Blvd
approach to Coulon Park
Entrance intersection; install
new traffic signal at Lk WA
Blvd/ Coulon Park Entrance
intersection
8 Lind Ave SW SW 16th St SW 43rd St
Widen existing roadway to
provide center two-way left
turn lane
9 Logan Ave N/ Garden Ave N/
Lk Washington Blvd Intersection
Widen roadway to provide an
additional EB left turn lane on
EB Logan approach at Lk WA
Blvd intersection
10 Maple Valley Hwy (SR 169) Park entrance East City Limits
Widen existing 4-lane
roadway to provide additional
lane in each direction; traffic
operations improvements at
intersections
11 Park Ave N Extension Logan Ave N 1200 ft north of
Logan
New 4-lane roadways with
center left turn lane where
needed
12 South 7th Street Rainier Ave S S Grady Way EB lane Shattuck-Talbot,
signal @ Shattuck & Talbot
13
SW 27th Street/Strander
Boulevard Connection
Oakdale West Valley Hwy New 5 lane arterial
Packet Page 252 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 18
Company
(1)
#
(2)
Street
(3)
From
(4)
To
(5)
Description
Reimbursement Projects (Impact Fee Reimburses Local Revenues)
A Duvall Sunset North City limits Reconstructed to 5 lane road
B Logan 6th Garden New 3-5 lane road and 2
signals
C SR 169 (Maple Valley Hwy) I-405 Park entrance Added one lane in each
direction
Formula T-2: Eligible Cost of Projects Needed for Level of Service
A project that is needed for level of service is eligible for impact fees, but some
of the project’s costs may not be eligible for impact fees. Ineligible costs include
the cost of existing deficiencies, and the value of extra (“reserve”) capacity
beyond that needed by new development.
T-2.
Cost of Projects
Eligible for
Impact Fees
-
Costs Not
Eligible for
Impact Fee
= Growth’s Share of
Eligible Cost
There are two new variables that require explanation: (B) costs of projects, and
(C) costs not eligible for impact fee.
Variable (B): Costs of Projects
The costs in this study are the same costs of the projects in the Transportation
Element and Capital Facilities Plan Element and the CIP and TIP. The costs of
street projects used in this study include the full cost of the project, including
engineering, right of way, and construction costs. The cost of street projects
does not include any costs for interest or other financing. If the City decides in
the future to borrow money for transportation, the carrying costs for financing
can be added to the costs in this study, and the impact fee can be
recalculated to include such costs.
Variable (C): Costs Not Eligible for Impact Fee
Costs that are eligible for impact fees must meet the statutory requirement to be
growth’s proportionate share of projects that are reasonably needed to serve
growth. Two aspects of a project that do not meet this requirement include
existing deficiencies, and reserve capacity in excess of that needed by growth,
These elements will be analyzed in a series of tables below.
Packet Page 253 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 19
Company
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
RCW 82.02.050 (4)(a) requires an analysis of deficiencies in public facilities
serving existing development. Table 3 contains the analysis of deficiencies for
future and reimbursement projects (projects previously constructed). Existing
deficiencies are determined by comparing existing traffic volume to existing
capacity of each street that is planned for improvement. If current traffic
exceeds current capacity, the “excess” traffic is the number of deficient trips.
The deficient trips are divided by the amount of new capacity to be added in
order to calculate the percent of the project that will make up for existing
deficiencies. The deficiency percentage is multiplied times the project costs to
calculate the portion of the project cost that is attributable to existing
deficiencies. The portion of the total $224.8 million of eligible projects that is for
existing deficiencies equals $3,870,236 (1.7% of the total cost).
Table 3: Cost of Existing Deficiencies
(1)
#
(2)
Name of Project
(3)
Total Cost
(4)
2008
Capacity
Before
Project
(5)
2008
Traffic
Volume
(6)
Existing
(Deficiency)
Or Reserve
(7)
Increase
in
Capacity
(8)
Existing
(Deficiency)
% of
Increased
Capacity
(9)
Cost of
Existing
Deficiency
New Projects
1 156th Ave SE: $13,202,000 1,400 1,127 274 1,400 0.00% $ 0
NE 4th St to SE 143rd St
2 Benson Road 4,500,000 1,600 1,559 42 1,600 0.00% 0
South 26th St to South
31st St
3 Carr Rd/ Benson Rd (SR
515) 23,391,000 6,400 5,701 699 800 0.00% 0
intersection
4 Carr Road Central 32,488,500 3,200 2,776 424 1,600 0.00% 0
West of Talbot Road to
108th Pl
5 Carr Road West 11,696,400 3,200 3,527 (327) 1,200 27.25% 3,187,269
Lind Avenue to West of
Talbot Rd
6 Grady Way 3,000,000 3,200 3,324 (124) 800 15.54% 466,250
Talbot Road to Rainier
Ave
7 Lake Washington Blvd 548,238 1,300 1,483 (183) 1,300 14.08% 77,175
Park Ave N to Coulon
Park Entrance
8 Lind Ave SW 3,500,000 2,400 1,362 1,039 800 0.00% 0
SW 16th St to SW 43rd
St
Packet Page 254 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 20
Company
(1)
#
(2)
Name of Project
(3)
Total Cost
(4)
2008
Capacity
Before
Project
(5)
2008
Traffic
Volume
(6)
Existing
(Deficiency)
Or Reserve
(7)
Increase
in
Capacity
(8)
Existing
(Deficiency)
% of
Increased
Capacity
(9)
Cost of
Existing
Deficiency
9 Logan Ave N/ Garden
Ave N/ 2,683,492 2,800 2,904 (104) 2,000 5.20% 139,542
Lk Washington Blvd
Intersection
10 Maple Valley Hwy (SR
169) 83,693,292 3,550 2,714 836 1,775 0.00% 0
Park entrance to East
City Limits
11 Park Ave N Extension 5,000,000 0 0 0 1,300 0.00% 0
Logan Ave N to 1200 ft
north
12 South 7th Street 7,000,000 1,760 1,323 437 400 0.00% 0
Rainier Ave S to S Grady
Way
13 SW 27th St/Strander
Connection 9,000,000 0 0 0 3,200 0.00% 0
Oakdale to West Valley
Hwy
Subtotal: New Projects 199,702,922 3,870,236
Reimbursement Projects (Impact Fee Reimburses Local
Revenues)
A Duvall 8,190,713 1,714 1,673 41 1,829 0.00% 0
Sunset to North City
limits
B Logan 8,583,652 0 0 0 3,520 0.00% 0
6th to Garden
C SR 169 (Maple Valley
Hwy) 8,306,708 3,600 3,293 307 1,800 0.00% 0
I-405 to Park entrance
Subtotal: Reimbursement
Projects 25,081,073 0
Total All Projects 224,783,995 3,870,236
FUTURE RESERVE CAPACITY
Capacity in excess of trips generated by growth is considered future reserve
capacity. It may eventually be used by growth that occurs after the planning
horizon of the Transportation Element and Capital Facilities Plan Element, and it
may be repaid in part by future impact fees, but it is not eligible to be included
in the impact fees calculated in this study. Table 4 presents the analysis of future
reserve capacity for future and reimbursement projects (projects previously
constructed). The amount of future reserve capacity is determined by
comparing the total capacity of the improved street to the forecast of traffic
volume at the end of the planning period. The amount by which future
Packet Page 255 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 21
Company
capacity exceeds future traffic volume is the number of future reserve capacity
trips. The future reserve capacity trips are divided by the amount of new
capacity to be added in order to calculate the percent of the project that will
be future reserve capacity. The future reserve capacity percentage is multiplied
times the project costs to calculate the portion of the project cost that is
attributable to future reserve capacity. The portion of the total $224.8 million of
eligible projects that is for future reserve capacity equals $82,428,993 (36.7% of
the total cost).
Table 4: Cost of Future Reserve Capacity
(1)
#
(2)
Name of Project
(3)
Total Cost
(4)
2030
Capacity
When
Complete
(5)
2030
Traffic
Volume
(6)
Post 2030
(Deficiency)
Or Reserve
(7)
Future
Reserve
% of
Increase
(8)
Cost of
Future
Reserve
New Projects
1 156th Ave SE: $13,202,000 2,800 1,728 1,072 76.57% $10,108,960
NE 4th St to SE 143rd St
2 Benson Road 4,500,000 3,200 2,046 1,154 72.13% 3,245,625
South 26th St to South 31st
St
3 Carr Rd/ Benson Rd (SR
515) 23,391,000 7,200 6,853 347 43.38% 10,145,846
intersection
4 Carr Road Central 32,488,500 4,800 3,596 1,204 75.23% 24,440,828
West of Talbot Road to
108th Pl
5 Carr Road West 11,696,400 4,400 4,476 (76) 0.00% 0
Lind Avenue to West of
Talbot Rd
6 Grady Way 3,000,000 4,000 4,787 (787) 0.00% 0
Talbot Road to Rainier Ave
7 Lake Washington Blvd 548,238 2,600 1,885 715 55.00% 301,531
Park Ave N to Coulon Park
Entrance
8 Lind Ave SW 3,500,000 3,200 2,516 684 85.55% 2,994,141
SW 16th St to SW 43rd St
9 Logan Ave N/ Garden Ave
N/ 2,683,492 4,800 4,637 163 8.15% 218,705
Lk Washington Blvd
Intersection
10 Maple Valley Hwy (SR 169) 83,693,292 5,325 4,806 519 29.26% 24,489,129
Park entrance to East City
Limits
11 Park Ave N Extension 5,000,000 1,300 2,288 (988) 0.00% 0
Logan Ave N to 1200 ft
north
Packet Page 256 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 22
Company
(1)
#
(2)
Name of Project
(3)
Total Cost
(4)
2030
Capacity
When
Complete
(5)
2030
Traffic
Volume
(6)
Post 2030
(Deficiency)
Or Reserve
(7)
Future
Reserve
% of
Increase
(8)
Cost of
Future
Reserve
12 South 7th Street 7,000,000 2,160 2,100 60 15.05% 1,053,500
Rainier Ave S to S Grady
Wee
13 SW 27th St/Strander
Connection 9,000,000 3,200 3,073 127 3.97% 357,188
Oakdale to West Valley
Hwy
Subtotal: New Projects 199,702,922 77,355,451
Reimbursement Projects (Impact Fee Reimburses Local
Revenues)
A Duvall 8,190,713 3,543 2,465 1,078 58.93% 4,826,762
Sunset to North City limits
B Logan 8,583,652 3,520 3,419 101 2.87% 246,780
6th to Garden
C SR 169 (Maple Valley Hwy) 8,306,708 5,400 6,342 (942) 0.00% 0
I-405 to Park entrance
Subtotal: Reimbursement
Projects 25,081,073 5,073,542
Total All Projects 224,783,995 82,428,993
COST ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES
Table 5 begins with the total cost of projects needed for growth. The columns to
the right repeat the costs of existing deficiencies (from Table 3), and future
reserve capacity (from Table 4). These costs are subtracted from the total cost
of each project to calculate the remaining cost of each project that is eligible
for impact fees. The total eligible cost is $138,484,767 which is 61.6% of the
$224.8 million total cost of eligible projects.
Table 5: Total Project Cost Eligible for Impact Fees
(1)
#
(2)
Name of Project
(3)
Total Cost
(4)
Cost of
Existing
Deficiency
(5)
Cost of
Future
Reserve
(6)
2008-2030
Project Cost
Eligible for
Impact Fees
New Projects
1 156th Ave SE: $13,202,000 $ 0 $10,108,960 $ 3,093,040
NE 4th St to SE 143rd St
2 Benson Road 4,500,000 0 3,245,625 1,254,375
South 26th St to South 31st St
Packet Page 257 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 23
Company
(1)
#
(2)
Name of Project
(3)
Total Cost
(4)
Cost of
Existing
Deficiency
(5)
Cost of
Future
Reserve
(6)
2008-2030
Project Cost
Eligible for
Impact Fees
3 Carr Rd/ Benson Rd (SR 515) 23,391,000 0 10,145,846 13,245,154
intersection
4 Carr Road Central 32,488,500 0 24,440,828 8,047,672
West of Talbot Road to 108th Pl
5 Carr Road West 11,696,400 3,187,269 0 8,509,131
Lind Avenue to West of Talbot Rd
6 Grady Way 3,000,000 466,250 0 2,533,750
Talbot Road to Rainier Ave
7 Lake Washington Blvd 548,238 77,175 301,531 169,532
Park Ave N to Coulon Park
Entrance
8 Lind Ave SW 3,500,000 0 2,994,141 505,859
SW 16th St to SW 43rd St
9 Logan Ave N/ Garden Ave N/ 2,683,492 139,542 218,705 2,325,246
Lk Washington Blvd Intersection
10 Maple Valley Hwy (SR 169) 83,693,292 0 24,489,129 59,204,163
Park entrance to East City Limits
11 Park Ave N Extension 5,000,000 0 0 5,000,000
Logan Ave N to 1200 ft north
12 South 7th Street 7,000,000 0 1,053,500 5,946,500
Rainier Ave S to S Grady Way
13 SW 27th St/Strander Connection 9,000,000 0 357,188 8,642,813
Oakdale to West Valley Hwy
Subtotal: New Projects 199,702,922 3,870,236 77,355,451 118,477,235
Reimbursement Projects (Impact Fee Reimburses Local Revenues)
A Duvall 8,190,713 0 4,826,762 3,363,951
Sunset to North City limits
B Logan 8,583,652 0 246,780 8,336,872
6th to Garden
C SR 169 (Maple Valley Hwy) 8,306,708 0 0 8,306,708
I-405 to Park entrance
Subtotal: Reimbursement Projects 25,081,073 0 5,073,542 20,007,532
Total All Projects 224,783,995 3,870,236 82,428,993 138,484,767
Reduction for RCW 82.02.050(2) @ 3%
of eligible cost -4,154,543
Growth’s Share of Eligible Cost 134,330,224
Packet Page 258 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 24
Company
The final step in Table 5 is to further reduce the cost that is needed by new
development in order to implement a conservative interpretation of RCW
82.02.050(7) which provides that “…the financing for system improvements to
serve new development … cannot rely solely on impact fees.” The statute
provides no further guidance, and “not rely solely” could be anything between
0.1% and 99.9%, thus additional analysis is presented below.
As noted previously, the total cost of all eligible projects is $224.8 million, and
only 1.7% of that is for existing deficiencies. Because the future reserve capacity
equals 36.7% of total costs, the City will be required to pay for those costs, and
may or may not eventually recoup those costs from development that occurs
after the 2030 planning horizon for the transportation improvements. Arguably
the 1.7% and the 36.6% that will be paid by the City provide sufficient
compliance with the requirement to “not rely solely on impact fees.” However,
in the event that the intent of the statute is more narrowly construed to mean
that the City should “not rely solely on impact fees” for the $138,484,767 cost
that is eligible for impact fees, an additional 3% reduction ($4,154,543) is taken
at the end of Table 5, leaving a net total cost of growth’s share of $134,330,224.
This amount will be used as the basis for the remaining calculations of the
transportation impact fee for Renton.
No other reduction is warranted for other revenues that the City may obtain for
transportation capital improvements. Grant revenue is primarily regional in
nature, and will be used by the City for the portion of the eligible $134 million
that is attributable to external traffic that comes from development that does
not pay impact fees to Renton. Any other local revenue would be used first to
pay the $4,154,839 for the 3% reduction, then for the 1.7% for existing
deficiencies, and lastly for the 36.7% for future reserve capacity. In other words,
there are no other revenues that would be subject to the “adjustment”
provisions of RCW 82.02.060(1)(b).
If a developer believes that significant prior payments were made by their
property that meet the criteria of RCW 82.02.060(1)(b), the applicant can submit
supporting information and request a special review to reduce their impact fee
by the amount of such prior payments made by their property and used for the
same system improvements that are the basis of the impact fee (i.e., those listed
in Tables 2 – 5).
Formula T-3: Growth Trips on the Street Network
The growth of trips on Renton’s streets and roads is calculated from data
produced by the City’s traffic model:
T-3.
Future
P.M. Peak Hour
Trips
-
Current
P.M. Peak Hour
Trips
=
Growth
P.M. Peak Hour
Trips
Packet Page 259 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 25
Company
There is one new variable used in formula 3 that requires explanation: (D) p.m.
peak hour trips on the network of streets and roads.
Variable (D): P.M. Peak Hour Trips
Renton’s traffic model can count the total number of trips on all the City’s streets
and roads during the busiest hour (i.e., “p.m. peak hour). Measuring traffic
during the p.m. peak hour is a common practice among Washington cities
because they are concerned about congestion and the level of service during
the time of heaviest traffic volumes.
The City’s traffic model can count p.m. peak hour trips currently on the system.
The model can also use future population and employment data to estimate
the p.m. peak hour trips at future points in time.
The City’s long-range transportation planning horizon is the year 2030, therefore
the “future” p.m. peak hour trips are for the year 2030 (and the City’s
transportation improvement projects are selected to address the increased trips
through 2030).
Table 6 shows a total of 45,880 trips in 2008. In 2030 the total is estimated to be
63,750 trips. The difference between the 2008 and 2030 trips is 17,870 growth
trips. The growth trips will be divided into the cost of growth to calculate the
cost per growth trip.
One other feature of the trip data is noteworthy. Some of the trips begin and or
end outside the City. Renton’s transportation impact fee only applies to
development inside the City, so it will be useful to know how many growth trips
will be paying the impact fee, and how many will not.
Information about “inside” and “outside” trips is available from Renton’s traffic
model. It identifies the starting point (i.e., “origin”) and the ending point (i.e.,
“destination”) of each trip. In the summary of trip ends in Table 6 each trip end
is either inside the City of Renton (i.e., “internal”) or outside the City (i.e.,
“external”).
The trip data is reported in Table 6 for all four combinations: internal – internal
means a trip that starts and ends inside the City. External – external is a trip that
begins and ends outside the City limits without stopping in Renton. These are
also called “through trips”. The trips that have one end in the City and the other
end outside the City are internal-external or external-internal. The column
showing internal growth trips includes all of the internal-internal, one-half of the
internal-external and external-internal, and none of the external-external trips.
The column showing external growth trips counts the opposite end of all trips.
The sum of the internal and the external trips is the total growth trips. This data
will be used outside this study to estimate the costs that will be paid by impact
fees and the cost that will be paid by other sources of revenue. Those estimates
Packet Page 260 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 26
Company
are for financial planning purposes, but do not affect the calculation of the
impact fee rates in this study.
Table 6: Growth Trips (p.m. peak hour) on the Street Network
(1)
Origin -
Destination
(2)
2008
Trips
(3)
2030
Trips
(4)
Growth
Trips
(5)
Internal
Growth
Trips
(6)
External
Growth
Trips
internal - internal 6,150 9,200 3,050 3,050 0
internal - external 15,265 21,010 5,745 2,873 2,873
external - internal 12,618 17,815 5,197 2,599 2,599
external - external 11,847 15,725 3,878 0 3,878
Total 45,880 63,750 17,870 8,521 9,349
Formula T-4: Cost per Growth Trip
The cost per growth trip is calculated by dividing growth’s share of eligible costs
of projects needed for growth by the number of growth trips:
T-4. Growth’s Share
of Eligible Cost ÷ Growth’s Trips on
the Street Network = Cost Per
Growth Trip
There are no new variables used in formula 4.
Calculation of Cost per Growth Trip
Table 7 shows the calculation of the cost per growth trip by dividing the $134.3
million of eligible cost of street projects (from Table 5) by the 17,870 growth trips
(from Table 6). The result is the cost per trip of $7,517.08.
Table 7: Cost per Growth Trip
(1)
Item
(2)
Amount
Growth’s Share of Eligible Costs $ 134,330,224
P.M. Peak Hour Growth Trips 17,870
Cost per PM Peak Growth Trip 7,517.08
Packet Page 261 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 27
Company
Formula T-5: Impact Fee Rates For Specific Land Uses
The impact fee rate for each category of land use is determined by multiplying
the cost per growth trip times the number of trips generated per unit of
development of each category of land use:
T-5. Cost Per
Growth Trip x
Trip Generation
Rate per Unit of
Development
= Impact Fee Rate Per
Unit of Development
The formula uses different trip generation rates for different types of land uses
(i.e., single family houses, office buildings, etc.). There is one new variable used
in formula 5 that requires explanation: (E) trip generation rates.
Variable (E): Trip Generation Rates.
Trip generation rates measure the impact on the street and road network by
different types of land uses. For example, office buildings average 1.49 p.m.
peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet of office, but industrial buildings average
only 0.97 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet of industrial space.
This rate study uses the data reported in Trip Generation, compiled and
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The report is currently
in its 8th edition. The report is a summary of data from hundreds of surveys of trip
origins and destinations conducted throughout the United States. The data is
reported on several variables (i.e., type of land use, units of development,
number of employees, hour of day, etc.). The data used in this impact fee rate
study is for trips generated during the p.m. peak hour, since that is the same
basis the City uses to analyze the City’s traffic conditions.
Impact fee rates are calculated in this study for many frequently used types of
land use (i.e., dwellings, industrial, offices, retail, restaurants, etc.). Impact fees
can be calculated for other land uses not listed in this rate study by referring to
the data in the ITE report referenced above.
Trip generation data is reported initially as the total number of trips leaving and
arriving at each type of land use. This impact fee rate study makes two
adjustments to trip generation rates reported in ITE’s Trip Generation, 8th edition.
The first adjustment is to reduce the number of trips that are incidental attractors
and generators of trips. For example, if a person leaves work to return home at
the end of the work day, the place of employment is the origin, and the home is
the destination. But if the person stops enroute to run an errand at a store, the
ITE data counts the stop at the store as a new destination (and a new origin
when the person leaves the store to continue to their home). In reality, the work-
to-home trip was going to occur regardless of the incidental stop, therefore the
store should not be charged with an additional trip on the street system. The
Packet Page 262 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 28
Company
measurement for this adjustment is the number of "pass-by" trips that stop at the
store instead of "passing by." In Table 8, these trips are eliminated by counting
only the trips that are truly "new" trips (i.e., a person made a special trip to the
store). The adjustment is shown in Table 8 as "Percent New Trips."
The second adjustment is the "Trip Length Factor." Not all trips are the same
length. Longer trips are considered to have a greater impact than shorter trips.
The ITE report's trip generation data is adjusted by a factor that compares the
average trip length of each type of development to the average trip length
factor of 1.0 for all trips. Some land uses have factors greater than 1.0 (i.e.,
industrial trips are factored at 1.47 because their trips are 47% longer than
average) while other land uses have factors less than 1.0 (i.e., 24-hour
convenience markets trips are factored at 0.44 because their trips are only 44%
the length of an average trip). Trip length data is compiled from studies
prepared by a number of local governments and consultants.
Calculation of Impact Fee Rates for Specific Land Uses
Table 8 shows the calculation of impact fee rates for frequently used categories
of land use that are listed in columns 1 and 2. The ITE trip rate in column 3 is
multiplied times the percent new trips in column 4, and the result is multiplied
times the trip length factor in column 5. Column 6 reports the net new trips that
are the result of these calculations. The impact fee rates in column 7 are
calculated by multiplying the net new trips from column 6 times the $7,517.08
cost per growth trip (from Table 7, and repeated in the column heading of
column 7).
Table 8: Transportation Impact Fee Rates Per Unit of Development
(1)
ITE
Code
(2)
ITE Land Use Category
(3)
ITE
Trip
Rate
(4)
%
New
Trips
(5)
Trip
Length
Factor
(6)
Net New Trips Per
Unit of Measure
(7)
Impact Fee Per Unit @
$7,517.08 per Trip
110 Light Industrial 0.97 100% 1.47 1.43 1,000 sq ft 10.72 per sq ft
140 Manufacturing 0.73 100% 1.47 1.07 1,000 sq ft 8.07 per sq ft
151 Mini-warehouse 0.26 100% 1.47 0.38 1,000 sq ft 2.87 per sq ft
210 Single family House 1.01 100% 1.13 1.14 dwelling 8,579.24 per dwelling
220 Apartment 0.62 100% 1.20 0.74 dwelling 5,592.71 per dwelling
230 Condominium 0.52 100% 1.15 0.60 dwelling 4,495.21 per dwelling
240 Mobile Home 0.59 100% 1.09 0.64 dwelling 4,834.23 per dwelling
251 Senior Housing - Attached 0.16 100% 0.93 0.15 dwelling 1,118.54 per dwelling
310 Hotel 0.59 100% 1.28 0.76 room 5,676.90 per room
320 Motel 0.47 100% 1.28 0.60 room 4,522.28 per room
420 Marina 0.19 100% 0.97 0.18 berth 1,385.40 per boat berth
444 Movie Theater 3.80 85% 0.73 2.36 1,000 sq ft 17.72 per sq ft
492 Health/Fitness Club 3.53 75% 1.00 2.65 1,000 sq ft 19.90 per sq ft
530 High School 0.97 80% 1.00 0.78 1,000 sq ft 5.83 per sq ft
Packet Page 263 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 29
Company
(1)
ITE
Code
(2)
ITE Land Use Category
(3)
ITE
Trip
Rate
(4)
%
New
Trips
(5)
Trip
Length
Factor
(6)
Net New Trips Per
Unit of Measure
(7)
Impact Fee Per Unit @
$7,517.08 per Trip
560 Church 0.55 100% 1.20 0.66 1,000 sq ft 4.96 per sq ft
610 Hospital 1.14 80% 1.28 1.17 1,000 sq ft 8.78 per sq ft
620 Nursing home 0.22 100% 0.87 0.19 bed 1,438.77 per bed
710 General Office 1.49 90% 1.47 1.97 1,000 sq ft 14.82 per sq ft
720 Medical office 3.46 75% 1.40 3.63 1,000 sq ft 27.31 per sq ft
820 Shopping Center 3.73 65% 0.53 1.28 1,000 sq ft 9.66 per sq ft
932 Restaurant: sit-down 11.15 55% 0.73 4.48 1,000 sq ft 33.65 per sq ft
933 Fast food, no drive-up 26.15 50% 0.67 8.76 1,000 sq ft 65.85 per sq ft
934 Fast food, w/ drive-up 33.84 51% 0.62 10.70 1,000 sq ft 80.43 per sq ft
944 Gas station 13.87 40% 0.56 3.11 pump 23,354.67 per pump
945 Gas station w/convenience 13.38 45% 0.53 3.19 pump 24,967.98 per pump
850 Supermarket 10.50 65% 0.67 4.57 1,000 sq ft 34.37 per sq ft
851 Convenience market-24 hr 52.41 45% 0.44 10.38 1,000 sq ft 78.01 per sq ft
912 Drive-in Bank 25.82 55% 0.47 6.67 1,000 sq ft 50.17 per sq ft
Packet Page 264 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 30
Company
4. PARK IMPACT FEES
Impact fees for parks, open space, and recreation facilities begin with an
inventory and valuation of the existing assets in order to calculate the current
investment per person. The current investment per person is multiplied times the
future population to identify the value of additional assets needed to provide
growth with the same level of investment as the City owns for the current
population. The future investment is reduced by the amount of specific revenues
to determine the net investment needed to be paid by growth. Dividing the net
investment by the population growth results in the investment per person that
can be charged as impact fees. A final adjustment reduces the impact fee
amount to match the investments listed in the City’s adopted Capital
Investment Program. The amount of the impact fee is determined by charging
each fee-paying development for impact fee cost per dwelling multiplied times
the number of dwelling units in the development.
These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables
of data, and explanation of calculations of park impact fees.
Formula P-1: Park and Recreation Capital Value Per Person
The capital investment per person is calculated by dividing the value of the
asset inventory by the current population.
P-1.
Value of Parks &
Recreation
Inventory
÷ Current
Population = Capital Value
Per Person
There is one variable that requires explanation: (A) value of parks and recreation
inventory
Variable (A): Value of Parks and Recreation Inventory
The value of the existing inventory of parks, open space and recreation facilities
is calculated by determining the value of park land, amenities and buildings
The sum of all of the values equals the current value of the City’s park and
recreation system.
The values in this study come from a variety of sources, depending on the type
of the park or recreation facility. The land values are from King County’s land
assessment data base. Most of the valuations of the park amenities are from the
City’s cost records. Values of a few amenities are based on information from
vendors or costs in other Washington cities. The values of the following amenities
were determined by special studies: Coulon Park, Henry Moses Aquatic Center,
grandstand and bridge, and all park system buildings. The value of amenities
does not include land because the facilities are customarily located at a park.
Packet Page 265 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 31
Company
The costs of new parks and recreation facilities in this rate study do not include
any costs for interest or other financing. If borrowing is used to “front fund” the
costs that will be paid by impact fees, the carrying costs for financing can be
added to the costs, and the impact fee can be recalculated to include such
costs.
Table 9 lists the inventory of park land and amenities that make up the existing
City of Renton park system. Each item is listed in column 1, the unit of
measurement in column 2, the inventory in column 3, and the average cost per
unit in column 4. The value of the park land or amenity is shown in Column 5.
The total value for the current existing inventory of park land and amenities is
$204,664,604. That value is divided by the current population of 84,928 to
calculate the capital value of $2,409.62 per person.
Table 9: Asset Inventory and Capital Value per Person
(1)
Type of Park or Facility
(2)
Unit
(3)
Inventory
(4)
Average Cost
Per Unit
(5)
Capital Value
Land Value
Neighborhood Park acre 141.53 129,783 $18,368,188
Community Park acre 129.54 229,463 29,724,637
Regional Park (Coulon Memorial) acre 27.69 1,089,094 30,157,013
Open Space Park acre 612.55 71,728 43,936,986
Special Use Park acre 2.75 903,586 2,484,862
Land Value Subtotal $124,671,686
Park Amenity
Ballfield field 9 310,000 $2,790,000
Ballfield, Complete & Lighted field 4 710,000 2,840,000
Basketball Court, Half court 3 125,000 375,000
Basketball Court, Full court 7 190,000 1,330,000
Basketball Court, Lighted court 3 240,000 720,000
Boardwalk Trail linear feet 1,300 700 910,000
Boathouse Pier pier 1 1,538,030 1,538,030
Boathouse Pier Wood Floats float 2 154,750 309,500
Kennydale Beach Pier, Bulkhead, Logboom pier 1 548,930 548,930
Land - Passive / Landscaped acre 75 196,020 14,701,500
Multi-Purpose Field acre 7 196,020 1,372,140
Multi-Purpose Trail, 12' wide, Paved mile 3.5 443,520 1,552,320
Park Bridge bridge 4 5,993,575
Parking Lot acre 18.5 305,000 5,642,500
Pedestrian Trail, 8' wide, AC Paved mile 3 295,680 887,040
Pedestrian Trail, 8' wide, Brick Paved linear feet 1,735 120 208,200
Picnic Shelter shelter 7 55,000 385,000
Packet Page 266 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 32
Company
(1)
Type of Park or Facility
(2)
Unit
(3)
Inventory
(4)
Average Cost
Per Unit
(5)
Capital Value
Play Equipment lot 19 110,000 2,090,000
Skateboard Park, lighted park 1 500,000 500,000
Soccer Field, All-Weather Surface field 1 340,000 340,000
Tennis Court court 9 165,000 1,485,000
Tennis Court, Lighted court 8 210,000 1,680,000
Volleyball Court, Sand court 2 45,000 90,000
Park Amenity Subtotal $48,288,735
Coulon Park Amenities
Restaurant building 2 $509,509
Picnic Gallery shelter 1 323,673
Picnic Shelter shelter 4 289,908
Bathhouse/Restroom building 1 356,289
Restroom building 2 259,676
Waterwalk, Small Boat Dock, Picnic Pads waterwalk 4 4,390,025
Deck & Bulkhead @ Ivar's deck 1 2,067,000
Boat Launch (8 lane) launch 1 1,111,835
Sail Club Launch, Wood Float launch 1 1,088,500
Bridge bridge 5 1,110,250
Fishing Pier & Shelter pier 1 457,938
Log Boom boom 1 702,750
Coulon Park Amenities Subtotal $12,667,353
Buildings
Activity Center building 5 $979,425
Neighborhood Center building 2 2,490,064
Renton Community Center building 1 5,062,334
Carco Theater building 1 1,998,806
Henry Moses Aquatic Center building 1 3,966,232
Renton Senior Activity Center building 1 2,742,035
Liberty Park Community Bldg. building 1 569,716
Cedar River Boathouse building 1 430,534
Kennydale Beach Bathhouse building 1 81,466
Grandstand structure 1 630,925
Greenhouse building 1 65,293
Buildings Subtotal $19,016,830
Total Capital Value $204,644,604
2010 Population 84,928
Capital Value per Person $2,409.62
Packet Page 267 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 33
Company
Formula P-2: Value Needed for Growth
Impact fees must be related to the needs of growth, as explained in Chapter 2.
The first step in determining growth’s needs is to calculate the total value of
parks and recreational facilities that are needed for growth. The calculation is
accomplished by multiplying the investment per person (from Table 9) times the
number of new persons that are forecast for the City’s growth.
P-2. Capital Value
per Person x Population
Growth = Value Needed
for Growth
There is one new variable used in formula 2 that requires explanation: (B)
forecasts of future population growth.
Variable (B): Forecast Population Growth
As part of the City of Renton long-range planning process, including its
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the City
prepares forecasts of future growth. During the next 6 years the City expects
3,486 additional dwelling units with an average of 2.2 persons per dwelling unit.
This will bring 7,669 additional people to Renton.
Table 10 shows the calculation of the value of parks and recreational facilities
needed for growth. Column 1 lists the current capital value per person from
Table 9, Column 2 shows the growth in population that is forecast, and Column 3
is the total value of parks and recreational facilities that is needed to serve the
growth that is forecast for Renton.
Table 10: Value of Parks and Recreational Facilities Needed for Growth
(1)
Capital
Value
per Person
(2)
Forecast
Population
Growth
(3)
Value
Needed
for Growth
$ 2,409.62 7,669 $ 18,479,412
Table 10 shows that Renton needs parks and recreational facilities valued at
$18,479,412 in order to serve the growth of 7,669 additional people who are
expected to be added to the City’s existing population. The future investment
needed for growth will be $18,479,412 unless the City has existing reserve
capacity in its parks and recreational facilities or other unused assets.
Formula P-3. Investment Needed for Growth
The investment needed for growth is calculated by subtracting the value of any
existing reserve capacity and any existing balance in the impact fee account
Packet Page 268 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 34
Company
from the total value of parks and recreational facilities needed to serve the
growth.
P-3.
Value
Needed
for
Growth
-
Value of
Existing
Reserve
Capacity
-
Uncommitted
Balance in
Impact Fee
Account
=
Investment
Needed for
Growth
There are two new variables used in formula 3 that require explanation: (C)
value of existing reserve capacity of parks and recreational facilities, and (D)
the uncommitted balance in the impact fee account.
