Loading...
2006.11.14 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds November 14, 2006      City Council Committee Meetings at 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. and Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 p.m.     1.Public Safety Committee - 5:30 p.m. Location:  Police Training Room     A.(15 Min)  Enforcement options related to barking dogs.    B.(15 Min)  Enforcement options related to stray cats.    C.(10 Min)  Implementation of City Strategic Plan II. Council Public Safety Policy Statement Objectives B, C, and D.       D.(20 Min)  Compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756.    E.(10 Min)  Contract for court security officer.    2.Community/Development Services Committee - 6:00 p.m. Location:  Council Chambers     A.(30 Min)  Recording and broadcasting of Planning Board and Architectural Design Board meetings.     B.(20 Min)  Discussion on temporary sign regulations.    C.(15 Min)  New site for temporary public service event banners.     3.Finance Committee - 6:00 p.m. Location:  Jury Meeting Room     A.Salary increase to continue state reimbursement for judicial salary.  AgendaQuick©2005 - 2006 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved A.(10 Min)  Salary increase to continue state reimbursement for judicial salary.    B.(10 Min)  Third Quarter Budget Report.    C.(15 Min)  Final 2006 Budget Amendment     D.(10 Min)  Utility Billing Code Update.    7:00 p.m. - City Council Meeting Call to Order and Flag Salute     1.Approval of Agenda     2.Consent Agenda Items     A.Roll Call     B.Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2006.    C.Authorization to advertise for statements of qualification from landscape architectural firms or consultant teams for park design and construction services for the Old Woodway Elementary School park site.      D.Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood for SR 99 Traffic Signal Retiming.     E.Report on final construction costs for the Senior Center Elevator Rehabilitation Project and Council acceptance of project.     3.(60 Min)  2007-08 Council Budget Deliberations     Adjourn       AgendaQuick©2005 - 2006 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved AM-696 1.A. Barking Dogs / Enforcement Options Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By: Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time:15 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information Committee:Public Safety Agenda Memo Subject Enforcement options related to barking dogs. Previous Council Action Narrative This topic is a continued discussion from previous committee meetings. Recommendation Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 04:27 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:51 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/08/2006 04:18 PM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 AM-697 1.B. Enforcement options related to stray cats. Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By: Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time:15 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information Committee:Public Safety Agenda Memo Subject Enforcement options related to stray cats. Previous Council Action Narrative Continued discussion from previous committee meeting. Recommendation Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 04:27 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:51 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/08/2006 04:22 PM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 AM-684 1.C. Implementation of City Strategic Plan II Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By:Tom Tomberg, Fire Time:10 Minutes Department:Fire Type:Action Committee:Public Safety Agenda Memo Subject Implementation of City Strategic Plan II. Council Public Safety Policy Statement Objectives B, C, and D. Previous Council Action Council discussed the City Strategic Plan at the March 2006 retreat. On June 27, 2006 Council added II. Council Public Safety Statement with five Objectives, A. through E. This agenda item addresses Objectives B. C. and D. of the plan. Narrative C. Implementation of City Strategic Plan II. Council Public Safety Policy Statement, Objectives B., C., and D. This Public Safety Committee agenda item implements City of Edmonds Strategic Plan , II. Council Public Safety Policy Statement, Objectives B., C., and D. discussed at the March 2006 City Council Retreat, and adopted by Council on June 27, 2006. OBJECTIVE B. City of Edmonds Strategic Plan II. Council Public Safety Statement Objective B. Establish Fire Levels of Service and Staffing that Provide for Proactive Responses and Comply with State Statutes has two tasks, two deliverables, due dates, and assigned team responsibility: 1. Develop levels of service and related staffing requirements; due by December 31, 2006; Fire Administration responsibility. 2. Adopt levels of service and staffing; due by December 31, 2006; City Council responsibility. Both Objective B. tasks are accomplished by Fire Administration’s submission to the Public Safety Committee of Item D. Compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756 on the November 14, 2006 committee agenda, and subsequent adoption of the plan by the City Council prior to December 31, 2006. The compliance plan includes Council adoption of levels of service and related staffing requirements. Please refer to the Committee Agenda Memo and attachment submitted for Public Safety Committee Item D. Compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756 on the November 14, 2006 agenda for an extensive discussion and explanation of fire levels of service and staffing. Recommendation : Forward Public Safety Committee Agenda Item D. Compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756 to the Council with a recommendation to approve. Revenues and Expenditures Fiscal Impact : None. Attachments : None. OBJECTIVE C. City of Edmonds Strategic Plan II. Council Public Safety Statement Objective C. Fire Levels of Service and Staffing Become Part of the Strategic Plan has one task, one deliverable, a due date, and assigned team responsibility: 1. Integrate public safety levels of service and staffing into the Strategic Plan; due by December 31, 2006; City Council responsibility. The Objective C. task is accomplished by the Council when Item D. Compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756 on the November 14, 2006 Public Safety Committee agenda is adopted by the Council prior to December 31, 2006. The compliance plan includes Fire levels of service and related staffing requirements. Please refer to the Committee Agenda Memo and attachment submitted for Public Safety Committee Item D. Compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756 on the November 14, 2006 agenda for an extensive discussion and explanation of fire levels of service and staffing. Rather than integrate the lengthy levels of service and staffing requirements documents directly into the Strategic Plan, inserting the number of the adopting resolution and the date of Council adoption should suffice for the integration requirement called for in Objective C. Recommendation : Forward Public Safety Committee Agenda Item D. Compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756 to the Council with a recommendation to approve. Revenues and Expenditures Fiscal Impact : None. Attachments : None. OBJECTIVE D. City of Edmonds Strategic Plan II. Council Public Safety Statement Objective D. Develop Public Safety Plans has four tasks, four deliverable, due dates, and assigned team responsibilities. The Fire portion of the plan objective is addressed below: 1. Prepare multi-year plan methodology; due by December 31, 2006; Fire Administration responsibility. 2. Submit multi-year plan methodology; due by December 31, 2006; Public Safety Committee approves. 3. Develop multi-year plan; due by December 31, 2006; Fire Administration responsibility. 4. Adopt multi-year plan; due by December 31, 2006; Mayor and Council approve. Objective D. tasks are accomplished by Council adoption of the 2007-2008 Work Plan prior to December 31, 2006. The methodology and plan are described below. METHODOLOGY Work group members develop the draft work plan for review by the advisory group. The final document is submitted for approval to the Public Safety Committee. Upon committee approval, the work plan is forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. In addition to the regular and customary duties associated with the fire service such as responding to emergencies and dealing with the unforeseen challenges and opportunities that present themselves during the biennium, the Fire Department will strive to complete the specific work plan elements by the end of 2008. Over the biennium, Fire Staff will provide the Public Safety Committee with timely reports on progress, changes, and alterations to the work plan as required. As the date of this submission, all comments received from the advisory group have been in support of the work plan. Work Group Fire Chief Thomas J. Tomberg Assistant Chief Mark Correira Fire Marshal John Westfall Battalion Chief Doug Dahl Executive Assistant for Fire Services Jeanne Startzman Advisory Group Mayor Gary Haakenson City Attorney Scott Snyder IAFF Union Local 1828 Employees, Edmonds Fire Department Development Services Director Duane Bowman Administrative Services Director Dan Clements Community Development Director Stephen Clifton Human Resources Manager Debi Humann Parks and Recreation Director Brian McIntosh Public Works Director Noel Miller Police Chief David Stern Planning Manager Rob Chave ESCA Director Lyn Gross Port of Edmonds Executive Director Chris Keuss SNOCOM Director Steve Perry President Greg Jorgenson, Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation References Include City of Edmonds 2007-2008 Budget City of Edmonds Strategic Plan City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds financial plan Capital Projects Funds Equipment Rental Fund 511 Other City Department Work Plans Port of Edmonds Master Plan Stevens Hospital Master Plan Edmonds School District Master Plan Substitute House Bill 1756 / Chapter 35.103 RCW Chapter 296-205 WAC, Safety Standards for Fire Fighters Collective Bargaining Agreement with IAFF Union Local 1828 Ewing & Company, Human Resources Study for the City of Edmonds , January 30, 1997 Creating & Evaluating Standards of Response Cover for Fire Departments, Commission on Fire Accreditation International, latest edition Public Protection Handbook, Washington Fire Chiefs & Washington State Rating Bureau (Insurance Service Organization rating survey, et al) Fire, rescue, EMS service literature review Best Practices Other 2007-2008 WORK PLAN Each work plan element appears under the primary lead Division; however, given the staff size, all work plan elements are a shared responsibility and require a group effort. Administration Inculcate the workplace safety ethic into every aspect of Department operations. 1. 2. Conclude a new collective labor agreement with IAFF Union Local 1828. Improve the Washington State Rating Bureau rating of the City from Class 4 to Class 2 over time and within budget. 3. 4. Review business practices with the Mayor, Directors, and Fire Staff with the intent of reducing General Fund expenditures by 2009. Implement the City of Edmonds Substitute House Bill 1756 Compliance Plan. 5. 6. Educate and inform the public on the emergency medical service levy. Review alternate funding sources for Department operations. 7. Align the annual work plans of the Fire Chief, Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal, Battalion Chiefs, and Executive Assistant with the Mayor’s annual goals and objectives, policies that emerge from the annual Council Retreat, and majority policy directives received from elected officials through the Mayor. 8. Align the Fire Work Plan with other City departments and pertinent outside agency work plans. 9. Work with the Mayor, Council, and Directors on city-wide environmental stewardship and energy conservation issues. 10. Work with the Snohomish County law enforcement and fire consortium to implement a wireless network. 11. Review the Civil Service Commission hiring/promotional requirements for Assistant Fire Chief and Fire Marshal. 12. Review the annual Performance Appraisal form. 13. Continue working towards a paperless office. 14. Actively seek out grant opportunities. 15. Operations and Training Place the public safety boat in service. 16. Study acquiring access to or construction of a local training facility that allows on-duty crews to17. remain in the immediate area. Consider existing facilities, a new facility, multidisciplinary use, scope, costs, location, and political feasibility. Identify future staffing and apparatus needs to keep pace with call volume increases and community demographics. 18. Plan for two retirements that create two promotional opportunities at both the battalion and company officer levels. 19. Finalize the career development plan for interested employees. 20. Implement a new computer-based training records management system. 21. Emergency Medical Services Study the opportunities for targeting specific demographic groups with public education programs that reduce their use of the EMS system, for example, address fall hazards for the elderly population. 22. 23. Work with Snohomish County Public Health Department to prepare for an influenza pandemic (bird flu), as required Fire Prevention and Public Education Add one staff person to the Fire Prevention Division to perform fire inspector and public educator duties. Address vehicle and space needs. 24. 25. Develop a succession plan for the Fire Inspector position. 26. Work with City, Port of Edmonds , and State staff to ensure the Edmonds Crossing Project and/or waterfront development ensure unimpeded emergency vehicle access to the west side of the BNSF railroad tracks. Recommendation : Forward Objective D. Develop Public Safety Work Plans of Public Safety Committee Agenda Item C. Implementation of City Strategic Plan II. Council Public Safety Policy Statement tasks Recommendation For Objectives B. and C.: Forward November 14 Public Safety Committee Agenda Item D. Compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756 to the Council with a recommendation to approve. For Objective D.: Forward the Fire Public Safety Work Plan to the Council with a recommendation to approve. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/07/2006 12:04 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/07/2006 06:09 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 09:44 AM APRV Form Started By: Tom Tomberg Started On: 11/07/2006 11:38 AM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 AM-687 1.D. Compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756 Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By:Tom Tomberg, Fire Time:20 Minutes Department:Fire Type:Action Committee:Public Safety Agenda Memo Subject Compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756. Previous Council Action None Narrative On September 12, 2006, the Public Safety Committee approved the Substitute House Bill 1756 Implementation Plan. Fire Department Staff has prepared the City of Edmonds 1756 Compliance Plan as directed, and respectfully submits it to the Public Safety Committee for action. BACKGROUND Substitute House Bill 1756 passed the 2005 Washington Legislature (92-2 in the House, 36-10 in the Senate) and is codified as Chapter 35.103 RCW. SHB 1756 is derived from and a modified version of National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 Standards for the Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Departments. Edmonds has not adopted NFPA 1710; however, it does remain a national standard against which emergency service delivery may be measured. COMPLIANCE Edmonds is a “code” city with a career Fire Department that provides fire protection services in a specified geographical area. Beginning in 2007, the City is required to comply with SHB 1756 using policies and objectives adopted by the City Council in 2006. Note: As in SHB 1756 legislation itself, the words “objectives” and “standards” are used interchangeably throughout the implementation and compliance plan. INTENT Substitute House Bill 1756 states, “The arrival of first responders with automatic external defibrillator capability before the onset of brain death, and the arrival of adequate fire suppression resources before flashover is a critical event during the mitigation of an emergency, and is in the public’s best interest.” Note: “Brain death” and “flashover” are discussed in Appendix C of the Attachment. SHB 1756 requires the Fire Department to extract response data and evaluate levels of service (LOS), service deployment methods, and performance measures that apply to response time objectives for certain major emergency services, and provide an annual report based on the evaluation to the City Council and the public. The report is intended to describe how effectively the Department is meeting each Council-adopted “response time objective,” and “explain the predictable consequences of any deficiencies” in meeting the response time objectives, and “address steps necessary to achieve compliance” with adopted objectives. Central to compliance, evaluating the data, and producing a report is Council adoption of policy statements and measurable service delivery objectives by resolution. METHODOLOGY To facilitate compliance, Fire Staff recommended to and were directed by the Public Safety Committee on September 12 to follow the implementation matrix developed by the Washington Fire Chiefs (WFC) and the Washington State Council of Firefighters (WSCFF) described below, and to submit the plan for review to an advisory group. The implementation matrix is divided into the following required sections: Section I. Policy Statements Section II. Adopted Standards Section III. Standards of Response Comparison (Standards of Cover) Section IV. Miscellaneous Items Section I requires the Council to formally adopt in written statement or policy form the: 1. Existence of a Fire Department 2. Services the Fire Department is required to provide 3. Basic organizational structure of the Fire Department 4. Expected number of Fire Department employees 5. Functions Fire Department employees are expected to perform. The most substantive parts of 1756 are addressed in Sections II and III, which require measuring service delivery objectives in the context of the following response types: 1. All emergency incidents 2. Fire Suppression Incidents (three elements) 3. Emergency Medical Services (EMS ) – Basic Life Support Incidents 4. Emergency Medical Services (EMS ) – Advanced Life Support Incidents 5. Special Operations – Hazardous Materials and Technical Rescue (four elements) 6. Marine Rescue and Firefighting. Response standards have been developed for the services above with the exception of Wildland Firefighting and ARFF, neither of which the Fire Department provides. The response data used in the compliance plan is extracted from emergency response information entered into the Fire Department records management system by Department personnel using WebFIRS software. As of the submission date, all comments received from the advisory group have been integrated into the plan. MEASURABLE EMERGENCY SERVICE RESPONSE OBJECTIVES To effectively measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operations before critical events of “brain death" or room "flashover" occur, 1756 requuires the Council to establish and adopt service delivery time objectives for the following: 1. Turnout time for emergency incidents. 2A. Response time of the first-arriving engine company to a fire suppression incident. 2B. Response time for the deployment of a full alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression incident. 2C. Response time for the deployment of a full alarm assignment to a commercial fire suppression incident. 3. Response time of the first-arriving unit with first responders (BLS) to an emergency medical incident. 4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit to an emergency medical incident. 5A1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident. 5A2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident. 5B1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident. 5B2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident. 6. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine incident. The measurable service delivery response time objectives established and adopted by Council are expressed at a level of not less than a 90 percentile fractal goal. The fractile method is a more accurate measure than average response times, which are inadequate statistical references because isolated and abnormal response times skew the average. RISK MANAGEMENT SHB 1756 has drawn the attention of risk managers and legal advisors to jurisdictions required to comply in that it may expand the potential for liability exposure when, for example, Council-adopted response time objectives are not met on a specific call and a negligence claim is filed against the City. The public duty doctrine currently shields the City from these types of negligence claims in that the duty to respond is owed to the public in general and not to individuals or to a particular class of persons. However, a potential vulnerability under the public duty doctrine is the statutory intent of the legislature and whether it was to identify and protect a particular and circumscribed class of people, an argument whose success or failure remains unknown until, or if and when, a case is brought before the Washington Supreme Court. The court has repeatedly revisited the public duty doctrine and recent decisions have indicated a growing resistance to a broad application of the doctrine. The City is not required to adopt response standards that do not apply to the geographical area of the City, nor does SHB 1756 require adoption of unrealistic or unattainable time objectives. Chapter 35.103 RCW states that the code “does not, and is not intended to, in any way modify or limit the authority of cities and towns to set levels of service.” IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE TIME LINE Fire Staff is following the adopted implementation and compliance timeline below: 1. September 12, 2006: SHB 1756 implementation plan presented to PS Committee 2. November 14, 2006: Policy and response time standards presented to PS Committee 3. November, 2006: Policy and response time standards presented to City Coucil 4. November, 2006: Policy and response time standards adopted by City 5. March, 2007: 2006 response time standards evaluated, based on emergency response data 6. April, 2007: 2006 evaluation of response time standards reported to PS Committee 7. May, 2007: 2006 evaluation of response time standards report to Council 8. May, 2007: Release of SHB 1756 Annual Compliance Report to City Council and public 9. 