Variable (C): Value of Existing Reserve Capacity
The value of reserve capacity is the difference between the value of the City’s
existing inventory of parks and recreational facilities, and the value of those
assets that are needed to provide the level of service standard for the existing
population. Because the capital value per person is based on the current assets
and the current population, there is no reserve capacity (i.e., no unused value
that can be used to serve future population growth)5.
Variable (D): Uncommitted Balance in Impact Fee Account
Any unexpended and uncommitted balance in the park impact fee account is
an asset that can be used to increase the value of park and recreation assets,
thus reducing the amount that needs to be invested for future growth.
Table 11 shows the calculation of the investment in parks and recreational
facilities that is needed for growth. Column 1 lists the value of parks and
recreational facilities needed to serve growth (from Table 10), Column 2 shows
the value of existing reserve capacity, and Column 3 is the remaining investment
in parks and recreational facilities that is needed to serve the growth. Column 4
subtracts the balance in the impact fee account, producing the net investment
needed for growth shown in Column 5.
Table 11: Investment Needed in Parks and Recreational Facilities for Growth
(1)
Value
Needed
for Growth
(2)
Value of
Existing
Reserve
Capacity
(3)
Investment
Needed
for Growth
(4)
Balance
In Impact
Fee Account
(5)
Net Investment
Needed
for Growth
$ 18,479,412 $ 0 $ 18,479,412 $ 1,100,000 $ 17,379,412
5 Also, the use of the current assets and the current population means there is no existing
deficiency. This approach satisfies the requirements of RCW 82.02.050(4) to determine whether
or not there are any existing deficiencies in order to ensure that impact fees are not charged for
any deficiencies.
Packet Page 269 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 35
Company
Table 11 shows that Renton needs to invest $17,379,412 in additional parks and
recreational facilities in order to serve future growth. The future investment in
parks and recreational facilities that needs to paid by growth may be less that
$17,379,412 if the City has other revenues it invests in its parks and recreational
facilities.
Formula P-4. Investment to be Paid by Growth
The investment to be paid by growth is calculated by subtracting the amount of
any revenues the City invests in infrastructure for growth from the total
investment in parks and recreational facilities needed to serve growth.
P-4.
Investment
Needed for
Growth
-
City
Investment
for Growth
=
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
There is one new variable used in formula 4 that requires explanation: (E)
revenues used to fund the City’s investment in projects that serve growth.
Variable (E): City Investment of Non-Impact Fee Revenues
The City of Renton has historically used a combination of state grants and local
revenues to pay for the cost of park and recreational capital facilities. The City’s
plan for the future is to continue using grant revenue and limited local revenues
to pay part of the cost of parks and recreational facilities needed for growth.
A detailed analysis of the City’s CIP indicates that estimated local revenues will
pay for 11.92% of park projects that add “capacity” to the park system for new
development by increasing the value of park and recreation assets.
Revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs are not used
to reduce impact fees because they are not used, earmarked or prorated for
the system improvements that are the basis of the impact fees. Revenues from
past taxes paid on vacant land prior to development are not included because
new capital projects do not have prior costs, therefore prior taxes did not
contribute to such projects.
The other potential credit that reduces capacity costs (and subsequent impact
fees) are donations of land or other assets by developers or builders. Those
reductions depend upon specific arrangements between the developer and
the City of Renton. Reductions in impact fees for donations are calculated on a
case by case basis at the time impact fees are to be paid.
Table 12 shows the calculation of the investment in parks and recreational
facilities that needs to be paid by growth. Column 1 lists the investment in parks
and recreational facilities needed to serve growth (from Table 11), column 2
shows the value of City investment for growth from grants and some local
Packet Page 270 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 36
Company
revenues, and column 3 is the remaining investment in parks and recreational
facilities that will be paid by growth.
Table 12: Investment in Parks and Recreational Facilities to be Paid by Growth
(1)
Investment
Needed
for Growth
(2)
City
Investment
for Growth
(3)
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
$ 17,379,412 $ 2,071,626 $ 15,307,786
Table 12 shows that growth in Renton needs to pay $17,379,412 for additional
parks and recreational facilities to maintain the City’s standards for future
growth. The City expects to use $2,071,626 in grant and local revenue towards
this cost (calculated at 11.92% of $17,379,412 needed for growth), and the
remaining $15,307,786 will be paid by growth.
Formula P-5: Growth Cost Per Person
The growth cost per person is calculated by dividing the investment in parks and
recreational facilities that is to be paid by growth by the amount of population
growth.
P-5.
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
÷ Growth
Population
= Growth Cost
per Person
There are no new variables used in formula P-5. Both variables were developed
in previous formulas.
Calculation of Investment to be Paid by Growth
Table 13 shows the calculation of the cost per person of parks and recreational
facilities that needs to be paid by growth. Column 1 lists the investment in parks
and recreational facilities needed to be paid by growth (from Table 12), column
2 shows the growth population (see Variable B, Formula 2, above), and column
3 is the growth cost per person.
Table 13: Growth Cost per Person
(1)
Investment
to be Paid
by Growth
(2)
Growth
Population
(3)
Growth
Cost
per Person
$ 15,307,786 7,669 $ 1,996.06
Packet Page 271 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 37
Company
Table 13 shows that cost per new person for parks and recreational facilities that
will be paid by growth is $1,996.06. The amount to be paid by each new
dwelling unit depends on the number of persons per dwelling unit, as described
in the next formula.
Formula P-6: Cost per Dwelling Unit
The cost per dwelling unit is calculated by multiplying the growth cost per
person by the number of persons per dwelling unit.
P-6. Growth Cost
per Person x Persons per
Dwelling Unit = Cost per
Dwelling Unit
There is one new variable used in formula 6 that requires explanation: (F)
average number of persons per dwelling unit.
Variable (F): Persons per Dwelling Unit
The number of persons per dwelling unit is the factor used to convert the growth
cost of parks and recreational facilities per person into growth cost per new
dwelling unit. The data for calculating the persons per dwelling unit comes from
the Washington Office of Financial Management’s 2010 Population Worksheet
for the City of Renton.
Table 14 shows the calculation of the parks and recreational facilities cost per
dwelling unit. Column 1 lists the types of dwelling units, column 2 shows the
average persons per dwelling unit, and column 3 is the cost per dwelling unit
calculated by multiplying the number of persons per dwelling unit times the
growth cost of $1,996.06 per person from Table 13.
Table 14: Cost per Dwelling Unit
(1)
Type of
Dwelling
Unit
(2)
Average
Persons per
Dwelling Unit
(3)
Cost
per Dwelling Unit @
$1,996.06 per Person
Single Family 2.55 $ 5,089.95
Multi-Family: 2 units 2.07 4,131.84
Multi-Family: 3 or 4 units 1.97 3,932.24
Multi-Family: 5 or more units 1.73 3,453.18
Mobile Home 1.81 3,612.87
Packet Page 272 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 38
Company
Formula P-7: Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit
The impact fee per dwelling unit is calculated by adjusting the cost per dwelling
unit to limit it to an amount consistent with the projects that will add capacity
(asset value) in Renton’s adopted CIP compared to the total investment that
would be needed to maintain the current value per person.
P-7. Cost Per
Dwelling Unit - Adjustment for
CIP Project Value = Impact Fee Per
Dwelling Unit
There is one new variable used in formula 7 that requires explanation: (G) CIP
adjustment per dwelling unit.
Variable (G): Adjustment for CIP Project Value
As noted in Chapter 2, impact fees must be based on the Capital Facilities Plan
(CFP) of the City. The details of Renton’s CFP appear in the Capital Investment
Program (CIP) portion of the City’s budget. A detailed review of the CIP
identified specific projects that will increase the value of park and recreation
assets, thus providing additional capacity for new development. If the value of
the specific projects is equal to, or greater than the value needed for growth
there is no adjustment to the cost per dwelling unit. However, if the value of the
capacity projects is less than the value needed for growth, the cost per dwelling
unit must be reduced to account for the difference.
The 2011-2016 CIP contains 5 projects that increase the asset value of the park
system6. The total value of the 5 projects is $9,948,000. However, Table 10
calculated that the value needed for growth is $18,479,412. The difference
between the value of the 5 projects and the value needed for growth is
$8,531,412, which is 46.17% of the value needed for growth. As a result, the cost
per dwelling unit must be reduced by 46.17% in order to limit the impact fee to
the amount that will be spent by the City for projects that serve growth.
Table 15 (on the next page) shows the calculation of the parks and recreational
facilities impact fee per dwelling unit. Column 1 lists the types of dwelling units,
column 2 shows the cost per dwelling unit from Table 14, column 3 shows the
amount of the adjustment (calculated at 46.17% of the cost per dwelling unit),
and column 4 is the impact fee per dwelling unit after subtracting the
adjustment from the cost per dwelling unit.
6 Henry Moss Aquatic Center, Grant Matching Program, Black River Riparian Forest, Regis Park
Athletic Field Expansion, Park Master Planning Implementation, and King County Proposition 2
Capital Expenditure Levy Fund.
Packet Page 273 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 39
Company
Table 15: Park Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit
(1)
Type of
Dwelling Unit
(2)
Cost per
Dwelling Unit
(3)
Adjustment to
Match CIP
(4)
Impact Fee per
Dwelling Unit
Single Family $ 5,089.95 $ 2,349.88 $ 2,740.07
Multi-Family: 2 units 4,131.84 1,907.55 2,224.29
Multi-Family: 3 or 4 units 3,932.24 1,815.40 2,116.84
Multi-Family: 5 or more units 3,453.18 1,594.24 1,858.95
Mobile Home 3,612.87 1,667.96 1,944.91
Packet Page 274 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 40
Company
5. FIRE IMPACT FEES
Impact fees for fire protection facilities begin with an inventory of fire apparatus
and stations and the number of emergencies they responded to. Next is an
analysis of the capital cost of fire protection apparatus and stations including
calculation of the capital cost per response. The emergency responses are
summarized according to the types of land uses that received responses, and
incident rates are calculated to quantify the average number of emergency
responses per unit of development for each type of land use. The costs per
response and the response incident rates are used to calculate the number and
cost of responses to fire incidents and to BLS incidents (basic life support medical
responses) at each type of land use. The fire and BLS cost per unit of
development are combined to calculate the total cost per unit of
development. The total cost is adjusted for payments of other and the result is
the fire impact fee rates for the City of Renton.
These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables
of data, and explanation of calculations of fire impact fees.
The need for fire protection facilities is influenced by a variety of factors, such as
response time, call loads, geographical area, topographic and manmade
barriers, and standards of the National Fire Protection Association, and the
National Commission on the Accreditation of Ambulance Services. For the
purpose of quantifying the need for fire and BLS apparatus and stations to serve
growth this study uses the ratio of apparatus and stations to incidents. The
current ratio provides acceptable levels of service to current residents and
businesses. As growth occurs, more incidents will occur, therefore more
apparatus and stations will be needed to maintain standards.
Formula F-1: Inventory and Emergency Responses
The City of Renton owns a variety of fire apparatus (i.e., fire engines, ladder
trucks, aid vehicles, etc.). Each vehicle responds to many emergencies. The
average number of emergency responses per apparatus is used as one element
in calculating the cost per emergency response.
F-1. Emergency
Responses ÷ Fire
Apparatus = Responses per
Apparatus
There are three variables that require explanation: (A) fire apparatus, (B)
emergency responses, and (C) fire stations.
Variable (A): Fire Apparatus
The term “fire apparatus” applies to vehicles that the City of Renton uses for two
categories of emergency responses: fire emergencies and medical
emergencies. The medical emergencies will be referred to in this study as “BLS”
Packet Page 275 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 41
Company
because the Renton Fire Department provides Basic Life Support (BLS) responses
and is typically the first responder to medical emergencies in Renton.
Advanced Life Support (ALS) is provided by King County. ALS costs are not
included in Renton’s fire impact fee. Table 16 contains a list of each type of
primary fire apparatus and the number of each type. Renton also has several
older “reserve” apparatus that are dispatched as needed when a primary
apparatus is out of service for repairs or maintenance. The reserve apparatus
are not routinely dispatched and are excluded from the impact fee analysis
because they are not used frequently enough to have a material effect on the
cost of providing fire protection facilities.
Variable (B): Emergency Responses
The total annual responses for each type of apparatus is also shown in Table 16.
The average number of emergency responses for each type of apparatus is
calculated by dividing the number of annual emergency responses by the
number of units making those runs. In many cases, more than one apparatus is
dispatched to an emergency incident. The number and type of apparatus
dispatched to each incident varies depending on the type and severity of the
incident.
During 2010, Renton’s 50 primary response apparatus were dispatched a total of
16,545 times to 12,421 emergency incidents (many times the seriousness of an
incident requires that more than one unit respond). Using the existing ratio of
apparatus and station space per incident maintains the current level of service
and avoids any existing deficiency or unused reserve capacity. This approach
satisfies the requirements of RCW 82.02.050(4) to determine whether or not there
are any existing deficiencies or reserve capacity in order to ensure that impact
fees are not charged for any deficiencies or reserve capacity (other than
reimbursement fees).
Table 16: Fire Protection Apparatus Inventory
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Average
Primary Annual Emergency
Apparatus Emergency Responses
Type of Apparatus Inventory Responses Per Unit
Primary Career Service Response Units:
Engine 5 8,713 1,743
Ladder 1 1,048 1,048
Aid Vehicle 6 5,825 971
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1 4 4
Brush Truck 1 15 15
Staff Vehicles 28 909 32
Other Apparatus/Equipment7 8 31 4
Total Primary Apparatus 50 16,545
7 Other apparatus and equipment include 4 specialized trailers and a dive boat.
Packet Page 276 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 42
Company
Variable (C): Fire Stations
The City of Renton provides fire and BLS services out of 6 stations. Table 17 lists
the 6 stations and the square footage of fire stations and support facilities (i.e.,
EOC, shop, and tower). Table 17 also shows the total fire and BLS incidents, and
the average square footage of fire station per incident (calculated by dividing
the total square footage of all fire stations by the number of annual fire and BLS
incidents). The total incidents from stations (Table 17) is less than the total
incidents from apparatus (Table 16) because more than one apparatus
responds to many calls, but often one station is the source of all the apparatus
responding to a call.
Table 17: Fire and BLS Building Inventory
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Fire
District Station Square Feet
Inventory Annual Per
Station (Square Feet) Incidents Incident
11 -Mill Ave. S. 14,000
12 - Kirkland Ave. NE 13,200
12 - EOC 4,000
13 - 108th Ave. SE 24,400
13 - Shop 4,600
14 - Lind Ave. S. 13,050
14 - Tower 3,780
16 - 156th Ave. SE 9,760
17 - SE Petrovitsky Rd. 9,500
Total 96,290 12,421 7.75
Formula F-2: Annual Cost Per Apparatus
Formulas F-2 through F-4 are needed to calculate the apparatus cost per fire
incident. The first step in this calculation is to identify and annualize the cost of
each type of apparatus using formula F-2. The capital cost per apparatus is
based on the cost of primary response apparatus and major support
equipment. The annualized capital cost per apparatus is determined by
dividing the capital cost of each type of apparatus by its useful life:
F-2. Fire Apparatus
Cost ÷ Useful Life = Annual Cost per
Apparatus
There are two variables that require explanation: (D) fire apparatus cost, and (E)
useful life.
Packet Page 277 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 43
Company
Variable (D): Fire Apparatus Cost
Table 18 shows the annualized cost for each type of primary apparatus listed in
Table 16. The cost per apparatus includes the vehicle, fire and BLS equipment,
and communication equipment. The apparatus and equipment costs in Table
18 represent current costs to purchase a new fully equipped apparatus.
Variable (E): Useful Life
Table 18 also shows the number of years of useful life of each type of apparatus.
The annualized cost is calculated by dividing each apparatus cost by the useful
life of that apparatus.
Table 18: Annualized Apparatus Cost
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Useful Life
Total Cost of Annual
Per Component Cost
Apparatus Apparatus (Years) (Col. 2 / Col. 3)
Engine $ 494,531 10 $ 49,453.10
Ladder 1,004,968 20 50,248.40
Aid Vehicle 200,000 7 28,571.43
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 50,000 30 1,666.67
Brush Truck 30,000 30 1,000.00
Staff Vehicles 27,183 10 2,718.30
Other Apparatus/Equipment 41,142 10.2 4,033.53
Formula F-3: Cost Per Apparatus Per Fire or BLS Incident
The second step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is formula F-3.
The capital cost per fire or BLS incident is calculated for each apparatus by
dividing the annualized cost per apparatus by the total annual incidents (both
fire and BLS) each type of apparatus responds to. Each type of apparatus is
analyzed separately because the number and type of apparatus responding to
an incident varies depending on the type and severity of the incident.
F-3. Annual Cost
Per Apparatus ÷
Annual
Responses Per
Apparatus
= Annual Apparatus
Cost Per Response
There are no new variables used in formula F-3. Both variables were developed
in previous formulas.
In Table 19 the cost per emergency response is calculated for each type of
apparatus. Table 19 shows the annualized cost of one of each type of
apparatus (from Table 18) and the average annual emergency responses for
Packet Page 278 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 44
Company
each type of apparatus (from Table 16). Each apparatus cost per response is
calculated by dividing the annualized cost of that type of apparatus by the
total number of annual responses for the same type of apparatus.
Table 19: Apparatus Cost per Response
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Average
Annual Apparatus Cost
Annual Responses Per
Apparatus Per Response
Type of Apparatus Cost Apparatus (Col. 2 ÷ Col. 3)
Engine $ 49,453.10 1,743 $ 28.38
Ladder 50,248.40 1,048 47.95
Aid Vehicle 28,571.43 971 29.43
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1,666.67 4 416.67
Brush Truck 1,000.00 15 66.67
Staff Vehicles 2,718.30 32 83.73
Other Apparatus/Equipment 4,033.53 4 1,040.91
Formula F-4: Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire Incident
The third step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is formula F-4.
The total apparatus cost per fire incident is calculated by multiplying the
apparatus cost per response by the percent of fire incidents each type of
apparatus responds to. This calculation accounts for the fact that multiple
apparatus are dispatched to many incidents, and that some apparatus are only
dispatched to specific types of incidents. The result of this calculation is a
weighted average total cost of apparatus per fire incident.
F-4.
Apparatus
Cost Per
Response
x
Apparatus
Percent of Fire
Responses
= Apparatus Cost Per
Fire Incident
There is one new variable that requires explanation: (F) apparatus percent of fire
responses.
Variable (F): Apparatus Percent of Fire Responses
The next step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is to identify the
annual number of incidents that Renton’s Fire Department responds to.
Emergency incidents are separated into two categories: Fire and BLS. Table 20
lists the annual number of fire and BLS incidents responded to during 2010.
Packet Page 279 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 45
Company
Table 20: Annual Fire and BLS Incidents
(1) (2)
Average
Annual
Type of Incident Emergency Incidents
Fire 2,931
Rescue 9,490
Total Annual Incidents 12,421
Different types of fire emergencies need different types or combinations of
apparatus. As a result, the usage of apparatus varies among the types of
apparatus. This variance is an important factor in determining the cost per
incident. The percent of fire responses by each type of apparatus is calculated
in Table 21 by dividing the annual fire responses for each type of apparatus by
the total annual fire incidents from Table 20. The result of the calculation in Table
21 is the percent of fire incidents responded to by each type of apparatus. For
example, engines provided 2,979 responses to the 2,931 fire incidents, equaling
101.6% of all fire incidents. Another way to understand this data is that one
average fire incident involved 1.016 engines, therefore the cost of responding to
a fire incident includes 101.6% of the cost of an engine. Other apparatus
typically respond to only some of the incidents. Ladder trucks, for example,
respond to 18.0% of fire emergency incidents, therefore the cost to respond to
the average fire incident includes 18% of a ladder truck.
Table 21: Fire Incident Response By Type of Apparatus
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Percent of Annual
Total Annual Fire Related
Fire-Related Annual Incidents
Responses for Fire-Related Dispatched To
Type of Apparatus Apparatus Incidents (Col 2 / 2,931)
Engine 2,979 101.6%
Ladder 529 18.0%
Aid Vehicle 547 18.7%
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 4 0.1%
Brush Truck 15 0.5%
Staff Vehicles 594 20.3%
Other Apparatus/Equipment 13 0.4%
Total 4,681 2,931
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is shown in Table
22. The cost per response for each type of apparatus (from Table 19) is
multiplied by the percent of fire incidents dispatched to (from Table 21) resulting
in the total apparatus cost per fire incident.
The “bottom line” in Table 22 is the apparatus cost per fire incident of $65.49. In
other words, every fire incident “uses up” $65.49 worth of apparatus.
Packet Page 280 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 46
Company
Table 22: Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire Incident
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual Apparatus
Percent Of Cost Per
Apparatus Fire Fire
Cost Per Incidents Incident
Type of Apparatus Response Dispatched To (Col. 2 * Col. 3)
Engine $ 28.38 101.6% $ 28.84
Ladder 47.95 18.0% 8.65
Aid Vehicle 29.43 18.7% 5.49
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 416.67 0.1% 0.57
Brush Truck 66.67 0.5% 0.34
Staff Vehicles 83.73 20.3% 16.97
Other Apparatus/Equipment 1,040.91 0.4% 4.62
Total 65.49
Formula F-5: Annual Station Cost
The annual station cost is determined by dividing the station capital cost by its
useful life.
F-5.
Station Cost
Per Square
Foot
÷ Useful Life =
Annual Station
Cost Per Square
Foot
There is one new variable that requires explanation: (G) station cost per square
foot.
Variable (F): Station Cost per Square Foot
Table 23 calculates the average annualized fire station cost per square foot.
The cost per square foot is based on the average cost of the most recently
constructed station (Station 12, built in 2003). The costs include land, building,
furnishings and equipment.
The useful life represents the length of time the station will last before it needs to
be replaced. The annualized cost is calculated by dividing the estimated cost
per square foot by the average useful life. The “bottom line” of Table 23 is an
annualized station cost of $ 11.78 per square foot.
Packet Page 281 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 47
Company
Table 23: Annualized Station Cost Per Square Foot
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual
Building Building
Cost Useful Cost Per
Per Life square Foot
Type of Cost Square Foot Years) (Col. 2 ÷ Col. 3)
Land $ 74.43
Building, Furnishings and Equipment 405.08
Cost of Borrowing 109.54
Total 589.05 50 $11.78
Formula F-6: Station Cost Per Fire and BLS Incident
The station cost per fire and BLS incident is calculated by multiplying the annual
station cost per square foot by the station square feet per fire and BLS incident.
F-6.
Annual Station
Cost Per
Square Foot
x
Station Square
Feet Per Fire
and BLS
Incident
=
Annual Station
Cost Per Fire and
BLS Incident
There are no new variables used in formula F-6. Both variables were developed
in previous formulas.
This calculation is shown in Table 24: the station cost per square foot (from Table
23) is multiplied times the station square feet per incident (from Table 17). The
result is the station cost of $ 91.33 per fire and BLS incident. In other words, each
fire and BLS incident “uses up” $91.33 worth of fire station.
Table 24: Station Cost Per Fire and BLS Incident
(1) (2) (3)
Annualized
Annual Building Cost Per
Building Square Feet Fire and Rescue
Cost Per Per Incident
Square Foot Incident (Col. 1 * Col. 2)
$ 11.78 7.75 $ 91.33
Packet Page 282 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 48
Company
Formula F-7: Annual Fire Incident Rate Per Unit Of Development
The annual fire incident rate per unit of development (i.e., dwelling unit or
square foot of non-residential development) is calculated by dividing the total
annual fire incidents to each type of land use by the number of dwelling units or
square feet of non-residential development for that type of land use.
F-7.
Annual
Emergency Fire
Incidents at
Each Type of
Land Use
÷
Number of
Dwelling Units
or Square Feet
of Each Type
of Land Use
=
Annual Fire
Incidents Per Unit
of Development
There are two variables that require explanation: (H) annual emergency fire
incidents at land use types, and (I) number of dwelling units or square feet.
Variable (H): Annual Emergency Fire Incidents at Land Use Types
The emergency incident data comes from the City’s dispatch records and the
data showing dwelling units and square feet of non-residential development is
from King County’s property records for the City of Renton.
The database identifies each incident by occupancy type such as residences,
office or retail. The land use categories in this study were created by combining
the numerous occupancy types into broad land use categories for impact fees,
such as residences, office, retail, restaurant and industrial/manufacturing.
During 2010, Renton’s Fire Department responded to 2,931 fire incidents. Of the
2,931 fire incidents, 2,570 were traceable to a type of development (i.e., the
incident occurred at a specific property address, such as a residence or
business) or they were traffic-related (occurred on a roadway). Of the 2,570 fire
incidents analyzed, 2,040 occurred at a specific property and 530 were traffic-
related. The records for the remaining 361 fire incidents did not allow the
incident to be traced to either a specific land use or a traffic-related incident,
therefore these 361 incidents are apportioned to land uses and traffic on the
same basis as the 2,570 incidents that are traceable. Table 25 shows the
allocation of the 361 incidents without land use designations to the property and
traffic categories using the same percentage as the 2,570 incidents for which a
location was identifiable. Thus 287 of the 361 fire incidents were allocated the
same as the incidents at identifiable lands uses, and the other 74 fire incidents
were allocated the same as the traffic-related incidents.
Packet Page 283 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 49
Company
Table 25: Fire Incidents
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Incidents Incidents
Identifiable Not Identifiable Total
Incident Location By Location By Location Incidents
Total 2,570 361 2,931
At Properties 2,040 287 2,327
% of Total 79.38% 79.38% 79.38%
In Roads and Streets 530 74 604
% of Total 20.62% 20.62% 20.62%
There are four tables on the following pages that present the allocation of fire
incidents among types of land use: Table 26 shows the fire incidents that were
identifiable by land use type, Table 27 shows the fire incidents that were traffic-
related. Table 28 combines the fire incident data (land use and traffic), and
Table 29 shows the fire incident rate per unit of development.
Table 26 shows the distribution of the 2,040 fire incidents that are traceable to a
land use along with the percent distribution of these 2,040 incidents. In column 4
the total 2,327 fire incidents to land use (2,040 traceable + 530 allocated) is
allocated among the land use types using the percent distribution column. The
result is the total annual fire incidents at each of the land use types.
Table 26: Fire Incidents At Specific Land Uses
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual Percent
Fire Of All Allocate
Incidents Fire 2,327
Identifiable Incidents Incidents
To Identifiable To Land Uses
Land Use Land Use To Land Use (Col. 3 x 2,327)
RESIDENTIAL 1,373 67.30% 1,566
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 31 1.52% 35
Medical Care Facility 29 1.42% 33
Commercial:
Office 39 1.91% 44
Medical/Dental Office 17 0.83% 19
Retail 191 9.36% 218
Leisure Facilities 82 4.02% 94
Restaurant/Lounge 28 1.37% 32
Industrial/Manufacturing 78 3.82% 89
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 25 1.23% 29
Education 131 6.42% 149
Special Public Facilities 16 0.78% 18
Total 2,040 2,327
Packet Page 284 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 50
Company
Variable (I): Number of Dwelling Units or Square Feet
The traffic-related fire incidents are allocated to land uses on the basis of the
amount of traffic generated by each type of land use. In Table 27, the number
of dwelling units and square feet of non-residential construction in the City of
Renton is multiplied times the number of trips that are generated by each land
use type as reported in the 8th Edition of Trip Generation by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). (The trip rates in are one-half of ITE’s trip rates in
order to account for the trips each land use generates while excluding the
“return” trip). The result is the total trips associated with each land use type. The
percent of trips associated with each land use type is calculated from the total
of all trips.
In the final calculation in Table 27 the total 604 annual fire incidents that are
traffic-related (530 traceable + 74 allocated) is allocated among the land use
types using the percent of trips generated.
Table 27: Traffic Related Fire Incidents (Allocated to Land Uses)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
ITE Trip Annual
Generation 604
Rate / 2 Traffic Related
Renton Per D.U. Percent Fire Incidents
Units or Total Of Per Unit Of
Of Per Unit Of Trips Trips Development
Land Use Development Development (Col.2*Col.3) Generated (Col. 5 * 604)
RESIDENTIAL 53,889 d.u. 4.23228 228,073 41.27% 249
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 675,098 sq.ft. 0.00446 3,011 0.54% 3
Medical Care Facility 505,735 sq.ft. 0.00825 4,172 0.75% 5
Commercial:
Office 6,771,692 sq.ft. 0.00551 37,312 6.75% 41
Medical/Dental Office 916,863 sq.ft. 0.00551 5,052 0.91% 6
Retail 7,415,594 sq.ft. 0.02147 159,213 28.81% 174
Leisure Facilities 851,359 sq.ft. 0.01541 13,119 2.37% 14
Restaurant/Lounge 358,466 sq.ft. 0.06358 22,791 4.12% 25
Industrial/Manufacturing 15,081,742 sq.ft. 0.00349 52,635 9.52% 58
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 1,044,126 sq.ft. 0.00456 4,761 0.86% 5
Education 2,854,937 sq.ft. 0.00645 18,414 3.33% 20
Special Public Facilities 291,913 sq.ft. 0.01396 4,075 0.74% 4
Total 552,630 100.00% 604
Packet Page 285 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 51
Company
Table 28 summarizes the results of the analysis of fire incidents. The total annual
fire incidents is a combination of the fire incidents allocated among direct
responses to land use categories (from Table 26) and the allocation of traffic-
related incidents based on trip generation rates (from Table 27).
Table 28: Total Annual Fire Incidents By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual Total
Fire Annual Annual
Incidents Traffic Related Fire Incidents
Direct to Fire Incidents By
Land Use Land Use By Land Use Land Use
RESIDENTIAL 1,566 249 1,815
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 35 3 39
Medical Care Facility 33 5 38
Commercial:
Office 44 41 85
Medical/Dental Office 19 6 25
Retail 218 174 392
Leisure Facilities 94 14 108
Restaurant/Lounge 32 25 57
Industrial/Manufacturing 89 58 147
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 29 5 34
Education 149 20 170
Special Public Facilities 18 4 23
Total 2,327 604 2,931
The final step in determining the annual fire incident rate per unit of
development is shown in Table 29. The total annual fire incidents for each type
of land use (from Table 28) are divided by the number of dwelling units or square
feet of structures to calculate the annual incident rate per dwelling unit or
square foot. The units of development are the same as was used to determine
traffic-related incidents (see Table 27).
The results in Table 29 show how many times an average unit of development
has a fire incident to which the City of Renton responds. For example, a
residence has an average of 0.0336863 fire-related incidents per year. This is the
same as saying that 3.3% of single family/duplexes have a fire-related incident in
a year. Another way of understanding this information is that an average single
family/duplex would have a fire-related incident once every 30 years.
Packet Page 286 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 52
Company
Table 29: Annual Fire Incidents By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Total
Annual
Fire Units Annual Fire Incidents
Incidents To Of Per
Land Use Land Use Development Unit of Development
RESIDENTIAL 1,815 53,889 d.u. 0.0336863 per dwelling unit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 39 675,098 sq.ft. 0.0000572 per sq ft
Medical Care Facility 38 505,735 sq.ft. 0.0000744 per sq ft
Commercial:
Office 85 6,771,692 sq.ft. 0.0000126 per sq ft
Medical/Dental Office 25 916,863 sq.ft. 0.0000272 per sq ft
Retail 392 7,415,594 sq.ft. 0.0000529 per sq ft
Leisure Facilities 108 851,359 sq.ft. 0.0001267 per sq ft
Restaurant/Lounge 57 358,466 sq.ft. 0.0001586 per sq ft
Industrial/Manufacturing 147 15,081,742 sq.ft. 0.0000097 per sq ft
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 34 1,044,126 sq.ft. 0.0000323 per sq ft
Education 170 2,854,937 sq.ft. 0.0000594 per sq ft
Special Public Facilities 23 291,913 sq.ft. 0.0000778 per sq ft
Total 2,931
Formula F-8: Fire Incident Capital Cost Per Unit Of Development
The capital cost of fire incidents per unit of development is determined by
multiplying the annual fire incidents per unit of development (from Table 29)
times the annual capital cost per fire incident of each type of apparatus (from
Table 22) and fire station (from Table 24), then multiplying that result times the
useful life of the apparatus or fire station.8
F-8.
Annual Fire
Incidents Per
Unit Of
Development
x
Annual
Cost Per
Fire
Incident
x
Useful Life
Of
Apparatus
or Station
=
Fire Incident
Capital Cost
Per Unit Of
Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-8. All three variables were
developed in previous formulas.
8 Some fire impact fees are calculated for the economic life of the property paying the impact
fee, rather than the useful life of the apparatus and stations that provide the fire protection.
Both methods meet the legal requirements for impact fees. The method used in this rate study
charges impact fees for the first of each type of apparatus and station needed for new
development, but subsequent replacements of apparatus and stations are funded by other
revenues available to the City of Renton.
Packet Page 287 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 53
Company
In Tables 30 – 37 on the following pages, each fire incident rate (from Table 29) is
multiplied by the annual capital cost per fire incident. The result is then
multiplied times the useful life of the apparatus or station to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for each type of apparatus and station.
For example, residential units average 0.0336863 fire incidents per year (i.e., 3.3%
of a fire incident per year). In Table 30, multiplying this incident rate times the
annual capital cost of an engine ($28.84 from Table 22) per incident indicates a
cost of $0.9716 per dwelling unit to provide it with fire engines for one year.
Since an engine lasts 10 years, the residential dwelling needs to pay for 10 times
the annual rate, for a total of $9.7164.
Table 30: Engine Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Engine Engine
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 28.84 10
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.9716 $ 9.7164
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0017 0.0165
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0021 0.0215
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0004 0.0036
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0008 0.0078
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0015 0.0152
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0037 0.0365
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0046 0.0458
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0003 0.0028
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0009 0.0093
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0017 0.0171
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0022 0.0224
Packet Page 288 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 54
Company
Table 31 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a ladder truck
responding to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
ladder’s capital cost per fire incident ($8.65 from Table 22). The result is then
multiplied times the 20-year useful life of a ladder truck to calculate the capital
cost per unit of development for ladder trucks.
Table 31: Ladder Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Ladder Ladder
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 8.65 20
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.2915 $ 5.8302
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0005 0.0099
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0006 0.0129
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0001 0.0022
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0002 0.0047
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0005 0.0091
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0011 0.0219
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0014 0.0275
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0001 0.0017
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0003 0.0056
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0005 0.0103
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0007 0.0135
Packet Page 289 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 55
Company
Table 32 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles
responding to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
tender’s capital cost per fire incident ($5.49 from Table 22). The result is then
multiplied times the 7-year useful life of an aid vehicle to calculate the capital
cost per unit of development for aid vehicles.
Table 32: Aid Vehicle Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Aid Vehicle Aid Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 5.49 7
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.1850 $ 1.2951
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0003 0.0022
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0004 0.0029
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0001 0.0010
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0003 0.0020
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0007 0.0049
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0009 0.0061
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0001 0.0004
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0002 0.0012
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0003 0.0023
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0004 0.0030
Packet Page 290 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 56
Company
Table 33 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a hazardous
materials vehicle’s response to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is
multiplied by the hazardous materials vehicle’s capital cost per fire incident
($0.57 from Table 22). The result is then multiplied times the 30-year useful life of
a hazardous materials vehicle to calculate the capital cost per unit of
development for hazardous materials vehicles.
Table 33: Hazardous Materials Vehicle Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at
Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Hazardous Hazardous
Materials Materials
Vehicle Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 0.57 30
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.0192 $ 0.5747
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0000 0.0010
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0000 0.0013
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0000 0.0002
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0000 0.0005
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0000 0.0009
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0001 0.0022
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0001 0.0027
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0000 0.0002
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0000 0.0006
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0000 0.0010
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0000 0.0013
Packet Page 291 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 57
Company
Table 34 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a brush truck’s
response to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
brush truck’s capital cost per fire incident ($0.34 from Table 22). The result is then
multiplied times the 30-year useful life of a brush truck to calculate the capital
cost per unit of development for brush trucks.
Table 34: Brush Truck Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Brush Truck Brush Truck
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 0.34 30
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.0115 $ 0.3448
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0000 0.0006
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0000 0.0008
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0000 0.0001
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0000 0.0003
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0000 0.0005
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0000 0.0013
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0001 0.0016
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0000 0.0001
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0000 0.0003
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0000 0.0006
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0000 0.0008
Packet Page 292 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 58
Company
Table 35 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles
responding to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
staff vehicle capital cost per fire incident ($16.97 from Table 22). The result is
then multiplied times the 10-year useful life of a staff vehicle to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles.
Table 35: Staff Vehicle Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use
Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Staff Vehicle Staff Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 16.97 10
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.5716 $ 5.7163
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0010 0.0097
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0013 0.0126
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0002 0.0021
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0005 0.0046
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0009 0.0090
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0022 0.0215
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0027 0.0269
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0002 0.0016
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0005 0.0055
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0010 0.0101
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0013 0.0132
Packet Page 293 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 59
Company
Table 36 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for other
apparatus/equipment’s response to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table
29) is multiplied by the other apparatus/equipment’s capital cost per fire
incident ($4.62 from Table 22). The result is then multiplied times the 10.2-year
useful life of other apparatus/equipment to calculate the capital cost per unit of
development for other apparatus/equipment.
Table 36: Other Apparatus/Equipment Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at
Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Other Other
Apparatus/ Apparatus/
Equipment Equipment
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 4.62 10.2
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 0.1555 $ 1.5863
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0003 0.0027
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0003 0.0035
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0001 0.0006
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0001 0.0013
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0002 0.0025
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0006 0.0060
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0007 0.0075
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0000 0.0005
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0001 0.0015
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0003 0.0028
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0004 0.0037
Packet Page 294 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 60
Company
Table 37 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations that
house fire apparatus. The fire incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
fire station’s capital cost per fire and BLS incident ($91.33 from Table 24). The
result is then multiplied times the 50-year useful life of a fire station to calculate
the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations.
Table 37: Fire Station Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fire Station Fire Station
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $ 91.33 50
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $ 3.0765 $ 153.8260
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0052 0.2614
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0068 0.3398
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0012 0.0575
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0025 0.1241
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0048 0.2414
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0116 0.5786
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0145 0.7243
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0009 0.0444
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0029 0.1475
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0054 0.2712
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0000778 0.0071 0.3552
Table 38 combines the capital costs of all types of apparatus and station (from
Tables 30 – 37) to show the total capital cost of responses to fire incidents for one
unit of residential development.
Table 38: Example of Calculation of Total Capital Cost for A Single-Family
Residential Unit
(1) (2) (3)
Cost Component Cost Source
Engine $ 9.7164 Table 30
Ladder 5.8302 Table 31
Aid Vehicle 1.2951 Table 32
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 0.5747 Table 33
Brush Truck 0.3448 Table 34
Staff Vehicle 5.7163 Table 35
Other Apparatus/Equipment 1.5863 Table 36
Station 153.8260 Table 37
Total 178.8898
This example is repeated for each land use to combine its capital costs of all
types of apparatus and station in Table 39.
Packet Page 295 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 61
Company
Table 39: Total Capital Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use
Categories
(1) (2) (3)
Fire Incident
Life Cost
of All
Unit of Apparatus
Land Use Development and Station
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit $ 178.89
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.30
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.40
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.07
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.14
Retail per sq ft 0.28
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.67
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.84
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.05
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.17
Education per sq ft 0.32
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.41
Formula F-9: Cost Per Apparatus Per Fire or BLS Incident
The annual cost per type of apparatus is the same as in Table 18. The cost per
apparatus per fire or BLS incident is the same as Table 19.
Formula F-10: Apparatus Cost Per BLS Incident
The calculation of apparatus cost per BLS incident is similar to the calculation of
costs per fire incident in Table 22. The total apparatus cost per BLS incident is
calculated by multiplying the cost per apparatus per response by the percent of
BLS incidents each type of apparatus responds to. This calculation accounts for
the fact that multiple apparatus are dispatched to many incidents, and that
some apparatus are only dispatched to specific types of incidents. The result of
this calculation is a weighted average total cost of apparatus per BLS incident.
F-10.
Apparatus
Cost Per
Response
x
Apparatus
Percent of BLS
Responses
=
Apparatus Cost Per
BLS Incident
There are no new variables used in formula F-10. The first variable is identical to
the data from Table 19, and the second variable concerning the percent of BLS
Packet Page 296 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 62
Company
responses works identically to Variable F, but using BLS responses instead of fire
responses.
Different types of BLS emergencies need different types or combinations of
apparatus. As a result, the usage of apparatus varies among the types of
apparatus. This variance is an important factor in determining the cost per
incident. The percent of BLS responses by each type of apparatus is calculated
in Table 40 by dividing the annual BLS responses for each type of apparatus by
the total annual BLS incidents from Table 20. The result of the calculation in Table
40 is the percent of BLS incidents responded to by each type of apparatus. For
example, engines provided 5,734 responses to the 9,490 BLS incidents, equaling
60.4% of all BLS incidents. Another way to understand this data is that one
average BLS incident involved 0.604 engines therefore the cost of responding to
an BLS incident includes 60.4% of the cost of an engine.
Table 40: BLS Incident Response By Type of Apparatus
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Percent of Annual
Total Annual BLS Related
BLS Annual Incidents
Responses for BLS Dispatched To
Type of Apparatus Apparatus Incidents (Col 2 /9490)
Engine $ 5,734 60.4%
Ladder 519 5.5%
Aid Vehicle 5,278 55.6%
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 0 0.0%
Brush Truck 0 0.0%
Staff Vehicles 315 3.3%
Other Apparatus/Equipment 18 0.2%
Total 11,864 9,490
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per BLS incident is shown in Table
41. The cost per response for each type of apparatus (from Table 19) is
multiplied by the percent of BLS incidents dispatched to (from Table 40) resulting
in the total apparatus cost per BLS incident. The “bottom line” in Table 41 is the
apparatus cost per BLS incident of $40.04. In other words, every BLS incident
“uses up” $40.04 worth of apparatus.
Packet Page 297 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 63
Company
Table 41: Total Apparatus Cost Per BLS Incident
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual Apparatus
Percent Of Cost Per
Apparatus BLS BLS
Cost Per Incidents Incident
Type of Apparatus Response Dispatched To (Col. 2 * Col. 3)
Engine $ 28.38 60.4% $ 17.15
Ladder 47.95 5.5% 2.62
Aid Vehicle 29.43 55.6% 16.37
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 416.67 0.0% 0.00
Brush Truck 66.67 0.0% 0.00
Staff Vehicles 83.73 3.3% 2.78
Other Apparatus/Equipment 1,040.91 0.2% 1.97
Total 40.89
Formula F-11: Station Cost per Fire and BLS Incident
The station cost per BLS incident is the same as Table 24. The formula is the same
as Formula F-6.
Formula F-12: Annual BLS Incident Rate Per Unit Of Development
Formula F-12 is the same as Formula F-7. The annual BLS incident rate per unit of
development is calculated using the same methodology as described for fire
incidents in Tables 25 – 29.
There are no new variables used in formula F-12. The variables are identical to
those used in Formula F-7, but using BLS incidents instead of fire incidents.
During 2010, Renton’s Fire Department responded to 9,490 BLS incidents. Of the
9,490 BLS incidents 9,371 were traceable to a type of development (i.e., the
incident occurred at a specific type of property such as a residence or business)
or they were traffic-related (occurred on a roadway) and were included in the
following detailed analysis of incidents to land uses. Of the 9,371 BLS incidents
analyzed 7,944 occurred at a specific property and 1,421 were traffic-related.
The remaining 119 BLS incidents were not traceable to either a specific property
or a traffic-related incident, therefore these 119 are apportioned to land uses
and traffic on the same basis as the 9,371 incidents that are traceable. Table 42
shows the allocation of the 119 incidents without land use designations to the
property and traffic categories using the same percentage as the 9,371
incidents for which a location was identifiable. Thus 101 of the 119 BLS incidents
were allocated the same as the incidents at identifiable lands uses, and the
other 18 BLS incidents were allocated the same as the traffic-related incidents.
Packet Page 298 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 64
Company
Table 42: BLS Incidents
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Incidents Incidents
Identifiable Not Identifiable Total
Incident Location By Location By Location Incidents
Total 9,371 119 9,490
At Properties 7,944 101 8,045
% of Total 84.77% 84.77% 84.77%
In Roads and Streets 1,427 18 1,445
% of Total 15.23% 15.23% 15.23%
There are four tables that present the allocation of BLS incidents among types of
land use: Table 43 shows the BLS incidents that were identifiable by land use
type, Table 44 shows the BLS incidents that were traffic-related. Table 45
combines the BLS incident data (land use and traffic), and Table 46 shows the
BLS incident rate per unit of development.
Table 43 shows the distribution of the 7,944 BLS incidents that are traceable to a
land use along with the percent distribution of these 7,944 incidents. In column 4
the total 8,045 BLS incidents to land use (7,944 traceable + 101 allocated) is
allocated among the land use types using the percent distribution column. The
result is the total annual BLS incidents at each of the land use types.
Table 43: BLS Incidents At Specific Land Uses
(1) (2) (3) (4)
BLS Percent Allocate
Incidents Of All BLS 8,045
Identifiable Incidents BLS Incidents
To Identifiable To Land Uses
Land Use Land Use To Land Use (Col. 3 x 8,045)
RESIDENTIAL 5,448 68.58% 5,517
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 82 1.03% 83
Medical Care Facility 788 9.92% 798
Commercial:
Office 113 1.42% 114
Medical/Dental Office 198 2.49% 201
Retail 510 6.42% 516
Leisure Facilities 199 2.51% 202
Restaurant/Lounge 78 0.98% 79
Industrial/Manufacturing 81 1.02% 82
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 29 0.37% 29
Education 163 2.05% 165
Special Public Facilities 255 3.21% 258
7,944 100.00% 8,045
Packet Page 299 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 65
Company
The traffic-related BLS incidents are allocated to land uses on the basis of the
amount of traffic generated by each type of land use. In Table 44, the number
of dwelling units and square feet of non-residential construction in Renton is
multiplied times the number of trips that are generated by each land use type in
the same manner as Table 27. The result is the total trips associated with each
land use type. The percent of trips associated with each land use type is
calculated from the total of all trips.
In the final calculation in Table 44 the total 1,145 annual BLS incidents that are
traffic-related (1,427 traceable + 18 allocated) is allocated among the land use
types using the percent of trips generated.
Table 44: Traffic Related BLS Incidents (Allocated to Land Uses)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
ITE Trip Allocate
Generation 1,445
Rate / 2 Traffic-Related
Renton Per D.U. Percent BLS
Units or Total Of Incidents By
Of Per Unit Of Trips Trips Land Use
Land Use Development Development (Col.2*Col.3) Generated (Col 5 * 1,445)
RESIDENTIAL 53,889 d.u. 4.23228 228,073 41.27% 596
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 675,098 sq.ft. 0.00446 3,011 0.54% 8
Medical Care Facility 505,735 sq.ft. 0.00825 4,172 0.75% 11
Commercial:
Office 6,771,692 sq.ft. 0.00551 37,312 6.75% 98
Medical/Dental Office 916,863 sq.ft. 0.00551 5,052 0.91% 13
Retail 7,415,594 sq.ft. 0.02147 159,213 28.81% 416
Leisure Facilities 851,359 sq.ft. 0.01541 13,119 2.37% 34
Restaurant/Lounge 358,466 sq.ft. 0.06358 22,791 4.12% 60
Industrial/Manufacturing 15,081,742 sq.ft. 0.00349 52,635 9.52% 138
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 1,044,126 sq.ft. 0.00456 4,761 0.86% 12
Education 2,854,937 sq.ft. 0.00645 18,414 3.33% 48
Special Public Facilities 291,913 sq.ft. 0.01396 4,075 0.74% 11
552,630 100.00% 1,445
Packet Page 300 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 66
Company
Table 45 summarizes the results of the analysis of BLS incidents. The total annual
BLS incidents is a combination of the BLS incidents allocated among direct
responses to land use categories (from Table 43) and the allocation of traffic-
related incidents based on trip generation rates (from Table 44).
Table 45: Total Annual BLS Incidents By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Total
Annual Annual Annual
BLS Incidents Traffic Related BLS Incidents
Direct to BLS Incidents By
Land Use Land Use By Land Use Land Use
RESIDENTIAL 5,517 596 6,114
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 83 8 91
Medical Care Facility 798 11 809
Commercial:
Office 114 98 212
Medical/Dental Office 201 13 214
Retail 516 416 933
Leisure Facilities 202 34 236
Restaurant/Lounge 79 60 139
Industrial/Manufacturing 82 138 220
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 29 12 42
Education 165 48 213
Special Public Facilities 258 11 269
Total 8,045 1,445 9,490
The final step in determining the annual BLS incident rate per unit of
development is shown in Table 46. The total annual BLS incidents for each type
of land use (from Table 45) are divided by the number of dwelling units or square
feet of structures to calculate the annual BLS incident rate per dwelling unit or
square foot. The units of development are the same as was used to determine
traffic-related incidents (see Table 44). The results in Table 46 show how many
times an average unit of development has an BLS incident to which the City of
Renton responds. For example, a residential unit has an average of 0.1134479
BLS incidents per year. This is the same as saying that 11.3% of all residential
dwellings have an BLS incident in a year. Another way of understanding this
information is that an average residential dwelling unit would have a BLS
incident once every 8.8 years.
Packet Page 301 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 67
Company
Table 46: Annual BLS Incidents By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Total
Annual
BLS Units
Incidents To Of Annual BLS Incidents per
Land Use Land Use Development Unit of Development
RESIDENTIAL 6,114 53,889 0.1134479 per dwelling unit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 91 675,098 0.0001347 per sq ft
Medical Care Facility 809 505,735 0.0015995 per sq ft
Commercial:
Office 212 6,771,692 0.0000313 per sq ft
Medical/Dental Office 214 916,863 0.0002331 per sq ft
Retail 933 7,415,594 0.0001258 per sq ft
Leisure Facilities 236 851,359 0.0002770 per sq ft
Restaurant/Lounge 139 358,466 0.0003866 per sq ft
Industrial/Manufacturing 220 15,081,742 0.0000146 per sq ft
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 42 1,044,126 0.0000401 per sq ft
Education 213 2,854,937 0.0000747 per sq ft
Special Public Facilities 269 291,913 0.0009211 per sq ft
Total 9,490
Formula F-13: BLS Incident Capital Cost Per Unit Of Development
The capital cost of BLS incidents per unit of development is determined by
multiplying the annual BLS incidents per unit of development (from Table 45)
times the annual capital cost per BLS incident of each type of apparatus (from
Table 41) and fire station (from Table 24), then multiplying that result times the
useful life of the apparatus or fire station.9
F-13.
Annual BLS
Incidents Per
Unit Of
Development
x
Annual
Cost Per
BLS
Incident
x
Useful Life
Of
Apparatus
or Station
=
BLS Incident
Capital Cost
Per Unit Of
Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-13. The variables are identical to
those used in Formula F-8, but using BLS incident rates and costs instead of fire
incident rates and costs.
In Tables 47 – 52 on the following pages, each BLS incident rate (from Table 45) is
multiplied by the annual capital cost per BLS incident. The result is then
multiplied times the useful life of the apparatus or station to calculate the
9 Footnote 8 applies to formula F-13 as well as F-8.
Packet Page 302 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 68
Company
capital cost per unit of development for each type of apparatus and station.
This series of tables does not include the cost for a hazardous materials vehicle
or brush truck because, as shown in Table 40, they do not respond to BLS
incidents, therefore the apparatus cost per BLS incident for these two types of
apparatus is zero in Table 41.
Table 47 calculates the BLS related capital costs of an engine per unit of
development. For example, residential units average 0.1134479 BLS incidents
per year (i.e., 11.3% of a BLS incident per year). Multiplying this times the annual
capital cost of $17.15 per incident (from Table 41) produces the result that it
costs $1.9453 per dwelling unit to provide it with engines for one year. Since the
engine lasts 10 years, the residential dwelling needs to pay for 10 times the
annual rate, for a total of $19.4529.
Table 47: Engine Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Engine Engine
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 17.15 10
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 1.9453 $ 19.4529
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0023 0.0231
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0274 0.2743
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0005 0.0054
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0040 0.0400
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0022 0.0216
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0047 0.0475
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0066 0.0663
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0002 0.0025
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0007 0.0069
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0013 0.0128
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0009211 0.0158 0.1579
Packet Page 303 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 69
Company
Table 48 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for ladder trucks
responding to BLS incidents. The incident rate (from Table 46) is multiplied by the
ladder truck’s capital cost per BLS incident ($2.62 from Table 41). The result is
then multiplied times the 20-year useful life of a ladder truck to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for ladder trucks.
Table 48: Ladder Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Ladder Ladder
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 2.62 20
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 0.2975 $ 5.9496
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0004 0.0071
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0042 0.0839
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0001 0.0016
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0006 0.0122
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0003 0.0066
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0007 0.0145
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0010 0.0203
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0000 0.0008
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0001 0.0021
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0002 0.0039
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0009211 0.0024 0.0483
Packet Page 304 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 70
Company
Table 49 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles
responding to BLS incidents. The incident rate (from Table 46) is multiplied by the
aid vehicle’s capital cost per BLS incident ($16.37 from Table 41). The result is
then multiplied times the 7-year useful life of an aid vehicle to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles.
Table 49: Aid Vehicle Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Aid Vehicle Aid Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 16.37 7
Land Use Development Incident Rate per BLS Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 1.8569 $ 12.9982
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0022 0.0154
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0262 0.1833
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0005 0.0036
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0038 0.0267
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0021 0.0144
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0045 0.0317
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0063 0.0443
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0002 0.0017
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0007 0.0046
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0012 0.0086
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0009211 0.0151 0.1055
Packet Page 305 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 71
Company
Table 50 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles
responding to BLS incidents. The incident rate (from Table 46) is multiplied by the
staff vehicle’s capital cost per BLS incident ($2.78 from Table 41). The result is
then multiplied times the 10-year useful life of a staff vehicle to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles.
Table 50: Staff Vehicle Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use
Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Staff Vehicle Staff Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 2.78 10
Land Use Development Incident Rate per BLS Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 0.3153 $ 3.1531
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0004 0.0037
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0044 0.0445
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0001 0.0009
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0006 0.0065
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0003 0.0035
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0008 0.0077
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0011 0.0107
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0000 0.0004
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0001 0.0011
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0002 0.0021
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0009211 0.0026 0.0256
Packet Page 306 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 72
Company
Table 51 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for other
apparatus/equipment responding to BLS incidents. The incident rate (from
Table 46) is multiplied by the other apparatus/equipment’s capital cost per BLS
incident ($1.97 from Table 41). The result is then multiplied times the 10.2-year
useful life of other apparatus/equipment to calculate the capital cost per unit of
development for other apparatus/equipment.
Table 51: Other Apparatus/Equipment Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at
Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Other Other
Apparatus/ Apparatus/
Equipment Equipment
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 1.97 10.2
Land Use Development Incident Rate per BLS Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 0.2240 $ 2.2846
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0003 0.0027
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0032 0.0322
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0001 0.0006
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0005 0.0047
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0002 0.0025
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0005 0.0056
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0008 0.0078
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0000 0.0003
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0001 0.0008
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0001 0.0015
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0009211 0.0018 0.0186
Packet Page 307 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 73
Company
Table 52 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations that
house BLS apparatus. The BLS incident rate (from Table 46) is multiplied by the
fire station’s capital cost per fire and BLS incident ($91.33 from Table 24). The
result is then multiplied times the 50-year useful life of a fire station to calculate
the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations.
Table 52: Fire Station Cost of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fire Station Fire Station
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 91.33 50
Land Use Development Incident Rate per Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 10.3610 $ 518.0517
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0123 0.6150
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.1461 7.3040
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0029 0.1430
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0213 1.0645
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0115 0.5744
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0253 1.2649
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0353 1.7655
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0013 0.0665
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0037 0.1829
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0068 0.3410
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.0009211 0.0841 4.2063
Table 53 combines the capital costs of all types of apparatus and station (from
Tables 47 – 52) to show the total capital cost of responses to BLS incidents for
one unit of residential development.
Table 53: Example of Calculation of Total Capital Cost Of Responses to BLS
Incidents for a Single-Family Residence
(1) (2) (3)
Cost Component Cost Source
Engine $ 19.4529 Table 47
Ladder 5.9496 Table 48
Aid Vehicle 12.9982 Table 49
Staff Vehicle 3.1531 Table 50
Other Apparatus/Equipment 2.2846 Table 51
Station 518.0517 Table 52
Total 561.8901
This example is repeated for each land use to combine its capital costs of all
types of apparatus and stations in Table 54.
Packet Page 308 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 74
Company
Table 54: Total Capital Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use
Categories
(1) (2) (3)
BLS Incident
Life Cost
of All
Unit of Apparatus
Land Use Development an Station
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit $ 561.89
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.67
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 7.92
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.16
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 1.15
Retail per sq ft 0.62
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 1.37
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 1.91
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.07
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.20
Education per sq ft 0.37
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 4.56
Formula F-14: Fire and BLS Cost Per Unit Of Development
The fire and BLS costs per unit of development (from tables 39 and 54) are
combined to determine the total fire and BLS cost per dwelling unit or non-
residential square foot.
F-14.
Fire Incident
Capital Cost
Per Unit of
Development
+
BLS Incident
Capital Cost
Per Unit of
Development
=
Fire and BLS Cost
Per Unit Of
Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-14. Both variables were developed
in previous formulas and tables.
Packet Page 309 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 75
Company
In Table 55 the fire and BLS costs per unit of development (from Tables 39 and
54) are added together to determine the combined total fire and BLS cost per
dwelling unit or non-residential square foot.
Table 55: Total Cost of Response o Fire and BLS Incidents by Land Use Category
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fire and BLS
Fire Incident BLS Incident Life Cost
Life Cost Life Cost of All
of All of All Apparatus
Unit of Apparatus Apparatus and Station
Land Use Development an Station an Station (Col. 3 + Col. 4)
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit $ 178.89 $ 561.89 $ 740.78
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.30 0.67 0.97
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.40 7.92 8.32
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.07 0.16 0.22
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.14 1.15 1.30
Retail per sq ft 0.28 0.62 0.90
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.67 1.37 2.04
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.84 1.91 2.76
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.05 0.07 0.12
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.17 0.20 0.37
Education per sq ft 0.32 0.37 0.69
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 0.41 4.56 4.98
Formula F-15: Adjustments and Impact Fees
The final step in determining the fire services impact fee is to reduce the cost per
dwelling unit or non-residential square foot by subtracting any credits for other
revenue from existing and new development that the City of Renton will use to
pay for part of the cost of the same fire protection facilities that are the basis of
the impact fee, and any adjustment to comply with RCW 82.02.050(7).
F-15.
Fire and BLS
Cost Per Unit of
Development
-
Adjustment
For Revenue
Credits
=
Impact Fee
Per Unit Of
Development
There is one new variable that requires explanation: (J) adjustment for revenue
credits.
Variable (J): Adjustment for Revenue Credits
Renton does not have dedicated revenues for fire stations and apparatus,
therefore there is no adjustment for future payments of other revenues that are
Packet Page 310 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 76
Company
used to pay for the same new fire stations and apparatus that are required to
serve the new development. The only revenue sources to be included in the
adjustment are those that are used for fire services facilities capacity expansion
according to law and local policy or practice.
Adjustments are not given for other payments that are not used for new fire
services facilities needed for new development. Such an adjustment would
extend to payments of all taxes for all purposes to all forms of governments,
which contradicts the well-established system of restricting fees, charges, and
many taxes for specific public facilities and services10. Adjustments are not given
for revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs because
impact fees are not used for such expenses.
The final step in Table 56 (on the next page) is to further reduce the impact fees
that would be charged to new development in order to implement RCW
82.02.050(7) which provides that “…the financing for system improvements to
serve new development … cannot rely solely on impact fees.” The statute
provides no further guidance, and “not rely solely” could be anything between
0.1% and 99.9%.
10 RCW 82.02.060(1)(b) requires an adjustment for revenue credits to be given only for
"...payments made or reasonably anticipated to be made by new development to pay for
particular system improvements in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, or other
payments earmarked for or proratable to the particular system improvement (emphasis
added);"
Packet Page 311 of 442
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 77
Company
The adjustment of 3% used in Table 56 is the same adjustment percent used for
transportation impact fees. Table 56 shows the cost per dwelling unit or non-
residential square foot from Table 55, the 3% adjustment, and the impact fee
after the adjustment is subtracted from the full cost.
Table 56: Fire Impact Fees By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Total Fire and BLS
Fire and Impact Fee
BLS Per
Cost of Credit Unit of
Impact of Adjustment @ Development
Land Use Development 3.00% (Col. 2 - Col. 3)
RESIDENTIAL $ 740.78 $ 22.22 $ 718.56 per dwelling unit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 0.97 0.03 0.94 per square foot
Medical Care Facility 8.32 0.25 8.07 per square foot
Commercial:
Office 0.22 0.01 0.21 per square foot
Medical/Dental Office 1.30 0.04 1.26 per square foot
Retail 0.90 0.03 0.88 per square foot
Leisure Facilities 2.04 0.06 1.98 per square foot
Restaurant/Lounge 2.76 0.08 2.67 per square foot
Industrial/Manufacturing 0.12 0.00 0.12 per square foot
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 0.37 0.01 0.36 per square foot
Education 0.69 0.02 0.66 per square foot
Special Public Facilities 4.98 0.15 4.83 per square foot
Packet Page 312 of 442
Park Impact Fees
Technical Document
Attachment to City of Poulsbo
Park Impact Fee Ordinance
August 2011
200 NE Moe Street Poulsbo, Washington 98370-7347
(360) 779-3901 Fax (360) 697-8269
www.cityofpoulsbo.com
Packet Page 313 of 442
August 2011
City of Poulsbo
2 Park Impact Fee Technical Document
I. Introduction.
The Park Impact Fee Technical Document has been prepared to establish the park impact fee for
park and recreation facilities in the City of Poulsbo, Washington. The Technical Document
describes the methodology and formula for calculating the park impact fee, as well as
explanation of the variables used in the formula.
The Technical Document was prepared to support the adoption of the City of Poulsbo’s Park
Impact Fee ordinance.
A. Impact Fees v. Other Developer Contributions.
Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local governments for the capital
costs of public facilities that are needed to serve new development and the people who occupy or
use the new development. Throughout this document, the term “developer” is used as a
shorthand expression to describe anyone who is obligated to pay impact fees, including builders,
owners or developers.
The impact fees described in this study do not include other legal forms of developer
contributions or exactions, such as mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by SEPA (State
Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C), local improvement districts or other special
assessment districts.
B. Developer Options.
A developer who is responsible for impact fees has several options regarding payment of impact
fees as set forth in the Park Impact Fee Ordinance (new Poulsbo Municipal Code Section 3.84):
1) Payment of fee as set forth in the Park Impact Fee Ordinance (Section 3.84.090).
2) Submit data and/or analysis to demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed
development are less than the impact fees calculated by the City. (Section
3.84.130).
3) Appeal the impact fee calculation by the City of Poulsbo. (Section 3.84.150).
4) Obtain a refund if the development does not proceed and no impacts are created
(Section 3.84.170).
5) Obtain a refund if the City of Poulsbo fails to expend the impact fees within the
prescribed timeframe (Section 3.84.170).
II. Background and Authority for Impact Fees.
Park mitigation in the City of Poulsbo has been collected under the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) as a SEPA mitigation. However, the City’s intent is to move to collecting Park
Impact Fees under the Growth Management Act (GMA) as authorized by RCW 82.02 and
consistent with the adopted City of Poulsbo 2009 Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Plan
and identified park level of service standard.
Packet Page 314 of 442
August 2011
City of Poulsbo
3 Park Impact Fee Technical Document
The Comprehensive Plan references GMA impact fees in policy PRO-6.1. In goal PRO-6, the
Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to “develop a funding strategy and financing plan to meet
the City’s park capital facility needs identified in the Parks Capital Improvement Program.”
Development of a GMA impact fees ordinance and fee structure is a part of this funding strategy
and financing plan.
III. 2009 Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Plan – Park Section
Basis for Impact Fees.
A. Level of Service.
Level of Service standards for the City’s capital facilities are set forth in the 2009
Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Plan in Table CFP-2 (reference: page 179). The Park Level
of Service standards are also identified in the park section of the Capital Facilities Plan Table
CFP-10 “2025 Project Park Needs based on LOS” (reference: page 222-223).
The City has established a planned overall park system level of service standard of 13.73 acres
per 1,000 population.
B. 2025 Park Facility Needs.
Communities adopt level of service standards that are customized to meet their specific needs
and financial wherewithal. The City is planning to maintain the 2010 existing level of service
for the 2025 planning horizon citywide, but have made adjustments to the park type planned
level of service standards to support acquisition and development priorities.
Table CFP-10 in the Comprehensive Plan’s Capital Facilities Plan, sets forth the existing (2010)
level of service for each of the City’s park types and the 2025 planned level of service. By
comparing the two, the 2025 park acreage needs was calculated.
Table CFP-10 2025 Project Park Needs based on LOS
Park Type
2010
Existing Acres
2010 Existing
Level of Service
(ELOS)
2025 Planned
Level of Service
(PLOS)
2025 Acreage
Need based on
PLOS**
Actual
2025 Park
Acreage
Needs***
Neighborhood
Park
13.76 1.54 acre/1,000
pop.
2 acre/1,000 pop. 29.61 15.85 acres
Community
Park
28.44 3.19 acre 3.5 acre 51.82 23.38 acres
Regional Park 14.38 1.61 acre 1.5 acre 22.21 7.83 acres
Open Space
Park
63.25 7.1 acre 6 acre 88.86 25.61 acres
Packet Page 315 of 442
August 2011
City of Poulsbo
4 Park Impact Fee Technical Document
Trails 3.75 miles or
2.73 acres*
.42 mile
or .3 acres
1 mile or .73 acre 14.81 miles or
10.81 acres
11.06 miles or
8.08 acres
TOTAL
122.56 acres
13.74 acres/1,000
population
13.73 acres/1,000
population
203.31 acres
80.75 acres
* Trail miles are converted into acreage by assuming a 6’ wide trail x 1 mile = .73 acre
** City’s 2025 population of 14,808 was used to calculate total 2025 acreage needed.
*** Actual 2025 acreage needs calculated by subtracting 2010 existing acres from 2025 acreage need based on
PLOS.
IV. Park Impact Fee Factors and Formula.
The City’s Park Impact Fee is based upon the following factors:
2025 Park Facility Needs based on LOS
2025 Park Need
2025 Park Need adjusted to account for shared
facilities and city owned land available for
park use.
Adjusted 2025 Park Need
Adjusted Future Park Need * Cost of park land
acquisition and development =
2025 Park Need Costs
2025 Park Need Costs adjusted to account for
anticipated City and other public revenue
sources
2025 Park Need Costs to be paid by new
development
2025 Park Need Cost paid by new
development / number of expected new
dwelling units =
Park Impact Fee
The formula to calculate park impact fees is as follows:
2025 Park Need – Adjusted acreage = Adjusted 2025 Park Need
Adjusted 2025 Park Need * Estimated park land acquisition and development costs = 2025 Park
Need Costs
2025 Park Need Costs – anticipated City and other public revenue sources = 2025 Park Need
Costs to be paid by new development
2025 Park Need Cost paid by new development / number of expected new dwelling units = PIF
Packet Page 316 of 442
August 2011
City of Poulsbo
5 Park Impact Fee Technical Document
A. 2025 Park Need.
As established in the 2009 Poulsbo Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Plan Table
CFP-10, the City’s 2025 Park Need based on the level of service is 80.75 acres of
parkland.
B. Adjusted 2025 Park Need.
There are a number of adjustments to the level of service standard acreage need of 80.75
that should be made. These adjustments are outlined below:
1. Partnership with North Kitsap School District.
The City has formed a partnership with the North Kitsap School District (NKSD)
through shared use agreements, for fields at four schools. These fields are
available for City sponsored recreation programs, as well as for the general public
use.
NKSD Shared Fields:
Vinland Elementary: 3.4 acres
NK High School: 20.4 acres
NK Middle School: 11.08 acres
Strawberry Fields: 8.3 acres
TOTAL: 43.24 acres
The NKSD shared fields’ total acreage is not available for City recreational
programming or general public’s use all the time. The normal use of the fields by
each school is generally from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. each weekday. Community use
hours will run generally from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. weekdays. Routinely, community
users have access to the fields on weekends and summer months. Middle schools
and high school facilities are less available for community use based on sports
and activities conducted by NKSD. Overall, the annual community and public
use average calculated by the City’s Recreational Programmer is 50%.
Therefore, 21.62 acres of community fields for recreational purposes is available
to meet the 2025 Park Need.