2007: Integration of response time standards into the City of Edmonds Strategic Plan 10. Thereafter: Response time standards updated as required WORK GROUP AND REFERENCES The 1756 Fire Department work group consists of: · Fire Chief Thomas J. Tomberg · Assistant Chief Mark Correira · Battalion Chief Doug Dahl · Executive Assistant, Fire Services Jeanne Startzman The advisory group consists of: · City Attorney Scott Snyder · Mayor Gary Haakenson · Southwest Snohomish County 1756 Work Group with representatives from Edmonds, Fire District #1, and Lynnwood Fire Departments · SNOCOM Director Steve Perry · Others References include: · Implementation Matrix, Washington Fire Chiefs (WFC) and the Washington State Council of Firefighters (WSCFF) · Creating & Evaluating Standards of Response Cover for Fire Departments, Commission on Fire Accreditation International · WCIA Risk Management Bulletin #29, July, 2006 · 2005 Legislative Summaries, Ogden Murphy Wallace · Literature Review · Best Practices · Other ADDITIONAL BENEFIT Adoption of the SHB 1756 Compliance Plan has the additional benefit of facilitating the delivery of two City of Edmonds Strategic Plan objectives adopted by the City Council on June 27, 2006 and due by December 31, 2006. By adopting response standards and levels of service and staffing levels that comply with state statutes, and integrating them into the City Strategic Plan, two objectives under II. Council Public Safety Policy Statement Objectives are met: B. Establish Fire Levels of service and staffing that provide for proactive responses and comply with state statutes. C. Fire levels of service and staffing become part of the Strategic Plan. Recommendation : Forward SHB 1756 Compliance Plan to Council for approval with affirmative recommendation (Consent agenda or presentation to be determined; date to be determined). Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment: Substitute House Bill 1756 Implementation Matrix and Compliance Plan. Recommendation Forward Substitute House Bill 1756 Compliance Plan to Council with affirmative recommendation. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: SHB 1756 Compliance Plan Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 09:43 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:51 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Tom Tomberg Started On: 11/07/2006 03:39 PM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 CITY OF EDMONDS IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX AND COMPLIANCE PLAN - SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1756 Table of Contents Page City of Edmonds Implementation Matrix and Compliance Plan 2 Section I Policy Statements 3 Section II Adopted Standards 4 Section III Standards of Response Comparison (Standard of Cover) 10 Annual Compliance Report 14 Appendix A: Modified text of SHB 1756 15 Appendix B: Implementation Matrix Cover Sheet 19 Appendix C: Graphic Definition of Response Times 21 Appendix D: Council Resolution Adopting SHB 1756 Compliance Plan and Policy Statements 1 and 2 25 Appendix E: Policy Statements 3, 4, and 5 28 1 CITY OF EDMONDS IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX AND COMPLIANCE PLAN This plan is an attachment to Public Safety Committee Item D. Compliance with Substitute House Bill 1756 on the November 14, 2006 committee agenda. SHB 1756 requires every fire jurisdiction to which the law applies to evaluate its levels of service and deployment delivery methods, and emergency response times on an annual basis. The evaluations required by the law are based on data relating to levels of service, deployment, and the achievement of each response time objective within the jurisdiction. Beginning in 2007, with a comparison of 2006’s response objectives, each Fire Department shall issue an annual report which is based upon the annual review as explained within Section I, Section II, and Section III of the implementation matrix. The annual report includes: 1. The Policy Statements listed in Section I. 2. The Adopted Standards of turnout and response for all applicable emergency incidents listed in Section II. 3. An annual comparison of the adopted standards of turnout and response for all emergency incidents listed in Section III. 4. A description of the circumstances in which the requirements of the adopted departmental standards are not being met which could include, but are not limited to: a. Lack of adequately trained personnel b. Lack of funding to hire personnel c. Lack of apparatus or equipment d. Fire Station location e. Road network and topography f. Lack of mutual or automatic aid agreements 5. An explanation of the predictable consequences of any deficiencies and the steps necessary to achieve compliance with the adopted standards which could include, but are not limited to: a. Large fire loss due to inadequate staffing b. Inability to perform rapid fire attack or rescue operations c. Extended response times d. Inability to mitigate hazardous materials incidents within an acceptable period of time The annual report illustrates for elected officials and citizens how effectively the Fire Department measures up against its adopted standards of emergency response, and can be used as a tool in furthering the ability of the Fire Department to meet the emergency response needs of citizens and the community. This matrix is divided into the following sections: Section I. Policy Statements Section II. Adopted Standards Section III. Standard of Response Comparison (Standards of Cover) Section IV. Miscellaneous 2 SECTION I. POLICY STATEMENTS Every Fire Department shall maintain a written policy statement that establishes the following: 1. The existence of the Fire Department is verified by Resolution No._____attached in Appendix D. __X__meets requirement_____does not meet 2. Services that the Fire Department is required to provide are addressed in Resolution No._____ attached in Appendix D. __X__meets requirement_____does not meet 3. The basic organizational structure of the Fire Department is as depicted in the organizational chart, attached in Appendix E, adopted by Council as part of the 2006 budget on November 15, 2005, and the 2007-2008 budget adopted by Council on November 21, 2006. __X__meets requirement_____does not meet 4. The expected number of Fire Department employees for 2006 and 2007-2008 is 54 as adopted by Council as part of the 2006 budget on November 15, 2005, and the 2007-2008 budget adopted by Council on November 21, 2006. A breakdown by position appears in Appendix E. __X___meets requirement_____does not meet 5. The functions Fire Department employees are expected to perform are listed is SOP 501.01 Mission Statement attached in Appendix E. __X___meets requirement_____does not meet 3 SECTION II. ADOPTED STANDARDS Every Fire Department shall adopt service delivery objectives in a written statement for all the major services the jurisdiction provides in an emergency mode. Six emergency services with 11 measurable elements are addressed below: 1. Turnout time for all emergency incidents. 2A. Response time for first-arriving engine company to fire suppression incidents. 2B. Response time for deployment of first alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression incident. 2C. Response time for deployment of first alarm assignment to a commercial fire suppression incident. 3. Response time for first-arriving emergency medical services Basic Life Support (BLS) unit to an emergency medical incident. 4. Response time for first-arriving emergency medical services Advanced Life Support (ALS, Paramedic) unit to an emergency medical incident. 5A1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident. 5A2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident. 5B1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident. 5B2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident. 6. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine FIRE SUPPRESSION INCIDENTS 1. Turnout time for all emergency incidents. a. Time from the receipt of a dispatched alarm by the crew until they indicate, verbally or electronically, that they are en route to the incident. b. The time is defined in minutes and/or seconds of turnout time. c. The turnout time is established with a performance objective of not less than 90% for the achievement of the stated turnout time. Turnout Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a turn out time standard of 2:45, which the department should meet 90% of the time. __X__meets requirement_____does not meet requirement 2A. Response time of the first-arriving engine company to a fire suppression incident. a. Travel time to the incident of the first-arriving engine company. b. Travel time is determined by the actual “on the road” time after firefighters confirm they are responding, to the point that they arrive on the scene. This is not the total response time, it is simply the “travel” or “on road” time. 4 c. The time is defined in minutes and/or seconds of response time. d. The response (travel) time is established with a performance objective of not less than 90% for the achievement of the stated response (travel) time. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first-arriving engine company to a fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. ___X__meets requirement_____does not meet requirement 2B. Response time for the deployment of a full first alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression incident. a. Travel time to the incident for the full complement of the first alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression incident. b. Travel time is determined by the actual “on the road” time after firefighters confirm they are responding, to the point that they arrive on the scene. This is not the total response time, it is simply the “travel” or “on road” time. c. Time is defined in minutes and/or seconds of response time. d. The full complement of first alarm units is defined by the number of firefighters. e. The full complement response (travel) time is established with a performance objective of not less than 90% for the achievement of the stated response (travel) time. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 7:45 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm response to a residential fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm response of 15 firefighters. ___X__meets requirement_____does not meet requirement 2C. Response time for the deployment of a full first alarm assignment to a commercial fire suppression incident. a. Travel time to the incident for the full complement of the first alarm assignment to a commercial fire suppression incident. b. Travel time is determined by the actual “on the road” time after firefighters confirm they are responding, to the point that they arrive on the scene. This is not the total response time, it is simply the “travel” or “on road” time. c. Time is defined in minutes and/or seconds of response time. d. The full complement of first alarm units is defined by the number of firefighters. e. The full complement response (travel) time is established with a performance objective of not less than 90% for the achievement of the stated response (travel) time. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 9 minutes for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm response to a commercial fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm response of 18 firefighters. ___X__meets requirement_____does not meet requirement 5 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES - BASIC LIFE SUPPORT INCIDENTS 3. Response time of the first-arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) to an emergency medical incident. a. Travel time to the incident by the first-arriving engine company, aid car or other emergency medical unit with appropriately trained personnel on board, i.e., first responder emergency medical technicians (BLS). b. Travel time is determined by the actual “on the road” time after first responders, i.e., personnel certified as first responder emergency medical technicians, confirm they are responding, to the point that they arrive on the scene. This is not the total response time, it is simply the “travel” or “on road” time. c. The time is defined in minutes and/or seconds of response time. d. The response (travel) time is established with a performance objective of not less than 90% for the achievement of the stated response (travel) time. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 5:15 for the arrival of the first emergency medical unit with appropriately trained personnel on board (BLS) to an emergency medical incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. __ X___meets requirement_____does not meet requirement EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES - ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT INCIDENTS (PARAMEDIC) 4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit to an emergency medical incident. a. Travel time to the incident by the first-arriving advanced life support unit with two trained paramedics on board. b. Travel time is determined by the actual “on the road” time after paramedics confirm they are responding, to the point that they arrive on the scene. This is not the total response time, it is simply the “travel” or “on road” time. c. Time is defined in minutes and/or seconds of response time. d. The response (travel) time is established with a performance objective of not less than 90% for the achievement of the stated response (travel) time. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:45 for the arrival of an advanced life support unit with appropriately trained personnel (two Paramedics) on board to an ALS emergency medical incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. ___X__meets requirement_____does not meet requirement 6 SPECIAL OPERATIONS - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE AND TECHNICAL RESCUE RESPONSE 5A1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board at a hazardous materials incident. a. Travel time to the incident by the first-arriving engine company, aid car, or other special operations unit with appropriately trained and equipped personnel on board (Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel). b. Travel time is determined by the actual “on the road” time after hazardous materials operations level personnel confirm they are responding, to the point that they arrive on the scene. This is not the total response time, it is simply the “travel” or “on road” time. c. Time is defined in minutes and/or seconds of response time. d. The response (travel) time is established with a performance objective of not less than 90% for the achievement of the stated response (travel) time. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. __X___meets requirement_____does not meet requirement 5A2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel on board at a hazardous materials incident. a. Travel time to the incident by the first-arriving engine company, aid car, or other special operations unit with appropriately trained and equipped personnel on board (Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel). b. Travel time is determined by the actual “on the road” time after hazardous materials technician level personnel confirm they are responding, to the point that they arrive on the scene. This is not the total response time, it is simply the “travel” or “on road” time. c. Time is defined in minutes and/or seconds of response time. d. The response (travel) time is established with a performance objective of not less than 90% for the achievement of the stated response (travel) time. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 12 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. __X___meets requirement_____does not meet requirement 5B1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board at a technical rescue incident. a. Travel time to the incident by the first-arriving engine company, aid car, or other special operations unit with appropriately trained and equipped personnel on board (Technical Rescue Operations level personnel). 7 b. Travel time is determined by the actual “on the road” time after technical rescue operations level personnel confirm they are responding, to the point that they arrive on the scene. This is not the total response time, it is simply the “travel” or “on road” time. c. Time is defined in minutes and/or seconds of response time. d. The response (travel) time is established with a performance objective of not less than 90% for the achievement of the stated response (travel) time. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. ___X__meets requirement_____does not meet requirement 5B2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board at a technical rescue incident. a. Travel time to the incident by the first-arriving engine company, aid car, or other special operations unit with appropriately trained and equipped personnel on board (Technical Rescue Technician level personnel). b. Travel time is determined by the actual “on the road” time after technical rescue technician level personnel confirm they are responding, to the point that they arrive on the scene. This is not the total response time, it is simply the “travel” or “on road” time. c. Time is defined in minutes and/or seconds of response time. d. The response (travel) time is established with a performance objective of not less than 90% for the achievement of the stated response (travel) time. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 12 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. ___X__meets requirement_____does not meet requirement 8 MARINE RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING 6. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board at a marine incident. a. Travel time to the incident by the first-arriving marine unit with appropriately trained and equipped personnel on board (Marine Rescue and Firefighting trained personnel). b. Travel time is determined by the actual “on the water” time after properly trained and equipped personnel confirm they are responding, to the point that they arrive on the scene. This is not the total response time, it is simply the “travel” or “on water” time. c. Time is defined in minutes and/or seconds of response time. d. The response (travel) time is established with a performance objective of not less than 90% for the achievement of the stated response (travel) time. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. ___X__meets requirement_____does not meet requirement 9 SECTION III. STANDARDS OF RESPONSE COMPARISON (STANDARD OF COVER) To measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operations before the critical events of “brain death” or “flashover” occur, Fire Departments are required to establish response time objectives as explained in Section II, and compare the actual department results on an annual basis against the established objectives. The comparison begins in 2007 with a comparison of the established response objectives against actual 2006 response times for the aforementioned levels of response. This section provides a reporting format to show the comparison. 1. Turnout time for all emergency incidents Turnout Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a turn out time standard of 2:45, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did/did not meet the turn out time objective 90% of the time; 90% of the Fire Department incidents experienced a turn out time of_____minutes/seconds. 2A. Response time off the first-arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression incident Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first engine company at a fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did/did not meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of fire suppression incidents had the first engine arrive at the scene within_____minutes/seconds of response time. 2B. Response time for the deployment of full first alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression incident Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 7:45 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm response to a residential fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm response of 15 firefighters. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did/did not meet the full deployment response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of fire suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm responding personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within_____minutes/seconds of response time. 10 2C. Response time for the deployment of full first alarm assignment to a commercial fire suppression incident Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 9 minutes for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm response to a commercial fire suppression incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm response of 18 firefighters. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did/did not meet the full deployment response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of fire suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm responding personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within_____minutes/seconds of response time. 3. Response time of the first-arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher level capability to an emergency medical incident Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 5:15 for the arrival of the first emergency medical unit with appropriately trained personnel on board (BLS) to an emergency medical incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did/did not meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of emergency medical incidents had the first-arriving first responder (BLS) arrive at the scene within_____minutes/seconds of response time. 4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit to an emergency medical incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:45 for the arrival of an advanced life support unit with appropriately trained personnel (two Paramedics) on board to an ALS emergency medical incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did/did not meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of emergency medical incidents had the Advance Life Support (two Paramedics) unit arrive at the scene within_____minutes/seconds of response time. 5A1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did/did not meet the response time objective 90% of the time. 90% of hazardous materials 11 incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel arrive at the scene within_____minutes/seconds of response time. 5A2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 12 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel on board to a hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did/did not meet the response time objective 90% of the time. 90% of hazardous materials incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel arrive at the scene within_____minutes/seconds of response time. 5B1. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did/did not meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of technical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel arrive at the scene within_____minutes/seconds of response time. 5B2. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 12 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did/did not meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of technical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel arrive at the scene within_____minutes/seconds of response time. 6. Response time of the first-arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine incident. Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time. 12 Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2006: The Fire Department did/did not meet the response time objective 90% of the time; 90% of marine rescue or firefighting incidents had trained and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel arrive at the scene within_____minutes/seconds of response time. 13 ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT SHB 1756 requires the evaluation of Council-adopted levels of service, deployment delivery methods, and response time objectives on an annual basis. The evaluations are based on data relating to the levels of service, deployment, and the achievement of each response time objective established by Council. The response time data is extracted from emergency information entered into the Fire Department records management system by Department personnel using WebFIRS software. The evaluation is delivered to the Council and the public beginning in 2007 with the comparison of 2006 data against the adopted standards. The annual compliance report example in the matrix includes a Council resolution, the five policy statements, and compares the actual response times to each adopted response standard. When Council-adopted standards are not met, SHB 1756 requires the fire department to explain the predicable consequences of failing to meet the adopted standard, and address the steps necessary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compliance. In the matrix example, the fire department reports deficiencies in three standards using the Section III report model: turnout time, arrival of the first engine company, and deployment of the full first alarm assignment at a fire suppression incident. Examples from the matrix for reporting deficiencies, describing predictable results, and the plan of action to correct deficiencies appear below. Predictable results: “Population served by the Anywhere Fire Department has grown by 5% per year over the last 3 years. Our service area increased by 9 square miles of annexed area this last year. New construction has increased which has provided for additional revenues, however, these increases have not kept up with inflation. The major fiscal impacts over this last year have been: rising fuel costs, rising health care insurance premiums and the need to replace two fire engines. Without improving reliability of staffing both from career and volunteer our response times will continue to increase. Assuming all internal efficiencies have exhausted, the citizens set the level of risk and service associated from increased emergency response times. This is set through available funding and the Anywhere Fire Department will continue to engage the public so they fully understand the level of service available based on the resources provided.” Plan of action: “To meet the response time objectives for items 1-3 above, the Anywhere Fire Department will evaluate its response data to determine if relocating resources, improving reliability or other organizational changes may improve our ability to accomplish our response standards. The Anywhere Fire Department will develop a staffing plan that will consider volunteer recruiting and retaining programs, as well as, an increase of career staffing. All increases will require budget support and any plan will be developed with all stakeholders input and presented to the elected officials.” 14 APPENDIX A Substitute House Bill 1756 was adopted by the Washington Legislature in 2005. Only Part I and Part V of the bill appear below because Parts II, III, and IV differ from Part I only in that they specifically identify “code cities,” “fire districts” and “fire protection authorities,” and “port districts” as subject to SHB 1756. All other language is identical. CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1756 Chapter 376, Laws of 2005 59th Legislature 2005 Regular Session FIRE DEPARTMENTS EFFECTIVE DATE: 7/24/05 Passed by the House April 19, 2005 CERTIFICATE I, Richard Nafziger, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1756 as passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on the dates hereon set forth. RICHARD NAFZIGER _______________________________________ Chief Clerk FILED May 10, 2005 - 9:53 a.m. Secretary of State State of Washington _________________________________ Yeas 96 Nays 2 FRANK CHOPP ________________________________________ Speaker of the House of Representatives Passed by the Senate April 15, 2005 Yeas 36 Nays 10 BRAD OWEN ________________________________________ President of the Senate Approved May 10, 2005. CHRISTINE GREGOIRE ________________________________________ Governor of the State of Washington 15 SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1756 _____________________________________________ AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE Passed Legislature - 2005 Regular Session State of Washington 59th Legislature 2005 Regular Session By House Committee on Commerce & Labor (originally sponsored by Representatives P. Sullivan, B. Sullivan, Miloscia, Simpson, Nixon, Curtis, Conway and Wood). READ FIRST TIME 03/07/05. AN ACT Relating to the occupational safety and health of fire department employees; adding a new chapter to Title 35 RCW; adding a new chapter to Title 35A RCW; adding a new chapter to Title 52 RCW; adding a new chapter to Title 53 RCW; and creating a new section. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: PART I - CITY FIRE DEPARTMENTS NEW SECTION. Sec. 101 The legislature intends for city fire departments to set standards for addressing the reporting and accountability of substantially career fire departments, and to specify performance measures applicable to response time objectives for certain major services. The legislature acknowledges the efforts of the international city/county management association, the international association of fire chiefs, and the national fire protection association for the organization and deployment of resources for fire departments. The arrival of first responders with automatic external defibrillator capability before the onset of brain death, and the arrival of adequate fire suppression resources before flash-over is a critical event during the mitigation of an emergency, and is in the public's best interest. For these reasons, this chapter contains performance measures, comparable to that research, relating to the organization and deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations, and special operations by substantially career fire departments. This chapter does not, and is not intended to, in any way modify or limit the authority of cities and towns to set levels of service. NEW SECTION. Sec. 102 The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (1) "Advanced life support" means functional provision of advanced airway management, including intubation, advanced cardiac monitoring, manual defibrillation, establishment and maintenance of intravenous access, and drug therapy. (2) "Aircraft rescue and fire fighting" means the fire fighting actions taken to rescue persons and to control or extinguish fire involving or adjacent to aircraft on the ground. (3) "Brain death" as defined by the American heart association means the irreversible death of brain cells that begins four to six minutes after cardiac arrest. (4) "City" means a first class city or a second class city that provides fire protection services in a specified geographic area. (5) "Fire department" means a city or town fire department responsible for fire fighting actions, emergency medical services, and other special operations in a specified geographic area. 16 The department must be a substantially career fire department, and not a substantially volunteer fire department. (6) "Fire suppression" means the activities involved in controlling and extinguishing fires. (7) "First responder" means provision of initial assessment and basic first-aid intervention, including cardiac pulmonary resuscitation and automatic external defibrillator capability. (8) "Flash-over" as defined by national institute of standards and technology means when all combustibles in a room burst into flame and the fire spreads rapidly. (9) "Marine rescue and fire fighting" means the fire fighting actions taken to prevent, control, or extinguish fire involved in or adjacent to a marine vessel and the rescue actions for occupants using normal and emergency routes for egress. (10) "Response time" means the time immediately following the turnout time that begins when units are en route to the emergency incident and ends when units arrive at the scene. (11) "Special operations" means those emergency incidents to which the fire department responds that require specific and advanced training and specialized tools and equipment. (12) "Town" means a town that provides fire protection services, which may include fire fighting actions, emergency medical services, and other special operations, in a specified geographic area. (13) "Turnout time" means the time beginning when units receive notification of the emergency to the beginning point of response time. NEW SECTION. Sec. 103 (1) Every city and town shall maintain a written statement or policy that establishes the following: (a) The existence of a fire department; (b) Services that the fire department is required to provide; (c) The basic organizational structure of the fire department; (d) The expected number of fire department employees; and (e) Functions that fire department employees are expected to perform. (2) Every city and town shall include service delivery objectives in the written statement or policy required under subsection (1) of this section. These objectives shall include specific response time objectives for the following major service components, if appropriate: (a) Fire suppression; (b) Emergency medical services; (c) Special operations; (d) Aircraft rescue and fire fighting; (e) Marine rescue and fire fighting; and (f) Wild land fire fighting. (3) Every city and town, in order to measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operations before the critical events of brain death or flash-over, shall establish time objectives for the following measurements: (a) Turnout time; (b) Response time for the arrival of the first arriving engine company at a fire suppression incident and response time for the deployment of a full first alarm assignment at a fire suppression incident; (c) Response time for the arrival of a unit with first responder or higher level capability at an emergency medical incident; and (d) Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support unit at an emergency medical incident, where this service is provided by the fire department. (4) Every city and town shall also establish a performance objective of not less than ninety percent for the achievement of each response time objective established under subsection (3) of this section. 17 NEW SECTION. Sec. 104 (1) Every city and town shall evaluate its level of service and deployment delivery and response time objectives on an annual basis. The evaluations shall be based on data relating to level of service, deployment, and the achievement of each response time objective in each geographic area within the jurisdiction of the city or town. (2) Beginning in 2007, every city and town shall issue an annual written report which shall be based on the annual evaluations required by subsection (1) of this section. (a) The annual report shall define the geographic areas and circumstances in which the requirements of this standard are not being met. (b) The annual report shall explain the predictable consequences of any deficiencies and address the steps that are necessary to achieve compliance. Parts II, II and IV are deleted. PART V - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS NEW SECTION. Sec. 501 Part headings used in this act are not any part of the law. NEW SECTION. Sec. 502 (1) Sections 101 through 104 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 35 RCW. (2) Sections 201 through 204 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 35A RCW. (3) Sections 301 through 304 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 52 RCW. (4) Sections 401 through 404 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 53 RCW. Passed by the House April 19, 2005. Passed by the Senate April 15, 2005. Approved by the Governor May 10, 2005. Filed in Office of Secretary of State May 10, 2005. 18 APPENDIX B Implementation Matrix Cover Sheet from Washington State Association Fire Chiefs (now, Washington Fire Chiefs) and the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters. November 29, 2005 Dear Fire Chiefs and WSCFF Local Presidents: The Washington State Association of Fire Chiefs (WSAFC) and the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters (WSCFF) are working collaboratively in an effort to assist every substantially career fire department in Washington State to meet the intent of HB 1756, which was passed into law by the 2005 Legislature. HB 1756 mandates the establishment of response objectives for every substantially career fire department in the state of Washington, and that the outcome of these objectives be measured against their adopted response standards on an annual basis. Please read the enclosed Implementation Guide to familiarize yourself with the new law and its requirements. Beginning in 2007, all substantially career fire departments will be responsible for reporting information for the year 2006. In order to meet these deadlines, both the WSAFC and the WSCFF want you to have the information outlined in this Guide so that, if necessary, you will have time to change your data collection processes. If you have any questions, please contact the WSAFC or your WSCFF District Representative. Sincerely and fraternally, Dan Packer, President Kelly Fox, President Washington State Association of Fire Chiefs Washington State Council of Fire Fighters Enclosure HB 1756 Implementation Guide for Fire Departments in Washington State Jointly developed by the Washington State Association of Fire Chiefs (WSAFC), and the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters (WSCFF) 19 Forward This House Bill 1756 Implementation Guide has been developed by representatives from the Washington State Association of Fire Chiefs (WSAFC) and the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters (WSCFF). The intent of this mutually developed guide is to assist every Fire Department in the state of Washington in meeting the intent of HB 1756, which was passed into law by the 2005 Legislature. HB 1756 was supported by both the WSAFC and the WSCFF during the 2005 Legislative Session. It is a proactive methodology which mandates the establishment of fire department response objectives. Each affected fire department will measure its outcomes against its adopted response standards on an annual basis and report the results to the applicable elected officials, as well as to the community being served. Fire Departments across the nation are familiar with this methodology as it has been utilized in the CFAI (Commission on Fire Accreditation International) process, as well as being utilized in the Oregon Fire Chiefs Association’s Deployment Standard. The goal of this new law is to provide every fire chief and the community he/she serves with a true picture of how well their fire department is meeting its adopted goals, and to allow for future planning to assist with response improvements. This Implementation Guide is divided up into the following sections: I. HB 1756 in its entirety II. Graphic Definition of Response Times III. Implementation Matrix IV. Resolution for Implementation of HB1756 It is hoped that the enclosed information, and the matrix which walks every fire chief through the process, will assist in ensuring that every affected fire department within the state of Washington can meet the intent of the new law. Sincerely, Allen Church, Fire Chief Kevin Rojecki, Legislative Liaison South King County Fire & Rescue Washington State Council of Fire Fighters Ken Burdette, Fire Chief Bud Sizemore, Legislative Liaison Central Kitsap Fire & Rescue Washington State Council of Fire Fighters Wayne Senter, Fire Chief Denny Lawson, District Representative South Kitsap Fire & Rescue Washington State Council of Fire Fighters 20 APPENDIX C Graphic Definition of Response Times Cascade of Events The Committee on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) has defined response time elements as a cascade of events (figure 1). This cascade is similar to that used by the medical community to describe the events leading up to the initiation, mitigation, and ultimate outcome of a cardiac arrest. It is imperative to keep in mind that certain intervals described can be directly influenced by the fire service via station locations and design, staffing levels, as well as local rules and procedures for response (turnout and travel time). Others factors can be influenced indirectly such as the alarm interval through public education and engineering initiatives. The fire service can also influence the call-processing interval through its ability to define standards and compel performance by its dispatch centers. Factors that lead to 911 call Alarm time Dispatch time NFPA1221 Turnout time Travel time IFAA time Event initiation ++ Cascade of Event (1) Careful definition of terminology is essential to any conversation about response performance standards. It becomes even more critical when an organization attempts to benchmark its performance against other providers. The following cascade of events definitions are standardized for discussion of response performance parameters within the fire service. Event Initiation Point - The point at which factors occur that may ultimately result in an activation of the emergency response system. Precipitating factors can occur seconds, minutes, hours, or even days before emergency event awareness is reached. An example is the patient who ignores chest discomfort for days until it reaches a critical point at which he/she makes the decision to seek assistance (emergency event awareness). It is rarely possible to quantify the point at which event point Emergency event awareness Public safety answering point (PSAP) receives call PSAP notifies emergency responders Initial arriving Company en route (wheels rolling) Initial arriving company arrives =Response Time NFPA 1710 IFAA Time Initial full alarm assignment arrives Alarm Interval Processing Interval Turnout Interval Travel Interval 21 initiation occurs. Emergency Event Awareness - The point at which a human being or technologic “sentinel” (i.e., smoke detector, infrared heat detector, etc.) becomes aware that conditions exist requiring and activation of the emergency response system. This is considered the emergency event awareness. Alarm Interval - Measured time between emergency event awareness and the alarm time. Alarm Time - The point of receipt of the emergency event at the public safety answering point (PSAP) to the point where sufficient information is known to the dispatcher to deploy applicable units to the emergency. (Time-stamp). Call Processing Interval - The first ring of the 9-1-1 telephones at the dispatch center and the time the CAD operator activates station and/or company alerting devices. This can, if necessary, be broken down into two additional parameters: “call taker interval” (the interval from the first ring of the 9-1-1 telephone until the call taker transfers the call to the dispatcher) and “dispatcher interval” (the interval from the time when the call taker transfers the call to the dispatcher until the dispatcher (CAD operator) activates station and/or company alerting devices. Sixty (60) seconds is an industry standard. (Measured time between alarm time and dispatch time) Dispatch Time - Is the time when the dispatcher, having selected appropriate units for response with assistance from the CAD system, initiates the notification of response units. (Time-stamp) Turnout Interval - Measured time between dispatch time and turnout time. Turnout Time - When units acknowledge notification of the event to the beginning point of response time (wheels rolling). *Measured component known as “Turnout Time” required by HB1756*. Travel Interval - Measured time between turnout time and on scene time of initial company. *Measured component known as “Response Time” required by HB1756* CFAI recognizes the need to categorize each emergency response zone into relevant categories (urban, suburban, rural and wilderness) and measure appropriate travel times for each category. CFAI’s method for clarification is more precise than what HB 1756 specifically requires. Initial Company Time - The point at which the initial company arrives on scene. Initiation of Action - The point at which operations to mitigate the event begin. This may include available to respond to another request for service. Initial Full Alarm Assignment Interval - Measured time between initial company on scene time and Initial Full Alarm Assignment is completed. Initial Full Alarm Assignment - Time when all of the personnel, equipment, and resources ordinarily dispatched upon alarm arrives on the scene. *Measured component required by HB1756 for fire suppression responses*. Response Time - The combined measured time from dispatch time and includes 22 turnout and travel intervals to initial company arrival time. Controlled Time - Time when the forward progress of the fire has been stopped or when ABC’s have been addressed and managed. Termination of Event - The point at which unit(s) have completed the assignment and are available to respond to another request for service. Time-Temperature Standard: Flashover The “time-temperature curve” standard in figure 2 is based on data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the Insurance Services Organization (ISO), which have established that a typical point source of ignition in a residential house will “flash over” at some time between 5 and 10 minutes after ignition, turning a typical “room and contents” fire in to a structural fire of some magnitude. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Minutes Flashover Unrestrained Fire Growth Fire Growth with Automatic Sprinkler Time Varies Fire System Response Time Detection of Fire Report of Alarm Dispatch Units Turn Out Respond to Scene Set Up Time Indirectly Manageable Time Directly Manageable Ignition Time-Temperature Curve (2) The utility of the time-temperature curve for fire station placement is limited a number of factors. 1) It does not account for the time required for the existence of a fire to be “discovered” and reported to the Fire Department via the 911 system. 2) The time from ignition to flashover varies widely (5-30 minutes depending on building characteristics); thus it cannot provide a valid basis for the allocation of resources. 23 3) The curve is constantly shifting, given the numerous changes in building construction, built in suppression systems, the increased use of fire resistive materials for furniture and other items typically found in the interior of occupied buildings. Cardiac Arrest Survival Standard: Brain Death The Cardiac Arrest Survival Standard (figure 3) or “chain of survival” standard developed by the American Heart Association is often used to provide guidance for distribution of resources to prevent the onset of “brain death.” Numerous studies have shown that irreversible death of brain cells begins four to six minutes between collapse and initiation of CPR. The chain of survival suggests that basic life support (CPR and defibrillation) should be available to the victim of a cardiac arrest within 4 minutes of the event, and that advanced life support (paramedic service) should be available within 8 minutes or less of the event. Early notification, distribution and concentration of emergency response services are thus paramount to successful resuscitation efforts. 12 345678910 Minutes % Survival 80 60 40 20 Time Varies EMS Response Time Detection of Collapse Report of Alarm Dispatch Units Turn Out Respond to Scene Set Up Time Indirectly Manageable Time Directly Manageable Collapse Cardiac Arrest Survival (3) The Golden Hour Standard In trauma events, the golden hour is the historic benchmark applied to victims with significant critical traumatic injuries. The golden hour reflects the concept that survivability decreases significantly if the patient isn’t in the operating room within one hour of receiving a critical traumatic injury. 24 APPENDIX D The resolution approved by City Attorney Scott Snyder on November 1, 2006 adopts the policy, standards and objectives outlined in SHB 1756, and meets the requirements for Section I. Policy Statements: 1. existence of the Fire Department, and 2. services the Fire Department is required to provide. RESOLUTION NO. ____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE PERFORMANCE POLICY, STANDARDS AND OBJECTIVES OUTLINED IN SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1756 AS EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY RESOURCE DEPLOYMENT AND RESPONSE TIME OBJECTIVES. WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department is legally established as a fire department through Ordinance No. 254 approved by the City of Edmonds City Council on October 16, 1912 to provide for the prevention of and protection from fire in the city and whose emergency services now include fire suppression, emergency medical services at the basic life support-defibrillator and advanced life support levels, hazardous materials response, technical rescue response, marine rescue and fire suppression, and disaster preparedness and response; and, WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has a mission statement and goals and objectives to guide the organization in providing emergency services that include fire suppression, emergency medical services at the basic life support- defibrillator and advanced life support levels, hazardous materials response, technical rescue response, marine rescue and fire suppression, and disaster preparedness and response; and, WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has a basic organizational 25 structure which includes elected officials, Chief Fire Officers, Fire Officers, Firefighters, Firefighter/Paramedics and Firefighter/EMTs; and, WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has a certain number of members now and in the future who perform the tasks required to accomplish the response objectives; and, WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department is required by state law to establish turnout and response time goals for the emergency services is provides; and, WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has evaluated the elements identified in SHB 1756 and included those provisions deemed appropriate in the Department’s emergency service delivery; and, WHEREAS, the Edmonds Fire Department has developed written response coverage objectives required to comply with applicable provisions of SHB 1756; and, WHEREAS, the response coverage document is in furtherance of the City of Edmonds duty to the public at large and does not create a specific duty to any individual in the event of an emergency response; and WHEREAS, each emergency response occurs under a unique set of circumstances and competing emergency needs may impact response in any specific situation; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds obligation to respond to emergency incidents consistent with the Fire Department emergency resource deployment and response time objectives may be impacted by circumstances and competing emergency needs, the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees shall have no duty to 26 respond according to any specific response standard, and shall incur no liability whatsoever for failing to do so; therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City Council of the City of Edmonds hereby adopts the response coverage document attached as Exhibit A as the Edmonds Fire Department’s official policy for determining emergency medical, fire and rescue resource deployment; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The adopted response coverage document officially defines the Edmonds Fire Department’s written policies and procedures that establish the distribution and concentration of fixed and mobile resources of the department; and, This resolution was adopted at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the Edmonds City Council for the Edmonds Fire Department on ____________________, 2006. RESOLVED this _____ day of __________, 2006. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: / /06 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: / /06 RESOLUTION NO. _____ EXHIBIT A Attach response coverage document which are Sections II and III (pages 4-13) of this document. 27 APPENDIX E Meets I. Policy Statements: 3. Fire Department Organizational Chart, 4. Number of Fire Department Employees, and 5. Functions Fire Department Employees Are Expected to Perform. 3. Organizational Chart Fire Chief 4. Number of Employees: 2006 2007 2008 Chief Officers 3 3 3 Career Firefighters 48 48 48 Resident/Part-Time FFs 0 0 0 Administrative Support 1 1 1 Mechanics 0 0 0 Public Education Staff 0 0 0 Fire Prevention Staff 2 2 2 Emergency Management Staff 0 0 0 Dispatching Staff 0 0 0 Other Staff 0 0 0 Total Staff 54 54 54 Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Investigation Advanced Life Support Operations Volunteers Executive Assistant Fire Alarm Dispatch Assistant Chief Administrative Battalion Chief / Training Officer 28 5. Functions EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT SOP 501.01 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES DATE: JANUARY 20, 2000 REVISED: OCTOBER 17, 2006 MISSION STATEMENT INTENT To declare the Fire Department mission statement and identify the multiple missions and levels of service of the organization DISCUSSION The Fire Department provides a comprehensive range of fire and life safety services to the City, its residents, contract jurisdiction, and Automatic Aid partners. The Edmonds Fire Department is dedicated to protect life, property, and the environment within our community through education, prevention, and emergency response to medical, fire, and hazardous conditions. The Fire Department actively looks for opportunities to serve its customers. The Department's multiple missions are delivered by cross-trained Firefighter/EMTs and Firefighter/Paramedics who cross-staff Medic and Aid Units, Fire Engines, the Ladder, the public safety boat, and support vehicles, and include: Deliver the best possible service to our customers Save lives and property Provide the highest quality medical care to the sick and injured at the EMT-D and Paramedic levels Provide emergency Aid and Medic Unit transport to medical facilities Control and suppress fires Effect rescue and extrication Contain and control hazardous materials incidents Provide marine emergency services Prepare for and respond to natural and manmade disasters 29 Preserve and protect the environment Assist our Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid co-operators Prevent fires and reduce loss through occupancy inspections, plans review, code enforcement, fire and arson investigation Participate in civic events, and develop and implement programs to educate the community in life safety, fire prevention and disaster preparedness Respond to community-threatening emergencies under the auspices of the City of Edmonds Emergency Operations Plan Budget, administer, supervise, evaluate, train and analyze all aspects of Department operations Constantly improve These missions are jointly accomplished at the levels of service described in an inclusive, collaborative environment through a cost-effective, community-responsive fire and life safety service delivery system dedicated to quality customer service. __________________________________ Thomas J. Tomberg, Fire Chief 30 AM-662 1.E. Contract for court security Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By:Doug Fair, Municipal Court Submitted For:Doug Fair Time:10 Minutes Department:Municipal Court Type:Information Committee:Public Safety Agenda Memo Subject Contract for court security officer. Previous Council Action Narrative Please see memo under attachments. Recommendation Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Court security contract Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 02:07 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:51 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Doug Fair Started On: 10/24/2006 12:10 PM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 In 2005 the City Council approved the funding for a court security officer. The Court contracted with Puget Sound Executive Services (PSES) to provide the security. PSES hires off-duty police officers to provide security services. PSES was specifically requested to hire local officers (Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Mill Creek) because their dispatch radio frequency is the same as Edmonds’ dispatch frequency. The EPOA bargaining unit did not object to using PSES to provide court security services. Since then the City of Mountlake Terrace has offered to provide the same services through a direct contract via an Interlocal Agreement. Also PSES has notified the City that they are increasing their hourly rate from to $40 per hour starting January 1, 2007. The current rate is $35 per hour. The City of Mountlake Terrace will provide the service at $33 per hour. The Court solicited input from EPOA about the Interlocal Agreement. Despite having no objection to using PSES, the EPOA has now taken the position that the security officer position is subject to negotiations between the City and EPOA pursuant to the CBA. The EPOA has been open to some negotiation on this issue. However, the EPOA has indicated that they will file a grievance with the City should the Interlocal Agreement be approved. The Court checked with the City Attorney, Scott Snyder, for advice on this issue. It was his opinion that the EPOA has waived their objection under the CBA to the Court hiring an outside agency to perform security functions. Thus the EPOA cannot now dictate who the Court hires. This is a management decision. The Court is not interested in provoking a grievance with the EPOA. However, the Interlocal Agreement saves the City $7 an hour without compromising safety. This will result in a savings of about 17% over the next year for the security officer position. Furthermore, the Police Department is currently understaffed. The reality is that the EPOA would have difficulty filling the security position. Nothing in the Interlocal Agreement is permanent. The City and the EPOA can address this issue in future contract negotiations. Approving the Interlocal Agreement is a good short-term solution to the security officer issue. However, the Council should be aware that the result of this agreement may be a grievance filed by the EPOA. AM-667 2.A. Broadcasting Planning Board & ADB Meetings Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By: Stephen Clifton, Community Services Time:30 Minutes Department:Community Services Type:Information Committee:Community/Development Services Agenda Memo Subject Recording and broadcasting of Planning Board and Architectural Design Board meetings. Previous Council Action Narrative The City Council Community Outreach Committee has asked that the Community Services/Development Services Committee discuss the possibility of recording and broadcasting Planning Board and Architectural Design Board (ADB) meetings. The Chairs and members of each board have been invited to participate in the discussion. City staff will also be available to participate in the discussed. Recommendation No recommendation at this time. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/06/2006 08:21 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/06/2006 08:26 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/06/2006 03:11 PM APRV Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 10/30/2006 04:52 PM Final Approval Date: 11/06/2006 AM-666 2.B. Discussion on Temporary Sign Regulations Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By:Duane Bowman, Development Services Time:20 Minutes Department:Development Services Type:Action Committee:Community/Development Services Agenda Memo Subject Discussion on temporary sign regulations. Previous Council Action None Narrative On September 15, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its long-anticipated decision in On September 15, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its long-anticipated decision in the Ballen v. City of Redmond litigation. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion affirmed a ruling by the U.S. District Court that had invalidated the City of Redmond’s portable sign ordinance as an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech. Because the Ballen opinion will be published, it constitutes binding precedent for all municipalities in the western United States. The Ballen case involved a constitutional challenge to the City of Redmond’s ban on portable signs. “Portable signs” were defined under the City’s ordinance as sandwich boards, signs displayed on trailers, move able reader boards, and other temporary message displays that are not permanently affixed to a structure or to the ground. Significantly, the ordinance expressly exempted several categories of signs — i.e., real estate signs, political signs, celebration displays, specified banners, temporary window signs, signs on kiosks, construction signs, and signs indicating temporary uses of schools, churches and community buildings — from the larger prohibition. Like most municipal sign codes, the Redmond ordinance also contained a “purpose” clause identifying the code’s underlying objectives as promoting community aesthetics and traffic safety. Edmonds current sign regulations for temporary signs is similar to those of Redmond's. We have essentially three choices to consider: 1. Categorical Ban. Although this issue was not explicitly addressed by the Ballen decision, the City could probably impose a categorical ban on all portable commercial signs. The defensibility of this approach would likely hinge upon the extent to which the City could create a legislative record clearly demonstrating the aesthetic and traffic safety problems caused by this type of signage (e.g., studies, reports, testimony, etc.), and explaining why alternative regulatory approaches were unsatisfactory. 2. Zone-Specific Restrictions. A second potential option would be to establish content-neutral restrictions on temporary commercial signs, the applicability and specific requirements of which would depend upon the particular zone at issues. For example, the City could limit portable signs displayed within the residential zone to one per business or sale property, and require that any such sign must be located within a specific distance of the sale property or business. 3. Time, Place and Manner Restrictions. As long as the regulations are reasonable, plausibly effective and content-neutral, the City enjoys fairly broad discretion in limiting the location, duration and method by which temporary commercial signs may be displayed. Examples of permissible regulatory approaches might include (1) a limit on the number of signs displayed by a particular business, (2) a requirements that all portable signs be removed from sight after business hours, (3) constraints on the size of portable signs, and (4) a prohibition on all hand-held or animated signs. The latter option was specifically endorsed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ballen, and allows the City to ban the type of human-worn signage and commercial mascots that have recently proliferated throughout the region. Please note that the above options are limited to commercial signs. Noncommercial signage (especially political signs) enjoys a significantly higher level of constitutional protection than commercial advertisements. Zach Lell, from Ogden Murphy Wallace, will attend the meeting. Recommendation Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/06/2006 08:21 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/06/2006 08:26 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/06/2006 03:11 PM APRV Form Started By: Duane Bowman Started On: 10/30/2006 09:40 AM Final Approval Date: 11/06/2006 AM-685 2.C. New Site for Temporary Public Service Event Banners Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By:Frances Chapin, Parks and Recreation Submitted For:Brian McIntosh Time:15 Minutes Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action Committee:Community/Development Services Agenda Memo Subject New site for temporary public service event banners. Previous Council Action Narrative A new site has been located for installing poles for temporary public service event banners. The site differs from the two existing over the street banner locations because it is on the Public Works site property to the north side of 212th Street. The other two sites are in the Right of Way, this new site would not be in the Right of Way since the poles would be located on City property at the Public Works site. This special circumstance does not meet the City sign code, therefore a code amendment is needed in order to accommodate the use of temporary public service event banners at this site. Recommendation Recommend to Council that a code amendment be made to allow this type of sign. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 04:27 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:51 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 11/07/2006 11:46 AM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 AM-661 3.A. Salary increase to continue state reimbursement for elected judicial position Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By:Doug Fair, Municipal Court Submitted For:Doug Fair Time:10 Minutes Department:Municipal Court Type:Action Committee:Finance Agenda Memo Subject Salary increase to continue state reimbursement for judicial salary. Previous Council Action Narrative Please see memo under attachments. Recommendation Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2007 Revenue: 11,959 Expenditure: 1,913 Fiscal Impact: Attachments Link: 2006 salary memo Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 02:07 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:50 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Doug Fair Started On: 10/24/2006 12:03 PM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 In 2006 the City Council made Edmonds Municipal Court Judge an elected position. This qualified the City to obtain reimbursement from the State for court improvement account funds. In order to qualify for these funds the judicial position must be paid at a pro rated salary that equates to 95% of the salary for a district court judge. The 2006 salary for the judicial position was negotiated at $63,751 for a 22 hour work week. This is exactly 95% of the district court salary pro rated at 55% (22 hours per week). This has made the City of Edmonds eligible for court improvement account funds. To date we have received approximately $2500 from the State. It is anticipated that Edmonds will receive $3700 for the fiscal year of 2006. The Washington State Salary Guidelines Commission has increased the salary for district court judges commencing September 1, 2006. The salary increase was from $122,012 to $125,672 on an annualized basis. The 95% pro rated salary for 2007 for the Edmonds judicial position would then need to be $65,664 to remain eligible for the court improvement account funds. This is an increase of $1,913 from 2006. The anticipated revenue from court improvement funds for 2007 will be $11,959. The net gain for the City is slightly over $10,000. I respectfully request that we renegotiate the salary term of the contract to keep the City eligible for these court improvement account funds. AM-689 3.B. Third Quarter Budget Report Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By: Kathleen Junglov, Administrative Services Time:10 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Information Committee:Finance Agenda Memo Subject Third Quarter Budget Report. Previous Council Action None. Narrative This item transmits the Third Quarter Budget Report. Recommendation No action required. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Third Quarter Budget Report Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Dan Clements 11/08/2006 03:34 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 03:34 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:51 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Kathleen Junglov Started On: 11/07/2006 04:33 PM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 CITY OF EDMONDS SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS (November 14, 2006) Overview Summary..........................2 Revenues..........................2 Expenditures....................2 On the Horizon ................3 Major Revenue Projections........4 General Fund Revenue Detail ...7 Expenditure Summary Status by Fund.................12 Status by Department.......12 Expenditure Detail by Fund General Fund ...................13 Street Fund.......................14 Street Construction..........14 Multi-Modal.....................14 Building Maintenance......15 Municipal Arts.................15 Hotel/Motel......................15 Employee Parking............15 Tourism Promotion..........16 Park Improve (REET 2).......16 Park Capital (REET 1).......16 Gifts Catalog....................17 Cemetery Maintenance....17 Combined Utility .............18 Equipment Rental.............19 Expenditure Detail by Department City Council.....................20 Mayor...............................20 Human Resources............20 Municipal Court...............21 Economic Development...21 City Clerk.........................21 Administrative Services...22 City Attorney ...................22 Non-Departmental............22 Police Department............23 Fire Department...............24 Community Services........24 Development Services .....25 Parks & Recreation..........25 Public Works....................26 Facilities...........................26 Storm Drainage................27 Water................................28 Sewer................................29 Treatment Plant................30 Capital Improvement Project Status 31 L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0015_689_Q3 Budget Report.doc SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT CITY OF EDMONDS THIRD QUARTER, 2006 BUDGET REPORT This report will provide preliminary information regarding the City of Edmonds’ financial operations during the third quarter of 2006. We have also included a discussion of any items that occurred since September, which will have an impact on the City’s financial position for the remainder of 2006. Overview From an overall perspective, revenues and expenditures currently appear to be on target. Individual categories that are exceeding budget or falling below estimates are discussed in detail below. Revenue Variances Sales tax revenue continues to run ahead of projections. Preliminary results through October show receipts running 6.6%, or $326,000 annually, ahead of budget estimates. Our top three sources of sales tax revenue continue to be Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers (29.6% - $1,043,323 year to date), Construction of Buildings (10.2% - $333,092 year to date) and Food and Beverage Services (9.4% - $331,702 year to date). Building permit fees along with plan check fees are also running ahead of budget estimates. Third quarter receipts total $659,000, which is 105.4% of budget, and $400,000 which is 105.2% of budget, respectively. Year end results for building permit fees were initially estimated at $700,000, which it now appears to be low. The year end estimate has now been revised to $829,000. Year end results for plan check fees were originally estimated at $410,000, but have now been revised to $493,000. Much of this is attributed to the development at Point Edwards. Court revenue, specifically Adult Probation Services revenue continues to be a strong performer. As of the close of September, the City has received 100% of the budget estimate of $100,000. The Judge cautions that typically court revenues do not come in at the same pace in the fourth quarter. Additionally, the City’s two motorcycle traffic officers are out on disability. Gas utility tax is currently at 98.2% of budget, or $606,000. Current forecasts point to year end receipts of $771,000. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) receipts through October 31 are $1,230,000. At this time we are forecasting year end receipts of $1,456,000 which exceeds the budget estimate by $456,000. Departmental and Fund Variances At this time there are five Funds with expenditures that have or appear will exceed appropriations. Budget amendments will be processed for the Street Construction Fund, the Park Acquisition (REET 1) Fund, the Cemetery Maintenance Fund, and the Park Construction Fund due to capital expenditures that exceed budget estimates. In the Street Construction, Park Acquisition (REET 1), and Park Construction funds there is adequate fund balance or revenues to cover the expenditures. The Cemetery Maintenance fund has received an interfund loan from the Cemetery Improvement Trust to Page 2 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT fund the construction of the columbarium. The Equipment Rental Fund is at 82.2% of budget; however this is due to capital expenditures incurred early in the year. It is not anticipated that this fund will exceed budget. Additionally, amendments are being processed for following General Fund Departments: Police and Fire for overtime a portion of which is offset by additional revenue, and the Municipal Court for interpreter fees, electronic home monitoring expenses, and the Judge’s compensation. On the Horizon At the close of the third quarter City revenues have held up well, and most expenditures have been within normal budget ranges. However, the unanticipated growth in jail costs, State pension rate increases and as well as other increases in labor costs have created a situation where now more than ever the City needs to work on long term permanent solutions to address its budget challenges. - November 14, 2006 Page 3 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT MAJOR REVENUE PROJECTIONS The Real Estate Excise Tax forecast includes revenues received through November 9, 2006. Other projections include revenues received through October 31, 2006. 2006 BUDGET 1,000,000 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 6.53% 5.56% 5.86% 8.08% 8.37% 8.30% 11.54% 9.97% 10.57% 9.74% 8.69% 6.77% Cumulative Forecast % 6.53% 12.09% 17.96% 26.04% 34.41% 42.70% 54.25% 64.22% 74.79% 84.53% 93.23% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 65,346 55,592 58,632 80,797 83,717 82,966 115,427 99,707 105,719 97,437 86,935 67,725 Cumulative Forecast $ 65,346 120,938 179,570 260,367 344,084 427,049 542,476 642,184 747,903 845,340 932,275 1,000,000 Actual Collected $ 99,814 78,369 105,890 136,645 119,735 193,959 142,127 109,996 125,084 118,867 87,952 Cumulative Collection $ 99,814 178,183 284,074 420,719 540,453 734,412 876,539 986,535 1,111,619 1,230,487 1,318,439 YEAR END FORECAST 1,527,471 1,473,341 1,581,968 1,615,871 1,570,703 1,719,736 1,615,811 1,536,220 1,486,315 1,455,612 1,414,217 Projected YE Variance 527,471 473,341 581,968 615,871 570,703 719,736 615,811 536,220 486,315 455,612 414,217 Budget Variance % 52.75% 47.33% 58.20% 61.59% 57.07% 71.97% 61.58% 53.62% 48.63% 45.56% 41.42% REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2006 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2006 Actual 2006 Budget Page 4 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT MAJOR REVENUE PROJECTIONS 2006 BUDGET 4,950,000 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 8.11% 10.10% 7.22% 6.74% 8.67% 7.74% 8.02% 9.16% 8.16% 8.52% 9.20% 8.36% Cumulative Forecast % 8.11% 18.21% 25.43% 32.18% 40.85% 48.58% 56.60% 65.75% 73.92% 82.44% 91.64% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 401,432 500,117 357,450 333,794 429,111 382,911 396,769 453,279 404,157 421,816 455,458 413,706 Cumulative Forecast $ 401,432 901,549 1,258,999 1,592,793 2,021,904 2,404,815 2,801,584 3,254,863 3,659,020 4,080,836 4,536,294 4,950,000 Actual Collected $ 401,171 545,757 357,585 362,431 456,253 392,303 448,417 474,842 462,833 448,040 Cumulative Collection $ 401,171 946,929 1,304,514 1,666,945 2,123,198 2,515,501 2,963,918 3,438,760 3,901,593 4,349,633 YEAR END FORECAST 4,946,790 5,199,162 5,128,950 5,180,446 5,197,986 5,177,832 5,236,821 5,229,670 5,278,158 5,276,047 Projected YE Variance (3,210) 249,162 178,950 230,446 247,986 227,832 286,821 279,670 328,158 326,047 Budget Variance % -0.06% 5.03% 3.62% 4.66% 5.01% 4.60% 5.79% 5.65% 6.63% 6.59% SALES AND USE TAX 2006 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2006 Actual 2006 Budget 2006 BUDGET 618,000 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 13.22% 14.48% 13.30% 11.39% 9.02% 6.27% 4.58% 3.35% 3.05% 3.76% 5.93% 11.66% Cumulative Forecast % 13.22% 27.70% 40.99% 52.39% 61.40% 67.67% 72.25% 75.60% 78.65% 82.41% 88.34% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 81,670 89,490 82,172 70,413 55,723 38,744 28,282 20,713 18,837 23,267 36,650 72,039 Cumulative Forecast $ 81,670 171,160 253,332 323,745 379,469 418,212 446,494 467,207 486,044 509,311 545,961 618,000 Actual Collected $ 115,247 98,479 103,017 95,043 66,653 46,806 32,742 24,455 24,158 29,500 Cumulative Collection $ 115,247 213,726 316,743 411,785 478,439 525,245 557,986 582,441 606,600 636,099 YEAR END FORECAST 872,078 771,688 772,688 786,060 779,182 776,164 772,318 770,426 771,284 771,845 Projected YE Variance 254,078 153,688 154,688 168,060 161,182 158,164 154,318 152,426 153,284 153,845 Budget Variance % 41.11% 24.87% 25.03% 27.19% 26.08% 25.59% 24.97% 24.66% 24.80% 24.89% GAS UTILITY TAX 2006 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2006 Actual 2006 Budget Page 5 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT MAJOR REVENUE PROJECTIONS 2006 BUDGET 1,237,200 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 8.38% 7.59% 8.53% 8.83% 7.58% 8.60% 8.39% 8.36% 8.41% 7.76% 8.07% 9.48% Cumulative Forecast % 8.38% 15.98% 24.51% 33.34% 40.92% 49.53% 57.92% 66.28% 74.69% 82.45% 90.52% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 103,737 93,940 105,574 109,261 93,810 106,450 103,799 103,387 104,070 96,038 99,815 117,318 Cumulative Forecast $ 103,737 197,677 303,251 412,512 506,322 612,772 716,571 819,958 924,028 1,020,066 1,119,882 1,237,200 Actual Collected $ 108,934 48,527 158,003 122,729 106,890 104,691 116,394 105,463 105,507 116,580 Cumulative Collection $ 108,934 157,461 315,464 438,193 545,084 649,774 766,168 871,631 977,138 1,093,717 YEAR END FORECAST 1,299,185 985,499 1,287,024 1,314,222 1,331,915 1,311,908 1,322,832 1,315,167 1,308,310 1,326,529 Projected YE Variance 61,985 (251,701) 49,824 77,022 94,715 74,708 85,632 77,967 71,110 89,329 Budget Variance % 5.01% -20.34% 4.03% 6.23% 7.66% 6.04% 6.92% 6.30% 5.75% 7.22% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 2006 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2006 Actual 2006 Budget 2006 BUDGET 1,365,000 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast % 10.25% 11.52% 10.36% 10.79% 9.13% 7.68% 6.77% 6.68% 6.06% 6.57% 6.79% 7.40% Cumulative Forecast % 10.25% 21.77% 32.13% 42.93% 52.05% 59.74% 66.51% 73.19% 79.24% 85.81% 92.60% 100.00% Monthly Forecast $ 102,539 115,156 103,644 107,946 91,262 76,836 67,689 66,792 60,556 65,665 67,883 74,031 Cumulative Forecast $ 102,539 217,696 321,340 429,285 520,548 597,384 665,073 731,865 792,421 858,086 925,969 1,000,000 Actual Collected $ 139,410 165,137 132,838 155,899 117,411 98,533 91,526 88,676 81,866 93,505 Cumulative Collection $ 139,410 304,548 437,386 593,285 710,696 809,229 900,755 989,431 1,071,297 1,164,802 YEAR END FORECAST 1,359,580 1,398,961 1,361,134 1,382,030 1,365,285 1,354,621 1,354,370 1,351,931 1,351,929 1,357,442 Projected YE Variance (5,420) 33,961 (3,866) 17,030 285 (10,379) (10,630) (13,069) (13,071) (7,558) Budget Variance % -0.40% 2.49% -0.28% 1.25% 0.02% -0.76% -0.78% -0.96% -0.96% -0.55% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 2006 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2006 Actual 2006 Budget Page 6 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 09/30/2006 Revenues Balance % Received BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 3,273,822 4,069,873 (796,051) 124.3% REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 8,530,240 4,548,632 3,981,608 53.3% EMS PROPERTY TAX 2,318,000 1,253,015 1,064,985 54.1% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 764,248 407,201 357,047 53.3% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,950,000 3,901,569 1,048,431 78.8% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 10,500 15,012 (4,512) 143.0% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 547,000 451,842 95,158 82.6% GAS UTILITY TAX 618,000 606,600 11,400 98.2% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,237,200 976,094 261,106 78.9% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,365,000 1,001,926 363,074 73.4% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 250,000 181,083 68,917 72.4% WATER UTILITY TAX 185,000 155,330 29,670 84.0% SEWER UTILITY TAX 265,000 202,569 62,432 76.4% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 175,000 150,518 24,482 86.0% PULLTABS TAX 54,000 40,203 13,797 74.4% AMUSEMENT GAMES 500 317 183 63.3% PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES 500 0 500 0.0% TOTAL TAXES 21,270,188 13,891,909 7,378,279 65.31% FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 4,890 4,835 55 98.9% PROF AND OCCUPATION LICENSE 1,200 675 525 56.3% AMUSEMENTS 7,100 2,425 4,675 34.2% BUS. LICENCE PERMIT PENALTY 1,800 2,023 (223) 112.4% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 56,000 56,112 (112) 100.2% FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS 415,000 336,809 78,191 81.2% OLY VIEW WATER DIST FRANCHISE 110,000 84,117 25,883 76.5% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 20,000 17,220 2,780 86.1% NON RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 13,700 12,300 1,400 89.8% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 5,000 0 5,000 0.0% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 625,000 658,740 (33,740) 105.4% ANIMAL LICENSES 11,000 7,485 3,515 68.0% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 88,100 25,135 62,965 28.5% OTHER/NON-BUS/LIC/PERMIT 5,000 5,200 (200) 104.0% TOTAL LICENSES AND PERMITS 1,363,790 1,213,075 150,715 88.95% Page 7 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 09/30/2006 Revenues Balance % Received FEMA EMW-2005-FG-03795 SCBA 195,152 195,152 0 100.0% US Dept of Justice Grant 0 1,993 (1,993) - WA ASSOC OF SHERRIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT 1,500 0 1,500 0.0% WTSC-CLICK IT OR TICKET 3,939 0 3,939 0.0% WTSC-DUI TRAFFIC SAFETY 345 0 345 0.0% Federal WA State Traffic Comm Grant 10,000 4,374 5,626 43.7% SHSGP #E05-071 FIRE RESCUE BOAT 200,000 0 200,000 0.0% ENVIRONMNTL/BCH RANGER GRANT 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% CIG GRANT - EDMONDS HISTORIC SURVEY 0 0 0 - WSP - Fire Dept Grant 0 0 0 - WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT 0 0 0 - WSP DRUG RECOGNITION 486 51 435 10.5% WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT 0 4,631 (4,631) - DOE RECYCLING GRANT 0 0 0 - WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT 1,958 2,303 (345) 117.6% WSDOT GCA4234 0 0 0 - WSDOE SMA GRANT G0600108 100,000 68,484 31,517 68.5% EMS FIRE DEPARTMENT GRANT 1,463 1,463 0 100.0% WA STATE TRAUMA GRANT 1,290 0 1,290 0.0% GROWTH MGT INCENTIVE GRANT 0 0 0 - WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH GRANT 0 0 0 - WA STATE ART COMMISSION GRANT 0 0 0 - FIRE DEPARTMENT GRANTS 0 0 0 - PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 180,000 0 180,000 0.0% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 7,200 5,654 1,546 78.5% CRIMINAL JUSTICE - SPECIAL PROGRAMS 30,000 25,829 4,171 86.1% DUI - CITIES 8,750 4,971 3,779 56.8% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 156,650 122,177 34,473 78.0% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 295,360 193,640 101,720 65.6% INTERLOCAL REVENUE 0 12,446 (12,446) - INTERLOCAL REVENUE 0 0 0 - COMMUTE TRIP 0 2,820 (2,820) - SHARED COURT COSTS 0 7,281 (7,281) - HOSPITAL SECURITY PROTECTION 126,000 125,956 44 100.0% POLICE FBI CONTRACTS 7,334 9,431 (2,097) 128.6% FIRE PROTECTION - WOODWAY 309,163 309,163 0 100.0% FIRE PROTECTION - DISTRICT #1 244,273 244,273 0 100.0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 38,711 22,898 15,813 59.2% WOODWAY - LAW PROTECTION 8,000 3,200 4,800 40.0% CITY OF MTLK TERR-ANIMAL CONTR 29,750 22,131 7,619 74.4% SNOCOM/DIRECTOR SERVICES 135,840 90,176 45,664 66.4% PFD SERVICES 20,000 15,000 5,000 75.0% OTHER BEACH RANGER SUBSIDY 1,000 1,000 0 100.0% SNO-ISLE 80,000 22,352 57,648 27.9% TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 2,195,164 1,518,850 676,314 69.19% Page 8 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 09/30/2006 Revenues Balance % Received MUNI CT CIVIL FILINGS 0 21 (21) - RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,000 1,509 (509) 150.9% COURT RECORD SERVICES 1,000 301 699 30.1% WARRANT FEES 0 93 (93) - SALE MAPS & BOOKS 1,000 1,148 (148) 114.8% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 0 100 (100) - BIRD FEST MERCHANDISE SALES 0 129 (129) - PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 45,000 20,310 24,690 45.1% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 23,650 17,063 6,587 72.1% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 100,000 99,298 702 99.3% ELECTRONIC MONITORING 10,000 19,240 (9,240) 192.4% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 10,000 4,960 5,040 49.6% BOOKING FEES 4,000 3,820 180 95.5% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 12,845 9,425 3,420 73.4% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 7,242 6,280 962 86.7% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES-HAZMAT 1,244 0 1,244 0.0% DUI EMERGENCY AID 0 47 (47) - POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 500 290 210 58.0% CRIM CONV FEES DUI 0 14 (14) - CRIM CONV FEES CT 0 2,319 (2,319) - CRIM CONV FEES CN 0 1,722 (1,722) - POLICE TRAINING CLASSES 0 670 (670) - ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 135,300 101,743 33,557 75.2% STORM DRAINAGE FEES 800 0 800 0.0% AMIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 7,500 6,163 1,337 82.2% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 125,000 73,949 51,051 59.2% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 8,735 5,165 3,570 59.1% PLAN CHECKING FEES 380,000 399,665 (19,665) 105.2% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 500 1,243 (743) 248.6% CERT/PHOTO/RECORD SEARCH FEE 10,000 10,734 (734) 107.3% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 9,500 8,400 1,100 88.4% SHORELINE PERMIT 300 0 300 0.0% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 20,000 17,305 2,695 86.5% BUILDING COMPLAINT REVIEW 0 0 0 - SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 58,500 51,766 6,734 88.5% LOCKER FEES 1,000 705 295 70.5% SWIM CLASS FEES 53,000 60,014 (7,014) 113.2% PROGRAM FEES 675,000 618,020 56,980 91.6% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 0 2,083 (2,083) - CENTRAL SERVICES 1,105,000 798,832 306,168 72.3% GROUNDS MAINT. INTERFD SERVICE 15,000 0 15,000 0.0% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 5,684 51 5,633 0.9% TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2,828,300 2,344,594 483,706 82.90% Page 9 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT Title Budget 09/30/2006 Revenues Balance % Received OTHER SUPERIOR CT PEN 0 20 (20)- PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 4,000 3,151 849 78.8% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 60,000 31,064 28,936 51.8% BC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 150,000 144,515 5,485 96.3% NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 6,000 24,193 (18,193)403.2% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 20,000 33,749 (13,749)168.7% PR - HANDICAPPED 5,000 2,055 2,945 41.1% PARKING INFRACTION LC 0 280 (280)- DWI PENALTIES 10,000 2,580 7,420 25.8% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 20,000 1,628 18,372 8.1% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 17,000 13,204 3,796 77.7% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 3,000 621 2,379 20.7% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 8,000 5,399 2,601 67.5% COURT DV PENALTY ASSMT 0 158 (158)- CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 90,000 89,409 591 99.3% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 10,000 16,312 (6,312)163.1% COURT INTERPRETER COST 2,000 674 1,326 33.7% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 5,000 15,990 (10,990)319.8% TOTAL FINES AND FORFEITURES 410,000 385,002 24,998 93.90% INVESTMENT INTEREST 150,000 206,465 (56,465)137.6% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 25,000 26,795 (1,795)107.2% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 2,000 1,660 340 83.0% PARKING 4,000 2,900 1,100 72.5% SPACE & FACILITIES RENTALS 92,000 123,548 (31,548)134.3% GYM & WEIGHTROOM FEES 12,700 9,304 3,396 73.3% LEASES LONG-TERM 120,270 88,170 32,100 73.3% VENDING MACHINE CONCESSION 2,100 1,804 296 85.9% OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 9,500 10,762 (1,262)113.3% PARKS DONATIONS 12,070 10,100 1,970 83.7% Fire Gifts, Pledges, Grants from Private 2,125 0 2,125 0.0% POLICE CONT FROM PRIVATE SOURCES 11,005 11,004 1 100.0% ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION 2,100 4,281 (2,181)203.9% FIRE DEPT GRANTS PRIVATE SOURCES 0 0 0 - CONTRIBUTIONS - HISTORIC PRESERVATION 0 1,050 (1,050)- SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 400 656 (256)163.9% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 4,000 1,393 2,607 34.8% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 0 1,530 (1,530)- OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 10,000 24,557 (14,557)245.6% POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 1,000 100 900 10.0% FIRE DEPT JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 0 0 0 - CASHIER OVERAGE/SHORTAGE 0 68 (68)- OTHER MISC REVENUES 7,000 8,090 (1,090)115.6% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 100 110 (10)109.8% NSF FEES - PARKS 200 180 20 90.0% NSF FEES - MUNI CT 200 205 (5)102.3% NSF FEES - DEVEL SVCS DEPT 0 60 (60) PLANNING SIGNAGE REVENUE 8,000 4,658 3,342 58.2% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 475,770 539,447 (63,677) 113.38% GENERAL FUND REVENUES Page 10 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT GENERAL FUND REVENUES Title Budget 09/30/2006 Revenues Balance % Received PROCEEDS FROM LONG TERM DEBT 0 0 0 - SALE OF FIXED ASSETS 0 500 (500) - INSURANCE PROCEEDS 100,000 54,762 45,238 54.8% TRANSFER FROM FUND 121 19,000 8,250 10,750 43.4% TRANSFER FROM FUND 213 100,000 50,000 50,000 50.0% TOTAL TRANSFERS 219,000 113,512 105,488 51.83% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 32,036,034 24,076,261 7,959,773 75.15% Page 11 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE SUMMARIES BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used All Funds 70,195,069 42,605,288 27,589,781 60.7% 001 General Fund 30,493,717 21,310,730 9,182,987 69.9% 111 Street Fund 1,350,966 957,754 393,212 70.9% 112 Street Const./Imprv. 