2. City-owned land not accounted for in 2009 Comprehensive Plan.
a. GIS analysis of existing city owned parkland:
During the preparation of the Park Impact Fee Ordinance, the City Planning
Department used the Geographic Information System (GIS) to confirm the city-
owned park inventory as set forth in the 2009 Comprehensive Plan. Two
variations in parkland acreage was identified during this review:
i. Austurbruin Park: The acreage identified in the 2009
Packet Page 317 of 442
August 2011
City of Poulsbo
6 Park Impact Fee Technical Document
Comprehensive Plan is 2 acres; however, the City ownership includes an
additional 2.76 acres, which is open space just south of the improved playground,
and is considered part of the park. This acreage should be counted as City owned
parkland.
ii. Hattaland Park: The acreage for Hattaland Park has been
decreased due to the need for additional right-of-way from WSDOT for the SR
305 widening project. The park is now .46 acre smaller than identified in the
comprehensive plan inventory. The .46 acre should be added as a park need. In
addition, the City is completing the process of a land donation by an adjacent
property owner of 1.01 acre immediately south of Hattaland Park, to be added to
Hattaland Park. It appears the land donation will be accepted. Therefore, the 1.01
acre should be counted as additional available park land.
b. SR 305 Wetland Mitigation Acreage:
As part of the SR 305 widening project, WSDOT was required to establish a
wetland mitigation site. This site is 13.69 acres, adjacent to SR 305 (near the
Bond Road intersection), and is near the City’s Betty Iverson-Kiwanis Park. An
agreement between the City and WSDOT has the ownership of this land
transferring to the City in approximately five to eight years. This acreage will be
added to the City’s parkland inventory (as an open space/natural park); and the
City has included in its future Trail Development project list, trails from Betty
Iverson-Kiwanis Park to the mitigation site. This acreage should be counted as
City owned parkland, as the transference of ownership is assured.
c. Fish Park trail development and land donation:
Development of a trail system in the City’s Fish Park has been planned for the
park. The 2009 Comprehensive Plan included .16 mile of trail in its existing park
land inventory. The trail has been improved and expanded now for a total of 1.2
miles long. To account for the additional 1.04 mile of trail not included in the
comprehensive plan, .75 acre should be counted. (1 mile of trail = .73 acre).
In addition, the City is completed the process of a land donation by an adjacent
property owner of .73 acres northwest of Fish Park along Viking Avenue, to be
added to Fish Park. It appears the land donation will be accepted. Therefore, the
.73 acre should be counted as additional park land.
d. City-owned tidelands:
The City owns a number of public parks along the shoreline of Liberty Bay. In
some cases, the City ownership includes tidelands; however tideland acreage is
not always included in the overall parcel acreage identified by the Kitsap County
Assessor (and thereby as identified in the comprehensive plan).
In two cases – Fish Park and Oyster Plant Park – identification of the tidelands as
part of the park acreage is appropriate. For Fish Park, the Dogfish Creek estuary
has been incorporated into the park through its viewing platforms, trail locations
Packet Page 318 of 442
August 2011
City of Poulsbo
7 Park Impact Fee Technical Document
and educational signage. The acreage of the Dogfish Creek estuary associated
with Fish Park is 2.73. The Oyster Plant Park, in a similar manner, has a viewing
pier that extends onto the publicly owned tidelands. Again, since the tidelands are
being used as an integral part of the park, the .74 acres for the Oyster Plant Park
should be counted.
3. Adjusted 2025 Park Need.
2025 Park Need by LOS: 80.75 acres
NKSD Shared Fields: -21.62 acres
Austurbruin Park: -2.76 acres
Hattaland Park: +.46 acre
Hattaland Park land donation: -1.01 acre
SR 305 Wetland Mitigation Site: -13.69 acres
Fish Park trail development: -.75 acre
Fish Park land donation: -.73 acre
Fish Park Estuary: -2.73 acres
Oyster Plant Park: -.74 acres
Adjusted 2025 Park Need is 37.18 acres.
C. 2025 Park Need Costs
The cost of meeting the 2025 Park Needs takes into account two contributors: park land
acquisition and park land development.
1. Cost of Park Land Acquisition: The average park land acquisition cost per acre is
based on the 2011 average current assessed value of vacant land available in the
City of Poulsbo with these Assessor classification parameters: 1) vacant and
undeveloped parcels between 2-5 acres in size; and 2) vacant, undeveloped and
one single-family house 5 acres or larger in size. Do not include parcels that: 1)
are in current use tax exempt classification; 2) have a current preliminary plat,
planned unit development, planned residential development, site plan review, or
binding site plan approval from the City; and 3) have non-residential zoning (this
is because the Parks 20-year land acquisition list from the CFP are primarily located in
Residential (R) zones).
The Poulsbo GIS calculated the total acreage of those parcels fitting within these
classifications, calculated a total assessed value, which was then calculated into a
total average value per acre. The result of this exercise is an average assessed
value of $72,887 per vacant acre in the city limits of Poulsbo.
2. Cost of Park Land Development: The average park land development cost can be
difficult to estimate because the cost of developing park land varies widely
depending on the type of park, the size of the parcel, the facilities to be installed,
and the general site clearing and infrastructure installation. When determining
the park land development costs, the City considered the five park types identified
Packet Page 319 of 442
August 2011
City of Poulsbo
8 Park Impact Fee Technical Document
in the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, and determined an average development cost
per acre for each of the park types. This average is based on the City’s most
recent park development costs, typical amenities associated with the park, and
feedback provided to the City from other municipalities.
Neighborhood Park: average $75,000 per acre
(typical amenities: playground, picnic area, lawn/sitting area, barbeque, trails, viewing area)
Community Park: average $115, 000 per acre
(typical amenities: playground, sport fields, picnic area/shelter, barbeque, trails/paths,
lawn/siting area, viewing areas, dog run, and community gardens)
Regional Park: average $130,000 per acre
(typical amenities: playground, picnic area, restrooms, trails/paths, lawn/sitting area, multi-
purpose fields, viewing areas, picnic shelter)
Open Space Park: average $60,000 per acre
(typical amenities: trails and paths, viewing areas, viewing platforms, arboretum)
Trails: average $30,000 per acre
(typical development: grading and gravel path)
Park land development costs can be calculated by applying the average cost per
acre by park type to the Adjusted 2025 Needed Acres, thereby generating a total
estimated cost by park type. The total estimated cost by park type is then divided
by the 2025 Adjusted Park Acres of 37.18, to arrive at an average park land
development cost per acre.
Average Park Land Development Costs based on Park Type
Park Type
2025
Needed
Acres based
on PLOS
Adjustments to 2025
Needed Acres
Adjusted
2025
Needed
Acres
Average Cost of
Development
per acre
Estimated Cost
by Park Type
Neighborhood
Park
15.85 - .74 acres (Oyster Plant Park)
- 2.76 (Austurbruin Park)
12.35 $75,000 $926,250
Community
Park
23.38 -21.62 (NKSD shared fields) 1.76 $115,000 $202,400
Regional Park 7.83 None 7.83 $130,000 $1,017,900
Open Space
Park
25.61 - 2.73 (Fish Park estuary)
-.73 (Fish Park donation)
- 13.69
(SR 305 Wetland Mitigation)
+ .46 (Hattaland 305
widening)
- 1.01 (Hattaland donation)
7.91 $60,000 $474,600
Packet Page 320 of 442
August 2011
City of Poulsbo
9 Park Impact Fee Technical Document
Trails 8.08 acres -.75 acre (Fish Park trail) 7.33 $30,000 $219,900
TOTAL 80.75 acres 43.78 acres adjustment 37.18
Adjusted
Park Acres
Needed
$2,841,050
Average Park Land Development Cost per Acre based on Adjusted
2025 Needed Acres
$76,413 per acre
3. 2025 Park Need Costs:
When average cost of park land acquisition and park land development is
combined, the result is a cost of $149,300 per acre to acquire and develop an acre
of parkland.
When applied to the adjusted 2025 Park Acre Need of 37.18 acres, the 2025 Park
Need Cost is $5.55 million.
D. 2025 Park Need Costs to be paid by new development
The total 2025 Park Need Costs of $5.55 million must be shared between the City and
new development. This is referred to as an “adjustment factor” and reflects the
contribution public funds must make to future park development, as the financing system
cannot rely solely on impact fees. The adjustment factor is based on the City’s
evaluation of likely collection of payments (user fees, taxes) and the availability of public
funds for future park capital improvements.
1. Predicted Public Funding Sources.
The City anticipates contributing $3.05 million through a variety of funding
sources including taxes, user fees, grants and donations over the 2025 planning
period. This is based the City’s committed park general fund allocation,
estimated state/federal grants and estimated donation of labor and supplies:
City 2025 General Fund Allocation: $1.27M
(average $85,000 per year over planning horizon)
City 2025 Estimated Federal/State Grants: $1.5M
(conservative estimate of ½ of the grant awards the City received in past 15 years)
Community donations of labor/supplies: $280,000
(based on past 15 years of community donations)
Total 2025 Estimated Public Funding: $3.05M
2. Adjustment Factor.
Based on the City’s predicted public funding sources over the 2025 planning
Packet Page 321 of 442
August 2011
City of Poulsbo
10 Park Impact Fee Technical Document
horizon of $3.05M, the City anticipates financing 55% of the 2025 Park Land
Cost of $5.55M.
The remaining $2.5M is then divided into the 2025 expected new housing units.
3. Expected new housing units.
The 2009 Comprehensive Plan identified 2,251 expected new housing units of the
2025 planning period (reference: 2009 Comprehensive Plan p.120). To adjust for the
housing units since the comprehensive plan was adopted, the growth in population
based on the Washington State Office of Financial Management 2011 population
estimate for Poulsbo, is an increase of 390 people; this population is translated
into housing units (2.45 average household size), resulting in 159 housing units.
Therefore, the remaining new expected housing units is 2,092.
$2.5M / 2,092 new housing units = $1195 Park Impact Fee.
The resulting Park Impact Fee for new residential units is $1195.
E. GMA Impact Fee Calculation Summary.
2025 Park Facility Needs based on LOS
Table CFP-10
80.75 acres
2025 Park Need
2025 Park Need adjusted to account for shared
facilities and other city owned land available
for public use.
37.18 acres
Adjusted 2025 Park Need
Adjusted Future Park Need x Cost of parkland
acquisition and development
$5.55M
2025 Park Need Costs
2025 Park Need Costs adjusted to account for
anticipated City and other public revenue
sources
$2.5M
2025 Park Need Costs to be paid by new
development
2025 Park Need Cost paid by new
development / expected new housing units
$1195
Park Impact Fee
Packet Page 322 of 442
August 2011
City of Poulsbo
11 Park Impact Fee Technical Document
V. Calculation of Impact Fee for New Development.
The park impact fee to be paid by new development shall be calculated by multiplying $1195 per
residential lot or unit per submitted building permit.
As allowed by the Park Impact Fee Ordinance, a developer may elect to prepare an independent
fee calculation study for a proposed development, pursuant to the requirements in Section
3.84.130.
VI. Summary.
The City of Poulsbo intends to enact a park impact fee ordinance in order to collect impact fees
as authorized under RCW 82.02. The 2009 Poulsbo Comprehensive Plan set forth the desired
park level of service and needed parkland based on the LOS and 2025 population. Adjustments
to the 2025 Park Land Need have been made in this Technical Document to account for shared
public recreation facilities, and city-owned parkland not accounted for in the comprehensive
plan’s park land inventory. The impact fee of $1195 per new residential lot/unit could generate
$2.5 million during the 2025 planning period.
Packet Page 323 of 442
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY
FOR
City of Sequim, Washington
Prepared By
The Henderson Group, Inc.
2nd REVIEW DRAFT
December 21, 2008
Packet Page 324 of 442
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1
2. CAPACITY COSTS ........................................................................................................................7
3. FUNDING OTHER THAN IMPACT FEES ........................................................................................9
4. APPORTIONMENT OF POPULATION (2008–2014).......................................................................10
5. APPORTIONMENT OF FUNDING OTHER THAN IMPACT FEES ...................................................11
6. GROWTH’S SHARE OF PROJECT COSTS (2009-2014)................................................................11
7. GROWTH’S COST PER CAPITA (2009-2014)................................................................................12
8. IMPACT FEE RATES ....................................................................................................................12
APPENDIX: LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ...............................................................................13
Packet Page 325 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 1 December 21, 2008
1. INTRODUCTION
This study of impact fees for parks and recreational facilities for the City of Sequim presents the
methodology, summarizes the data, and explains the calculation of the fees. The methodology is
designed to comply with the requirements of Washington law. This introduction describes the
basis for parks and recreational impact fees, including:
• Definition and Rationale of Impact Fees
• Statutory Basis For Impact Fees
• Responsibility for Public Facilities
• Need for Additional Parks and Recreational Facilities
• Determining the Benefit of Parks and Recreational Facilities to Development
• Methodology and Relationship to Capital Facilities Plan
• Data Sources and Calculation
Definition and Rationale of Impact Fees
Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local governments for the capital
cost of public facilities that are needed to serve new development and the people who occupy the
new development. New development is synonymous with “growth.”
Local governments charge impact fees on either of two bases. First, as a matter of policy and
legislative discretion, they may want new development to pay the full cost of its share of new
public facilities because that portion of the facilities would not be needed except to serve the new
development. In this case, the new development is required to pay for virtually all the cost of its
share of new public facilities1.
On the other hand, local governments may use other sources of revenue to pay for the new public
facilities that are required to serve new development. If, however, such revenues are not
sufficient to cover the entire costs of new facilities necessitated by new development, the new
development may be required to pay an impact fee in an amount equal to the difference between
the total cost and the other sources of revenue.
There are many kinds of "public facilities" that are needed by new development, including parks
and recreational facilities, fire protection facilities, schools, roads, water and sewer plants,
libraries, and other government facilities. This study covers parks and recreational facilities for
the City of Sequim, Washington. Impact fees for parks and recreational facilities are charged to
all residential development within the City of Sequim.
1 RCW 82.02.050 (2) prohibits impact fees that charge 100% of the cost, but does not specify how much less than
100%, leaving that determination to local governments.
Packet Page 326 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 2 December 21, 2008
Statutory Basis For Impact Fees
RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 authorizes local governments in Washington to charge impact fees.
The impact fees that are described in this study are not mitigation payments authorized by the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). There are several important differences between impact
fees and SEPA mitigations. Two aspects of impact fees that are particularly noteworthy are: 1)
the ability to charge for the cost of public facilities that are "system improvements" (i.e., that
provide service to the community at large) as opposed to "project improvements" (which are "on-
site" and provide service for a particular development), and 2) the ability to charge small-scale
development their proportionate share, whereas SEPA may exempt small developments.
The following synopsis of the most significant requirements of the law includes citations to the
Revised Code of Washington as an aid to readers who wish to review the exact language of the
statutes.
Types of Public Facilities
Four types of public facilities can be the subject of impact fees: 1) public streets and roads; 2)
publicly owned parks, open space and recreational facilities; 3) school facilities; and 4) fire
protection facilities (in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire district). RCW 82.02.050(2) and
(4), and RCW 82.02.090(7)
Types of Improvements
Impact fees can be spent on "system improvements" (which are typically located outside the
development), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically provided by the
developer on-site within the development). RCW 82.02.050(3)(a) and RCW 82.02.090(6) and (9)
Benefit to Development
Impact fees must be limited to system improvements that are reasonably related to, and which
will benefit new development. RCW 82.02.050(3)(a) and (c). Local governments must establish
reasonable service areas (one area, or more than one, as determined to be reasonable by the local
government), and local governments must develop impact fee rate categories for various land
uses. RCW 82.02.060(6)
Proportionate Share
Impact fees cannot exceed the development's proportionate share of system improvements that
are reasonably related to the new development. The impact fee amount shall be based on a
formula (or other method of calculating the fee) that determines the proportionate share. RCW
82.02.050(3)(b) and RCW 82.02.060(1)
Reductions of Impact Fee Amounts
Impact fees rates must be adjusted to account for other revenues that the development pays (if
such payments are earmarked for or proratable to particular system improvements). RCW
Packet Page 327 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 3 December 21, 2008
82.02.050(1)(c) and (2) and RCW 82.02.060(1)(b) Impact fees may be credited for the value of
dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in
the adopted CFP and are required as a condition of development approval). RCW 82.02.060(3)
Exemptions from Impact Fees
Local governments have the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees for low-income
housing and other "broad public purpose" development, but all such exemptions must be paid
from public funds (other than impact fee accounts). RCW 82.02.060(2)
Developer Options
Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the
impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in this rate study. RCW
82.02.060(5). Developers can pay impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee calculations.
RCW 82.02.060(4) and RCW 82.02.070(4) and (5). The developer can obtain a refund of the
impact fees if the local government fails to expend the impact fee payments within 6 years, or
terminates the impact fee requirement, or the developer does not proceed with the development
(and creates no impacts). RCW 82.02.080
Capital Facilities Plans
Impact fees must be expended on public facilities in a capital facilities plan (CFP) element (or
used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing facilities). The CFP must
conform to the Growth Management Act of 1990, as amended, and must identify existing
deficiencies in facility capacity for current development, capacity of existing facilities available
for new development, and additional facility capacity needed for new development. RCW
82.02.050(4), RCW 82.02.060(7), and RCW 82.02.070(2)
New versus Existing Facilities
Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(1)(a)) and for the unused
capacity of existing public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(7)), subject to the proportionate share
limitation described above.
Accounting Requirements
The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies, expend the money on
related CFP projects within 6 years, and prepare annual reports of collections and expenditures.
RCW 82.02.070(1)-(3)
ISSUES RELATING TO IMPACT FEES
Prior to calculating impact fee rates, several issues must be addressed in order to determine the
need for, and validity of such fees: responsibility for public facilities, the need for additional park
Packet Page 328 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 4 December 21, 2008
and recreational facilities, the need for revenue for additional parks and recreational facilities,
and the benefit of new parks and recreational facilities to new development.
Responsibility for Public Facilities
In general, local governments that are authorized to charge impact fees are responsible for the
specific public facilities for which they may charge such fees. The City of Sequim is legally and
financially responsible for the parks and recreational facilities it owns and operates within its
jurisdiction. In no case may a local government charge impact fees for private facilities, but it
may charge impact fees for some public facilities that it does not administer if such facilities are
“owned or operated by government entities” (RCW 82.82.090(7).
Need for Additional Park and Recreational Facilities
The need for additional parks and recreational facilities is determined by using standards for
levels of service for park and recreational facilities to calculate the quantity of facilities that are
required. The required quantity is then compared to the existing inventory to determine the need
for additional land and facilities. The analysis of needed parks and recreational facilities must
comply with the statutory requirements for identifying existing deficiency, reserve capacity and
new capacity requirements for facilities.
For the purpose of quantifying the need for parks and recreational facilities, this study uses the
City’s value of investment in existing parks and recreational facilities per capita. As greater
growth occurs, more investment is required; therefore more parks and recreational facilities are
needed to maintain standards. The analysis and text documenting the investment in parks and
recreational facilities per person is explained in Section 2 of this study.
Determining the Benefit to Development
The law imposes three tests of the benefit provided to development by impact fees: 1)
proportionate share, 2) reasonably related to need, and 3) reasonably related to expenditure
(RCW 80.20.050(3)).
A. Proportionate Share
First, the "proportionate share" requirement means that impact fees can be charged only for the
portion of the cost of public facilities that is "reasonably related" to new development. In other
words, impact fees cannot be charged to pay for the cost of reducing or eliminating deficiencies
in existing facilities.
Second, there are several important implications of the proportionate share requirement that are
not specifically addressed in the law, but which follow directly from the law:
• Costs of facilities that will be used by new development and existing users
must be apportioned between the two groups in determining the amount of the
fee. This can be accomplished in either of two ways: (1) by allocating the
Packet Page 329 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 5 December 21, 2008
total cost between new and existing users, or (2) calculating the cost per unit
(i.e., investment per capita), and applying the cost only to new development
when calculating impact fees.
• Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity can be based on
the replacement cost of the facility in order to account for carrying costs of
the government's actual or imputed interest expense.
The third aspect of the proportionate share requirement is its relationship to the requirement to
provide adjustments and credits to impact fees, where appropriate. These requirements ensure
that the amount of the impact fee does not exceed the proportionate share.
• The "adjustments" requirement reduces the impact fee to account for past and
future payments of other revenues (if such payments are earmarked for, or
proratable to, the system improvements needed to serve new growth).
• The "credit" requirement reduces impact fees by the value of dedicated land,
improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are
in the adopted CFP and are required as a condition of development approval).
The law does not prohibit a local government from establishing reasonable
constraints on determining credits. For example, the location of dedicated
land and the quality and design of a donated public facility can be required to
conform to local standards for such facilities.
Without such adjustments and credits, the fee-paying development might pay more than its
proportionate share.
B. Reasonably Related to Need
There are many ways to fulfill the requirement that impact fees be "reasonably related" to the
development's need for public facilities, including personal use and use by others in the family
and use by owners, employees and customers of business enterprises (direct benefit), and use by
persons or organizations who provide goods or services to the fee-paying property (indirect
benefit. These measures of relationship are implemented by the following techniques:
• Impact fees for parks and recreational facilities are charged to properties,
which need (i.e., benefit from) new parks and recreational facilities. Parks
and recreational facilities are provided by the City of Sequim for public use to
all kinds of property throughout the City regardless of the type of use of the
property. Impact fees for park and recreational facilities, however, are only
charged to residential development in the City because the dominant stream
of benefits redounds to the occupants and owners of dwelling units. As a
matter of City policy, the City of Sequim elects not to charge parks and
recreational impact fees to non-residential properties because there is not
sufficient data to document the proportionate share of parks and/or use of
parks that is reasonably needed by non-residential development.
Packet Page 330 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 6 December 21, 2008
• The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in establishing
fee amounts (i.e., single family dwelling units versus multi family dwelling
units, etc.).
• Fee-payers can pay a smaller fee if they can demonstrate that their
development will have less impact than is presumed in the calculation of the
impact fee schedule for their property classification. Such reduced needs
must be permanent and enforceable (i.e., through land use restrictions).
• Washington law requires one or more service areas as a way of connecting a
unit of development and the benefits of public facilities paid for by impact
fees. All impact fees paid by new development in the service area would be
required to be spent on new park and recreational facilities in the same
service area. Sequim parks and recreational facilities serve the entire City;
therefore the impact fees are based on a single district.
C. Reasonably Related to Expenditures
Two provisions of the law tend to reinforce the requirement that expenditures be "reasonably
related" to the development that paid the impact fee. First, the requirement that fee revenue must
be earmarked for specific uses related to public facilities ensures that expenditures are for
identifiable projects, the benefit of which can be demonstrated. Second, impact fee revenue must
be expended within 6 years, thus requiring a timeliness to the benefit to the fee-payer.
Methodology and Relationship to Capital Facilities Plan
Impact fees for parks and recreational facilities in the City of Sequim are based on the value per
capita of the City’s capital improvements for parks and recreational facilities. New development
will be provided its share of the investment per capita, to be funded by a combination of general
and capital improvement fund revenue and impact fees.
The amount of the impact fee is determined by charging each new development for the average
number of persons per dwelling unit multiplied times the amount of the investment per capita
that is to be paid by growth.
The investment per capita for future population is made through parks projects listed in the
City’s Capital Facilities Plan. The value per capita of the projects in the CFP is comparable to
the value per capita for the current population, as shown in Appendix A, therefore (1) the
standard is a reasonable and conservative basis for the impact fee, and (2) there is no existing
deficiency that the City must eliminate.
Packet Page 331 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 7 December 21, 2008
Data Sources and Calculation
A. Data Sources
The data in this study of impact fees for parks and recreational facilities in the City of Sequim,
Washington was provided by the City of Sequim (e.g., Comprehensive Plan 2006 Update, Parks
Master Plan [March 2006]), Transportation Improvement Program [2009-2014], etc.) unless a
different source is specifically cited.
B. Data Rounding
The data in this study was prepared using computer spreadsheet software. In some tables in this
study, there will be very small variations from the results that would be obtained using a
calculator to compute the same data.
The reason for these insignificant differences is that the spreadsheet software was allowed to
calculate results to more places after the decimal than is reported in the tables of these reports.
The calculation to extra places after the decimal increases the accuracy of the end results, but
causes occasional differences due to rounding of data that appears in this study.
2. CAPACITY COSTS
“Capacity” capital facility projects directly contribute to the City of Sequim’s physical inventory
of park land and recreational facilities, and represent new and/or expanded facilities. “Non-
capacity” projects include only the repair, renovation, replacement of, remodel, etc. of existing
parks and recreational capital facilities, and do not contribute additional new inventory to the
City’s parks system. Impact fees can only be used to help pay for the growth cost of “capacity”
facilities projects.
The cost of parkland includes land, design, landscaping, site improvements, some recreational
facilities (e.g., equipment or apparatus not separately listed in this study), and legal and
administrative costs (which includes contingency). The cost of recreational facilities includes
design, site preparation, construction, and legal and administrative costs (which includes
contingency). The cost of facilities does not include land if the facilities are customarily located
at a park. If the facility is usually located at any site other than a park, the cost includes land.
The cost of new parks and recreational facilities in this rate study does not include any costs for
interest or other financing. If borrowing is used to “front fund” the costs that will be paid by
impact fees, the carrying costs for financing can be added to the costs, and the impact fee can be
recalculated to include such costs.
Impact fees proposed in this rate study will help the City pay for the proportionate share of costs
for facilities needed to support the City’s growth population for the next six years and to increase
Packet Page 332 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 8 December 21, 2008
the parks and recreational facilities that serve the current population. As Table 1 shows, Columns
1 and 2 include the project name/description and year of construction, respectively. Columns 3
and 4 identify the related unit of park land (acre) or facility (ballfields, tennis courts, pathways,
etc.), as well as the number of units for each type of facility. Finally, Columns 5 and 6 show
each unit’s cost and the total cost, which is calculated by multiplying Column 4 times Column 5.
TABLE 1: CAPACITY COSTS (2009-2014)
CITY OF SEQUIM
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Type Number Cost ($)
Project Year
of
Units
of
Units
per
Unit
Project
Cost ($)
COMMUNITY PARKS
1. Carrie Blake Park --Tennis Courts 2012 courts 4 75,000 300,000
2. Re-Use Site (8 acres) Soccer/Softball Fields 2010 fields 4 117,875 471,500
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
3. Kirner Neighborhood Park (1.3 AC)
a. Restrooms 2013 60,000
4. Gerhardt Neighborhood Park (7.62 AC)
a. Upgrade Original Homestead 2013 60,000
b. Move/Demolish Living Residence 2013 60,000
5. Potential New Neighborhood Parks
a. Land Acquisition-Hendrickson/Kendall 2012 acres 2.5 120,000 300,000
b. Land Acquisition-S 7th Ave/McCurdy 2012 acres 2.5 120,000 300,000
c. Land Acquisition-Burrowes 2010 acres 2.8 133,929 375,000
URBAN PATHWAYS AND BIKEWAYS
6. ODTPhase 3 2010 feet 10,560 52 549,120
7. 3rd Avenue UPB 2010 feet 10,560 52 549,120
8. Bell Creek UPB
a. Bell Creek North 2014 feet 17,110 52 889,720
b. Bell Creek South 2010 feet 7,445 52 387,140
9. Sequim-Dungeness Way 2013 feet 6,548 52 340,496
NATURAL RESOURCE AREAS
10. Keeler PNR Area (35.07 AC)
a. Phase 2 Park Land Acquisition 2009 acres 19.5 10,285 200,558
b. Phase 3 Park Land Acquisition 2010 acres 19.5 10,285 200,558
c. Phase 4 Park Land Acquisition 2011 acres 19.5 10,285 200,558
d. Phase 5 Park Land Acquisition 2012 acres 10.5 10,285 107,993
e. Parking Lot/Master Plan/Phase 1Pathway 2010 375,000
TOTAL 5,726,761
Packet Page 333 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 9 December 21, 2008
3. FUNDING OTHER THAN IMPACT FEES
As noted in the introduction to this report, impact fees must be adjusted to account for other
(non-impact fee) revenue that is paid by new development. This section summarizes the planned
use of other revenues to fund future parks and recreational facilities.
The City of Sequim has historically used local revenues, such as real estate excise tax, grants and
other revenues within the City’s Park Restricted Fund, General Fund, Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) to pay for part of the cost of parks and recreational facility capital
costs. Revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs are not used to reduce
impact fees because they are not used, earmarked or prorated for the system improvements that
are the basis of the impact fees.
Revenues from past taxes paid on vacant land prior to development are not included because new
capital projects do not have prior costs; therefore prior taxes did not contribute to such projects.
The other potential credit that reduces capacity costs (and subsequent impact fees) are donations
of land or other assets by developers or builders. Those reductions depend upon specific
arrangements between the developer and the City of Sequim.
Column 1 in Table 2 below shows the identical list of projects from Table 1. Columns 2 through
5 identify five potential sources of revenue: Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) 1st and 2nd Qtr %,
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), and
State grants. Column 6 calculates the total amount of non-impact fee revenues for each capital
project during 2009-2014.
TABLE 2: FUNDING OTHER THAN IMPACT FEES (2009-2014)
CITY OF SEQUIM
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Total
Grants/ Non-Impact
Project REET TIP TIB Other* Fee Funding
COMMUNITY PARKS
1. Carrie Blake Park --Tennis Courts 15,000 85,000 100,000
2. Re-Use Site (8 acres) Soccer/Softball Fields 15,000 150,000 165,000
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
3. Kirner Neighborhood Park (1.3 AC) 15,000 15,000
a. Restrooms
4. Gerhardt Neighborhood Park (7.62 AC)
a. Upgrade Original Homestead
b. Move/Demolish Living Residence
5. Potential New Neighborhood Parks 125,000 125,000
a. Land Acquisition-Hendrickson/Kendall
b. Land Acquisition-S 7th Ave/McCurdy
c. Land Acquisition-Burrowes
Packet Page 334 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 10 December 21, 2008
TABLE 2: FUNDING OTHER THAN IMPACT FEES (2009-2014) - continued
CITY OF SEQUIM
URBAN PATHWAYS AND BIKEWAYS
6. ODT Phase 3 100,000 100,000 200,000
7. 3rd Avenue UPB 60,000 60,000
8. Bell Creek UPB
a. Bell Creek North 300,000 300,000
b. Bell Creek South 175,000 175,000
9. Sequim-Dungeness Way 250,000 250,000
NATURAL RESOURCE AREAS
10. Keeler PNR Area (35.07 AC) 200,000 200,000
a. Phase 2 Park Land Acquisition
b. Phase 3 Park Land Acquisition
c. Phase 4 Park Land Acquisition
d. Phase 5 Park Land Acquisition
e.. Parking Lot/Phase 1 Pathway
TOTAL 30,000 160,000 250,000 1,150,000 1,590,000
*Other -- Taxes/Grants/Loans: 1. Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Grants; 2. Aquatic Land Enhancement Account-
ALEA (RCW 7924.580); 3. REET for Conservation Areas (RFCW 82.46.070; 4. Dedicated Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax - Trails (RCW
40.37.50); 5. Public Works Trust Fund; 6. CDBG/CTED; 7. North American Wetland Conservation Act Grant (NAWCA) -
Associated with Ducks Unlimited. *Other-Local: 1. SEPA/Developer Mitigation - Sequim City Council (e.g. Fees-In-Lieu, Land
Dedication, etc.); 2. Private Donations; 3. Street Vacations (RCW 75.39) - Sequim City Council.
4. APPORTIONMENT OF POPULATION (2008–2014)
The revenues described in the preceding section are paid by both current and future residents,
therefore it is necessary to apportion the revenues between the two population groups. The
apportionment of the revenues will be based on each population groups proportion of the total.
However, because growth occurs over time, and not all at once, the apportionment is based on
the cumulative increase in population compared to the total cumulative population over the same
time period. This analysis will be described below
The City population represent the persons primarily served by the inventory of parks and
recreational facilities, although a considerably number of “out of City” visitors also use Sequim’s
park land and facilities. As part of the City’s long-range planning process, including its
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Growth management Act, the City prepares forecasts of
future growth. Sequim’s population consists of the City’s current 2008 population (5,419) and
forecasted 6-year growth population 2009-2014 (2,011) for a 2014 population of 7,430 persons.
Columns 1 and 2 in Table 3 show the current year and six growth years, as well as the “base”, or
current population for 2008. For each year beyond 2008, the base population will increase
annually by 335 persons (2,011 growth population divided by 6 years), as shown in Column 3.
Column 4 shows the cumulative growth increase from year-to-year. The total population as it
increases each year is shown in Column 5. The totals of Columns 4 and 5 show that the
cumulative population growth during 2009-2014 represents 15.65% of the year 2014 total
population. This percent will be used to calculate the apportioned % of non-impact fee revenues
that are paid by the current population and the growth population in Table 4 in the next section.
Packet Page 335 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 11 December 21, 2008
TABLE 3: APPORTIONMENT OF POPULATION (2008-2014)
CITY OF SEQUIM
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Base Annual Cumulative Total
Year Population Growth Growth Population
2008 5,419 5,419
2009 5,419 335 335 5,754
2010 5,419 335 670 6,089
2011 5,419 335 1,005 6,424
2012 5,419 335 1,340 6,759
2013 5,419 335 1,675 7,094
2014 5,419 336 2,011 7,430
Total 7,036 44,969
Cumulative Growth % of Total Population 15.65%
5. APPORTIONMENT OF FUNDING OTHER THAN IMPACT FEES
Table 4 apportions the non-impact fee revenues ($1,590,000 from Table 2) in Column 2, and
multiplies that amount by the respective base population (84.35%) and growth population
(15.65%). The results of this calculation identifies the dollar amount of non-impact fee revenue
that each population group contributes to paying for capital projects during 2009-2014, as shown
Columns 3 and 4.
TABLE 4: APPORTIONMENT OF FUNDING OTHER THAN IMPACT FEES (2009-2014)
CITY OF SEQUIM
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Total Portion Paid by Portion Paid by
Non-Impact Base Population Growth Population
Source Fee Funding 84.35% 15.65%
Funding Other Than Impact Fees 1,590,000 1,341,223 248,777
6. GROWTH’S SHARE OF PROJECT COSTS (2009-2014)
The investment in parks and recreational facilities needed to serve growth from Table 2 is shown
in the first line in Table 5 below. Next, the base population’s share of non-impact fee revenue is
listed and subtracted from the total cost to determine growth population’s share of capital project
costs of $4,385,538 during 2009-2014.
TABLE 5: GROWTH'S SHARE OF PROJECT COSTS (2009-2014)
CITY OF SEQUIM
(1) (2)
Item Calculation
Total Projects Cost 5,726,761
Cost Funded by Base Population 1,341,223
Cost to be Funded by Growth 4,385,538
Packet Page 336 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 12 December 21, 2008
7. GROWTH’S COST PER CAPITA (2009-2014)
In this section, the investment in additional parks and recreational facilities to be paid by growth
(from Table 5) is used to calculate the park and recreational facilities growth cost per person
which is then used to calculate the impact fee per dwelling unit. First, the total cost to be funded
by growth is reduced by $248,777 which is non-impact fee revenue paid by growth (from Table
4). The balance of $4,136,761 will by paid by impact fees. The growth cost per capita is
calculated by dividing the $4,136,761 by the population growth of 2,011. The result is the
amount per capita ($2,057) that will be paid by growth through impact fees.
TABLE 6: GROWTH'S COST PER CAPITA (2009-2014)
CITY OF SEQUIM
(1) (2)
Item Calculation
Cost to be Funded by Growth 4,385,538
Growth's Portion of Non-Impact Fee Funding 248,777
Growth's Portion to be Paid by Impact Fees 4,136,761
Growth Population 2,011
Growth Cost per Capita for Impact Fees 2,057
8. IMPACT FEE RATES
Table 7 shows above the calculation of the impact fee cost per dwelling unit of parks and
recreational facilities that needs to be paid by growth. Table 7 begins with the cost per new
person for parks and recreational facilities that will be paid by growth from Table 6: $2,057. The
amount to be paid by each new dwelling unit depends on the number of persons per dwelling
unit.
The number of persons per dwelling unit is the factor used to convert the growth cost of parks
and recreational facilities per person into impact fees per dwelling unit. The data is based on the
2008 estimated housing units and population by type of housing units for the City of Sequim.
Table 7 ends by multiplying the growth cost per person by the number of persons per dwelling
unit. The result is the impact fee per dwelling unit for parks and recreational facilities in the City
of Sequim.
TABLE 7: IMPACT FEE RATES
CITY OF SEQUIM
(1) (2) (3)
Single Multi
Family Family
Item Houses Dwelling Units
Growth Cost per Capita 2,057 2,057
Persons per Dwelling Unit 1.92 2.07
Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit 3,950 4,258
Packet Page 337 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 13 December 21, 2008
APPENDIX:
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Level of service standard for parks and recreational facility impact fees in the City of Sequim is
based on the value per capita of parkland and recreational facilities divided by the population
served by the parks and recreational facilities.
Table A-1 shows the existing inventory of parks and recreational facilities, the unit of measure of
each component (i.e., acres of land, miles of urban pathways/bikeways, number of soccer fields,
etc.) in the second column, the number of units in the current inventory in the third column, the
average cost per unit of capacity in the fourth column, and the total current value in the fifth
column (which is calculated by multiplying the respective inventory for each component by the
average cost per unit for that component).
Average current costs are based on a variety of information. The parkland valuations come from
either the assessed values or the actual purchase price for recent acquisitions. The recreational
facilities costs are a combination of actual costs, planned costs and City of Sequim Planning and
Public Works Departments estimates of costs.
The cost of parkland includes land, design, landscaping, site improvements, some recreational
facilities (e.g., equipment or apparatus not separately listed in this study), and legal and
administrative costs (which includes contingency). The cost of recreational facilities includes
design, site preparation, construction, and legal and administrative costs (which includes
contingency).
The cost of facilities does not include land if the facilities are customarily located at a park. If
the facility is usually located at any site other than a park, the cost includes land. The cost of new
parks and recreational facilities in this rate study does not include any costs for interest or other
financing.
Column (5) in Table A-1 shows that the capital value for all park land and recreational facilities
in the City’s current (2008) inventory is $11,041,284. In addition, the City’s future plans include
$1,341,223 for park improvements that will be funded by sources paid by the current population,
thus increasing the value for the current population.
The combined current and new capacity values total is $12,382,507. This combined total value
is divided by the City’s 2008 population of 5,419 at the bottom of Table A-1 to determine the
current capital value per person of $2,285.
Packet Page 338 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 14 December 21, 2008
Appendix Table 1: Current (2008) Level of Service
City of Sequim
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Type
of
Number
of Value ($) Total
Park or Recreational Facility Units Units per Unit Cost ($)
COMMUNITY PARKS
Carrie Blake acres 22.7 100,000 2,270,000
Pioneer Memorial acres 5.0 100,000 500,000
Water Re-Use Site acres 27.6 100,000 2,760,000
FIELDS
Soccer/Softball fields 2.0 217,875 435,750
Dr. Standard Little League Park fields 4.0 215,000 860,000
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Margaret Kimer acres 1.3 100,000 130,000
Spruce Street acres 2.5 100,000 250,000
Gerhardt acres 7.6 100,000 760,000
Seal Street acres 0.1 100,000 10,000
Heritage Bustop acres 0.1 100,000 10,000
URBAN PATHWAYS/BIKEWAYS
Walk/Bike Citywide System miles 3.0 274,560 823,680
Zwicker Pedestrian Trail miles 0.1 274,560 34,320
Olympic Discovery Trail miles 3.9 274,560 1,070,784
NATURAL RESOURCE AREA
Keeler acres 45.1 25,000 1,126,750
TOTAL VALUE 11,041,284
Funding of New Capacity Paid by Current Population 1,341,223
Total Value for Current Population 12,382,507
Current Population 5,419
Value per Capita for Current Population 2,285
Table A-2 repeats the capital value for all new park land and recreational facilities included in
the City’s 2009-2014 CIP that will be funded by growth. This total, from Table 6, is $4,385,538.
This level of service is achieved by a combination of impact fees and additional non-impact fee
revenue that will be paid by growth. The total value is divided by the City’s 2009-2014 growth
population of 2,011 at the bottom of the table to determine the growth population’s capital value
per person of $2,181.
Appendix Table 2: Level of Service for Growth Population
City of Sequim
(1) (2)
Item Amount
Cost to be Funded by Growth 4,385,538
Growth Population 2,011
Growth Cost per Capita 2,181
As noted in the introduction to this report, RCW 82.02.050(4) requires identification of any
existing deficiencies in facility capacity for current development, capacity of existing facilities
Packet Page 339 of 442
The Henderson Group, Inc. 15 December 21, 2008
available for new development, and additional facility capacity needed for new development.
The similarity of the values per capita for current population ($2,285) and growth population
($2,181) demonstrates the equitable levels of service for both population groups. There is no
existing deficiency for the current population because their level of service is based on the value
of the current inventory. There is no significant capacity of existing facilities to serve new
development because the entire value of the existing park system is assigned to the current
population, and the portion of future parks that will be paid by the current population is also
assigned to the current population (as calculated in Table 4). As a result, the CFP includes
additional facility capacity needed for new development, as demonstrated by Tables 1, 4 and 6.
Packet Page 340 of 442
1
March 6, 2012
Packet Page 341 of 442
2
Definition of an Impact Fee
One time payment...
... by new development ...
... for capital costs of facilities ...
... needed by new development.
1
Packet Page 342 of 442
3
Calculating and Collecting Impact Fees
Park fees = per dwelling unit
Calculated and collected at building permitg p
2
Packet Page 343 of 442
4
Requirements
H b il f bliHave to be spent on capital costs of public
facilities that are determined in the Capital
Facilities plan element.
CFP must identify additional facility capacity
needed for new developmentneeded for new development.
Have to expend within 6 years after collection
New or expanded facilities, not renovation,
remodel of existing.
C id i ( i l iCan provide exemptions ( i.e. low income
housing)
Packet Page 344 of 442
5
Determining Fees
Impact fees can only cover the
proportionate share of system
improvements, capital facilities
development. p
Adjustments requirement: need to consider
other revenues to support the CFP ( i.e.
REET, Grants, etc. )
di i ll dlCredit requirement: allows developers to
apply for credit if they mitigate.
Packet Page 345 of 442
6
Types of Park Facilities
Parks
Recreational Facilities
O SOpen Space
Trails
5
Packet Page 346 of 442
7
Examples of Edmonds Needs for
Growth
Aquatic Facility
Sports Fields
Additional Off‐Leash area
CitGdCommunity Garden
Additional bike lanes, ped connections
Neighborhood parks
6
Packet Page 347 of 442
8
How much are park impact fees in other
cities?
$ 6,404
4,579
4,150
4,068
Issaquah
Monroe
Snohomish
Duvall
$ 2,000
2,000
1,726
1,345
Bellevue
Brier
Woodinville
Bothell
3,887
3,845
3,175
2,812
2,438
Mill Creek
Kirkland
Sultan
Redmond
Mukilteo
1,251
855
484
Marysville
Mount Vernon
Arlington
2,329
2,026
Kenmore
Mountlake Terrace
7
Packet Page 348 of 442
9
Historical Development
245250
300
Dwelling Units Added
2001-2011
55
83
63
96
109
73 677172
92
70
140
89100
150
200
New Single Family Residences
Multi-Family Units
August 23, 2011 8
21
9
18 152230
19 21
0
50
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Packet Page 349 of 442
10
Why should Edmonds have impact fees?
Isn’t Edmonds built out?
Conversions from single‐family to multi‐family, and/or
construction of multi‐family
Example: New 89 unit multi family on SR104
Population growth next six years =1 237Population growth next six years = 1,237
Transportation impact fees collected in Edmonds for past
six years: $ 571,872
Only other Capital budget for Parks is REETOnly other Capital budget for Parks is REET.
9
Packet Page 350 of 442
11
Potential revenue from park impact fees in
Edmonds
Population growth next six years = 1,237
1,237 people ÷2.5 pp/du = 495 dwellings,pp pp/g
495 dwellings @ $1,200/du* = $600,000
* This represents an average amount levied from various jurisdictions.
Edmonds will need to determine the exact amount through a study.
10
Packet Page 351 of 442
12
How are they determined?
Very complex and regulated
Complicated rules, regulations,
determinations.
RCW 82 02 050 82 02 100RCW 82.02.050-82.02.100
All cities that have imposed impact fees
have completed a rate study.
Cost of the study is $25-30,000y$,
Packet Page 352 of 442
13
Developing Park Impact Fees
FClltiStdFee Calculation Study (3-4 months)
Ordinance ( 1 month)
Review and Adoption
City Staff ( 1 month)
City Council (1-2 months)y ()
$Consulting Costs (examples):
Olympia (parks - 2005) $ 29,700
Issaquah (parks - 2007)27,050
Edmonds (roads - 2009)27,470
Renton (parks - 2010)29,830
12
Packet Page 353 of 442
14
Discussion
Public Hearing
13
Packet Page 354 of 442
AM-4607 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Rob Chave as Acting Director of Development
Services and adoption of the proposed Ordinance adopting a non-financial amendment to
the Salary Range Appendix.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended by the Mayor that the Council confirm this appointment and adopt the proposed
ordinance.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Per the Mayor's discussion with each Council Member and after 3 months of review, he has determined,
at least on an interim basis, an Acting Director is needed to oversee the Development Services
Department. Since Duane Bowman's retirement on March 1, 2009, there has not been a Director for this
Department. On occasion, Stephen Clifton has stepped-in to assist with issues, but not in an official
capacity.
The Mayor is requesting that Rob Chave be confirmed by City Council as the Acting Development
Services Department Director. The cost of the interim appointment will be approximately $5,400 per year
and a small increase in benefits, which is reflected in the current adopted budget in Development
Services. Currently, there is $14,983 allocated in the budget to help cover the costs of an interim
appointment.
In addition to confirming Rob Chave as the Acting Development Services Director, this request is to
adopt an amendment to P.211 of the Budget document. This page is an Appendix that lists all personnel
and salary ranges in the city. This page does not include the Development Services Director position.
Although this position is listed on P. 112 in the Development Service Department Administration budget,
and was anticipated to be an Acting appointment, it was inadvertently left out on P.211. The attached
ordinance amends this page to be consistent with P.112 of the budget.
Attached is the proposed Ordinance to amend this page of the budget, and the amended P.211 for
Council’s consideration.
Attachments
Packet Page 355 of 442
Ordinance Revising Page 211 of 2012 Budget Book
Revised Page 211 of 2012 Budget Book
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2012 05:29 PM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 03/01/2012 08:37 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/01/2012
Packet Page 356 of 442
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NON-FINANCIAL
AMENDMENT TO THE SALARY RANGE APPENDIX TO
THE FINAL BUDGET FOR 2012 FOR THE CITY OF
EDMONDS TO ADD THE POSITION OF DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DIRECTOR AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the Mayor has appointed, subject to City Council confirmation, the
Planning Manager as the acting Development Services Director; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor’s appointment is not intended to create a new FTE, but
rather to officially delegate, on a temporary basis, the additional duties of Development Services
Director to the current Planning Manager; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the final budget for 2012 with Ordinance
3861; and
WHEREAS, the salary range appendix (page 211) of the final budget for 2012 did
not include the position of Development Services Director; and
WHEREAS, the position of Development Services Director was not fully funded
in the 2012 budget; and
WHEREAS, partial funding had been allocated in the Development Services
Department budget to allow an existing employee to be appointed as an acting Director of the
Development Services Department should a recommendation be made to appoint one; and
WHEREAS, page 211 of the final budget should be amended to allow the
Planning Manager to serve as the acting Development Services Director; and
WHEREAS, such an amendment would not require any additional appropriation;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Page 211 of the final budget is hereby amended to read as set forth in
Attachment A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set
forth.
Packet Page 357 of 442
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
________________________________
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
____________________________________
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY _________________________________
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO. ____
Packet Page 358 of 442
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of _______________, 2012, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. ____. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NON-FINANCIAL
AMENDMENT TO THE SALARY RANGE APPENDIX TO
THE FINAL BUDGET FOR 2012 FOR THE CITY OF
EDMONDS TO ADD THE POSITION OF DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DIRECTOR AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this ___ day of ____________, 2012.
_______________________________
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4846-2207-1054, v. 1
Packet Page 359 of 442
City of Edmonds 2012 Budget
Page 211
Appendix
Salary Range Table
Elected Officials Minimum Maximum
Council Member Position $12,600 $12,600
Judge 74,043 74,043
Mayor 113,210 113,210
Non-Represented Minimum Maximum
Assistant Building Official $66,905 $100,358
Assistant Police Chief 94,402 141,604
Associate Planner 48,574 72,861
Building Official 85,237 127,855
Capital Projects Manager 57,740 86,610
Chief Information Officer 76,071 114,107
City Clerk 85,237 127,855
City Engineer 94,402 141,604
Community Services Director 103,568 155,352
Court Administrator 76,071 114,107
Cultural Services Manager 66,905 100,358
Engineering Program Manager I 57,740 86,610
Executive Assistant Confidential 48,574 72,861
Executive Assistant To The Mayor 57,740 86,610
Facilities Manager 66,905 100,358
Finance Director 103,568 155,352
Fleet Manager 66,905 100,358
Human Resources Analyst 48,574 72,861
Parks And Recreation Director 103,568 155,352
Parks Maintenance Manager 66,905 100,358
Planning Manager 85,237 127,855
Police Chief 103,568 155,352
Public Works Director 103,568 155,352
Recreation Services Manager 66,905 100,358
Recycling Coordinator 48,574 72,861
Senior Utilities Engineer 66,905 100,358
Street/Storm Manager 76,071 114,107
Transportation Engineer 76,071 114,107
Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager 85,237 127,855
Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor 76,071 114,107
Water/Sewer Manager 76,071 114,107
Development Services Director (Acting)14,983 14,983
Packet Page 360 of 442
AM-4608 Item #: 8.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation on the Short & Long-term Budget Challenges.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
As we have discussed over the last three months, we have many financial challenges ahead of us in the
coming years. I have mentioned to you previously that I believe we need a broad-based public awareness
program to help make the public aware of our financial challenges and engage them in potential solutions.
Tonight's presentation will not provide new information to the council, but rather, will introduce the
budget issues to the public. This introductory conversation was given at the Chamber of Commerce
luncheon a week ago and received positive feedback. As I said the afternoon I was sworn in, our
community must begin a blunt conversation regarding the budget, face up to the choices, and move
Edmonds forward.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/02/2012 09:27 AM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 03/01/2012 08:48 AM
Final Approval Date: 03/02/2012
Packet Page 361 of 442
AM-4610 Item #: 9.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Stephen Clifton Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Department:Community Services
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Continued discussion of proposed Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code Section
10.75.030(A)(2), Extension of Economic Development Commission Sunset Date, and other
items related to the Economic Development Commission.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
April 21, 2009 - The Edmonds City Council approved Resolution No. 1198 related to addressing
long-term revenue challenges facing the City of Edmonds.
June 2, 2009 - The Edmonds City Council approved Ordinance 3735 which amended the Edmonds City
Code, Title 10, to add a new Chapter 10.75, thus creating a Citizens Economic Development Commission.
October 5, 2010 - The Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance No. 3808 amending the provisions of
ECC 10/75.010(B) which extended the sunset date for the Economic Development Commission one year
to December 31, 2011.
December 20, 2011 - The Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance No. 3868 amending the provisions of
ECC 10/75.010(B) which extended the sunset date for the Economic Development Commission 120
days to April 29, 2012.
Narrative
On December 20, 2011, the City Council expressed a desire to amend Edmonds City Code Section
10.72.030(A)(2) to read, “Identify new sources of revenue as a direct result of economic development
projects for consideration of City Council." As requested, a draft ordinance (see attached) was prepared
and placed on the January 23, 2012 City Council agenda. During the meeting, the City Council chose to
not take action on the draft ordinance, but instead, discuss this issue further during the February, 2012
City Council retreat.
As indicated in the attached February 3, 2012 City Council retreat minutes, in addition to
discussing whether to amend Edmonds City Code Section 10.72.030(A)(2) and extension of the sunset
date, other items were also discussed by the City Council. Council President Peterson advised he would
schedule changing the language in the ordinance on a future Council agenda. Council suggestions for that
Packet Page 362 of 442
discussion included:
• Clarify the Council liaison’s role
• Have a Port liaison rather than Port Commissioners serving as members
• Amend the language so members are not elected officials
• Make Commissioner appointments later
• Stagger Commissioners’ terms
Attachments
Draft Ordinance to Amend Edmonds City Code Section 10.75.030 as presented to the City Council on
January 23, 2012 - No action taken at that time
Ordinance 3868 Extending Sunset Date to April 29, 2012 - Approved by City Council on December 20,
2011
City Council Minutes - December 20, 2011
City Council Minutes - January 23, 2012
City Council Retreat Minutes - February, 2012
Resolution 1198
Ordinance 3735 Creating CEDC
Resolution 1224
Ordinance 3808 Extending Sunset Date to December 31, 2011
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/01/2012 12:05 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 03/01/2012 01:10 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2012 01:39 PM
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 03/01/2012
Final Approval Date: 03/01/2012
Packet Page 363 of 442
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, TITLE
10.75.030 RELATED TO THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND FIXING A TIME WHEN
THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the Citizens Economic Development Commission was established
by Ordinance No. 3735 in order to make recommendations to the City Council and the other
commissions of the City in order to develop new strategies for economic development within the
City and identify new sources of revenue for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council deemed it appropriate to extend the life
of the Commission for an additional twelve months and approved Ordinance 3808 on October 5,
2010, thus extending the sunset date of the Economic Development Commission to December
31, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council deemed it appropriate to extend the life
of the Commission for an additional 120 days and approved Ordinance 3868 on December 20,
2011, thus extending the sunset date of the Economic Development Commission to April 29,
2012; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2011 the City Council expressed a desire to also
amend Edmonds City Code Section 10.72.030(A)(2) to read, “Identify new sources of revenue as
a direct result of economic development projects for consideration of City Council,” NOW,
THEREFORE,
Packet Page 364 of 442
- 2 -
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds City Code, section 10.75.030, entitled “Powers and
duties,” and relating to the Citizens Economic Development Commission is hereby amended to
read as follows (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike-through
):
10.75.030 Powers and duties.
A. The commission is empowered to advise and make
recommendations to the mayor and city council, and as appropriate
to the planning commission, architectural design board or other
boards or commissions of the city on such matters as may be
specifically referred to the commission by the mayor or city
council including but not limited to:
1. Determining new strategies for economic development within
the city of Edmonds;
2. Identifying new sources of revenue as a direct result of
economic development projects
B. The commission shall deliver an annual report to the city
council in written and oral form on or about the first meeting in
December of every year, and when appropriate, during other times
as directed by the mayor or council.
for the consideration of the City
Council.
C. The Edmonds economic development commission may from
time to time provide its reports and recommendations regarding
strategies for economic development and other matters that will
improve commercial viability, tourist development and activity
within the city. The planning board and economic development
commission shall make joint recommendations on such subjects to
the city council on or about the first meeting in December.
2. Identifying new sources of revenue as a direct result of
economic development projects for the consideration of the City
Council.
Packet Page 365 of 442
- 3 -
Section 2. Effective Date.
APPROVED:
This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
Jeffrey B. Taraday, City Attorney
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 366 of 442
- 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2012, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
EDMONDS CITY CODE, TITLE 10.75.030 RELATED TO THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2012.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4844-7898-3438, v. 1
Packet Page 367 of 442
Packet Page 368 of 442
Packet Page 369 of 442
Packet Page 370 of 442
Packet Page 371 of 442
Packet Page 372 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
December 20, 2011
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Alex Springer, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Carl Nelson, CIO
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Rob English, City Engineer
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i), AND A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(b).
At 5:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) and a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(b). He stated
that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the Police
Training Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of
meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and
Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Wilson. Others
present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Attorney Mark Bucklin, Attorney Anne Preston (via telephone),
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Finance Director Shawn
Hunstock, Parks and Recreation Director Carrie Hite, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:30 p.m., Ms.
Chase announced to those present that the executive session would be extended for 20 minutes. At 6:55
p.m., Ms. Chase announced the executive session would be extended for 15 minutes. The executive
session concluded at 7:05 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:14 p.m. and led the flag salute.
2. RECEPTION IN HONOR OF COUNCILMEMBERS STEVE BERNHEIM AND DJ WILSON
Due to the length of the executive session, Mayor Earling announced the Councilmembers who were to
be honored have agreed to forego the reception.
Packet Page 373 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 2
Selection of Mayor’s Executive Assistant
Mayor Earling reported on the application process for his executive assistant. The City received 127
applications for the position. Screening reduced the applications to 25 potential applicants and 6 were
interviewed. At the conclusion of that process, he selected Carolyn LaFave.
Public Hearing Sign-In Sheets
Council President Peterson announced the availability of sign-in sheets for audience members to indicate
their support or opposition to public hearing topics without signing up to speak.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Item K be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember
Bernheim requested Item I be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 2011.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #129221 THROUGH #129387 DATED DECEMBER 8,
2011 FOR $588,030.36, AND CLAIM CHECKS #129388 THROUGH #129555 DATED
DECEMBER 15, 2011 FOR $873,482.27.
D. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #51050 THROUGH
#51076 FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 16, 2011 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2011 FOR
$713,624.43.
E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JAMES KREIDER
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), FRONTIER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), MONIQUE
WALSH (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND KIMBERLY COLE (AMOUNT
UNDETERMINED).
F. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE ALDERWOOD INTERTIE
AND RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
G. ORCHID CELLMARK DNA TESTING.
H. ORDINANCE NO. 3864 - ADOPTING THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: REMOVING CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM THE
MEDICAL / HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER; REVISING POLICY LANGUAGE
DESCRIBING THE MEDICAL / HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER;
REDESIGNATING CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM "SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1" TO
"MULTI FAMILY - MEDIUM DENSITY"; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
J. ORDINANCE NO. 3865 – BD1 ZONE DESIGNATING 45 FOOT STREET FRONTS.
Packet Page 374 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 3
L. 2012 CDBG APPLICATION RESOLUTION NO. 1266.
M. RESOLUTION NO. 1267 – IN RECOGNITION OF COUNCILMEMBER STEVE
BERNHEIM.
N. RESOLUTION NO. 1268 – IN RECOGNITION OF COUNCILMEMBER D. J. WILSON.
ITEM K: ORDINANCE NO. 3866 – AMEND ECDC 20.40.030 AND ECDC 17.40.020 ADDING
LIMITED EXCEPTIONS FROM BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS FOR (1) CERTAIN
SOLAR ENERGY INSTALLATIONS AND (2) REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING
ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT WITH ENERGY EFFICIENT UPGRADES
Councilmember Petso explained she voted against this item previously. She was concerned with a
resident discovering their view blocked by a rooftop solar array and therefore could not support the
ordinance.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED (6-1),
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO.
ITEM I: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 6.90, FOOD PACKAGING,
IN THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN USES BY THE CITY OF
EDMONDS AND ON CITY PROPERTY OF POLYSTYRENE AND NONRECYCLABLE
FOR DISPOSABLE FOOD PACKAGING AND TO REQUIRE INSTEAD THE USE OF
RECYCLABLE OR COMPOSTABLE FOOD PACKAGING; REQUIRING FOOD
SERVICE BUSINESSES TO RECYCLE FOOD WASTE; PROVIDING FOR
ENFORCEMENT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Councilmember Bernheim explained this ordinance restricts the use of polystyrene and nonrecyclable
products by the City government and on City property as well as requires that by 2013 food service
providers recycle and compost and offer recycling bins to their customers. As he had a few suggested
changes, he requested the Council delay approval of the ordinance. Council President Peterson responded
he will work with staff on the changes Councilmember Bernheim suggested and reschedule the ordinance
on a future agenda.
5. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT - HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
John Dewhirst, Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), updated the Council on the
HPC’s achievements over the past year:
• Applied for and received a state grant for a survey. A consultant surveyed an additional 120
properties throughout Edmonds.
• Added two properties to the Edmonds Historic Register.
• Updated and printed the Edmonds Historic Sites Walking Tour.
• Wrote, designed and printed 2,000 18-month historic Edmonds calendars. Purpose of the calendar
is to increase awareness of historic properties. Calendars available free of charge at City Hall, the
Museum, and the Frances Anderson Center.
Mr. Dewhirst relayed the HPC’s thanks to the Council for the funds provided in the budget that were used
to produce the updated walking tour and calendar. He also provided an updated Public Art Walking Tour
brochure produced by the Arts Commission.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked the HPC for their work. He noted that the HPC will make a proposal to
the Council in January to increase their membership due to interest from the community in participating
on the Commission.
Mayor Earling remarked the calendar is spectacular.
Packet Page 375 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 4
6. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE IN RECOGNITION OF
COUNCILMEMBER STEVE BERNHEIM.
Council President Peterson read Resolution No. 1267 thanking Steve Bernheim for his service on the
Edmonds City Council from January 2008 through December 2011. He also presented a plaque to
Councilmember Bernheim.
7. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE IN RECOGNITION OF
COUNCILMEMBER D. J. WILSON
Council President Peterson read Resolution No. 1268 thanking D.J. Wilson for his service on the
Edmonds City Council from January 2008 through December 2011. He also presented a plaque to
Councilmember Wilson.
8. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON A PROPOSED DRAFT CITY OF EDMONDS 2012
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY
OF EDMONDS AND MIKE DOUBLEDAY.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the draft Edmonds
2012 Legislative Agenda, when approved by the City Council, will serve as the scope of work for the
City’s government relations contractor, Mike Doubleday, during the 2012 Washington State Legislative
session. He recalled on November 1, 2011, the City Council expressed support for the Snohomish County
Cities and Towns legislative agenda which will also serve as Mr. Doubleday’s scope of work.
Mr. Doubleday reviewed top priorities in the City of Edmonds 2012 Legislative Agenda:
• Transportation Revenue Package
o Support the advancement of a statewide transportation revenue package to address
infrastructure projects in Snohomish County and Edmonds. Specifically Edmonds seeks
support to finish key projects already in development and funded by federal transportation
grants:
228th/SR99 Safety Project
212th/84th (Five Corners) Congestion
• Edmonds Main Street Project
o Seek capital budget funding for the Edmonds Main Street Rebuilding Project using Low
Impact Development (LID) techniques
• Public Records Requests
o Support legislation to provide some relief for cities and other governmental agencies from
overly burdensome public records requests
• Extension of Public Facilities District (PFD) Sales and Use Tax Credit
o Seek to extend the PFD sales tax credit (.033) 15 years from 2027 to 2042
• Protect State-Shared and Committed Revenues such as:
o Liquor profits and taxes
o The municipal criminal justice account
o Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF)
o The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Grant Funding Program (WWRP)
• Enhance Fiscal Flexibility Options for Cities
o Make REET flexibility permanent
o Expand uses of Hotel/Motel Tax to any purpose that maintains or enhances tourism
o Remove public vote requirement for metropolitan park districts
o Revamp the state unemployment benefit programs to limit the exposure of government
entities related to part time or seasonal employment
Packet Page 376 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 5
o Allow cities to pass on the cost of credit card transactions. Counties already have this
authority (RCW 36.29.190)
Councilmember Wilson asked if a metropolitan park district could be contiguous to a city’s boundaries.
He pointed out the establishment of a metropolitan park district currently requires a public vote; the
proposal is to remove the public vote requirement. He inquired about the tax implications for establishing
a metropolitan park district. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained if the legislature approved
that option, the Council could create a metropolitan park district and assess up to $0.75/$1000 of assessed
value. She advised a metropolitan park district can be contiguous to a city’s boundaries and the City
Council can be the governing body.
Mr. Doubleday reviewed the support/monitor items on the legislative agenda:
• Aerospace Partnership
o Support the Aerospace Partnership’s efforts to enact legislation needed to insure that
Washington State and Snohomish County remain the world’s leader in aerospace
manufacturing
• Medical Marijuana
o Monitor medical marijuana legislation. Support the governor’s proposed petition to the DEA
requesting that cannabis for medical use be reclassified from a schedule I drug to a schedule
II drug for medical use which could allow for dispensing legally by pharmacies.
• Phase II Storm Water Funding
o Seek state funding for cities, including Edmonds, so they can continue to meet Phase II storm
water permit requirements
• SEPA Reform
o Support (or monitor) options to reduce unnecessary regulations and costs while not affecting
outcomes intended by current regulations
• Refinements to Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) and Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Tools
• Support the adoption of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
• Support legislation to create local funding options for street maintenance through
formation of local street utilities or by expansion of the existing Transportation Benefit
District to raise the local option with Council approval from $20 to $40.
• Amend notice requirements in the “newspaper of record” to allow for less costly
alternatives, e.g., posting on the City’s website.
Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Doubleday to explain the difference between monitor and support.
Mr. Doubleday explained when he monitors a bill, he watches it and reports to the City on its progress.
When he supports a bill, he is actively working to pass or in some cases defeat it.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the language under Transportation Revenue Package, “support the
advancement of a statewide transportation revenue package” and asked what type of revenue would be
used. Mr. Doubleday answered the Task Force’s recommendation was a menu of options that included
gas tax and fees. A public vote would be required to pass the package which would include bonding
against a revenue stream of gas tax and other revenues.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what relief is sought with regard to public records requests. Mr.
Doubleday answered there was an effort in the past to charge for requests that took beyond five hours a
month. Another suggestion that has been offered is to charge a person who requests a large amount of
documents but does not pick them up. Councilmember Plunkett asked if this included an effort not to
provide public records or to change what records are to be public. Mr. Doubleday answered it was
monetary relief for abuse.
Packet Page 377 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 6
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the priority regarding SEPA reform, noting the Council needed to
provide direction whether to support or monitor. Mr. Doubleday agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the governor’s action with regard to coal trains. Mr. Doubleday
advised he did not have any information other than what had been reported in the newspaper.
Councilmember Wilson commented placing too many things on the ballot was a recipe for disaster. He
preferred to prioritize education and healthcare at the state level over roads. He asked how much money
Edmonds would have lost as a result of the legislature reducing revenue to cities. Mr. Clifton relayed
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock’s calculation was approximately $570,000. Councilmember Wilson
commented if the legislature takes that $570,000 and Edmonds supports a transportation package, the City
will not be better off. Mr. Doubleday answered there are three parts to the operating budget, 1) the budget,
2) a package of reforms, and 3) a revenue package. That would be in addition to a possible transportation
package in the fall.
Councilmember Wilson summarized if the Council supports a tax levy by the legislature, it should
support a levy that secures the operational budget rather than support a levy for transportation
improvements.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
APPROVE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MIKE
DOUBLEDAY.
Councilmember Wilson commented Mr. Doubleday represents a number of Washington cities; having
worked with him as part of his day job and as a Councilmember, he found him to be one of the most
professional lobbyists and he provides a tremendous return on the City’s investment.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Main Motion
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE CITY OF EDMONDS 2012 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
Amendment 1
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD MONITOR ANY LEGISLATION REGARDING STATE
POLICY REGARDING THE INCREASE OF COAL EXPORTING. AMENDMENT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Amendment 2
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD “MONITOR” TO PUBLIC VOTE REQUIREMENT FOR
METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICTS. AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER
WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Plunkett objected to the wording under public records requests as it gave the impression
the Council took issue with public records requests when in fact the Council supports the public’s right to
request records.
Amendment 3
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION SO THAT THE PRIORITY REGARDING PUBLIC RECORDS
REQUESTS READS, “SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE SOME FINANCIAL SUPPORT
TO MEET SOME PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS.” AMENDMENT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 378 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 7
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the effort to tape record executive sessions. Mr. Doubleday
answered he had not heard anything about that recently. Councilmember Wilson next expressed his
preference to protect state shared and committed revenues by supporting a statewide operational levy and
lower or eliminate prioritization of the transportation package.
Amendment 4
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO SUPPORT PASSAGE OF A STATEWIDE OPERATIONAL LEVY TO
PROTECT STATE-SHARED AND COMMITTED REVENUES TO THE CITY.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Councilmember Wilson’s intent was to replace the tax revenue from
liquor eliminated by I-1185. Councilmember Wilson answered that effectively was his intent and more
specifically to urge the legislature that if they place a levy on the ballot, it help cities’ operational budgets
rather than transportation infrastructure.
Council President Peterson asked if the legislature planned to consider such a ballot measure. Mr.
Doubleday answered there is clearly an effort among the majority party to put a ballot measure on in the
spring.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Amendment 5
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
CHANGE THE TRANSPORTATION REVENUE PACKAGE TO MONITOR RATHER THAN
SUPPORT.
Mr. Doubleday explained the City is requesting that funding for two projects be included in the
transportation package. If he is directed to monitor the transportation package, he will not work on
including Edmonds’ projects in the package. Councilmember Wilson responded he preferred to prioritize
the integrity of the budget over transportation and to tell the legislature they should choose an operational
levy over a transportation infrastructure levy. He preferred to oppose the transportation package.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out if Mr. Doubleday was directed to only monitor the
transportation package, he would not lobby for including Edmonds’ projects.
Councilmember Plunkett commented even if the word monitor was added, Mr. Doubleday could contact
the City to ask whether they wanted to be more supportive.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas questioned why the Council wanted to monitor the transportation
package if they wanted the Edmonds projects included. It seemed logical to direct Mr. Doubleday to
pursue inclusion of the projects versus monitoring.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the amendment to monitor the transportation package.
Mayor Earling commented the top priorities were not listed in priority order. He preferred to give
direction to Mr. Doubleday that all the priorities are important and provide specific advice to Mr.
Doubleday during the session.
Councilmember Plunkett explained he proposed changing support to monitor due to unknowns regarding
the transportation package. When the legislature proposes a package, Mr. Doubleday can inform the
Council and the Council can make a decision at that time. The transportation package as currently
proposed was too broad for him to support.
Packet Page 379 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 8
Council President Peterson pointed out if Edmonds is only monitoring the transportation package as the
package is developed, it is unlikely the Edmonds projects will be included. He preferred to support the
transportation package due to the importance of the Edmonds projects.