2,842,919 2,731,972 110,947 96.1% 113 Multimodal Transportation 1,250,000 2,737 1,247,263 0.2% 116 Building Maintenance 2,326,510 967,423 1,359,087 41.6% 117 Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund 101,420 20,844 80,576 20.6% 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 66,600 10,548 56,052 15.8% 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 17,500 8,250 9,250 47.1% 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 21,200 9,702 11,498 45.8% 125 Real Estate Excise Tax 2 4,342,000 162,487 4,179,513 3.7% 126 Park Acquisition REET 1 1,970,781 2,173,042 (202,261) 110.3% 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 5,320 1,192 4,128 22.4% 130 Cemetery Maintenance 632,514 814,986 (182,472) 128.8% 411 Combined Utility Operation 12,508,483 7,603,608 4,904,875 60.8% 511 Equipment Rental Fund 2,065,273 1,696,770 368,503 82.2% BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 City Council 235,185 141,004 94,181 60.0% 210 Office of Mayor 211,304 156,579 54,725 74.1% 220 Human Resources 216,756 156,803 59,953 72.3% 230 Municipal Court 593,035 452,653 140,382 76.3% 240 Economic Development 184,817 108,094 76,723 58.5% 250 City Clerk 499,680 352,197 147,483 70.5% 310 Administrative Services 1,272,389 872,749 399,640 68.6% 360 City Attorney 478,300 281,864 196,436 58.9% 390 Non-Departmental Expenses 3,864,544 2,034,430 1,830,114 52.6% 410 Police Services 8,473,987 6,264,778 2,209,209 73.9% 510 Fire Services 6,732,893 4,973,984 1,758,909 73.9% 610 Community Services 307,004 210,006 96,998 68.4% 620 Development Services 3,130,497 2,117,761 1,012,736 67.6% 640 Parks & Recreation 2,783,768 2,114,767 669,001 76.0% 650 Public Works 249,374 186,500 62,874 74.8% 651 Facilities Maintenance 1,260,184 886,561 373,623 70.4% 652 Storm Drainage 1,766,787 1,068,833 697,954 60.5% 654 Water 4,342,888 2,831,633 1,511,255 65.2% 655 Sewer 2,621,401 1,581,059 1,040,342 60.3% 656 Treatment Plant 3,777,407 2,122,084 1,655,323 56.2% Page 12 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND 001 GENERAL FUND # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 14,856,744 11,009,040 3,847,704 74.1% 120 OVERTIME 616,274 728,434 (112,160) 118.2% 150 HOLIDAY BUY BACK 326,761 1,876 324,885 0.6% 190 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 1,784 1,783 1 99.9% 230 BENEFITS 4,762,371 3,483,033 1,279,338 73.1% 240 UNIFORMS 118,428 76,831 41,597 64.9% 250 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 17,290 3,188 14,102 18.4% 310 SUPPLIES 486,003 302,905 183,098 62.3% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 1,700 102 1,598 6.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 446,236 412,823 33,413 92.5% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,985,387 1,045,069 940,318 52.6% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 239,442 181,026 58,416 75.6% 430 TRAVEL 83,395 38,987 44,408 46.7% 440 ADVERTISING 44,590 45,755 (1,165) 102.6% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 138,800 89,856 48,944 64.7% 460 INSURANCE 400,364 379,851 20,513 94.9% 470 UTILITIES 432,650 307,271 125,379 71.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 267,110 231,697 35,413 86.7% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 422,448 261,416 161,032 61.9% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 1,681,794 1,239,963 441,831 73.7% 530 EXCISE TAXES 5,000 5,916 (916) 118.3% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 919,202 546,601 372,601 59.5% 630 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 3,000 4,227 (1,227) 140.9% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 36,946 26,945 10,001 72.9% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 720,003 9,770 710,233 1.4% 750 BOND PRINCIPAL 79,246 0 79,246 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 507,018 240,589 266,429 47.5% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 1,625 5,399 (3,774) 332.2% 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,500 463 1,037 30.9% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 0 292 (292) - 920 INTERFUND FUEL 32,731 15,382 17,349 47.0% 930 INTERFUND SUPPLIES 41,384 22,603 18,781 54.6% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 724,860 527,483 197,377 72.8% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 91,631 64,154 27,477 70.0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 30,493,717 21,310,730 9,182,987 69.9% Page 13 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND 111 STREET FUND # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 402,371 311,571 90,800 77.4% 120 OVERTIME 9,789 1,688 8,101 17.2% 230 BENEFITS 141,816 99,014 42,802 69.8% 240 UNIFORMS 6,900 4,192 2,708 60.8% 310 SUPPLIES 155,900 97,066 58,834 62.3% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,400 10,043 (6,643) 295.4% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,000 12,348 (3,348) 137.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 2,514 986 71.8% 430 TRAVEL 3,380 462 2,918 13.7% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 2,500 646 1,854 25.8% 460 INSURANCE 32,230 33,033 (803) 102.5% 470 UTILITIES 254,250 187,971 66,279 73.9% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 92,300 74,814 17,486 81.1% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 12,660 2,568 10,092 20.3% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 16,000 2,834 13,166 17.7% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 12,500 12,500 0 100.0% 620 BUILDINGS 21,000 0 21,000 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 28,259 0 28,259 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 11,739 5,865 5,874 50.0% 830 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 21 (21) - 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 131,472 98,604 32,868 75.0% TOTAL STREET FUND 1,350,966 957,754 393,212 70.9% 112 STREET CONST/IMPRV FD # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,821,000 2,688,624 132,376 95.3% 790 LOAN PRINCIPAL 17,632 38,143 (20,511) 216.3% 830 LOAN INTEREST 1,520 3,130 (1,610) 205.9% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 2,767 2,075 692 75.0% TOTAL STREET CONST/IMPRV FD 2,842,919 2,731,972 110,947 96.1% 113 MULTIMODAL TRANS FD # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,250,000 2,737 1,247,263 0.2% TOTAL MULTIMODAL TRANS FD 1,250,000 2,737 1,247,263 0.2% Page 14 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND 116 BUILDING MAINT FUND # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 0 15,426 (15,426) - 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 22,397 (22,397) - 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 80,000 90,281 (10,281) 112.9% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 0 0 0 - 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,246,510 839,320 1,407,190 37.4% TOTAL BUILDING MAINT FUND 2,326,510 967,423 1,359,087 41.6% 117 MUNI ARTS ACQ FUND # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 2,400 1,331 1,069 55.5% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 0 300 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 85,200 10,474 74,726 12.3% 430 TRAVEL 0 5 (5) - 440 ADVERTISING 4,000 4,000 0 100.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,000 60 940 6.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 270 0 270 0.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 5,250 3,474 1,776 66.2% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 3,000 1,500 1,500 50.0% TOTAL MUNI ARTS ACQ FUND 101,420 20,844 80,576 20.6% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 47,600 1,500 46,100 3.2% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 0 0 0 - 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 19,000 9,048 9,952 47.6% TOTAL HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUND 66,600 10,548 56,052 15.8% 121 EMPLOYEE PKG PERMIT FD # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 16,500 8,250 8,250 50.0% TOTAL EMPLOYEE PKG PERMIT FD 17,500 8,250 9,250 47.1% Page 15 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 300 0 300 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,500 2,910 7,590 27.7% 440 ADVERTISING 1,900 1,209 691 63.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 8,500 5,583 2,917 65.7% TOTAL TOURISM PROMOTIONAL 21,200 9,702 11,498 45.8% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 0 2,419 (2,419) - 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 125,000 125 124,875 0.1% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0 1,634 (1,634) - 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 76,000 0 76,000 0.0% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 4,141,000 158,310 3,982,690 3.8% TOTAL REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 4,342,000 162,487 4,179,513 3.7% 126 PARKS ACQUISITION (REET 1) # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 2,795 (2,795) - 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 69,811 34,906 34,906 50.0% 610 LAND 1,300,000 2,024,167 (724,167) 155.7% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 379,080 0 379,080 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 220,690 110,345 110,345 50.0% 940 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,200 830 370 69.2% TOTAL PARKS ACQUISITION (REET 1) 1,970,781 2,173,042 (202,261) 110.3% Page 16 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND 127 GIFTS CATALOG # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 310 SUPPLIES 1,820 1,192 628 65.5% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,000 0 3,000 0.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0 0 0 - 490 MISCELLANEOUS 500 0 500 0.0% TOTAL GIFTS CATALOG 5,320 1,192 4,128 22.4% 130 CEMETARY MAINTENANCE # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 57,708 42,454 15,254 73.6% 120 OVERTIME 2,050 1,396 654 68.1% 230 BENEFITS 20,524 15,546 4,978 75.7% 240 UNIFORMS 200 0 200 0.0% 310 SUPPLIES 7,000 5,433 1,567 77.6% 340 RESALE ITEMS 20,000 12,304 7,696 61.5% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,500 0 2,500 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,000 238 4,762 4.8% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 1,200 872 328 72.7% 430 TRAVEL 200 223 (23) 111.4% 440 ADVERTISING 400 1,503 (1,103) 375.7% 470 UTILITIES 2,700 2,339 361 86.6% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 517 (17) 103.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 301 699 30.1% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 2,500 0 2,500 0.0% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 500,000 726,585 (226,585) 145.3% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 2,000 0 2,000 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 7,032 5,274 1,758 75.0% TOTAL CEMETARY MAINTENANCE 632,514 814,986 (182,472) 128.8% Page 17 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND 411 COMBINED UTILITY # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 2,427,642 1,810,334 617,308 74.6% 120 OVERTIME 92,100 36,071 56,029 39.2% 230 BENEFITS 742,168 561,486 180,682 75.7% 240 UNIFORMS 27,150 21,201 5,949 78.1% 310 SUPPLIES 473,750 372,721 101,029 78.7% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 59,970 50,445 9,525 84.1% 340 RESALE ITEMS 1,400,000 938,326 461,674 67.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 7,800 14,483 (6,683) 185.7% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 268,940 150,352 118,588 55.9% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 89,740 43,145 46,595 48.1% 430 TRAVEL 17,170 2,514 14,656 14.6% 440 ADVERTISING 2,120 742 1,378 35.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 23,020 3,208 19,812 13.9% 460 INSURANCE 354,230 290,375 63,855 82.0% 470 UTILITIES 931,870 510,729 421,141 54.8% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 141,266 43,373 97,893 30.7% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 470,660 294,204 176,456 62.5% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 261,554 127,899 133,655 48.9% 540 EXCISE TAXES 471,123 357,899 113,224 76.0% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 1,307,280 617,004 690,276 47.2% 620 BUILDINGS 25,000 0 25,000 0.0% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 19,626 9,932 9,694 50.6% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,000 0 5,000 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 1,169,098 0 1,169,098 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 237,201 232,880 4,321 98.2% 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 292 (292) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 1,069,445 804,948 264,497 75.3% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 412,060 309,045 103,015 75.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,500 0 1,500 0.0% TOTAL COMBINED UTILITY 12,508,483 7,603,608 4,904,875 60.8% Page 18 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY FUND 511 EQUIP RENTAL/REPAIR FUND # Title Appropriation 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 252,162 180,358 71,804 71.5% 120 OVERTIME 2,000 38 1,962 1.9% 230 BENEFITS 85,930 63,391 22,539 73.8% 240 UNIFORMS 2,000 1,545 455 77.2% 310 SUPPLIES 120,000 89,804 30,196 74.8% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 175,000 176,343 (1,343) 100.8% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 40,000 19,012 20,988 47.5% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 800 743 57 92.9% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 4,000 2,252 1,748 56.3% 430 TRAVEL 1,040 161 879 15.5% 440 ADVERTISING 500 0 500 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 135,840 67,783 68,057 49.9% 460 INSURANCE 27,000 28,219 (1,219) 104.5% 470 UTILITIES 13,000 10,314 2,686 79.3% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 35,000 27,017 7,983 77.2% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 3,586 414 89.7% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 4,000 2,599 1,401 65.0% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,156,975 1,005,405 151,570 86.9% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 0 13,680 (13,680) - 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 6,026 4,519 1,507 75.0% TOTAL EQUIP RENTAL/REPAIR FUND 2,065,273 1,696,770 368,503 82.2% Page 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT 110 CITY COUNCIL # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 107,370 74,161 33,209 69.1% 120 OVERTIME 5,590 3,168 2,422 56.7% 230 BENEFITS 83,675 53,574 30,101 64.0% 310 SUPPLIES 1,000 576 424 57.6% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,000 639 2,361 21.3% 430 TRAVEL 4,100 4,189 (89) 102.2% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1,500 1,224 276 81.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 28,950 3,471 25,479 12.0% TOTAL CITY COUNCIL 235,185 141,004 94,181 60.0% 210 OFFICE OF MAYOR # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 160,936 119,823 41,113 74.5% 230 BENEFITS 39,268 28,875 10,393 73.5% 310 SUPPLIES 3,000 2,056 944 68.5% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,500 63 1,437 4.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 1,200 1,038 162 86.5% 430 TRAVEL 2,000 884 1,116 44.2% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,400 933 467 66.7% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0 266 (266) - 490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,000 2,640 (640) 132.0% TOTAL OFFICE OF MAYOR 211,304 156,579 54,725 74.1% 220 HUMAN RESOURCES # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 126,741 96,816 29,925 76.4% 230 BENEFITS 45,295 26,170 19,125 57.8% 310 SUPPLIES 2,000 1,799 201 89.9% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 3,032 (32) 101.1% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,300 13,586 4,714 74.2% 430 TRAVEL 500 204 296 40.7% 440 ADVERTISING 5,000 3,716 1,284 74.3% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,320 850 470 64.4% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 3,420 3,940 (520) 115.2% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 11,180 6,691 4,489 59.8% TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES 216,756 156,803 59,953 72.3% Page 20 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT 230 MUNICIPAL COURT # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 397,756 302,576 95,180 76.1% 120 OVERTIME 0 614 (614) - 230 BENEFITS 112,923 80,999 31,924 71.7% 310 SUPPLIES 14,500 9,660 4,840 66.6% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,800 1,214 586 67.5% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 22,656 17,068 5,588 75.3% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 0 170 (170) - 430 TRAVEL 3,000 1,005 1,995 33.5% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 2,100 1,443 657 68.7% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 100 506 (406) 506.3% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 19,200 19,535 (335) 101.7% 510 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 10,000 9,470 530 94.7% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 9,000 8,391 609 93.2% TOTAL MUNICIPAL COURT 593,035 452,653 139,773 76.3% 240 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 98,898 53,748 45,150 54.3% 230 BENEFITS 16,449 8,244 8,205 50.1% 310 SUPPLIES 2,500 369 2,131 14.7% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 44 756 5.6% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 49,000 13,242 35,758 27.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 0 2,714 (2,714) - 430 TRAVEL 4,470 96 4,375 2.1% 440 ADVERTISING 7,700 23,979 (16,279) 311.4% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 0 490 (490) - 490 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 5,169 (169) 103.4% TOTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 184,817 108,094 76,723 58.5% 250 CITY CLERK # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 276,341 202,937 73,404 73.4% 120 OVERTIME 410 0 410 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 73,934 53,758 20,176 72.7% 310 SUPPLIES 16,260 8,659 7,601 53.3% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17,250 9,708 7,542 56.3% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 59,050 42,608 16,442 72.2% 430 TRAVEL 2,080 0 2,080 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 20,420 12,213 8,207 59.8% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 23,070 12,168 10,902 52.7% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 6,365 6,419 (54) 100.9% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 4,500 3,725 775 82.8% TOTAL CITY CLERK 499,680 352,197 147,483 70.5% Page 21 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT 310 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 731,004 533,930 197,074 73.0% 120 OVERTIME 6,100 4,342 1,758 71.2% 230 BENEFITS 175,473 125,594 49,879 71.6% 310 SUPPLIES 16,850 8,979 7,871 53.3% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 120,000 91,916 28,084 76.6% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 125,900 11,701 114,199 9.3% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 26,800 21,392 5,408 79.8% 430 TRAVEL 5,240 1,179 4,061 22.5% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 8,400 6,527 1,873 77.7% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 37,522 44,038 (6,516) 117.4% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 19,100 23,151 (4,051) 121.2% TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,272,389 872,749 399,640 68.6% 360 CITY ATTORNEY # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 475,300 275,864 199,436 58.