Councilmember Petso asked Mr. Doubleday if the proposed amendment would prevent him from actively
working to include the Edmonds projects in the legislation. Mr. Doubleday answered yes, if it were
changed to monitor. He explained a large coalition with representatives from corporations, cities, and
counties have been working on the transportation package for two years. Councilmember Petso clarified
if Mr. Doubleday were directed to monitor the transportation package, the risk was the package would be
placed on the ballot without the Edmonds projects. Mr. Doubleday did not find changing that item to
monitor to be in the City’s best interest.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING
YES.
Councilmember Wilson asked about the bill supported by Futurewise and the environmental community
that would force more density into neighborhoods around regional transportation facilities like the ferry.
Mr. Doubleday answered he had heard nothing about that.
Amendment 6
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
MONITOR SEPA CHANGES. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT
VOTING NO.
Vote on Main Motion
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF THE 212TH AT 84TH (5 CORNERS)
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND THE CASPERS ST AT 9TH AVE W INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE 2012-2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN, CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
Mayor Earling asked if Councilmembers wished to make any disclosures. Councilmember Plunkett
pointed out this is a legislative matter. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed. There were no disclosures
made.
Mayor Earling advised there were sign-up sheets provided for audience members to indicate whether they
were pro or con without signing up to speak.
Caspers Street at 9th Avenue W Intersection Improvements
Public Works Director Phil Williams provided a photograph of the intersection northbound on 9th looking
toward SR 524 and reviewed the following:
• Existing conditions:
o Stop-controlled for northbound movement only (from 9th Ave. N, accessing SR-524)
o Currently meets LOS standards for Highways of Regional Significance (LOS E)
o Concurrency project in 2002 and 2009 Transportation Plans
o Project included in 2002 and 2009 Traffic Impact Fee calculations
• Proposed improvement:
o Traffic signal installation
o Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) (scheduled between 2018 and 2025)
o Estimated cost: $1,022,000
Packet Page 380 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 9
Mr. Williams explained taking the project out of the plans requires staff to continue to monitor the
intersection and put it back in when LOS is exceeded along with a proposed solution. Leaving it in
requires no action and none is necessary for 5-7 years. Staff recommends leaving the project in.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the traffic signal could be a blinking signal rather than the typical
red/yellow/green signal. Mr. Williams answered it could be any of a variety of options as long as it was
consistent with what the Manual on Traffic Control Devices indicates for that intersection. The type of
light or how it would function has not yet been determined or designed.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how a determination was made regarding when a traffic signal was
needed as there did not seem to be any problem now. Mr. Williams answered it is based on delay for the
northbound movement. There are numerous cars in the queue there at certain times of the day trying to
access SR 524. He agreed it currently met the LOS but the LOS was worsening.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the project could be removed now and put back in later. Mr.
Williams answered yes but taking it out would require modifying several plans as well as removing the
project from the calculation of Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) and reduces the fee collected. As a result when it
was time to make this improvement, the City would not have collected any funds for it through TIF. Only
approximately $30,000 of the cost of this project was calculated to be growth related. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas asked about putting this project back in two years. Mr. Williams answered the City
would lose two years of collection of TIF for the project. He estimated the City collected a total of
$300,000 in 2011 in TIF citywide, acknowledging little of that was for this project.
212th at 84th (5 Corners) Intersection Improvements (Roundabout)
Mr. Williams provided a conceptual drawing of the roundabout. He explained the roundabout will:
• Dramatically reduce traffic congestion (+90%)
• Reduce air pollution
• Reduce accidents
• Improve aesthetics
• Facilitate future development by eliminating LOS deficiency
• 86.5% funded by federal grant (CMAQ) and 13.5% local TIF. No impact to City’s General
Fund.
He described existing conditions:
• Stop-controlled intersection for all five approaches
• 1,700 vehicles go through intersection during PM Peak Hour. Approx.5,600,000 vehicles per year
• Identified as concurrency project in the 1995, 2002, and 2009 Transportation Plan and LOS F
• This roundabout was also identified in the City’s TIP approved each year for the last nine years
by Council after a public hearing.
• The project has been included each year since 2004 (8 years) in the City’s CFP and CIP and City
budget document. Each time it has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
Mr. Williams recognized:
• Drivers are generally opposed to roundabouts when first suggested
• Most opposition is from a lack of experience driving modern roundabouts
• Roundabouts are broadly accepted after construction and acceptance tends to increase over time
• Some equate roundabouts to east coast rotaries or traffic calming circles
Mr. Williams provided a graph illustrating only 31% of people surveyed favor a roundabout when first
proposed and 41% strongly oppose it. After the roundabout is built, the numbers change to 63% in favor
and only 15% strongly opposed. In the State of Washington 205 roundabouts have been built since 1997
Packet Page 381 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 10
and over 3,000 nationwide. He provided feedback from Gig Harbor, Sammamish, and Woodinville
regarding initial opposition to roundabouts and support of roundabouts since their installation. He
provided a photograph of a multi-lane, 6-legged asymmetrical roundabout in Gig Harbor, noting that was
about as complicated as a roundabout gets; Gig Harbor has had great success with it. He recognized there
was a certain amount of angst from residents about changing Five Corners to a roundabout, and he
assured the learning curve would not be as steep as many suspect.
Mr. Williams summarized reasons for a roundabout at Five Corners:
• Congestion relief
• Air quality improvement
• Accident reduction
• Restore acceptable LOS
• Other reasons
o Facilitate future development
o Stormwater quality/quantity improvements
o Financial prudence
Student Representative Springer asked whether the proposed roundabout was double lane or single lane.
Mr. Williams answered it was a single lane.
Mr. Williams provided a projected intersection delay comparison:
Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Roundabout
2009 115 seconds (LOS F) 50 seconds (LOS D) 10 seconds (LOS A)
2015 172 seconds (LOS F) 61 seconds (LOS E) 17 seconds (LOS B)
2025 204 seconds (LOS F) 171 seconds (LOS F) 42 seconds (LOS B)
Meets required service level No No Yes
Mr. Williams provided the following facts with regard to air quality:
• Reduces vehicle delay by 145,400 hours/year
• Cost savings to citizens of $2.54 million/year
• 92,880 gallon/year fuel savings
• 80,168 lbs. carbon reduction, carbon footprint reduced by 40 tons
• 2,500 lbs. NOx reduction
• 4,000 lbs. hydro carbon reduction
Mr. Williams commented on the accident history at the intersection noting there were eight accidents in
the past three years, four of which were fairly serious. He displayed a drawing of the current intersection
and identified potential vehicle and vehicles/pedestrians conflict points. He displayed a drawing of the
conflict points in a roundabout, pointing out there are fewer potential conflict points and they are in more
predictable locations.
Mr. Williams explained for all the reasons mentioned, a roundabout is a much safer alternative than the
current intersection or a traffic signal. He provided a graph regarding collision reduction in roundabouts,
relaying a 37% reduction in overall collisions, 75% reduction in injury collisions, 90% reduction in
fatality collisions and 40% reduction in pedestrian collisions.
With regard to aesthetics, Mr. Williams displayed a photograph of a large utility pole, explaining the pole
will be relocated as part of the project and it is hoped the utilities can be undergrounded as part of the
project. He displayed a rendering of the roundabout, commenting it is a major aesthetic improvement over
the existing intersection. He displayed photographs and renderings of the existing and proposed
conditions.
Packet Page 382 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 11
With regard to business impacts, Mr. Williams explained:
• No business relocation is required
• No changes in access are required
• Business visibility is unchanged
• Parking impacts: 1 or fewer stalls per parcel effected
• 2-3 signs relocated or replaced
• Access improved
• Redevelopment potential realized by improved LOS
Mr. Williams explained letters of support have been provided from property owners on four of the five
corners at the intersection. With regard to the statement that trucks cannot use roundabouts, Mr. Williams
displayed a drawing illustrating the path of a semi-tractor trailer making a left turn. He also noted the
following:
• Splitter islands designed for trucks
• Central island includes truck apron
• Current intersection design does not accommodate trucks for all movements
• 212th and 84th are designated truck haul routes
• Buses and emergency vehicles require less space than this vehicle
Mr. Williams summarized the benefits of a roundabout:
• Traffic flow improved by 90%
• Eliminates concurrency failure
• Opportunity to create a gateway into Edmonds
• Underground utilities
• Air quality noticeably improved
• Non-motorized transportation improved
o Bike lanes
o Flashing pedestrian beacons
o Reduction in crossing distance with splitter islands
• Drainage improvements
• Encourages future development
• Grant funded (86.5% federal grant and 13.5 local TIF)
Councilmember Plunkett disclosed he lives at Five Corners. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Williams
advised there are no stop signs proposed in the roundabout.
Councilmember Wilson observed the level of service for this intersection in the 1995, 2002 and 2009
Transportation Plans was LOS F. He asked if a building permit had ever been declined due to
concurrency issues related to LOS. Mr. Williams answered no. The intersection was identified as a
problem in the 1995 Plan due to its failed LOS but no specific solution was recommended. The
roundabout was included as the solution in the 2002 and 2009 Plans. He pointed out the intersection had a
failed LOS in all three plans but has been getting worse; only a 50 second delay is required for failure.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Swan Seaberg, Edmonds, who lives close to Five Corners, recognized the intersection as one of the
biggest hassles there is. He described driving 4-lane highway roundabouts in Sweden where traffic barely
slows. He acknowledged some people are initially shocked by a roundabout but will catch on quick. He
concluded roundabouts work well, the money will be well spent, and it will be a long term gain to the
community. He supported the roundabout.
Packet Page 383 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 12
Lila McDonald, Edmonds, a resident three blocks from Five Corners, remarked she had never seen an
accident or near accident at that intersection; drivers are respectful. She disagreed with the traffic data,
commenting she seldom waits more than two cars to go through the intersection. There is only a line of
cars between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. She opposed the roundabout.
Noel Miller, Seattle, former Edmonds Public Works Director, expressed support for both projects. When
he came to Edmonds in 1988 as a project engineer, he managed the project to improve 212th from Five
Corners to the high school. At that time engineering was beginning to discuss a roundabout for Five
Corners. He estimated he made approximately 20,000 trips through the intersection during his 22 years at
the City, traveling from Public Works to downtown. He recalled many instances when drivers were
unsure whose turn it was to proceed which resulted in traffic conflicts and delays. Installing a roundabout
would greatly reduce those situations, smooth traffic flow and increase traffic capacity of the intersection.
Renate Haberpointner, Edmonds, a resident near Five Corners, agreed the proposed roundabout looked
very nice aesthetically but she did not feel there was a need for it at this time. She pointed out traffic
volumes on the approaches to Five Corners were not equal. In her opinion the flashing red light made
drivers stop before proceeding with caution, observing common right-of-way rules. Edmonds drivers are
courteous and visitors from Europe often question how an all-way stop intersection was possible. She
suggested discourteous drivers at the intersection could provide revenue for the City if police enforcement
were increased. She concluded there were no cars at the Five Corners intersection recently at 7:30 a.m.
Port Townsend found their roundabout caused more accidents due to older drivers’ hesitation.
Doug Peterson, Edmonds, did not support the roundabout at this time. As a business owner in
Woodinville, he understood the need for the roundabouts in Woodinville due to the amount of tourists
visiting the wineries but that is not the case at Five Corners.
Bruce Faires, Edmonds, commented on the connection between potential redevelopment and the
roundabout. As a member of the Transportation Committee for two years he learned there is technology
and processes associated with the measurement of traffic and the timing of improvements. He concluded
Five Corners would be well served by redevelopment which must include a roundabout. The reasons
include: traffic technology determines the current condition is at failure; under GMA further development
at Five Corners is curtailed unless traffic improvements are made; without a roundabout a 5-legged traffic
signal will be required at a cost of $1.5 million; design and acquisition are 85% funded by a federal grant;
funds for construction would also come from grants; nothing will be done without further grants; and it
may cost the City over $1 million to stop the project. He expressed support for the roundabout, pointing
out the importance of gateway entrances to the City.
Ken Hicks, Edmonds, stated he is conditionally opposed to the roundabout. As an engineer he is aware
that transportation is a system and all intersections have factors that affect their operation, the physical
configuration and the users. His primary concern was the users of a roundabout were faced with a new set
of rules in an environment that did not support a roundabout. He was confident Edmonds residents could
manage the roundabout but was concerned with visitors navigating the roundabout. He also feared there
would be unintended consequences if the roundabout was effective and changed traffic patterns at other
intersections.
Keith Porter, Edmonds, commented he travels Five Corners 2-8/times/day, playing the whose turn is it
now game. He opposed the roundabout in its present form and urged the Council to consider other
options. He read the definition of a roundabout and how to drive in a roundabout from the Washington
Driver’s License Guide.
Packet Page 384 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 13
Darlene Stern, Edmonds, pointed out the Five Corners intersection fails GMA; any future development
at Five Corners or between Five Corners and Highway 99 could not be approved if it increased traffic at
the intersection. The roundabout was reviewed and selected by the Federal Highway Administration as a
good investment of federal dollars because of its potential to significantly improve air quality and
congestion. The Council previously committed to the project and has devoted resources of employee time
and taxpayers dollars. She did not want this to be a project where the City went through the exercise and
expense of addressing improvements and then shelves it. It will cost more to stop the project than to
complete this phase as federal funds that have been spent would need to be reimbursed. With the talk in
the community about becoming greener, she questioned the hesitancy to take advantage of this
opportunity to spend a small amount of local dollars to improve air quality. She concluded the project
would keep the City in compliance with GMA, improve air quality, and provide opportunity for the Five
Corners area to engage in a long needed upgrade in appearance and development potential. She
encouraged the City to complete the project.
Jerry Barr, Edmonds, commented he has traveled through Five Corners hundreds of times; his
experience differs from the data presented. With regard to grant funds for the roundabout, he pointed out
the grants are taxpayer dollars. He concluded the roundabout is a very expensive solution in search of a
problem and he did not think it would be money well spent.
Eric Anderson, Seattle, a property owner at Five Corners since 1998, commented he initially had
reservations regarding the roundabout and likely will continue to have concerns until a final decision is
made on the project. His primary concern was that traffic flow through the intersection not interfere with
customers entering and exiting businesses at Five Corners. His next concern was that the City did not
think much about Five Corners and concentrated its efforts on the bowl. He supported aesthetic
improvements at Five Corners to encourage people to shop there such as undergrounding utilities,
widening sidewalks, improving pedestrian crossing, etc. He was concerned that a construction project
would affect his tenants. He agreed the roundabouts in Europe were not scary to drive and drivers learn to
go with the flow. He did not plan to oppose the project until he had an opportunity to see the final plans.
Hank Landau, Edmonds, representing the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group, described their bicycle
training program in the Edmonds School District. He explained the success of a roundabout is highly
dependent on traffic speeds and volumes, the level of education and enforcement, and alternatives the
roundabout is compared to. For example roundabouts or traffic circles in residential communities can
significantly reduce risk compared to unregulated intersections; however, enforcement is important to
ensure motorists do not cut corners. Roundabouts with multi-lane or high speed traffic can be very unsafe
for bicyclists. He relayed their members are generally supportive of the proposed Five Corners
roundabout even though there may be some additional risk to bicyclists if risks are not mitigated.
Members are also motorists and concerned about the environment and want to see the benefits Mr.
Williams described as a result of the roundabout. He suggested the following mitigation measures: 1)
speeds properly controlled by traffic calming to ensure a 15-20 mph speed, 2) education for motorists and
bicyclists, and 3) enforcement for motorists and bicycles.
Dave Page, Edmonds, commented most people who voted on the My Edmonds News poll regarding the
roundabout did so using the information provided by the City: the current 115 second average wait that
will increase to 172 seconds by 2025, the 142,400 hours/year in delay for citizens and $93,000/year fuel
expenditure. He conducted his own observations on 10 consecutive weekdays at different times including
7:00 and 8:00 a.m. and 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. The longest delay he experienced during any of those
times was 57 seconds; the average time was 15 seconds. He urged the Council to delay the project and
conduct their own observation of the Five Corners intersection to verify the data.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented the disparity between those who support and oppose the
roundabout is due to each side having a different assessment of the intersection’s LOS. The bureaucrats
Packet Page 385 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 14
and some others say the intersection has a failed LOS; most motorists state they navigate the intersection
in an acceptable amount of time. The bureaucrats state a roundabout will significantly improve the quality
of the surrounding area. Walking in the area, he has never experienced any problem with air quality.
Constructing a roundabout is not a current need. Pursuing projects that may be required in the future is
spending money the country simply cannot afford at this time. Grants are taxpayers’ money and the
country often does not have money for essential projects. He recommended bringing the roundabout
project to a halt at this time and urging all communities not to seek grant funds for unessential projects.
Taxpayers need to stop state and federal governments from giving away money that should be directed
toward higher priorities or not spent at all.
Chaz Verrall, Edmonds, expressed support for the roundabout. His informal survey of commercial
drivers who service his business found that approximately 85% are in favor of a roundabout. He observed
Five Corners is a crazy intersection at times.
Tom King, Edmonds, expressed support for the Five Corners roundabout. He pointed out numerous City
vehicles go through the Five Corners intersection daily. The roundabout could provide the City significant
savings in fuel costs and employee hours.
Johnny Lewis, Edmonds, commented there were at least two things wrong with this project, 1) financial:
loss of jobs and taxes due to negative impacts on small businesses during construction, waste of public
money, and money could be better spent regulating traffic signals on 220th, 76th, 9th, SR104 and Hwy. 99
as delays in those locations are much more significant, and 2) safety and practicality: during his 30 year
experience using the intersection, delays have never caused him to be late or inconvenienced. Accidents
occur due to distracted drivers not taking turns at the Five Corners intersection. He recommended
canceling or delaying the project.
Don Hall, Edmonds, commented the presentation made it difficult to say the roundabout was not the
right thing to do. He did not support or oppose the roundabout due to the following concerns: 1) how are
pedestrians or bicyclists safer with no stop signs particularly at night, and 2) if traffic goes 15-20 mph,
drivers will not see businesses; currently they see businesses when stopped. He concluded his primary
concern was that the economic impact on businesses of traffic flows in the roundabout had not been
adequately considered.
Patrick Brady, Business Manager, Edmonds Lutheran Church, explained they lease property to the
non-profit Center for Community Youth Jeremiah Center. In 2011 more than 600 individuals, most of
them young people ages 20 and under came to the Jeremiah Center, most of them traveling on foot,
skateboards and bicycle. The Jeremiah Center and Edmonds Lutheran are in favor of the roundabout
project. Their property is the largest square footage at Five Corners and they feel the benefits to
pedestrian traffic will be very significant. They support the redevelopment of Five Corners and recognize
the use of Edmonds Lutheran property will change. The infrastructure the City provides will be the basis
on which they can continue to serve the community.
Dr. Linda Lyshell, Edmonds, a resident two blocks from Five Corners, found it a frustrating intersection
and spoke in favor of the roundabout. Her primary concern is human health due to air quality. It has been
shown repeatedly that roundabouts reduce pollutants in the atmosphere and enhance human health. Air
pollutants from vehicles are known to cause cancer, and increase rates of asthma, heart attack and cardio
pulmonary disease. She remarked more and more roundabouts are being constructed throughout the world
and they will become quite common in this area.
Chris Herman, Edmonds, agreed Five Corners was a messy intersection. He has driven numerous
roundabouts and had never seen an accident or any significant problems. Drivers at Five Corners often do
not know when to stop or go. Roundabouts work as evidenced by roundabouts in Europe. If the City does
Packet Page 386 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 15
not utilize the grant money awarded for the roundabout, the federal funds will be spent elsewhere. He
summarized the roundabout was needed to reduce pollution, enhance development, reduce congestion and
reduce drivers’ frustration and delay. He concluded the roundabout is a worthwhile project and the
opportunity should be embraced without delay.
Laura Spehar, Edmonds, commented the roundabout design is one of the smartest investments
Edmonds can make in terms of mobility, safety, environmental and physical health. This is a chance for
Edmonds to be a smart growth leader in Snohomish County. Studies show the use of stop signs and
signals at intersections guarantee that cars will contribute CO2 into the atmosphere from idling engines as
well as heavy metal particulates from vehicles’ brakes, particles that are washed into storm drains and
into Puget Sound. As a resident in areas with roundabouts, she found over time roundabouts are much
appreciated by the community. Studies show that modern roundabouts are the safest form of intersections.
This project is funded by a federal transportation grant, paying for 86.5% of the cost; the remainder is
from locally generated transportation impact fees collected from new development. It is less expensive for
the City to complete this phase of the project at Five Corners than to stop the project. Installing a 5-legged
traffic signal at the Five Corners is estimated to cost $1.5 million plus $20,000 for annual maintenance.
She concluded this was a very competitive grant. The transportation specialists that reviewed the grant
determined the Five Corners roundabout was a great investment of federal dollars. She urged the City to
move forward with the project.
Coralee Beth Snow, Edmonds, commented she often walks to the Jeremiah Center. Her experience
when crossing the street is many drivers do not know when to go and do not understand that pedestrians
have the right-of-way. She has almost been hit numerous times when crossing the street at Five Corners.
A roundabout with islands would be much safer for pedestrians. Students at Chase Lake Elementary also
cross at this intersection and it is very unsafe for small children.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Petso reported she received two emails during the public hearing.
1. Mr. Buckhold, Edmonds, urged the Council not to waste money on the Five Corners
roundabout. It works fine and will do so for some time in the future. When that time comes and
the City has money to burn, it can be revisited.
2. Mr. and Mrs. Shaw voiced their opposition to the roundabout because there is no significant
accident history at Five Corners and they have witnessed more accidents at the Bellingham
roundabouts than the Five Corners intersection. They relayed their concerns about small
businesses at Five Corners if people did not patronize them during construction.
Mayor Earling referred to a packet of correspondence provided to the Council by the City Clerk from
members of the public who supported and opposed the roundabout.
Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the list of people who signed up pro and con for the
roundabout. Mayor Earling advised the list contains 40-45 names and will be part of the public record of
the hearing.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the 40-45 people were generally opposed or supportive. Mayor
Earling answered 26 were in support and 18 were opposed.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised in the packet of correspondence, 19 were opposed and 23 were in
support.
Main Motion
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE 2012-2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Packet Page 387 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 16
City Engineer Rob English explained on December 6, the Council approved the addition of the public
market in the downtown waterfront area. He distributed revisions to the CIP and CFP that reflected that
addition.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he had voted against the CFP and CIP twice due to the roundabout.
Amendment 1
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ELIMINATE THE LIGHT AT 9TH & CASPERS.
Councilmember Petso commented she initially would have supported this motion but tonight’s
presentation made it clear the light at 9th & Caspers did not need to be removed because it was not in the
six year plan.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
PLUNKETT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, BERNHEIM, PETSO AND WILSON VOTING NO.
Amendment 2
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
REMOVE THE ROUNDABOUT AT FIVE CORNERS.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he liked a lot of things about Five Corners and would probably
support it if it included stop signs. He did not feel the traffic flow in a roundabout in an area with
businesses and residents would provide a safe situation. The only way he can currently access Main Street
from his condominium development is because cars stop at the stop sign. He envisioned removing the
stop signs would make the intersection more difficult and dangerous. He supported improvements at Five
Corners but did not feel this was the best way to do it.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support the amendment. She frequently drives roundabouts in
Woodinville and Port Orchard. When driving through Five Corners nearly every night during rush hour,
there are often 10-15 cars waiting to cross the intersection.
To those who spoke in favor of the roundabout, Councilmember Petso acknowledged they saw
opportunity in the roundabout. She did not find sufficient public support for including the roundabout and
wished a public hearing had been held earlier in the process. To Mr. Page, she explained she drove
through the Five Corners intersection tonight at 5:30 p.m. and agreed it was an effortless event.
Councilmember Buckshnis remarked she grew up in an area that had roundabouts and felt they improved
the neighborhood, improved the aesthetics and made crossing safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. To
those who were opposed, she assured it would improve the area tremendously. Businesses will see an
increase because people will walk to and around the area. This phase is funded by a grant and the City has
only spent $20,000-$30,000 so far.
Council President Peterson provided quotes from letters the Council received:
• Transportation Director, Edmonds School District: “We believe the roundabout will improve
pedestrian safety. This is critical as we have Chase Lake Elementary School nearby and that
intersection is on the walking route.”
• Fire District 1: “The Fire District supports the improvements to vehicle flow at Five Corners
where traffic commonly stalls. We see fire and emergency medical response times improved by
the proposed modifications.”
Packet Page 388 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 17
Council President Peterson concluded he would not support the proposed amendment.
Councilmember Wilson commented he has been on both sides of this issue. To the speaker Coralee Snow,
he explained he changed his vote primarily due to her comments and reminding him about the children
from Chase Lake Elementary and Jeremiah Center that cross that intersection. He did not support the
amendment.
Councilmember Bernheim explained his objective has been to encourage further discussion regarding the
roundabout.
Student Representative Springer commented his concern if the roundabout is not retained in the CFP is
the Five Corners intersection already has a failing LOS. In order for development to occur in Five
Corners, the intersection needs to be improved. More than 50% of the people support the roundabout.
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND PETSO VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Petso asked the difference between Agenda Items 9 and 10. Mr. Taraday explained Item
9 is approval of the CIP and Item 10 is approval of the CFP Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Petso confirmed both include the public market. Mr. English agreed they did.
Vote on Main Motion
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
City Engineer Rob English explained this ordinance amends the Comprehensive Plan to include the
Capital Facilities Plan.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the aquatics center at Yost Park is the $16 million version or a Yost
Pool improvement. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the aquatics center in the CFP is
the preferred option in the feasibility study, which is a complete aquatics center. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked how it could be amended to be improvements to Yost Pool. Ms. Hite suggested leaving
the aquatics center in the CFP this year and staff could bring together the committee that developed the
plan to discuss amendments.
Councilmember Bernheim commented his pet peeve project in the CFP is the $5 million art museum. He
did not feel Edmonds needed an art museum and if $5 million was provided by a federal grant, he would
still oppose it. He suggested engaging the arts community over the next year to discuss it. Hite assured
there were no plans for an arts museum.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.)
Councilmember Wilson concurred with the spirit of Councilmember Bernheim’s comments. Many of the
projects are included in the CFP, not because of great political support for them, but because there is no
reason to oppose them and none of them will be funded in the next decade. He opposed the CFP last year
and will oppose it again this year because it is not realistic. He concluded most of the projects with
perhaps the exception of the senior center and the civic playfield acquisition are pie in the sky.
Packet Page 389 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 18
Councilmember Wilson commented he participated in the aquatics study which was done concurrent with
the Lynnwood project. No one on the committee including staff felt it was realistic to propose the $16-
$23 million project but none of them thought the Council would do anything so why not include the pie in
the sky project.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3867, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION
CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
was not present for the vote.)
11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jenny Antilla, Edmonds, recalled the three proposed levies failed and the prior mayor said he had cut
the City’s budget to the bone. She questioned where the additional money will come from. One of the
national trends in public and private sectors with regard to medical costs is for employees to pay more of
their medical premiums. She recalled negotiations with one of the City’s unions earlier this year to pay
10% or $47 for themselves and each dependent toward their premium. She suggested the Council
consider having employees pay more toward their medical premiums.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
12. NON REPRESENTED SALARY AND BENEFITS STUDY: SURVEY COMPARATORS
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained Matt Weatherly, Public Sector Personnel Consultants,
made a presentation to the Council two weeks ago regarding suggested comparator cities for the salary
survey as well as policy development for non-represented employees. At Council’s direction, he
developed four options for comparator cities:
1. Puget Sound Basin (recommended by consultant)
• Cities within Snohomish, Pierce, King and Kitsap counties
• Most competitive with Edmonds staff
• No cost of living adjustment would be required
• Would need to make adjustment for cities over 75,000
2. Cities already used in Union Negotiations (alternative to Recommendation)
• Creates more consistency between unions and non-represented
3. Current “ 4 Up, 4 Down” Model (not recommended)
• Very limiting and includes many contract cities who are not comparable
• Does not provide enough cities to match positions
4. Statewide Cities, 30,000-50,000 population, cost of living differentials (not recommended)
• Very complex to administer
Ms. Hite explained in an email conversation, Councilmember Petso proposed a fifth hybrid option for
Council consideration:
5. Puget Sound area cities, 30,000-50,000 population, Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap counties
(Des Moines, Issaquah, University Place, Bothell, Lynnwood, Puyallup, Bremerton, Sammamish,
Burien and Kirkland) plus Mt. Vernon, Lacey and Olympia
• Cost of living adjustment would be necessary for Mt. Vernon which increases the complexity
of the model.
• Lacey and Olympic have similar cost of living but are outside the Puget Sound region.
Ms. Hite relayed Councilmember Petso’s recommendation for the consultant to also obtain information
on Shoreline, SeaTac, Redmond, Mountlake Terrace, Snohomish County and King County.
Packet Page 390 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 19
Councilmember Petso explained her intent was an objective method of selecting comparator cities. She
started with Puget Sound area cities 30,000-50,000 population and asked for information only for King
and Snohomish counties and Shoreline, SeaTac, Redmond, and Mountlake Terrace in response to
Councilmembers’ interest in that information. She was interested in including Lacey and Olympia
because they are comparable to Edmonds. Although Mt. Vernon is similar in size to Edmonds and in the
Puget Sound area, she was agreeable to not including Mt. Vernon because their lower cost of living could
bias the numbers or require an adjustment. Councilmember Petso clarified her suggested Option 5 was the
cities Ms. Hite indicated plus Lacey and Olympia and information on Snohomish and King counties and
Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed with including Lacey and Olympia as comparators.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
INCLUDE THE CITIES SHE PROPOSED IN THE CALCULATION AND THE FOUR
INFORMATION CITIES/COUNTIES AND SUBMIT THEM TO THE CONSULTANT FOR HIS
SALARY WORK.
Ms. Hite asked whether the intent was to remove Mt. Vernon and include Lacey and Olympia.
Councilmember Petso advised that was her intent.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the
vote.)
13. EXTENSION OF SUNSET DATE FOR CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained in June 2009 the
Council approved Ordinance No. 3735 establishing a 17-member Economic development Commission
(EDC) and establishing a sunset date of December 31, 2010. In October 2010, the Council approved
Ordinance No. 3808 extending the sunset date to December 31, 2011. At the November 2011 EDC
meeting, it was the consensus of the commissioners that the sunset date should be extended at least 1 year
and staff recommended an extension of up to 3 years. Staff recommended up to a 3 year extension,
recognizing it takes time to establish economic benefits and baseline and lay the foundation for future
development.
Regarding the appointment of EDC members, staff recommends the City Council initiate a similar
process used for selecting and appointing initial EDC members in 2009. Interested citizens would be
invited to submit an application to the City. The applications would be forwarded to the City Council for
their review and consideration. Each Councilmember would appoint two individuals to serve on the EDC
and the Mayor would appoint three. In order to maintain some continuity and institutional memory within
the EDC, staff recommends encouraging existing EDC members to apply for reappointment.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the ordinance does not state that Councilmembers will make new
appointments. Mr. Clifton explained that process is described in Ordinance No. 3735 that established the
EDC. The proposed ordinance is to extend the sunset date.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to Section 10.75.10 in the original ordinance that states the terms of
Commissioners shall be 2 years. Mr. Clifton suggested appointments be staggered. Councilmember
Bernheim supported turnover in the EDC. He was opposed to reappointing the current membership and
extending their terms for three years. He preferred to have all members reapply and establish a maximum
term of three years including time served.
Packet Page 391 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 20
Councilmember Buckshnis, Council representative on the EDC for the past two years, supported having
existing commissioners reapply. She also supported an attendance policy as some of the 17 members have
not attended meetings consistently. She remarked there is a lot of work being done by a few people.
Councilmember Petso commented she has mixed feelings about the EDC. She recognized they are doing
good work but preferred to limit the extension to one year. She supported an effort to better capitalize on
volunteers so that there was less duplication. For example, the Planning Board already works on land use
issues and the Community Technology Advisory Committee is working on fiber. She suggested the
Council consider whether the correct structure was in place to utilize volunteers.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he would not be able to vote on the extension of the EDC until he
had further clarity regarding the structure. He recalled when the EDC was created, it was his
understanding the commission would pursue economic development. Ordinance No. 3735 refers to
development of a broad range and long term strategies. Chapter 10.75.030 refers to determining new
strategies for economic development and identifying new sources of revenue for consideration for the
City Council. He did not consider a proposal to enact a fee for 911 calls as economic development.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND SECTION 10.75.030(A)(2) TO READ, “IDENTIFYING NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE
AS A DIRECT RESULT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
Mr. Clifton asked for clarification, advising there are all kinds of economic development initiatives, some
are planning related, physical capital projects, etc. He clarified the 911 fee was presented to the EDC by
one Commissioner. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the EDC unanimously endorsed that proposal.
He preferred the EDC bring the Council ideas that are the result of economic development, not a
standalone tax or fee.
Mr. Clifton responded if the Council did not want the Commission to consider taxes or fees, the EDC
could not consider a B&O tax, employee head tax, etc. which EDCs typically review. Councilmember
Plunkett responded he was not interested in the EDC making a recommendation to increase/decrease
taxes. It was his understanding the EDC would create economic development that increased the City’s
economic base.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Plunkett. He recalled in 2009 the members of the
Citizens Levy Review Committee supported a levy and an increase in economic development. The reason
for having 17 members was so each Councilmember’s voice was reflected and to capture volunteer
interest. It was not his intent for the EDC to exist in perpetuity hence the sunset date and the limited
extension. He recommended the Council set this aside, think about what they wanted from the EDC and
staff and discuss it at the Council retreat.
Council President Peterson agreed the EDC should not be spending their time considering 911 fees. He
disagreed the EDC should not consider other government actions that directly affect businesses such as a
B&O tax or head tax. He suggested the Council give direction to staff and the two Council liaisons.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the intent of the EDC was to create new economic development, not
to recommended taxes on businesses and certainly not 911 fees.
Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s suggestion to discuss the extension of the
EDC at the Council retreat. She also had concerns with what constituted economic development. For
example she was less interested in construction of residential units and more interested in business
recruitment and retention.
Packet Page 392 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 21
Council President Peterson asked whether the EDC sunsets at the end of the year if the Council takes no
action. Mr. Clifton answered yes. Council President Peterson agreed with discussing the EDC’s mission
at the Council retreat but did not want the EDC to sunset and then need to be restarted.
Councilmember Petso suggested extending the sunset date for the EDC to February 28, 2012 with the
understanding it would be discussed at the Council retreat.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO. (Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3868, AMENDING
THE PROVISIONS OF EDC 10.75.010(B) IN ORDER TO EXTEND A SUNSET DATE FOR THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY SIX (36)
MONTHS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
During a discussion regarding what motion/amendments were appropriate, City Attorney Jeff Taraday
explained the motion the Council approved was to amend Section 10.75.030. The recommended action is
to approve the ordinance in the packet extending the sunset date.
Mayor Earling suggested extending the EDC for 120 days.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3836, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDC
10.75.010(B) IN ORDER TO EXTEND A SUNSET DATE FOR THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY SIX (36) MONTHS.
Amendment 1
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE SUNSET DATE FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION TO 120 DAYS.
Amendment 2
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND SECTION 10.75.010(B) SO THAT THE DATE OF COMMISSIONERS’ TERMS
PARALLEL THE 120 DAYS. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
It was the consensus of the Council to retain the existing Commissioners for the 120 extension.
Vote on Amendment 1
AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. (Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
Vote on Main Motion.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
14. TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP – SEEKING CITY OF EDMONDS SUPPORT.
Public Works Director Phil Williams recalled one of the key items in the City’s 2012 Legislative Agenda
was developing a thoughtful transportation package. The Transportation Partnership is a coalition of 75
organizations including labor groups, environmental groups, businesses, Chambers of Commerce,
transportation organizations, and local governments. This would add Edmonds to the list of local
governments working individually as well as collectively with the coalition.
Packet Page 393 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 22
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP.
Councilmember Wilson expressed his opposition, commenting although it was a great package, it was a
misplaced priority for the State. The priority should be education, higher education, and health care and
there should not be multiple items on the ballot. This is the formational organization to support the
campaign that will occur. Support for this organization is implicit support for the campaign as it moves
forward in the legislative session as well as on the ballot this fall. By attaching its name to this effort,
Edmonds is stating this is the top revenue priority for the State which he did not believe was appropriate.
Mr. Williams responded this also gives the City an opportunity to assist with designing a transportation
package.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support for education, noting there are many important
priorities and this is one of them.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas was not present for the vote.)
15. REPORT ON FINAL PROJECT COSTS FOR 1025 12TH AVE N STORM SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
City Engineer Rob English reported this was a successful project that corrected a problem dating back to
the 1960s, a 12-inch storm line located beneath the Sheldon’s house. How the house was built over the
storm line in the 1960s is unclear but it resulted in erosion on the hillside as more stormwater was
directed to the system. This project was included in the Capital Improvement Program and completed this
year. The property owner, Ms. Sheldon, attended a Community Services/Development Services
Committee meeting earlier this year expressing her support for the project. Her letter of thanks is included
in the Council packet. He thanked Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Schuster and Project
Manager Pam Lemcke for their efforts.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO ACCEPT THE FINAL PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
16. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 13, 2011.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Petso reported the Committee discussed the COLA for non-represented staff and
confirmed COLAs could be awarded retroactively after the salary study is complete. Staff provided a
General Fund update for October 2011 that displays fund balance rather than working capital. The
Committee is also working on a Reserve Policy to determine appropriate reserve levels.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Plunkett reported all the items discussed by the Committee were approved on the
Consent Agenda except outdoor dining which will be presented to the Council in the near future.
Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Bernheim reported the Committee discussed an extension of a DNA testing contract and
the governor’s proposed petition to the DEA requesting that cannabis for medical use be reclassified from
a schedule I drug to a schedule II drug for medical use.
Packet Page 394 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 23
17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling thanked Councilmembers Bernheim and Wilson for their service, recognizing the amount
of time both devoted to the position.
Mayor Earling reported he has been invited to a gathering of mayors to discuss transportation issues.
18. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Wilson commented it had been a tremendous honor to serve the citizens of Edmonds,
serve with this Council and serve with staff. He thanked several staff members including Senior
Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman, Police Chief Al Compaan, Public Works Director Phil
Williams, Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Schuster, Planning Manager Rob Chave, and
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out democracy is a fragile thing; public service is important and comes in
many ways. When citizens vote they commit a public service but the word voter is not considered a bad
word. When citizens serve on jury duty, they do not think being a juror is a bad thing. When a citizen
serves as an elected official, the term politician is a bad word. Councilmember Wilson emphasized being
a politician is not a bad thing; he has been honored to be a member of a Council constituted by regular
folks doing the best they can. He acknowledged their best sometimes is not good enough but it will
always be better by citizens being engaged and involved. He urged the public not to assume the worst of
politicians; they were doing the best they can. He wished everyone the best in the future.
Councilmember Petso thanked Councilmembers Wilson and Bernheim for their service and requested
both stay involved. She reported the Public Facilities District will bring term limit changes to the Council
along with a change in the PFD Board’s meeting date and time.
Councilmember Petso reported the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) has scheduled an action item regarding
the financing plan for the December 21 Finance Committee meeting, a plan that neither the Council nor
she has seen. Finance Director Shawn Hunstock will accompany her to the meeting. The RFA process is
entering the phase where jurisdictions will begin manipulations to their jurisdiction’s best advantage. She
was disappointed to see that phase arrive as she has enjoyed the cooperative efforts. The Council will also
begin to receive presentations and information.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked Councilmembers Bernheim and Wilson for their service.
Council President Peterson thanked Councilmembers Wilson and Bernheim for their service, commenting
they have helped move Edmonds forward on an environmental and global level and they have been
engaged with citizens as well as local and regional elected officials. He wished everyone a Merry
Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Councilmembers Wilson and Bernheim for their service. She thanked
everyone who donated to gift giving trees, reporting they were able to fulfill over 357 gifts.
Councilmember Bernheim encouraged the Council to maintain the tradition of rotating the Council
President on the basis of seniority, finding that helped to depoliticize the process. He thanked several City
employees including Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton and City
Clerk Sandy Chase, commenting both work extremely hard at very difficult jobs and their work product is
very competent and at a high level.
Packet Page 395 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 20, 2011
Page 24
Councilmember Bernheim expressed his confidence in the future City Council and looked forward to
Council activities in the coming year. He cited the importance of the Council’s decision-making process;
if the process is just and fair, everyone can live with the results even if some mistakes are made along the
way. He thanked citizens Finis Tupper, John Reed, Betty Mueller and Roger Hertrich for their assistance
over the past four years. He concluded serving on the Council had been a great experience.
19. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:14 p.m.
Packet Page 396 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
January 23, 2012
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
Strom Peterson, Council President
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember (arrived
8:35 p.m.)
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Alex Springer, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Carl Nelson, CIO
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Jen Machuga, Planner
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(b) AND LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER RCW 42.30.140(4)(b).
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would convene in executive session
regarding a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(b) and labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He
stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the
Police Training Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a
result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor
Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Plunkett, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others
present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sharon Cates, Community Services/Economic
Development Director Stephen Clifton, Parks and Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Finance Director
Shawn Hunstock, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Police Chief Al Compaan, Executive Assistant
Caroline Thompson, Human Resources Consultant Tara Adams, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:56
p.m., Ms. Chase announced to those present in the Council Chambers that the executive session would be
extended for 20 minutes. The executive session concluded at 7:20 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:25 p.m. and led the flag salute.
Announcement Regarding Strategic Plan Surveys
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton asked for citizens’ assistance with
completing the strategic planning and visioning adult, young adult, employee, customer and business
owner surveys. Responses to the surveys have increased as a result of 11,000 emails sent out yesterday,
press releases and notices posted on My Edmonds News, Edmonds Patch, and KOMO 4. The intent of the
Packet Page 397 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 2
surveys is to help understand residents’ needs, priorities, and vision for the community. The adult, young
adult and employee surveys are available on the City’s website, Edmondswa.gov.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as
follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2012.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2012.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #129744 THROUGH 129870 DATED JANUARY 5,
2012 FOR $1,569,393.03, AND CLAIM CHECKS #129871 THROUGH #130016 DATED
JANUARY 12, 2012 FOR $831,006.46.
E. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #51106 THROUGH 51139
FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 16, 2011 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2011 FOR
$679,486.49.
F. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LORALEE OSWALD
($694.58), SHARON L. ROMA ($305.32), AND SIMON ZIRIANS ($1,324.75).
G. APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD,
DECEMBER 2011.
H. PURCHASING POLICY UPDATE
I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ARTS COMMISSION RECOMMENDED
CONTRACTS FOR TOURISM PROMOTION FUNDING FOR LOCAL CULTURAL
ORGANIZATIONS.
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE RECYCLING GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR 2012-2013.
K. INVESTMENT POLICY
L. MEMBERSHIP IN ECONOMIC ALLIANCE SNOHOMISH COUNTY.
M. REAPPOINTMENT OF LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
2012.
Packet Page 398 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 3
N. REAPPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL MESTRES AND BRUCE "MICK" O'NEIL TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR ANOTHER TERM.
O. REAPPOINTMENT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONER LARRY
VOGEL.
4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING DRAFT REVISIONS TO THE OUTDOOR DINING
REGULATIONS OF ECDC 17.75 AND ADDITION OF A DEFINITION OF OUTDOOR DINING
TO ECDC 21.75. (FILE NO. AMD20110005)
Planner Jen Machuga explained the City’s current regulations allow outdoor dining outright as a
secondary use for an additional 10% of the existing interior seating or 8 seats, whichever is greater. If the
restaurant wishes to have more than 10% of the interior seats or 8 seats, a Type III-A Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) is required. The cost of a CUP is approximately $1500 and is reviewed by the Hearing
Examiner. The current process is cost prohibitive especially for small businesses who want to add a few
seats over the limit.
Ms. Machuga reviewed a timeline for the code revision process:
• May 25, 2011 – Planning Board discussion
• July 13, 2011 – Planning Board hearing
• August 10, 2011 – Planning Board continued hearing
• December 13, 2011 – CS/DS Council Committee discussion
• January 23, 2012 – City Council hearing
Ms. Machuga reviewed the Planning Board’s recommendation:
• Outdoor dining permitted outright if one of the following criteria are met:
1. Site is not directly adjacent to residentially-zoned properties; or
2. Site complies with landscaping requirements along property lines adjacent to residentially-
zoned properties; or
3. Dining area is screened from residential properties by a building and/or 4-foot wall, hedge, or
fence; or
4. Dining area contains no more than 10% of interior seating or 12 seats, whichever is greater.
• If site is adjacent to residentially-zoned property, the dining area shall be closed between 10:00
PM and 7:00 AM
• Requires a Type III-A CUP if requesting exemption from the four criteria or the hours of
operation.
• Updated the definition of outdoor dining in the code
Ms. Machuga displayed drawings illustrating what the proposed code language would allow with regard
to screening for a restaurant with outdoor dining adjacent to residentially-zoned property. She noted if a
restaurant wanted outdoor dining and did not provide landscaping/screening, they could seek a CUP. She
provided several photographs to illustrate how existing outdoor dining areas are screened.
Mayor Earling complimented Ms. Machuga’s presentation and also requested staff footnote acronyms in
their presentations in the future.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the zoning where Rory’s is located allows them to have outdoor
dining later than 10:00 p.m. Ms. Machuga answered Rory’s is in the Downtown Business (BD) zone and
does not have the limitation on hours in the outdoor dining code because it is not directly adjacent to
residentially-zoned property. Any outdoor dining area is subject to the City’s noise ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed Rory’s could have outdoor dining until 2:00 a.m. Ms. Machuga
answered yes. She recalled Rory’s had a CUP in 2004 for a potential additional/remodel that eventually
did not occur which limited their hours.
Packet Page 399 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 4
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the $1500 fee applied only to the CUP. Ms. Machuga agreed it did.
Councilmember Bloom asked if there was any fee associated with applying for outdoor dining. Ms.
Machuga answered a permit would not be required if the restaurant was adding seats to an existing area
but there may be fees associated with the creation of a new outdoor dining area that requires design
review. Those fees are much less expensive compared to a CUP.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Pam Stuller, Richmond Beach, owner of Walnut Street Coffee, expressed her support for the proposed
change to the code language. She anticipated the change would encourage a more lively and interactive
downtown which is beneficial to small businesses as well as residents.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, questioned the purpose of the 4-foot fence, commenting a fence in a
residential area was required to be 5-feet. He pointed out most of the examples staff provided buffered the
outdoor dining area from the street and none of them illustrated an outdoor dining area adjacent to a
residentially-zoned property. He questioned whether consideration had been given to outdoor dining in
buildings downtown where there is residential on the second floor. He questioned whether there was a
difference between dining and drinking in outdoor dining areas.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the fence for an outdoor dining area adjacent to a residentially-zoned
property was only required to be 4 feet in height. Ms. Machuga answered that was the Planning Board’s
recommendation for one of the four criteria; the 4-foot fence would not be required if the outdoor dining
area met the landscaping requirement or have less than 10% of the number of interior seats or 12 seats
whichever is greater. Councilmember Plunkett summarized if the outdoor dining area did not meet the
other criteria, they would be required to have a fence and if the outdoor dining area were adjacent to a
residentially-zoned property, the fence would only be 4-feet in height. Ms. Machuga agreed.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Planning Board or staff discussed the concept of 6-foot fences in
residential areas. Ms. Machuga responded a fence is not required to be 6 feet in height in a residential
neighborhood; that is the maximum height. The Planning Board originally discussed a 6-foot height but
felt more architectural interest could be provided by allowing a 4-foot fence and the business owner could
add a trellis. As one of the examples illustrated, if a 6-foot fence were required, it was feared it would be a
solid plain cedar fence rather than a 4-foot fence with a decorative trellis, flower boxes, etc. The Planning
Board also discussed that the height of people seated in an outdoor dining area is closer to the 4-foot
height. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out it was not required to add a trellis or other architectural
feature above the 4-foot fence adjacent to a house. Ms. Machuga agreed a 4-foot fence with nothing
above could be provided.
Councilmember Petso referred to the four criteria, observing that under the proposed language a
restaurant with 11 outdoor seats adjacent to a house would not require a fence, screening or CUP. Ms.
Machuga agreed.
Councilmember Bloom observed an outdoor dining area adjacent to a residentially-zoned property must
close at 10:00 p.m. Ms. Machuga answered yes, unless they applied for and received a CUP. The CUP is
a Type III-A process before the Hearing Examiner that includes public notice, public hearing, etc. With
regard to adjacent to residentially-zoned property, she clarified that meant a shared property line. There
are few commercial properties downtown directly adjacent to residential properties; there is either a street
or alley separating them. In those cases, the restaurant would meet the first criteria, not directly adjacent
to residentially-zoned property.
Packet Page 400 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 5
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECT
THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE HOURS FOR SITES ADJACENT TO
RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY THAT THE DINING AREA BE CLOSED BETWEEN
9:00 P.M. AND 8:00 A.M.
Councilmember Petso explained the hours she proposed were consistent with the hours in the Home
Occupation Ordinance.
Councilmember Bloom inquired about the Home Occupation Ordinance. Councilmember Petso explained
the City’s Home Occupation Ordinance regulates home-based businesses in residential areas. Those
businesses are required to be closed between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Because outdoor dining areas would
be permitted immediately adjacent to a residential area, she proposed changing the hours to match the
hours in the Home Occupation Ordinance. Councilmember Bloom asked if that requirement was related
to noise. Councilmember Petso responded yes.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON
VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote).
Councilmember Petso suggested requiring that outright permitted outdoor dining meet both criteria 1 and
4 and either criteria 2 or 3. Student Representative Springer questioned the requirement to meet both
criteria 1 and 4 and the reasoning for changing the hours if a site was not adjacent to residentially-zoned
property. Councilmember Petso explained her intent was if a site is adjacent to residentially-zoned
property, the outdoor dining area would not be permitted outright unless screening was provided.
Student Representative Springer asked if an establishment could apply for a CUP if their outdoor dining
was not outright permitted. Ms. Machuga answered yes. Councilmember Petso suggested if an applicant
did not meet criteria 1 and 4, they be required to apply for a CUP.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were any outdoor dining establishments adjacent to
residentially-zoned property. Ms. Machuga could not think of any. Ms. Machuga clarified under
Councilmember Petso’s proposal, for an outdoor dining area to be allowed outright, it could not be
directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property, there would be a limit on the number of seats and
screening would be required either by landscaping or a fence. She summarized that was just as restrictive
as the existing regulations.
Councilmember Petso commented her proposal would apply to Five Bistro which is adjacent to single
family residential and potential redevelopment in Firdale Village and Five Corners where outdoor dining
could be immediately adjacent to someone’s yard. Ms. Machuga explained there is a single family house
next door to Five Bistro that is on the same Neighborhood Business (BN) zoned lot. Using that as an
example, under the Planning Board’s proposal, outdoor dining would be allowed outright because it
would not be directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property.
With regard to examples of outdoor dining adjacent to residentially-zoned property, Ms. Machuga
referred to examples of CUP granted for Five Bistro, Scott’s Bar & Grill and Penara; none of those are
directly adjacent to residentially-zoned properties. Under the Planning Board’s proposal, they would have
been outright permitted without a CUP. Under Councilmember Petso’s proposal a CUP would be required
due to the number of seats.
Packet Page 401 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 6
Student Representative Springer questioned the reason for requiring criteria 4, limiting outdoor dining to
10% of interior seating or 12 seats whichever is greater, if the site is not directly adjacent to residentially-
zoned property.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING TO BE PERMITTED OUTRIGHT
ONLY IF IT MEETS CRITERIA 1 AND ONE OF THE OTHER THREE CRITERIA.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he would support the amendment as the ordinance would come back to
the Council for approval.
Ms. Machuga asked if Councilmember Petso’s intent was outdoor dining would be permitted outright as a
secondary use if the site is not directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property, and it meets one of
criteria 2-4, and outdoor dining directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property would require a CUP
regardless of the number of seats. Councilmember Petso responded that was her intent.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed his understanding of the amendment was any application for outdoor
dining adjacent to residentially-zoned property would require a CUP no matter what. If the application for
outdoor dining was for a property that was not adjacent to residentially-zoned property, it might not need
a CUP as long as one of criteria 2, 3 or 4 is met.
Student Representative Springer commented it was unfair toward businesses adjacent to residentially
zoned property because it forced them to pay the $1500 fee for a CUP. He pointed out the hours for
outdoor dining had already been limited which was sufficient for outdoor dining adjacent to residentially-
zoned property.
Councilmember Plunkett commented it was imminently fair because a business that is next to a residence
should be held to a higher standard.
Council President Peterson agreed with Student Representative Springer. The Planning Board’s proposal
with the change in hours was restrictive enough. The point of the Planning Board’s recommendation was
to create business opportunities; making the regulations more restrictive defeats that purpose. He did not
support the proposed amendment.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-3); COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT, BUCKSHNIS AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote).
Mr. Taraday explained Mayor Earling was unable to vote to break the tie because this ultimately would
come back to the Council as an ordinance.
Student Representative Springer supported limiting the dining hours to 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., pointing
out during Daylight Savings Time, the sun sets later and limiting dining hours to 9:00 p.m. would require
patrons to be seated by 8:00 p.m. He concluded the 9:00 p.m. time limit reduced access to the outdoor
seating area particularly during the longer summer days.
Councilmember Petso recalled the Home Occupation Ordinance that was adopted in the name of
economic development and the ensuing public outcry about what could occur in a single family
neighborhood. The Council subsequently limited the hours. If someone sited a restaurant off her back
fence and was allowed to have outdoor dining until 10:00 p.m. she would likely have to move as she
would find that highly unsatisfactory.
Packet Page 402 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 7
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER
PETSO VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote).
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Laura Spehar, Edmonds, shared a story about a friend who is gay that was a victim of a hit-and-run
accident and whose 20-year partner was not allowed into the emergency room or given information about
her condition because she was not recognized as a relative or spouse. The victim also had no medical
insurance at the time of the accident; her partner worked for the State but was not allowed to include her
partner on her medical insurance policy. She and her husband felt it an unjustified privilege to obtain
medical insurance, rights, marriage certificate, and acceptance when they married only because they are a
non-gay couple. She urged the Council to remember her friends’ story when voting on the resolution in
support of marriage equality and adding marriage equality to the 2012 legislative agenda. She viewed her
friends’ 20-year relationship as a partnership that should be recognized. Unfortunately due to various
beliefs, misinformation, lack of education, the United States is still behind in addressing this issue.
Christopher Querubin, Edmonds, explained he met his spouse in 2007, they became domestic partners
in 2010 and they were married in Connecticut in 2011. He asked for the Council support for the resolution
in support of marriage equality. He has requested a meeting with Senator Paull Shin on Friday. He
supported marriage equality at the state and federal level. His husband is a business owner based in
Edmonds and they hire veterans.
Royce Napolitano, Edmonds, urged the Council to support the resolution in support of marriage
equality, noting there are many families that need this. Although the votes at the state level are promising,
he urged Council to take a stand to demonstrate support from grassroots and not just an overall populous.
Dave Page, Edmonds, spoke regarding the resolution in support of marriage equality. He pointed out the
Council was non-partisan but marriage equality was a partisan issue. He noted various churches in
Edmonds that do not support marriage equality. Observing that the vast majority of the Council’s
constituency was conservative, if the Council did not pass the resolution, the liberals in the community
would call the Council right-wing nuts; if the Council passes the resolution and declare their partisanship,
the right-wing nuts will think the Council are crazy left-leaning liberals. He concluded right or wrong was
not the issue, the legislature will pass marriage equality legislation and there is no need for the Council to
commit on this topic. He requested Council pull this item from the agenda.
Don Hall, Edmonds, expressed concern with the process related to Agenda Items 6 and 10. With regard
to Item 6, he pointed out it was on the Consent Agenda on the Tuesday, January 17 meeting that was
canceled due to snow. He supported the change to place it on the agenda for tonight’s meeting because
when the charge of a commission is being changed, the public should know which Councilmembers want
the changes and why. He questioned whether those in favor of the changes had attended any of the
Economic Development Commission’s (EDC) meetings or discussed their concerns with the commission.
Scheduling such a change on the Consent Agenda was a poor example of open government. With regard
to Agenda Item 10, he commented this is another poor example of open government because the public
was given very little notice this issue would be on the Council agenda, giving no opportunity for the local
newspaper to publish articles and it was not listed as a public hearing. The public has not had an
opportunity to express their opinion unless they did so to the legislature. He concluded Agenda Item 10
was rushed for political reasons, a poor example of open government.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Page and Mr. Hall with regard to Agenda Item 10. He
pointed out the Seattle City Council passed a resolution in support of marriage equality and questioned
whether Edmonds wanted to use Seattle as its standard of excellence. With regard to the roundabout, he
explained a preponderance of citizens have expressed opposition to the project. Their opposition is not
Packet Page 403 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 8
due to ignorance of roundabouts; it is because the roundabout is not needed and is a make-work project.
He questioned the $2 million estimate to construct the roundabout when only 10% of design had been
completed. Observing the estimated design cost is $500,000 or 25% of the construction cost, he
anticipated the construction cost would be more than $2 million. He requested one of the three
Councilmembers who voted in favor of the roundabout, Councilmembers Buckshnis, Fraley-Monillas and
Peterson, propose a motion for reconsideration and to hold another public hearing.
Jeff Coe, Edmonds, spoke with regard to the resolution in support of marriage equality, and objected to
the use of religion against marriage equality. As a person of faith, he knew the repercussions of using
religion against marriage equality and that religion in and of itself was not able to change his core value
as a person. He was thankful the state was considering the issue of marriage equality as it was not right or
just that he as a gay man did not have the same rights as everyone else. The constitution states everyone is
created equal; he is not equal. He read a statement from Senator Haugen who stated she has strong
Christian beliefs and it is not her role to judge others regardless of her personal beliefs. It was about
representing others including people who may believe differently than she and ensuring everyone has the
same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that she enjoys. Mr. Coe urged
the Council to take a stand, anticipating in 20-50 years the public would see the right side and like so
many things the Church once believed and held true, they no long believe and hold true.
Jim Wilkinson, Edmonds, commented he emailed Senator Shin last week stating that in his 30-year real
estate career he has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes and asking why he, a gay man, should
not have the same benefits as others. Many of the arguments are from Christian beliefs and he has studied
theology. He suggested the Council ask themselves what Jesus would think about the money being spent
on this issue when children are going hungry.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, stated this is the wrong place to take up the issue of marriage equality; the
state is addressing it. He did not elect the Council to make that type of decision or forward a resolution on
the topic to the legislature. He urged Councilmembers to abstain and allow those who are supporting the
resolution to vote on it. His personal opinion was marriage was different than a civil union and civil
unions gave people all the rights of marriage. With regard to Agenda Item 6, he referred to the first
recommendation Resolution 1224 passed in January 2010 that the City needed a full-time Economic
Development Director. If the Council was not considering a full-time Economic Development Director,
he suggested that recommendations be removed from the list. He also suggested a better description be
provided of the business centers plans that are mentioned in Resolution 1224. He preferred the EDC
pursue the marketing plan for tourism development that is mentioned in Resolution 1224.
Mark Moffitt, Edmonds, urged Council to vote in favor of the resolution supporting marriage equality.
Edmonds has shown it can be progressive on issues such as the environment; the City is now in a position
to make a statement to the community that they support the basic human right for one adult to marry
another adult regardless of gender. Even though the news reports the House and the Senate will pass the
bills, he wanted Edmonds to show they are on the leading edge of positive and progressive change.
6. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 10.75.030(A)(2) TO
READ, "IDENTIFY NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL."
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3869, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, TITLE 10.75.030
RELATED TO THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked staff to address Mr. Hertrich’s question regarding a full-time Economic
Development Director. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained
Packet Page 404 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 9
he has been functioning as the Economic Development Director since November 2007. With the number
of hours he puts in, he considered himself a full-time Economic Development Director. He also serves as
the Community Services Director and receives a full-time salary to perform those two capacities.
With regard to the scheduling of this item on the agenda, Council President Peterson explained the
Council originally discussed and approved the proposed language change on December 20. It is the
Council’s practice to schedule ordinances on matters the Council has previously approved on the Consent
Agenda. It was rescheduled on the agenda at the request of a Councilmember to allow discussion.
Although he initially voted in favor of the language change, he no longer supported the change due to his
concern it was too restrictive to allow the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to proceed with a
number of projects they have been discussing. He preferred to leave that discussion for the retreat as well
as hear more from EDC members about the proposed language change. The EDC and next steps will be
an agenda item on the Council’s February 2 and 3 retreat.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the proposed language change which directs the EDC to
identify new sources of revenue as a direct result of economic development. He recalled Councilmember
Wilson agreed this was the intent of the EDC, to concentrate on economic development. The Council will
discuss economic development and appointments to the EDC at the retreat. He intended to appoint a
person already serving on the EDC as he did not want a wholesale change. The proposed language simply
clarifies the intent of the Council with regard to the EDC.
Councilmember Yamamoto, former Chair of the EDC, questioned why this change was being made now
when the EDC has been in place since June 2009. As Council President Peterson stated, the proposed
language limits the EDC’s creativity. The EDC needs to be creative and think outside the box. The
purpose of economic development is to create new revenues which is difficult to do without thinking
outside the box.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas arrived at the meeting at 8:35 p.m.)
Councilmember Bloom expressed similar concerns as those expressed by Council President Peterson and
Councilmember Yamamoto, questioning the need to change the language. She preferred to have further
discussion before voting and will vote no at this time.
Councilmember Petso explained her understanding was the language change was in part brought about
because the EDC was proposing new taxes and fees rather than focusing on economic development.
Councilmember Bloom asked for more specifics regarding taxes and fees. Councilmember Plunkett
responded the EDC was put in place for economic development. The EDC recently made a proposal to
tax or charge a person or their insurance company if they called 911. To him, that was not economic
development. The EDC, according to the Councilmember who proposed the commission, was to focus on
economic development, expanding possibilities. He recognized Councilmember Bloom’s interest in
promoting tourism, commenting the EDC has not said much about that recently. The EDC has made a
proposal for taller buildings under certain conditions and generate revenue via a pass along to insurance
companies; neither of which he viewed as economic development. The EDC has not addressed how to
enhance and improve the arts, the parks, the walkways, the beaches, or how to bring more people into
town to shop and generate more taxes.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Council appropriated $100,000 to the EDC for economic
development and that is what they should concentrate on. The proposed language simply ensures the
EDC’s ideas address economic development. He summarized he could develop a lot of ways to tax
residents such as casinos, parking meters, a B&O tax, or a charge for calling 911, all without a $100,000
Packet Page 405 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 10
appropriation to the EDC. He wanted the EDC to develop out of the box, expansive economic
development ideas. He supported having further discussion regarding economic development at the
retreat. If the EDC does not talk about economic development and economic development only, their
charge is too broad.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for having an open dialogue at the Council retreat.
Councilmember Yamamoto commented there may be a misunderstanding about what economic
development is. Economic development includes fundraising and generating new revenue and creating
new revenues streams. He agreed with having further discussion at the retreat.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed with having further discussion at the retreat as well as approving the
proposed ordinance.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3-1), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS,
PLUNKETT AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND YAMAMOTO VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER
FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING.
Mayor Earling explained because the vote is in regard to an ordinance, he cannot vote to break the tie.
Councilmember Plunkett voiced a point of order, stating the only reason Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
had to abstain was lack of knowledge. This ordinance was in the Council packet and had been a topic of
discussion in December. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded she was not present for the
Council’s entire discussion regarding this item. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the motion was to
change the language to “identify new source of revenue that are a direct result of economic development
projects for consideration of the City Council.”
Council President Peterson suggested including a discussion regarding the language change on the retreat
agenda.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she did not feel she had enough information to vote on the
motion. She preferred to discuss it further at the Council retreat.
Mayor Earling suggested this item be scheduled for action on a future agenda following discussion at the
retreat.
7. PRESENTATION BY CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING OVERVIEW OF LAWS RELATING TO
COUNCILMEMBERS.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the purpose of this presentation was to assist Councilmembers with
identifying issues in their role. He advised there were several informative publications regarding
municipal law available on the Municipal Research Services Center website.
With regard to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine (AFD), Mr. Taraday explained the AFD arises for
Councilmembers in Edmonds more often than in other cities because Edmonds Councilmembers have
more opportunity to touch the land use process than Councilmembers in other cities. The purpose of the
AFD is that land use processes be fair and appear to be fair. Most of the time Councilmembers act as
legislators when addressing policy and budget issues and can be lobbied by their constituents on those
matters and need not disclose that lobbying before voting on an ordinance. The AFD recognizes that
Councilmembers are occasionally required to act as judges. As a quasi-judge, it is important for
Packet Page 406 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 11
Councilmembers to remember to be impartial and hear both sides of the story before making a decision
on a land use matter.
Mr. Taraday clarified not all land use matters have the potential to come to the Council. He referenced a
table in ECDC 20.01.003(B) that identifies the procedures for development project permit application and
the City Council’s potential role in those applications. Type III-B permits, which include essential public
facilities, shoreline permits, variances, preliminary formal plat, and preliminary Planned Residential
Developments, have the potential to come before the Council on a closed record appeal. The Council has
the potential to sit as appellate judges when the Hearing Examiner has already made a decision on a land
use application and someone files an appeal. As an appellate judge, the Council cannot take new evidence
and must make their decision based on the record created by the Hearing Examiner after hearing
arguments from the parties. For example if a person began talking to a Councilmember about a variance
coming before the Hearing Examiner, a Councilmember must remember that it has the potential to come
to the Council on appeal. He suggested whenever a Councilmember was not certain they check whether
the permit could come to the Council on appeal.
With regard to Type IV-A permit applications which include final formal plat and final Planned
Residential Developments, there is a staff presentation to Council and a vote. No hearing is held because
it is not a discretionary decision at that point; the discretion has occurred during the preliminary plat
process. The final plat process is simply to ensure that the preliminary plat has been complied with.
Type IV-B permit applications which include site specific rezones are also closed record hearings before
the Council but unlike the closed record appeal hearing described above, these are closed record pre-
decision hearings. In this case Councilmembers are sitting as judges, no decision has been made and the
Planning Board has provided a recommendation. Again, the Council cannot take new evidence. He
clarified if anyone tried to talk to a Councilmember about a site specific rezone, those always come to the
Council and a Councilmember should not discuss it outside the hearing. The constituent interested in
talking to a Councilmember will have an opportunity to do so at the hearing. He referred to a potential
exception in the AFD contained in RCW 42.36.070 with regard to site specific rezone applications. The
statute states participation by a member of a decision-making body in earlier proceedings that result in an
advisory recommendation to a decision-making body shall not disqualify that person from participating in
any subsequent quasi judicial proceeding. The language appears to suggest a Councilmember could
participate in an open record hearing at the Planning Board on a site specific rezone application. As the
City Attorney he did not recommend that as the AFD is intended to ensure proceedings are fair and
appear to be fair. He urged the Council to use caution as there is no case law interpreting the statute.
Councilmember Petso asked whether Robin Hood Lanes was an action that potentially could come before
the Council. Mr. Taraday answered he was not certain what project was being proposed for that property.
Councilmember Petso responded her understanding was Walgreens and a bank. Mr. Taraday clarified he
was uncertain what land use application they will apply for. If hypothetically she received an email,
Councilmember Petso asked how the email should be treated. Mr. Taraday answered an email cannot be
unreceived. He suggested Councilmembers keep such emails because they may need to be disclosed in
the future. He explained a Councilmember should not have ex parte contact with a proponent or opponent
of a land use application. If that happens, he suggested the Councilmember make a note of the contact,
who it was with, when it occurred and the substance and at the time of the AFD disclosure process,
Councilmembers who have had inadvertent ex parte contact can disclose them. Placing the substance of
the communication on the record allows the other parties to rebut the substance of the communication.
Type V permit applications are not quasi judicial, they are purely legislative. These include area-wide
rezones, zoning text amendments, development regulations, Comprehensive Plan amendments, etc.
Councilmembers are free to talk to anyone they wish about those matters. He explained if a rezone is
Packet Page 407 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 12
proposed for only one site, it is probably a site-specific rezone regardless of the amount of land associated
with the rezone. If the Council is considering changing the zoning in a significant area, that would be an
area-wide rezone.
Mr. Taraday recommended Councilmembers avoid as much as possible having contact with proponents
and opponents of a project. If a Councilmember is approached by a person regarding a matter that could
come before the Council, the Councilmember should explain that although they want to be responsive to
their concerns, the person will have an opportunity to describe their concerns at the public hearing.
Also with regard to the AFD, a Councilmember must disclose any personal interest in a land use
application. Personal interest can include financial gain, property ownership, employment by an interested
person, prospective employment by an interested person, association or membership ties, and family or
social relationship.
Prejudgment is an issue associated with AFD. It is important when sitting as a judge that Councilmembers
be as honestly open minded about an application as possible. If a Councilmember feels they cannot be
open minded and have already made up their mind before the hearing, they should recuse themselves.