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 6,000 (3,000) 200.0% TOTAL CITY ATTORNEY 478,300 281,864 196,436 58.9% 390 NON-DEPARTMENTAL # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 113,350 83,252 30,098 73.4% 230 BENEFITS 447,860 313,092 134,768 69.9% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 156,000 99,411 56,589 63.7% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 65,000 17,807 47,193 27.4% 430 TRAVEL 0 438 (438) - 450 RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,000 600 83.3% 460 INSURANCE 400,364 379,851 20,513 94.9% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 100,000 79,071 20,929 79.1% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 136,373 109,504 26,869 80.3% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 208,403 140,266 68,137 67.3% 540 EXCISE TAXES 5,000 5,916 (916) 118.3% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 919,202 546,601 372,601 59.5% 700 BOND PRINCIPAL 799,249 9,770 789,479 1.2% 800 BOND INTEREST 507,018 240,589 266,429 47.5% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 1,625 5,399 (3,774) 332.2% 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,500 463 1,037 30.9% TOTAL NON-DEPARTMENTAL 3,864,544 2,034,430 1,830,114 52.6% Page 22 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT 410 POLICE # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 4,501,218 3,317,584 1,183,634 73.7% 120 OVERTIME 204,740 341,339 (136,599) 166.7% 150 HOLIDAY BUYBACK 165,288 1,876 163,412 1.1% 190 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 1,784 1,783 1 99.9% 230 BENEFITS 1,403,139 1,033,928 369,211 73.7% 240 UNIFORMS 59,378 40,361 19,017 68.0% 310 SUPPLIES 83,655 66,757 16,898 79.8% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 0 102 (102) - 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 40,674 49,360 (8,686) 121.4% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 140,565 57,177 83,388 40.7% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 21,700 15,436 6,264 71.1% 430 TRAVEL 28,520 15,494 13,026 54.3% 440 ADVERTISING 2,500 541 1,959 21.6% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 12,000 7,864 4,136 65.5% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 21,930 14,891 7,039 67.9% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 43,299 16,731 26,568 38.6% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 1,193,618 882,415 311,203 73.9% 640 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 19,246 18,554 692 96.4% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 0 292 (292) - 930 INTERFUND SUPPLIES 1,200 0 1,200 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 528,533 382,291 146,242 72.3% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,000 0 1,000 0.0% TOTAL POLICE 8,473,987 6,264,778 2,209,209 73.9% Page 23 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT 510 FIRE # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 3,881,593 2,922,588 959,005 75.3% 120 OVERTIME 369,424 359,626 9,798 97.3% 150 HOLIDAY BUYBACK 161,473 0 161,473 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 1,298,624 935,175 363,449 72.0% 240 UNIFORMS 46,730 30,387 16,343 65.0% 250 PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 17,290 3,188 14,102 18.4% 310 SUPPLIES 104,768 55,851 48,917 53.3% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 252,652 234,746 17,906 92.9% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 71,171 25,906 45,265 36.4% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 36,052 49,094 (13,042) 136.2% 430 TRAVEL 19,590 10,766 8,824 55.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,800 1,949 (149) 108.3% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,640 7,893 9,747 44.7% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 36,511 32,442 4,069 88.9% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 202,523 163,605 38,918 80.8% 920 INTERFUND FUEL 32,731 15,381 17,350 47.0% 930 INTERFUND SUPPLIES 40,184 22,603 17,581 56.2% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 51,506 38,630 12,876 75.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 90,631 64,155 26,476 70.8% TOTAL FIRE 6,732,893 4,973,984 1,758,909 73.9% 610 COMMUNITY SERVICES # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 175,239 133,291 41,948 76.1% 120 OVERTIME 1,600 592 1,008 37.0% 230 BENEFITS 36,262 27,163 9,099 74.9% 310 SUPPLIES 3,000 609 2,391 20.3% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 0 397 (397) - 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 80,000 44,420 35,580 55.5% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 690 0 690 0.0% 430 TRAVEL 2,000 388 1,612 19.4% 440 ADVERTISING 2,060 0 2,060 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,320 850 470 64.4% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 0 266 (266) - 490 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 655 2,345 21.8% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 1,833 1,375 458 75.0% TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 307,004 210,006 96,998 68.4% Page 24 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT 620 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 1,904,197 1,352,430 551,767 71.0% 120 OVERTIME 15,635 9,791 5,845 62.6% 230 BENEFITS 439,313 338,957 100,356 77.2% 240 UNIFORMS 2,570 1,052 1,518 40.9% 310 SUPPLIES 31,200 16,624 14,576 53.3% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,120 10,638 (8,518) 501.8% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 594,995 303,430 291,565 51.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 13,000 6,013 6,987 46.3% 430 TRAVEL 6,070 1,010 5,060 16.6% 440 ADVERTISING 3,910 1,643 2,267 42.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 27,590 16,466 11,124 59.7% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 14,596 26,904 (12,308) 184.3% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 44,405 11,706 32,699 26.4% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 30,896 21,097 9,799 68.3% TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3,130,497 2,117,761 1,012,736 67.6% 640 PARKS & RECREATION # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 1,647,206 1,272,627 374,579 77.3% 120 OVERTIME 4,075 3,646 429 89.5% 230 BENEFITS 369,558 300,156 69,402 81.2% 240 UNIFORMS 2,540 1,399 1,142 55.1% 310 SUPPLIES 119,910 77,500 42,410 64.6% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 21,510 16,673 4,837 77.5% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 229,750 166,488 63,262 72.5% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 8,520 14,623 (6,103) 171.6% 430 TRAVEL 4,865 3,352 1,513 68.9% 440 ADVERTISING 3,000 3,663 (663) 122.1% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 52,950 34,389 18,561 64.9% 470 UTILITIES 105,750 86,897 18,853 82.2% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 16,257 15,912 345 97.9% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 60,360 29,824 30,536 49.4% 910 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 64,250 32,647 31,603 50.8% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 73,267 54,972 18,295 75.0% TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION 2,783,768 2,114,767 669,001 76.0% Page 25 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT 650 PUBLIC WORKS # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 191,466 143,640 47,826 75.0% 120 OVERTIME 200 46 154 23.0% 230 BENEFITS 39,242 30,641 8,601 78.1% 310 SUPPLIES 5,360 2,767 2,593 51.6% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 65 (65) - 420 COMMUNICATIONS 480 412 68 85.8% 430 TRAVEL 960 223 737 23.2% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 3,250 2,406 844 74.0% 470 UTILITIES 1,900 1,778 122 93.6% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 1,580 1,589 (9) 100.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,790 1,323 1,467 47.4% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 2,146 1,609 537 75.0% TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 249,374 186,500 62,874 74.8% 651 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 543,429 399,635 143,794 73.5% 120 OVERTIME 8,500 5,270 3,230 62.0% 230 BENEFITS 181,356 126,707 54,649 69.9% 240 UNIFORMS 7,210 3,633 3,577 50.4% 310 SUPPLIES 82,000 50,699 31,301 61.8% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 1,700 0 1,700 0.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,680 4,801 (1,121) 130.5% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 300 (300) - 420 COMMUNICATIONS 6,950 9,472 (2,522) 136.3% 430 TRAVEL 0 5 (5) - 450 RENTAL/LEASE 0 521 (521) - 470 UTILITIES 325,000 218,596 106,404 67.3% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 46,200 29,834 16,366 64.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,780 3,143 (363) 113.0% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 3,000 2,208 792 73.6% 630 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 3,000 4,227 (1,227) 140.9% 640 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 8,700 0 8,700 0.0% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 0 0 0 - 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 36,679 27,509 9,170 75.0% TOTAL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,260,184 886,561 373,623 70.4% Page 26 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT 652 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 411,101 306,806 104,295 74.6% 120 OVERTIME 5,080 37 5,043 0.7% 230 BENEFITS 123,875 98,806 25,069 79.8% 240 UNIFORMS 6,100 4,392 1,708 72.0% 310 SUPPLIES 49,500 22,712 26,788 45.9% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 0 2,800 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 32,320 9,624 22,696 29.8% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 2,500 806 1,694 32.2% 430 TRAVEL 3,330 0 3,330 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 4,000 40 3,960 1.0% 460 INSURANCE 91,710 33,281 58,429 36.3% 470 UTILITIES 4,500 0 4,500 0.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 3,820 4,743 (923) 124.2% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 63,540 43,377 20,163 68.3% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 14,070 9,432 4,638 67.0% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 232,280 112,500 119,780 48.4% 620 BUILDINGS 0 0 0 - 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,925 0 1,925 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 28,259 0 28,259 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 73,076 50,593 22,483 69.2% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 0 0 - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 61 (61) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 436,105 238,952 197,153 54.8% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 176,896 132,672 44,224 75.0% TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY 1,766,787 1,068,833 697,954 60.5% Page 27 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT 654 WATER UTILITY # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 585,047 465,604 119,443 79.6% 120 OVERTIME 24,180 10,462 13,718 43.3% 230 BENEFITS 178,009 131,637 46,372 73.9% 240 UNIFORMS 6,880 4,542 2,338 66.0% 310 SUPPLIES 85,000 56,830 28,170 66.9% 340 RESALE ITEMS 1,400,000 938,326 461,674 67.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 0 506 (506) - 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 112,040 58,621 53,419 52.3% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 56,710 17,964 38,746 31.7% 430 TRAVEL 6,850 214 6,636 3.1% 440 ADVERTISING 560 21 539 3.7% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 11,370 127 11,243 1.1% 460 INSURANCE 82,180 76,533 5,647 93.1% 470 UTILITIES 28,000 15,396 12,604 55.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 40,200 8,817 31,383 21.9% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 194,990 153,242 41,748 78.6% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 22,492 18,430 4,062 81.9% 540 EXCISE TAXES 196,336 155,330 41,006 79.1% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 700,000 350,000 350,000 50.0% 620 BUILDINGS 20,000 0 20,000 0.0% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 4,813 0 4,813 0.0% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 0 0 0 - 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 156,191 0 156,191 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 73,238 50,766 22,472 69.3% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 0 0 - 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 82 (82) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 260,193 244,973 15,220 94.2% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 97,609 73,207 24,402 75.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 0 0 0 - TOTAL WATER UTILITY 4,342,888 2,831,633 1,511,255 65.2% Page 28 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT 655 SEWER # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 357,863 260,748 97,115 72.9% 120 OVERTIME 17,330 11,404 5,926 65.8% 230 BENEFITS 132,307 93,670 38,637 70.8% 240 UNIFORMS 5,170 4,385 785 84.8% 310 SUPPLIES 25,850 48,279 (22,429) 186.8% 340 FUEL CONSUMED 0 291 (291) - 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 0 8,082 (8,082) - 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 71,580 36,410 35,170 50.9% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 22,530 17,920 4,610 79.5% 430 TRAVEL 3,490 185 3,305 5.3% 440 ADVERTISING 560 144 416 25.7% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,870 95 1,775 5.1% 460 INSURANCE 108,860 101,891 6,969 93.6% 470 UTILITIES 461,110 208,458 252,652 45.2% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 34,120 18,720 15,400 54.9% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 126,330 52,440 73,890 41.5% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 163,992 64,842 99,150 39.5% 540 EXCISE TAXES 274,787 202,569 72,218 73.7% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 375,000 88,095 286,905 23.5% 610 BUILDINGS 5,000 0 5,000 0.0% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 2,888 0 2,888 0.0% 780 BOND PRINCIPAL 59,595 0 59,595 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 34,327 59,550 (25,223) 173.5% 840 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 0 12,407 (12,407) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 204,097 192,040 12,057 94.1% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 131,245 98,434 32,811 75.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,500 0 1,500 0.0% TOTAL SEWER 2,621,401 1,581,059 1,040,342 60.3% Page 29 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURE DETAIL BY DEPARTMENT 656 TREATMENT PLANT # Title Budget 09/30/06 Expenditures Balance % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 1,073,631 777,175 296,456 72.4% 120 OVERTIME 45,510 14,169 31,341 31.1% 230 BENEFITS 307,977 237,374 70,603 77.1% 240 UNIFORMS 9,000 7,882 1,118 87.6% 310 SUPPLIES 313,400 244,899 68,501 78.1% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 59,970 50,154 9,816 83.6% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 5,894 (894) 117.9% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 53,000 45,697 7,303 86.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 8,000 6,454 1,546 80.7% 430 TRAVEL 3,500 2,115 1,385 60.4% 440 ADVERTISING 1,000 578 422 57.8% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 5,780 2,946 2,834 51.0% 460 INSURANCE 71,480 78,670 (7,190) 110.1% 470 UTILITIES 438,260 286,874 151,386 65.5% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 63,126 11,093 52,033 17.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 85,800 45,145 40,655 52.6% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES 61,000 35,195 25,805 57.7% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 0 66,409 (66,409) - 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 10,000 9,932 68 99.3% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,000 0 5,000 0.0% 710 BOND PRINCIPAL 891,715 0 891,715 0.0% 830 BOND INTEREST 89,898 59,565 30,333 66.3% 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 0 149 (149) - 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 169,050 128,982 40,068 76.3% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 6,310 4,732 1,578 75.0% TOTAL TREATMENT PLANT 3,777,407 2,122,084 1,655,323 56.2% Page 30 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STATUS Page 31 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM - 2006 UPDATE Fund 2006 2006 No. BUDGET ACTUAL COMMENTS TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 112 100th Ave Road Stabilization 60,000 0 Design Complete. ROW acquisition complete. Construction in 2007. 112 220th St Improvements 2,234,000 2,384,913 Substantial completion, July 2006. 112 76th Avenue Road Restoration (SR99 to 220th St) 32,000 0 Completed in 2005. 112 Downtown Parking Improvements 40,000 0 No action in 2006 yet. 112 92nd Ave W/ 234th St SW Safety Improvements 75,000 1,737 Construction contract awarded. 112 Nonmotorized Trans- ADA Curb Ramp Improvements 5,000 0 No action in 2006 yet. 112 Nonmotorized Trans- Interurban Trail 125,000 0 Design and ROW acquisition in progress. 112 Overlay-Waterline Streets 320,000 290,984 Construction completed. Closing out contract. 112 Downtown Crosswalk Renovation -5th/Main, 5th/Dayton 0 14,586 Construction completed. Closing out contract. 112 Transportation Plan 5,000 0 No action in 2006 yet. 112 96th Ave W. Pedestrian Improvements 0 878 Construction completed in 2005. Closing out contract. 112 Citywide Stabilization Projects 0 7,616 PW completed one project in-house, 175th St SW. TRANSPORTATION TOTAL 2,896,000 2,700,714 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STATUS Page 32 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM - 2006 UPDATE Fund 2006 2006 No. BUDGET ACTUAL COMMENTS BUILDINGS MAINTENANCE 116 ADA Improvements- City Wide 5,000 116 Anderson Center Exterior Painting 26,000 Delayed until seismic work is completed 116 Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit 1,042,920 23,000 Construct in 2007 116 City Hall Generator 132,900 132,900 2005 carry-over project 116 City Hall HVAC Upgrades 209,000 209,000 2005 carry-over project 116 Fire Station #17 Stove Hood Exhaust 1,000 116 Fire Station #17 Replace Weight Room Windows that Open 1,500 1,500 Completed 116 Fire Station #20 HVAC 30,000 Carryover to 2007 Energy Improvements 116 Fire Station #20 Roof Replacement 30,000 18,000 Completed 116 Library Central HVAC 378,000 378,000 2005 carry-over project 116 Library Plaza Brick Painting 21,000 Combine with FAC painting project 116 Log Cabin Lighting Replacement 3,000 Carryover to 2007 Energy Improvements 116 Park Maintenance Building Lighting Upgrade 9,000 Carryover to 2007 Energy Improvements 116 Public Safety HVAC 85,000 85,000 2005 carry-over project 116 Public Safety Soffit Installation 5,000 2,000 116 Senior Center Elevator Replacement 0 73,530 2005 carry-over project 116 Senior Center Misc Repairs & Improvements 10,000 10,000 116 Senior Center Roofing 65,000 26,000 Project completed 116 Senior Center Remodel Kitchen 87,000 Construct in 2007 116 Senior Center Fire Alarm 45,000 43,500 Project completed 116 Senior Center HVAC Replacement 20,000 Project deferred 116 Senior Center Vestibule/Front Entry 19,000 19,000 Feasibility study completed 116 Senior Center Ballroom Stage 9,000 Project deferred 116 Senior Center Restroom Flooring 13,000 Project deferred TOTAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2,247,320 1,021,430 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STATUS Fund 2006 2006 No.BUDGET ACTUAL COMMENTS PARKS IMPROVEMENT FUND 125 264 Beach Place 30,000 1,766 completed late 2005 125 Anderson Center Field / Court/Plaza 30,000 7,304 infield renovation 125 Anderson Center Seismic Improvements Grant Match 250,000 125 Brackett's Landing Improvements 15,000 481 125 Chase Lake Park 40,000 no annexation, no longer under consideration 125 City Park Improvements 90,000 23,960 bandshell drainage project complete 125 Civic Center Complex Improvements 86,000 125 Edmonds Marsh 60,000 125 Esperance Neighborhood Park 110,000 no annexation, no longer under consideration 125 Fishing Pier/Olympic Beach/Parking Lot 65,000 5,304 pavers installation 125 Hummingbird Park 20,000 42,183 2005 project moved forward - complete 125 Maplewood Park Playground 60,000 125 Marina Beach Park Improvements 95,000 2,899 125 Meadowdale Clubhouse 50,000 125 Old Woodway Elementary 60,000 125 Pine Ridge Park Improvements 10,000 125 Pine Street Park Improvements 10,000 125 Seaview Park Improvements 50,000 125 Senior Center & 144 RR Waterfront Walkway 40,000 125 Sierra Park Improvements 65,000 125 Underwater Park Improvements 5,000 356 125 Waterfront Walkway/Olympic Beach 50,000 125 Yost Park/Pool Improvement 45,000 7,650 Shell Creek bridge complete 125 Old Woodway High School Athletic Complex 1,500,000 BEAUTIFICATION 125 Beautification Citywide/Sr. Ctr. Treescape 100,000 3,547 CITY-WIDE PARK IMPROVEMENTS 125 ADA Improvements 20,000 125 Centralized Irrigation 10,000 125 Citywide Park Improvements 35,000 5,416 125 Misc Paving 25,000 7,180 marsh asphalt path repair 125 Sports Fields Upgrade/Playground Partnership 90,000 Edmonds Elementary parnership project SPECIALIZED PARK DEVELOPMENT 125 Skateboard Park 200,000 125 Aquatic Recreation Complex Note #1 Note #1 TRAIL DEVELOPMENT 125 Interurban Trail Development 700,000 21,636 125 Misc. Unpaved Trail / Bike Path/Improvements 25,000 10,859 PLANNING 125 Comp Plan 60,000 7,634 125 Cultural Arts Center 40,000 22,582 TOTAL PARKS IMPROVEMENT FUND 4,141,000 170,757 PARKS ACQUISITION FUND 126 Misc. Open space/Land 200,000 2,072 Shell Creek appraisal review 126 Old Woodway Elementary School Acquisition 1,000,000 2,928 appraisal review; conceptual drawing for grant 126 Tideland Acquisitions 100,000 TOTAL PARKS ACQUISITION FUND 1,300,000 5,000 Note #1: $10 - $15 Million General Obligation Bond Issue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM - 2006 UPDATE Page 33 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STATUS Fund 2006 2006 No.BUDGET ACTUAL COMMENTS WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS (Fd 412.100) 412 2004 Replacement Program 475,000 789,534 Construction completed. Closing out contract. 412 2004 Replacement Program- South Perrinville (OVD)50,000 14,252 Design 95% complete. Construction pending Lynnwood OVD street improvement project. 412 2005 Replacement Program- College Place 645,000 3,046 Design 99% complete. Construction in late 2006. 412 2006 Replacement Program- Edmonds Elem/North Bowl 500,000 20,670 Design in progress. Construction 2007. 412 220th St Waterline Relocation/Upgrade 0 31,036 Construction completed. 412 PRV Replacement 150,000 0 Public Works in-house. Construct in 2006 and 2007. 412 Citywide Improvements 25,000 0 No action in 2006 yet. 412 Five Corners Pump Station Improvements 500,000 42,870 Design in progress (80%). Construction in 2007. 