Bias is similar to prejudgment; Councilmembers should ask themselves whether a fair-minded person
observing the proceedings would be able to conclude that everyone who should be heard had been heard
and the decision-makers gave reasonable faith and credit to all matters presented according to the weight
and force that they were reasonably entitled to receive.
With regard to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), Councilmember Petso explained she has tried to
restrict her communication via email to only two Councilmembers. Other Councilmembers have been told
they can blind carbon copy (bcc) each other to talk to everyone at once. Mr. Taraday explained a meeting
is not necessarily a meeting in the Council Chambers. An illegal Council meeting can occur if a quorum
of the Council is transacting the official business of City which can include a discussion. Councilmember
Petso asked why a bcc is okay but an email conversation without the bcc is not. Mr. Taraday answered it
will depend on how the bcc is used. The purpose of a bcc is to ensure that email communication is one
way. It is permissible to passively receive information outside a Council meeting via email, mail, etc.
under the OPMA. As soon as passive receipt of information morphs into discussion, it is a meeting and if
that meeting involves a quorum, it is an illegal meeting under the OPMA. For example, when he emails
the Council, he bccs the Council to prevent an accidental violation of the OPMA via a Reply All response
to all Councilmembers.
Councilmember Plunkett provided another example: she was exchanging emails with two
Councilmembers regarding an agenda topic and a fourth Councilmember offered to join the discussion.
She asked if she could have a discussion with the fourth Councilmember outside a public meeting. Mr.
Taraday answered it may depend on how Councilmember Petso talked to the fourth Councilmember. It
would not be acceptable for her to forward the emails she had exchanged with the two Councilmembers
to the fourth Councilmember because the fourth Councilmember would then see the discussion between
the other three Councilmembers. Conversely it may not constitute a violation of the OPMA if
Councilmember Petso were to talk to the fourth Councilmember about the same issue. The OPMA
anticipates there will be some one-on-one communication between Councilmembers, for example the
Council President communicating one-on-one with Councilmembers regarding the retreat agenda.
Councilmember Petso summarized she could talk to the fourth Councilmember about the topic as long as
she did not reference the discussion she had with the other two Councilmembers. Mr. Taraday responded
it would be problematic if Councilmember Petso were to say to the fourth Councilmember that she had
just talked to the two Councilmembers and she had their votes on an issue and needed his vote.
Councilmember Petso could lobby the fourth Councilmember for his vote but could not relay the
discussion with other two Councilmembers.
Packet Page 408 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 13
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she attended a function yesterday where four Councilmembers
from another city were in attendance. When she pointed out they had a quorum, they disagreed it was a
quorum because they were not talking about city business. Mr. Taraday agreed if they were not
transacting official business. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas restated four Councilmembers could be at a
function as long as they were not discussing city business. Mr. Taraday responded there is some legal
authority to support that position; as long as the Councilmembers are not transacting the official business
of the city, four Councilmembers could attend a social event, a sporting event, etc. He cautioned against
that because although technically allowed, constituents may not believe that Councilmembers are not
discussing city business. He concluded much of it is perception.
The time allotted for this item expired. Council President Peterson advised there will be time at the retreat
for questions regarding this topic.
8. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A TWO YEAR (2012-2013) INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT FOR THE LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM AND
AUTHORIZE $1,600 PER YEAR FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the City had an interlocal agreement (ILA) with a number
of local jurisdictions since 2008. The primary participants have been Mountlake Terrace, Lake Forest
Park and Edmonds; Snohomish County, Shoreline and Lynnwood also participated in the previous ILA.
Those three entities have not been active partners and Shoreline and Lynnwood have chosen not to
participate in the proposed ILA; Snohomish County is considering participating. Lake Forest Park and
Mountlake Terrace are participating and staff recommends Edmonds also participate. This is a two year
ILA; the City expected financial participation is up to $1600/year which provides funds for Mountlake
Terrace to fund clerical/administrative support for the forum meetings. The previous ILA was $2400/year.
The purpose of the ILA is to identify and implement projects and programs that will assist the entire
watershed, both the upper watershed that Edmonds is most interested in that extends from the I-5 culvert,
up McAleer Creek to the weir, all of Lake Ballinger and the upstream drainage for Lake Ballinger. Lake
Forest Park is more interested in the lower reaches of McAleer Creek. The coalition was formed to
identify projects to allow Lake Ballinger to recover, stop flooding and improve water quality as well as
identify funding sources. The previous ILA also included a $10,000 contribution toward hiring a local
lobbyist who along with representatives from three cities went to Washington D.C. to lobby the federal
congressional delegation seeking funds via a Water Resource and Development Act update. That was
unsuccessful and those efforts may continue this year. Councilmember Petso is taking Councilmember
Wilson’s place on the forum and could propose that the City participate in providing funds to hire a
lobbyist in the future.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A TWO YEAR (2012-2013)
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK
WATERSHED FORUM AND AUTHORIZE $1,600 PER YEAR FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. CONCESSIONS IN PARKS, EDMONDS CITY CODE CHANGES.
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the proposal is to amend Edmonds City Code 4.04 to
allow concessions in City parks. She previously briefed the Council, Planning Board and CS/DS
Committee regarding the proposed amendments. Given the economy and the budget, this is opportunity to
enter into concession agreements with businesses to provide revenue as well as maintain service levels.
The proposed changes give the authority to the Mayor to enter into concession agreements that are, 1)
consistent with the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, 2) located in regional and community parks,
3) granted seasonally and reviewed and renewed annually, and 4) take into consideration the impact on
Packet Page 409 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 14
the park, impact on neighbors, amenities and conveniences added to the park, liability issues, and cost
benefit. She requested the Council consider the changes and grant the Mayor the authority to enter into
concession agreements.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if concession agreements could be reviewed by the City Council rather
than authorizing the Mayor to enter into concession agreements. Ms. Hite answered the current code
allows for concessions in parks via a process of posting signs, holding a public hearing, and approval
from the Council. The proposed changes simplify and accelerate the process. Bringing an item to Council
requires two months due to the requirement to first bring it to a committee meeting and then to the full
Council. The proposal is to have an opening for concessions January through June as concessionaires
express interest and as they fit within the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and to be able to
expedite that process.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how a situation where there are two competing concessions will be
handled. Ms. Hite explained concessionaires will be interviewed with regard to how they meet the
criteria. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if favoritism could occur. Ms. Hite answered that was possible
but she anticipated a committee similar to what was used to hire staff where applicants were objectively
evaluated. The committee will review the evaluation criteria and forward a recommendation to the Mayor.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the CS/DS Committee, comprised of Councilmember Petso
and her, discussed the proposed change at their January meeting. The City has a concession agreement
with the Hula Hut near the ferry holding lanes. The CS/DS Committee suggested doing this for a year and
making changes if problems arise.
Councilmember Petso asked if the Taste of Edmonds or Edmonds Arts Festival were seasonal
concessions or would Council still approve those contracts. Ms. Hite answered those were special events
that the Council approves.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked what type and size concessioners would be considered. Ms. Hite
answered the current code does not limit the type or size; consideration will be given to the footprint they
would occupy, the impact on the park, the liability and risk, etc. For example the City would not bring in
bouncy houses, jet skis, etc. because they were higher risk and the City’s insurance, WCIA, did not allow
them. Concessionaires that would be considered include both food and recreational amenities. For
example someone approached the city in June 2011 interested in renting paddle boats at Marina Park.
There was not enough time in the season to pursue this due to the length of time to present the proposal to
Council committee and the Council. There are private day camps and boot camps that currently operate in
City parks; they do not pay for use of the parks although they do have an impact on the parks. The
concession agreement allows the City to, 1) be compensated for the use of public land, and 2) ensure the
people operating in public parks also carry liability insurance.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3869, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
4.04 TO ALLOW FOR EXPANDED USES AND SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN
SEASONAL CONCESSION AGREEMENTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY AND ADDING MARRIAGE
EQUALITY TO THE 2012 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Council President Peterson expressed his appreciation for the comments and emails for and against the
resolution and questioning the process. He agreed the issue arose quickly because there is a short
legislative timeframe and Councilmember Plunkett and he felt it was important if the resolution passes to
forward it to the City’s elected representatives to show the City Council’s support of SB 6239 and HB
Packet Page 410 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 15
2516. This issue was not on too many peoples’ radar until the Governor expressed her support early this
year, otherwise the Council may have had a more in-depth discussion in December as part of the 2012
legislative agenda.
Councilmember Bloom inquired about the process if the Council approved the resolution. Mayor Earling
explained if the Council approved the resolution, Councilmembers who support the resolution will sign it
and the resolution will be forwarded to the state legislature.
Councilmember Bloom commented she has thought about this a lot. She wholeheartedly supports
marriage equality as a private citizen but did not believe the citizens of Edmonds have given her the
authority to speak on their behalf to the state legislature. She indicated she will abstain from the vote on
the resolution.
Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with Councilmember Bloom and also planned to abstain from the
vote. He did not feel this was the proper venue or appropriate to make a Councilmember vote on a
controversial issue regardless of their own views. The Council is charged with making policy and
spending the taxpayers’ money wisely. The resolution regarding marriage equality does not affect the
City’s daily operations and he was uncertain how the citizens of Edmonds felt about the issue. He feared
the Council taking a position on this may open the door to requests for the Council to take a position on
similar issues which raises the question who decides when and on what issues it was appropriate for the
Council to take a position.
Councilmember Petso indicated she would also abstain from the vote.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this issue is not outside the City’s business. She supported
the Council standing up for the equitability of all people no matter who they love. She supported the
resolution wholeheartedly; sending the resolution to the legislature states the City Council supports
people and who they love. She has received public comment from both sides of the issue in making her
decision. Senator Haugen supports the bill.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who emailed, called and spoke tonight. She recalled one
person who said it should not be a human rights issue and that the Council should not be involved in
issues such as this. She recalled in 2009 the Council passed Resolution 1202 that allowed Snohomish
County to create a Citizens Human Rights Commission. She commented on her 70-year old gay aunt who
has been with the same partner for 50 years and her partner now has Alzheimer’s. Her two conservative,
Christian, Republican brothers both accept that situation. She expressed support for the resolution and
suggested everyone just let it go and not make it an issue.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1271, A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR
MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Councilmember Plunkett commented it is up to the Council to decide whether to take up issues such as
this. The Council recently voted to oppose coal trains traveling through Edmonds although there is
nothing the Council can do about it. In the past the Council has expressed their support for the Kyoto
treaties and forming a Human Rights Commission, issues that are not before the legislature. The City
pays a lobbyist to lobby for the City; this will be added to the 2012 legislative agenda. He concluded this
has more to do with City business than many of the other resolutions the City Council has passed.
Councilmember Plunkett commented government does not give people their rights; their rights come
from nature and the God of nature. Most governments oppress or take rights. In the Western culture
Packet Page 411 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 16
government supports human rights. One of those rights is the right of association; individuals have a right
to associate with whomever they want, association in general and personal relationships.
Councilmember Plunkett and Council President Peterson read the proposed resolution:
A Resolution of Support for Marriage Equality
Whereas, marriage equality is a basic civil right, and;
Whereas, marriage equality provides legal and economic protections including access to health care, parenting
rights, and property rights, and;
Whereas, marriage equality protects children and families, and;
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has said, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the
vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness,” and;
Whereas, civil unions and domestic partnerships represent significant advances toward recognition of same-sex
relationships, but they are not a substitute for full and equal marriage, and;
Whereas, marriage equality is about civil marriage, not religious marriage, and;
Whereas marriage is a powerful and important affirmation of love and commitment, a source of social support and
recognition, and the legal protections which are invaluable to the safety and security of every family; therefore
Be it resolved that the Edmonds City Council fully supports Marriage Equality in the State of Washington, and;
Be it further resolved that support of Marriage Equality be added to the Edmonds 2012 Legislative Agenda, and;
Be it further resolved that this Resolution be sent to all of our State representatives.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (4-0-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, PETSO AND
YAMAMOTO ABSTAINING.
Mayor Earling asked whether a signature line for the Councilmembers who abstained and himself should
appear on the resolution. City Attorney Taraday responded the four who voted in favor of the resolution
could sign the resolution and Mayor Earling could choose whether to sign. The three Councilmembers
who abstained requested their name with a blank signature line not appear on the resolution.
Mayor Earling commented the core mission in the City is to ensure the day-to-day operations are met
with regard to public safety, infrastructure, long term planning and land use issues. The resolution
addresses a state issue that is currently under discussion and which now appears to have the needed votes
to pass both the State House and Senate and apparently the Governor is ready and willing to sign the
legislation. If he were in the legislature, he would probably support the legislation; he has a history of
supporting this type of issue including support for domestic partnership legislation. Because he is not a
member of the legislature but rather an elected representative of the City of Edmonds, he has a different
core mission. For that reason he will not sign the resolution.
11. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 30, 2011 AND
JANUARY 10,2012
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported at their December 30 meeting, the Committee discussed two
amendments to the Seattle Fiber Partners Agreement that was approved on the Consent Agenda. At their
January 10 meeting the Committee discussed the City joining the Economic Alliance of Snohomish
County; authorization was approved on the Consent Agenda. Staff reviewed an update to the purchasing
policy, a quarterly update on fiber optic opportunities and the investment policy; all of which were
approved on the Consent Agenda. Staff also provided the Committee a General Fund update.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Petso reported the Committee discussed the Recycling Grant Agreement between
Edmonds and the Washington State Department of Ecology for 2012-2013, the Interlocal Agreement for
Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum and Concessions in Parks which were all approved on
tonight’s agenda. The Committee also discussed allowing bed and breakfast establishments in single
family neighborhoods. The Committee recommended further study by the Planning Board.
Packet Page 412 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 23, 2012
Page 17
Public Safety & Human Resources Committee
Councilmember Plunkett reported staff briefed the Committee on reclassification of six SEIU union
positions, four reclassifications (non-represented) and two classification in the SEIU union. If it is
determined that the two positions will be subject to union membership, it will be a topic for an executive
session.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported there will be an executive session prior to tomorrow’s Council meeting beginning
at 5:45 p.m. The regular meeting will begin at 6:15 p.m.
Mayor Earling thanked staff, particularly Public Works, Public Safety and Parks for the magnificent job
they did last week during the snow, literally working 24 hours a day to stay ahead of an incessant
snowfall.
Mayor Earling suggested the public may want to watch the Governor’s proposed transportation package.
Two bills, HB 2660 and SB 6455, provide an extensive transportation improvement plan crafted by the
Governor. The primary increase comes from a $1.50 tax on oil. Most of the funds generated would be
used for preservation and maintenance of the State’s current transportation system.
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Plunkett requested the agenda for the retreat and possibly tomorrow’s Council meeting
include discussion regarding ending the Economic Development Commission.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Public Works for their efforts during the snow. She also commended
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock for his efforts that include answering citizens’ inquires, saving $50,000
on insurance, and refinancing the bonds. Mr. Hunstock is the current President of the Puget Sound
Finance Officers Association. She looked forward to working with him to improve the transparency of the
City’s finances.
Council President Peterson commended Public Works as well as the IT Department for the tweets from
Public Works staff and information on the City’s website that kept citizens updated during the snow.
With regard to Agenda Item 10, Council President Peterson understood and appreciated that some
Councilmembers and citizens feel that this was not what the Council should be discussing. He pointed out
the importance of quality of life Edmonds; marriage equity is a quality of life issue and the resolution
sends a message to families of all types that Edmonds is a welcoming community that wants everyone to
feel safe and secure. That is one of his most important duties as an elected official.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was proud the City Council took a stand that needed to be taken. She
was also excited about concessions in parks, recalling when she introduced Music in the Parks this
summer, people often commented there was no place to get food or drinks. Concessions will be good for
the City and for the citizens.
Mayor Earling recognized City Engineer Rob English who was elected the new Cities' Co-Chair for the
Snohomish County Infrastructure Coordinating Committee
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
Packet Page 413 of 442
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 2-3, 2011
Page 20
• Improved performance in operation will also help meet future bond debt obligations
Opportunity and challenges include:
• Facilities
o Tremendous history
o Significant square footage
o Renovated portion – capital replacement and renewal
o Non-renovated portion – renovation and repairs
o Future development
• Programs and services
o Expanded presenting season
o Expanded rental program
o Expanded education/outreach
o Summer camps and programs
o Expanded sports and recreation activities
o Visual arts activities
• Partnerships
o City of Edmonds
o Edmonds Community College
o South County Senior Center
o Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation
o Others
Mr. McIalwain advised the PFD/ECA just released a Request for Proposals for its own strategic planning
process and has formed a committee to oversee the process. He assured all stakeholders will have an opportunity
to engage in that process.
Council President Peterson encouraged Councilmembers to tour the ECA.
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
Council President Peterson explained the question soon to be before the Council is whether to extend the sunset
date of the ECA. The current sunset date is April 29, 2012. The Council can choose to change the mission of the
EDC, discontinue the Commission, redefine the definition of economic development, etc.
Council, Mayor and staff comments included the following:
• Some EDC members view economic development as anything that brings in revenue to the City, others
view it as business activity
• Creation of residential housing units is not economic development
• The EDC is looking at ways to produce revenue for City indirectly/directly
• The City needs to foster economic development to generate revenue as well as foster quality of life.
• Important to bring in businesses that generate revenue, but what can the City do to attract businesses
• Fostering an economic base attracts good quality housing and people to live here
• Diverse housing/population attracts businesses
• EDC should concentrate on tourism, sports tourism
• Think of economic development in terms of the financial future of the City
• Need to advertise broadband capacity
• Think outside what one project will bring to the City
• Economic development is not just businesses retention/recruitment, it is a combination of activities and
policies established to improve the City’s economic health and quality of life
Packet Page 414 of 442
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 2-3, 2011
Page 21
• Economic development includes investing in education of children and business owners, investing in
critical infrastructure, environmental and fiscal sustainability
• Be a welcoming community to all
• Concern with definition of economic development as any and all money coming to the City
• Not interested in the EDC considering sources of revenue that citizens and the City Council have
rejected in the past such as business taxes, gambling, taller buildings, transport fees, etc.
• Frightening and illogical not to limit revenue sources the EDC considers for economic development
• New residential units cannot be the only source of revenue to close the budget gap
• What would the economic impact have been to the City if a conference center, hotel/restaurants, and
public open space had been developed at Pt. Edwards
• Long term sustainability and quality of life is the most important
• Need to give EDC parameters so have they have direction
• Economic development was not specifically defined when EDC created
• Cannot support extending the EDC’s sunset date unless their focus is narrowed
• Proposed amendment narrows focus of EDC
• Support economic development but not taxing citizens
• Should not stifle ideas/micromanage the EDC before ideas even reach the Council
• Purpose of EDC to bring forth ideas; City Council has ultimate decision whether to pursue or not
• Economic development versus economic growth; economic growth is a component of economic
development
• Several Councilmembers have not appointed EDC members
• One of important things from EDC is the strategic planning process. If focus was narrowed could the
EDC have done that?
• Leaving EDC’s focus open allows opportunity for ideas
• Support extending EDC
• EDC seemed only to be asking the Council for money for studies and a proposal for development
agreements
• There are other volunteers groups that do land use (Planning Board), fiber (CTAC), etc.
• The EDC’s mission may be so broad that worthwhile ideas are not being pursued
• If Council wants to put some control on the EDC, don’t limit them to only opening new businesses on
Main Street. Their charge needs to be broad enough to include quality of life and controlling tax
increases
• EDC discussions generate a lot of ideas; some come move forward, some do not. In 2½ years the only
item that led to the proposed changed is non-transport EMS fee
• It is the EDC’s role to propose all kinds of economic development strategies and revenue sources; it is
up to the City Council to say yes or no
• Need to appoint new members to EDC and amend the ordinance
• Development of sports fields at old Woodway High School is an example of sports tourism
• When the EDC proposed a non-transport fee, they only wanted the Council to talk about it
• EDC is a new commission, will have growing pains
• Empower the EDC and move forward. Important to keep momentum going
Council President Peterson advised he would schedule changing the language in the ordinance on a future
Council agenda. Council suggestions for that discussion included:
• Clarify the Council liaison’s role
• Have a Port liaison rather than Port Commissioners serving as members
• Amend the language so members are not elected officials
• Make Commissioner appointments later
• Stagger Commissioners’ terms
Packet Page 415 of 442
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 2-3, 2011
Page 22
Introduction to Support 7 Citizen Volunteer Emergency Response
Ken Gaydos, Support 7 Fire – Police Volunteer Chaplaincy Services, provided a video of tragic events that
occurred before Support 7 was founded and events where Support 7 has provided support services for friends
and relatives of victims and emergency responders at the scene.
Mr. Gaydos explained Support 7 began in 1985 with a surplus aid unit to provide a place for friends and
relatives of victims at the scene and refreshments for police/fire. He commented on the volunteer chaplains and
lay men and women who provide support as well as business partners who are part of the team. Support 7 is
housed at the Lynnwood Civic Center Fire Station.
A non-profit was established and they have assisted approximately 500 cities across the country in establishing
similar programs as well as introducing similar programs in the Philippines, Hawaii, and Haiti.
The retreat was adjourned at 5:42 p.m.
Packet Page 416 of 442
Packet Page 417 of 442
Packet Page 418 of 442
Packet Page 419 of 442
Packet Page 420 of 442
Packet Page 421 of 442
Packet Page 422 of 442
Packet Page 423 of 442
Packet Page 424 of 442
Packet Page 425 of 442
Packet Page 426 of 442
Packet Page 427 of 442
AM-4599 Item #: 10.
City Council Meeting
Date: 03/06/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Strom Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Council appointments to fill three vacancies on the Citizens Tree Board.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
At the Spetember 21, 2010 Council Meeting the Council approved Ordinance 3807 as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS
CITY CODE, TITLE 10, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 10.95 CITIZENS TREE BOARD, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. (Attachment 1)
At the December 14, 2010, Councilmembers appointed 6 members to the Board. (Attachment
2) Councilman Wilson was absent from that meeting and later appointed Mr. John Botton.
Narrative
As of December 31, 2011, three members of the Citizens Tree Board resigned as follows:
Joan Bloom: Appointed by Councilman Plunkett
Dawna Lahti: Appointed by former Council President Bernheim
Barbara Tipton: Apointed by Councilwoman Fraley-Monillas.
The current vacancy appointments will be made by Councilmembers whose original appointees have
resigned.
Attachment 3: 2012 Tree Board Applicants
Attachments
Attachment 1: Ord. 3807
Attachment 2: 12-14-2010 Approved Council Minutes
Attachment 3: Tree Board Applicants
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/29/2012 02:22 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 02/29/2012 02:33 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/29/2012 04:00 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/24/2012 09:55 AM
Packet Page 428 of 442
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 02/24/2012 09:55 AM
Final Approval Date: 02/29/2012
Packet Page 429 of 442
Packet Page 430 of 442
Packet Page 431 of 442
Packet Page 432 of 442
Packet Page 433 of 442
Packet Page 434 of 442
Packet Page 435 of 442
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 14, 2010
Page 7
Mayor Cooper, Mr. Dashen explained they would monitor the savings to ensure refinancing the debt
would save money.
Councilmember Petso expressed interest in refunding three of the four bonds Mr. Dashen and Mr. Bauer
recommended. She was also interested in researching the following options for the LTGO 1998 bonds:
1. Pay off using the available $1.3 million
2. Extend payments 20 years in a refinancing scenario
3. Refund similar to the other three
Councilmember Petso asked how much it would cost to have those options researched. Mr. Dashen
advised it would not cost anything to research those options.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested they also provide the total cost of extending payments for 20
years.
4. COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZENS' TREE BOARD
The Council made the following appointments to the Citizen’s Tree Board:
Candidate Appointing Councilmember
Barbara Tipton Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
Sandy Seligmiller Councilmember Petso
Anna Marie Heckman Councilmember Buckshnis
Laura Spehar Councilmember Peterson
Joan Bloom Councilmember Plunkett
Dawna Lahti Council President Bernheim
Mayor Cooper advised Councilmember Wilson’s appointment and an alternate would be selected from
the remaining candidates, John Botton, Holly Merrick and Walter Thompson.
5. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON A PROPOSED RESOLUTION CREATING A
PLANNING COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER A REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY
Mayor Cooper suggested deferring this item to a January meeting as Councilmember Wilson was not
present to make the presentation. The Council agreed.
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION
At 5:52 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes
and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was
anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive
session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis,
Peterson, and Petso. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder; Grant Weed, Attorney, Weed
Graafstra & Benson; and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 6:58 p.m.
7. ADJOURN
The City Council adjourned to Council Committee meetings at the conclusion of the executive session
Packet Page 436 of 442
CitJ o
Citizen Board and Commission Application
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
Tree Board Application
PLEASE NOTE:
THE TREE BOARD MEETS ON THE 1tt THURSDAY OF THE MONTH at 6:00 p.m. at City Hail.
Please see City Code regarding Citizen's Tree Board following this page.
1;3mg. Steve Hatzenbeler gp1g. January 31,2012
Address Contact Phone:
.
lEfmon[s
Edmonds, WA 98020
Evening .
6s11.
Length of residency in Edmonds:
I Yr E-mail.
(Must reside within the Citv limits.(Required)
Occupational status and backg .oun6. Employed as a civil engineer for a small design firm in Seattle called LPD
Engineering. Background is in civil site development, including tree preservation during construction projects. '14 yrs
site development experience on public and private development projects throughout Puget Sound
org anizational affiliations: Licensed professional engineer in the State of Washington since 2002. LEED Accredited
Professional since 2008
Day
/./ c, I l{q
Why are you seeking this app ointment? The Citizen's Tree Board interests me because environmental conservation is
a real passion of mine. Being a part of the board seems like a great opportunity to learn more about how to preserve trees in the city, to
teach people about the value of tree preservation, and to meet other people who value preservation of our natural ecology
What skills and knowledge do y ou have to meet the selection criteria? lvly background in site development construction
projecis gives me a great understanding ofthe construction impacts on irees that would make me an asset to the group
Additional Comments: I have worked closely with a number of arborists and landscape architects over the years on
projects in which tree preservation was extremely impodant. lVy personal inlerest in the protection of our environment
makes this ciiizen's board appealing to me. I believe I would bring a unique perspective to the group as a civil engineer,
with expertise to help achieve one of the Tree Board's goals: "appropriately safeguard trees in construction areas."
You may return your completed form as follows:
E-mail to: spellman@ci. ed monds.wa. us
Fax: 425.771.0254
U.S. It4ail: Edmonds Ciiv Council Office
121 Srh Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Drop off at l"rfloor receptionist at City Hall
(121 5' Avenue North)
APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UP
UNTIL 4:00 P.M. January 31, 2012
l
e:3>JAN 3 i 2012
Packet Page 437 of 442
iR"j3{l[:] jiv"ui_)
o lEtnnn[s iANS 0 2012
2 ; / 21-tr4
Citizen Board and Commissio
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
Tree Boqrd. Applico'tion
PLEASE NOTE:
THE TREE BOARD MEETS ON THE 1s'THURSDAY OF THE MONTH at 6:00 p.m. at City Hail.
Please see City Code regarding Citizen's Tree Board following this page.
Name: Benjamin Mark Date: 112812012
a66."55.Contact Phone:
Edmonds, Washington Day .
98020 Evening:
Cell:
Length of residency ;n g666n6s; 6 years E-mail:
(Must reside within the Citv limits.(Required)
Occupational status and background Staff Arborist at ln Harmony Sustainable Landscapes.
ISA Certified Arborist #PN 69764, ISA Certifled Tree Risk Assessor #861,
c. 189
ATA Restoration Horticulture, EDCC
org anizational 26i1;31;6ns. lSA, Member
Why are you seeking this app ointment?l would be honored to bring my enthusiasm for and knowledge
of modern arboriculture to help preserve my community's tree canopy and watershed health
What skills and knowledge do yo u have to meet the setection criteria?l have designed and implemented
urban forest restoration plans and organized volunteer habitat enhancement projects
Additionat comments:l have been consulting homeowners, developers, and tree service companies
for the past five years to navigate the tree regulations of various municipalities. I look forward to
helping develop a clear, concise, and sustainable plan for the trees in my own city
You may return your completed form as follows:
E-mail to: spellm an @ci. ed monds.wa. us
Fax: 425.771.0254
U.S. L4ail: Edmonds Citv Council Otfice
'121 5" Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Drop off at 1"r floor receptionist at City Hall
(121 5th Avenue North)
APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UP
UNTIL 4:00 P.M. January 31,2012
J,AN 3 i JAft 3 i 2012
Packet Page 438 of 442
Packet Page 439 of 442
o Etmon[s
Citizen Board and Commission Application
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
Tree Boq.rd Application
PLEASE NOTE:
THE TREE BOARD MEETS ON THE 1S'THURSDAY OF THE MONTH At 6:00 P.M. At CitY HAII.
Please see City Code regarding Citizen's Tree Board following this page.
Name: Crane Stavig 9"16. January 10,2012
4661ss5.Contact Phone:
Edmonds, WA 98026 Day:
Even ing:
6g11.
Length of residency 1n 96,n6n65. 4+ years E-mail.
(Must reside within the Citv limits.(Required)
Occupational status and backg ,orn6. Proprietor of Greencliff Landscape Co., professional garden designer based
in Edmonds since 2008. Please visit my online business profile on facebook at www.facebook.com/greencliff or at
www.greencliff.net
org anizationat
"6i1;"1;on.'
Active member of Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, Northwest Horticultural Society. Past
member of Evergreen Arboretum Foundation (Everett, WA) and Puget Sound Bonsai Association
Why are you seeking this appo intment? As a resident of Edmonds I appreciate the beauty that trees add to our
downtown and our neighborhoods and l'd like to have a role in preserving, maintaining and increasing the presence
of trees in our community
What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? As a professional gardener I'm able to offer
some qualified input on tree selection and maintenance. I can also communicate with the public on related topics
Additional Comments: I chose to make Edmonds my home in 2007. My daughter is enrolled in ihe Edmonds School
District and I have no plans for leaving. I love the feeling that street trees and plantings add to the downtown core and
would love to help keep that feeling alive and well. Additionally, I'd like my daughter to see my example of giving back
to our community
You may return your completed form as follows
E-mail to: spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Fax 425.771 .0254
U.S. Mail: Edmonds Citv Councrl Offtce
121 5'h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Drop off at 1"t floor receptionist at City Hall
( 121 5"' Avenue North)
APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UP
UNTIL 4:00 P.M. January 31,2012
iAN I 0 2012
Packet Page 440 of 442
o Efircn^
Citizen Board and Commission Application
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
Tree Board Applicrl:tion
PLEASE NOTE:
THE TREE BOARD MEETS ON THE 1ST THURSOAY OF THE MONTH At 6:00 P.M. At CitY HAII
Please see Gity Code regarding Citizen,s Tree Board following this page.
1r12ms. Julia P Wiese p61g. I -6-12
Address: Contact Phone:
Day .
Edmonds WA 98020-4148 Evening .
6,911.
Length of residency in Edmonds: 1 yr 8 mo E-mail.
{Must reside within the Citv limits.(Required)
Occupational status and backg round. Former owner Wiese Landscaping, Former Director of the Seat e Cha pter of the
WA State Nursery and Landscape Association (WSNLA), Completed the Environmental Horticulture program at Lake
WA Technical College (LWTC)
Organizationat affi1;u11on.. Snohomish County Master Gardeners (SnoN,4G), Member WSNLA
Why are you seeking this app ointment? | believe in the "Right Plant Right Place" mentality that is tau ght by the
Master Gardener program. I would like to help bring that to our city if I can
What skills and knowledge do y ou have to meet the selection criterl2e I am a Certifled Professional Horticulturist (CpH)
with the WSNLA, SnoMG 15 yrs, lndustry professional since 2004
Additional Comments: I have taken (and passed) the Arboricullure class at LWTC tau ght by Brian Gilles a highly
respected Arborist and member of the ISA (Gilles Consulting). He has also recommended me to his clients needin g my skills in
design. I believe I have the fundamental knowledge of plants, their grorvth habits, their pest and disease weaknesses,
as well as their cultural/pruning requiremenls that wiil enable me to make a contribution to this commission
You may return your completed form as follows
E-mail to: spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Fax: 425.771.0254
U.S. Nilail: Edmonds City Council Office
'121 5'h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Drop off at 1'r floor receptionist at City Hall
( 12'1 5"' Avenue North)
APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UP
UNTIL 4:00 P.M. January 31,20'12
JAN 12 IUU
Packet Page 441 of 442
$&witds
Citizen tsoard and Comrnission Atrlplication
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
Tree Bsqrd. Applico;tian
PLEASE NOTE:
THE TREE BOARD MEETS ON THE 1 "r THURSDAY OF THE MONTH at 6:00 p.m. at City Ha .
ard foll owing this page.
^oLa-
tI
^Please
see City Code regarding Citizen's Tree Bo
Name:b"'l{t\oe-.,- J" vJc,tFa Date: ot
Address:
93ozo
Gontact Phone
Day:9cjt-.*.. ., ^&.- \...i I
Cell:
Length of residency in Ed.onds: I ve,,r-- ':- (Must reside within the ciEli iii-
(Required)
tQ-a c .!-,\'.
C
l(-12 l'r' U,"-l*
C-e-.\
e*il"/l
Occup tional status and background:a
* Ur-*-i
o anizalional affi liations
ic-
ci
r'tl-^
dfe
L-L).a-&i q:<,Q
\I).Q-V q (\
Ct Lr'L-'4-
(!
you seeking this appoi ntm.ntz B r!4---{-"^r"'-f
e
elv oc !'c(
Cl,t La-
i)r./a!
r,/ -,44-11.@- --\1/\- -].--
eii s L\ L.^ a1'
.{Vc <'
e -.f .
'Lc.i -r
UN
'f?+-t:A >
A,
.Ii
t)^r-\"-L' whv
(}-t
LC1 )-^,A-.p-
o,M-!
r v-r. t L lttJ:tr"-o'-3
5
- i c,y. u-e, i r^
{s
)o- p^1-..4 ".* i+.J
What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria?
i,-i.-w,. cr .,7 q-l c t) i ^ ; tt.; .L !.L (
Additional Comments:
1 ,t'n-O a{-, u
a-.Q
vc)
Lo!^ a+; -Er/
A r,cr u,u_l r
-a-r
\r'.t S-1'
,-{ G+
You may retum your completed form as follows:
E-mail to: spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Fax: 425.771,0254
U.S. Mail: Edmonds Citv Council Office
'121 5'h Avenue Nortn
Edmonds, WA 98020
Drop off at 1'r floor receptionist at City Hall
(121 5"'Avenue North)
APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UP
UNTIL 4:00 P.M. January 31, 2012
,,,a,{.*''
Aq Evl'tb
JAN €d 2012
L\-,-
2.,\-.,^-
,trLL'-*.e--a-
L+{tt
L\</\,^n L
C(?t
Packet Page 442 of 442