412 Seismic Improvements 170,000 incl. above Design in progress. Construction in 2007. 412 Reservoir Security 45,000 incl. above Design in progress. Construction in 2007. 412 Chlorine Residual Analyzers 25,000 0 Public Works in-house. Construct in 2006 and 2007. 412 Transfer (112)*110,000* 55,000* 50% funds transferred by Finance. SUB-TOTAL 2,585,000 901,408 DRAINAGE SYSTEM PROJECTS (Fd 412.200) 412 City Wide Drainage Replacement/ Extension 50,000 24,495 Several projects completed by PW. Construction contract awarded for several others. 412 L. Ballinger Monitoring 10,000 4,853 Catch basin stenciling materials purchased. Stenciling performed. 412 Meadowdale 70,000 42,169 Two projects constructed. Includes 157th St Storm. 412 Meadowdale Beach Storm 75,000 93,263 Construction completed. Closing out contract. 412 Shoreline Regulation Revisions 30,000 0 In progress. 412 Public Involvement (Student Project)1,000 393 Purchased community car wash CB pump unit. 412 Southwest Edmonds Basin Study, Projects 75,000 0 No action yet in 2006. 412 220th St Improvements 210,000 242,255 Construction completed. 412 242nd Street Storm Improvements 180,000 125,860 Construction completed. 412 Vehicle Wash Station 150,000 0 Project deferred to 2007. 412 93rd Ave West/ 96th Ave W 625,000 0 Partially completed with 96th walkway. Remainder in 2007. 412 Northstream 30" Storm Repair/ Improvements 575,000 36,400 Design in progress. Construction in 2007. 412 Dayton Storm Outfall Repair 0 6,359 Construction completed in 2005. Closing out contract. 412 Willow Creek Stormwater Outfall 0 27,472 Construction completed in 2005. Closing out contract. 412 Marina Beach Emergency Storm Repair 0 35,494 Construction completed in 2005. Closing out contract. 412 Glen-Daley Alley Drainage Improvements 0 92,854 Construction completed. Closing out contract. 412 Transfer (112)*50,000*25,000* 50% funds transferred by Finance. SUB-TOTAL 2,051,000 731,867 SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM PROJECTS (Fd 412.300) 412 220th Street Side Sewers 15,000 14,409 Construction completed. 412 Citywide Sewer Improvements 10,000 15,120 Several small works projects completed by PW. 412 Lift Station #13 275,000 71,260 Design in progress (30%). Construction in 2007. 412 Lift Station #2 500,000 incl. above Design in progress (30%) with lift station 13. Construction in 2007. 412 Lift Station #7 & 8 Integration 1,200,000 30,185 Design in progress (90%). Construction in 2007. 412 Olympic View Drive Sewer Improvements 6,000 2,135 Design 95% complete. Construction pending Lynnwood OVD street improvement project. 412 Telemetry Upgrade all Lift Stations 200,000 96,597 Installation is 50% complete. 412 Glen-Daley Alley 0 11,672 Construction completed. 412 Transfer (112)*0 SUB-TOTAL 2,206,000 241,378 *Not included in sub-total or total TOTAL FUND 412 6,842,000 1,874,653 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM - 2006 UPDATE Page 34 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 BUDGET REPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STATUS Page 35 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM - 2006 UPDATE Fund 2006 2006 No. BUDGET ACTUAL COMMENTS TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS 414 General 25,000 414 Mechanical Equipment Replacement 75,000 414 Screenings system improvement 1,100,000 116,710 Project awarded, reviewing submittals 414 Concrete 25,000 0 Some of the work has been completed. Expense for next qtr. 414 Installation of Gate Actuators 100,000 0 Will not have time to perform this work this year 414 Electronics Upgrade 40,000 0 Will not have time to perform this work this year 414 Odor Control Study 25,000 0 Consultant under contract, have had kick-off meeting 414 Replace Odor Control Fans 10,000 0 Will wait until odor control study is completed. 414 Field Flowmeter Rehabilitation 1,844 Project completed. Final expense next quarter 414 Outfall Repair 142,630 2005 project completed, final expenses paid 414 SR 104 Trunkline Rehabilitation 46,930 2005 project completed, final expenses paid 414 Influent & Effluent Pump VFD replacement 21,220 2005 project completed, final expenses paid 414 Meter C Rehabilitation 1,330 2005 project completed, final expenses paid 414 Incinerator improvements 51,930 Most improvements completed. 414 Process control improvements 16,970 Project underway - roughly half completed. 414 Electrical improvements project 17,350 Design begun, some equipment purchased. TOTAL TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS 1,400,000 416,914 AM-683 3.C. Final 2006 Budget Amendment Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By: Kathleen Junglov, Administrative Services Time:15 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Committee:Finance Agenda Memo Subject Final 2006 Budget Amendment Previous Council Action Narrative In governmental budgeting, expenditures may take place up to the amount appropriated in the current budget. Financial activity impacting appropriation levels are brought before the Edmonds City Council on a quarterly basis in the form of a budget amendment ordinance. The final 2006 budget amendment contains a total of 18 proposed adjustments, four of which have previously been before by Council. General Fund requests for new appropriations totaled $258,739 of which $13,219 will be funded by new grant revenue. The net impact to the General Fund's ending cash is a decrease of $245,520. Non-General Fund expenditures will increase by $4,176,154. Of this amount $4,141,038 is for capital projects in the Street Construction Fund, the Parks Acquisition/Construction Funds, the Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Fund, and the Utility Capital Improvement Fund. Non-General Fund expenditures in the amount of $2,274,667 will be offset by an increase in new revenue including grants, interfund loans, interlocal revenues and transfers from other funds. The net impact to the Non-General Fund ending cash is a decrease of $1,901,346. Recommendation Forward to full council for approval. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 2006 Final Budget Amending Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Dan Clements 11/08/2006 10:14 AM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 11:15 AM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:51 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Kathleen Junglov Started On: 11/07/2006 11:26 AM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3575 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2006 Budget; and WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3575 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2006 is hereby to reflect the changes shown in “Exhibit A” adopted herein by reference. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take L:\PRODUCTIONDB\CCOUNCIL\0017_683_2006 FINAL AMENDING ORDINANCE.DOC effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ___ W. SCOTT SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. 2 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2006, 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 ORDINANCE NO. 3575 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, 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 ________________, 2006. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 3 EXHIBIT“A:” BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND 2006 2006 FUND FUND BEGINNING REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING NO. DESCRIPTION CASH CASH 001 GENERAL FUND 3,273,822 28,775,431 30,752,456 1,296,797 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 1,927,600 0 0 1,927,600 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 312,641 69,100 74,415 307,326 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 64,973 98,170 154,343 8,800 111 STREET FUND 215,887 1,152,755 1,350,966 17,676 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 1,082,984 3,279,042 4,133,419 228,607 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 0 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 323,300 2,006,227 2,326,510 3,017 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 177,038 65,510 101,420 141,128 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 15,208 450 0 15,658 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 47,696 60,800 68,700 39,796 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 62,035 12,300 17,500 56,835 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 6,726 3,580 4,000 6,306 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 20,551 15,300 21,200 14,651 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 3,410,965 1,085,000 4,342,000 153,965 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 1,514,173 2,630,000 2,710,948 1,433,225 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 140,838 8,710 5,320 144,228 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 0 327,000 327,000 0 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 564,608 471,382 942,885 93,105 131 FIRE DONATIONS 6,792 4,309 10,083 1,018 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 1,200,000 1,200,000 0 211 LID FUND CONTROL 8,411 476,000 476,225 8,186 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 127,382 1,950 100,000 29,332 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 0 403,710 403,710 0 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 3,335,891 12,375,976 12,508,483 3,203,384 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 3,502,929 5,615,973 7,002,000 2,116,902 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,191,228 1,278,330 1,836,625 632,933 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 3,566,794 1,939,408 2,083,356 3,422,846 601 PARKS TRUST FUND 115,122 1,480 0 116,602 610 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 604,876 22,889 300,000 327,765 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 338,523 41,992 98,548 281,967 621 SPECIAL LIBRARY 2,730 120 2,850 0 623 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 11,143 20,375 25,000 6,518 Totals 25,972,866 64,693,269 74,629,962 16,036,173 4 EXHIBIT “B”: BUDGET AMENDMENTS BY EXPENDITURE ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. 2006 FUND FUND 3575 3591 3605 Amended NO. DESCRIPTION 11/15/2005 5/2/2006 8/15/2006 Budget 001 GENERAL FUND 29,564,059 675,760 253,898 258,739 30,752,456 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 0 0 0 0 0 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 74,415 0 0 0 74,415 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 150,985 0 3,358 0 154,343 111 STREET FUND 1,284,966 0 66,000 0 1,350,966 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,917,919 0 (75,000) 1,290,500 4,133,419 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 1,250,000 0 0 0 1,250,000 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 399,500 1,847,010 80,000 0 2,326,510 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 101,420 0 0 0 101,420 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 0 0 0 0 0 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 63,000 0 3,600 2,100 68,700 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 17,500 0 0 0 17,500 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 0 0 0 4,000 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 21,200 0 0 0 21,200 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 4,142,000 0 200,000 0 4,342,000 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 1,970,781 0 0 740,167 2,710,948 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 5,320 0 0 0 5,320 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 0 0 327,000 0 327,000 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 632,514 0 0 310,371 942,885 131 FIRE DONATIONS 0 0 0 10,083 10,083 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 0 0 0 1,200,000 1,200,000 211 LID FUND CONTROL 476,225 0 0 0 476,225 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 403,710 0 0 0 403,710 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 12,430,483 0 78,000 0 12,508,483 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 7,002,000 0 0 0 7,002,000 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,536,625 0 0 300,000 1,836,625 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,865,273 200,000 0 18,083 2,083,356 601 PARKS TRUST FUND 0 0 0 0 0 610 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 0 0 0 300,000 300,000 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 95,448 0 0 3,100 98,548 621 SPECIAL LIBRARY 1,100 0 0 1,750 2,850 623 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 Totals 66,535,443 2,722,770 936,856 4,434,893 74,629,962 5 EXHIBIT “C”: BUDGET AMENDMENT DETAIL Department Category Debit Credit Description Items Previously Before Council Street Construction Construction Projects 1,290,500 Street Construction State Grants 580,000 Street Construction Interlocal Revenues 128,700 Street Construction Other Misc Revenue 31,000 Street Construction Interest 15,000 Street Construction Ending Fund Balance 535,800 Treatment Plant Construction Projects 300,000 Treatment Plant Ending Fund Balance 300,000 Parks Construction Land 1,200,000 Parks Construction Interlocal Grant 1,200,000 REET 1 Land 724,167 REET 1 Interest 16,000 REET 1 Ending Fund Balance 740,167 Cemetery Interfund Loan 300,000 Cemetery Ending Fund Balance 300,000 Cemetery Interfund Loan 300,000 Cemetery Construction Projects 310,371 Cemetery Ending Fund Balance 10,371 New Items for Council to Consider Admin Svcs Pension Benefits 3,100 Admin Svcs Ending Fund Balance 3,100 Fire Overtime 830 Fire Grant Revenue 830 Fire Overtime 390 Fire Grant Revenue 390 Fire Overtime 150,000 Fire Ending Fund Balance 150,000 Fire Salaries 22,195 Fire Benefits 3,330 Fire Ending Fund Balance 25,525 Court Home Monitoring 5,000 Court Interpreter Fees 7,500 Court Salaries 9,500 Court Ending Fund Balance 22,000 Police Uniforms 1,994 Police Grant Revenue 1,994 Police Overtime 2,859 Police Grant Revenue 2,859 Police Overtime 7,379 Police Police FBI Contracts 7,146 Police Ending Fund Balance 233 Police Overtime 39,762 Police Ending Fund Balance 39,762 Police Interfund Transfer 8,000 Police Ending Fund Balance 8,000 Police Machinery/Equipment 8,000 Police Interfund Transfer 8,000 Increase in Columbarium construction costs. Bids higher than expected. Vests purchased in 2005 not received until 2006 Increase in public safety boat construction costs Retirement payout - salary and benefits Increase costs associated with an increase in non-English speaking defendants and disciplinary actions Woodway Elementary land purchase, Snohomish County grant proceeds Construction costs for the 220th Street project carried forward from 2005 Overtime due emergencies, staffing shortages, and training Construction costs for the Outfall project carried forward from 2005 To increase pension benefit payments for 2006 COLA Overtime & reimbursement for Hazmat Team Mass Decon Drill Overtime due emergencies, staffing shortages, and training Overtime & reimbursement for Homeland Security Evergreen drill Overtime for Drive Hammered - Get Nailed Overtime - FBI Contract (JTTF Services) 6 EXHIBIT “C”: BUDGET AMENDMENT DETAIL – Cont. New Items for Council to Consider Fire Donations Interfund Transfer 10,083 Fire Donations Contributions/Donations 1,884 Fire Donations Ending Fund Balance 8,199 Fire Donations Interfund Transfer 10,083 Fire Donations Machinery/Equipment 10,083 Library Fund Small Equipment 1,750 Library Fund Ending Fund Balance 354 Library Fund Ending Fund Balance 1,255 Library Fund Beginning Fund Balance 141 Hotel/Motel Tax Professional Services 2,100 Hotel/Motel Tax Ending Fund Balance 2,100 Need to increase expenditure budget. Closing fund 621. Increase in public safety boat construction costs LTAG Board's approved budget, need to update financial records 7 AM-694 3.D. Utility Billing Code Update Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By: Kathleen Junglov, Administrative Services Time:10 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Information Committee:Finance Agenda Memo Subject Utility Billing Code Update. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Chapter 7 of the code pertains to Utility Charges and Regulations. Certain sections of this chapter require updating, many of which are small housekeeping type changes. Finance is requesting direction on three items: 1.) Suspension of billing for vacant houses; 2.) Definition of low income; and 3.) Delinquency charges. Recommendation For discussion only. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Utility Code Update Changes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Dan Clements 11/08/2006 03:34 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 03:35 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:51 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Kathleen Junglov Started On: 11/08/2006 02:40 PM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 Title 7 UTILITY CHARGES AND REGULATIONS Current Language Change Requested/Recommended L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0019_694_Utility Code Update 110306.doc Page 1 of 7 7.10.010 Application for water use. All applications for the use of water shall be made at the public works department by the owner, or by the owner’s authorized agent, on printed forms furnished by said department for that purpose, and shall contain the name and description of the lot, block and addition. The applicant shall state the purposes for which the water is to be used and shall agree to conform to the ordinances, rules, and regulations, with modification which may be adopted, as a condition for use of water. [Ord. 2214 § 1, 1981; Ord. 2139 § 3, 1980; Ord. 413 § 9, 1929]. Applications for the use of water are made at the Development Services Department. 7.10.020 Accounts – Payments. All accounts shall be kept on the books of the water division in the name of the owner, and all charges shall be made against the property as well as the owner thereof. No change of ownership or occupancy shall affect the application of this section. All bills are payable within 25 days from the billing date. Flat rates are payable in advance. If water bills are not paid within a stated period, the water may be shut off. Water will be turned on after payment of the fees as set forth in ECC 7.10.070, in addition to the amount of delinquent charges. [Ord. 2214 § 2, 1981; Ord. 2139 § 4, 1980; Ord. 1942 § 1, 1977; Ord. 1385 § 1, 1968; Ord. 1082 § 1, 1965; Ord. 821, 1960; Ord. 413 § 10, 1929]. Language change suggested by City Attorney to describe due process procedures required by A.G. Opinion. 7.10.020 Accounts – Payments. A. All accounts shall be kept in the name of the owner, and all charges shall be made against the property as well as the owner thereof. No change of ownership or occupancy shall affect the application of this section. All bills are payable within 25 days from the billing date. If water bills are not paid within a stated period, the water will be shut off. Water will be turned on after payment of the fees as set forth in ECC 7.10.070, in addition to the amount of delinquent charges. B. At least 10 days before water is scheduled to be shut off, the Administrative Services Director, or a designated city official, shall notify the owner and the occupant of the property. The owner shall be notified by mail at the address on the account, and the occupant shall be notified by mail, door hanger or other form at the property. Mailed notices shall be deemed received 3 business days after mailing. All notices shall contain the following: 1. Reason for water shut off; 2. Delinquent amount that needs to be paid to avert interruption in water service; 3. Instructions on scheduling a hearing to show that the account is not delinquent; and 4. The day on or after which water will be shut off. C. After notification, the owner and the occupant shall be Title 7 UTILITY CHARGES AND REGULATIONS Current Language Change Requested/Recommended L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0019_694_Utility Code Update 110306.doc Page 2 of 7 afforded the opportunity to present to the Administrative Service Director, or a designated official, evidence that the delinquent charges have been paid. Such opportunity shall be afforded before the water is shut off, provided that the owner or the occupant make a request for the same to the Administrative Service Director, or a designated official, within 3 days of presumptive receipt of the notice. The burden shall be on the owner and or occupant to prove that the delinquent charges have been paid. D. After reviewing the evidence by the owner and or occupant, the Administrative Service Director, or the designated official to whom the evidence was presented, shall decide whether or not the account remains delinquent. The owner and the occupant shall be notified of the decision, and this decision shall not be subject to further appeal. If the account is found to be delinquent and water has not been shut off, water will be shut off as previously scheduled or 3 days after final decision, whichever date is later. If the account is not found to be delinquent and water has been shut off, water will be turned on without being subject to turn on and turn off charges in ECC 7.10.070. 7.10.030 Suspension of water use – Procedure. A. Should a customer desire to discontinue the use of water for a period of more than 30 days, notice thereof must be given in writing to the water division. The water will then be shut off and turned on again on written application without extra charge, but no remission of charges will be made without the notice prescribed in this section. B. Should the customer desire to discontinue the use of water for any period less than 30 days, written notice thereof must be given to the water division. The customer shall be required to pay the charges as set forth in ECC 7.10.070. [Ord. 1942 § 2, 1977; Ord. 1448, 1969; Ord. 413 § 17, 1929]. Looking for guidance on this section. Current practice is if customer is gone for more than 60 days water is shut off and turned back on with out charge, and billing is suspended. 1. Should City continue to turn water off and on without charge, or should we charge for this service? 2. Should City suspend billing after a length of time if house is vacant? • Portion of bill is for capital maintenance. 3. If it is determined the City will suspend water billing, what is the appropriate length of time 30 or 60 days. Finance prefers 60 days, or a full billing cycle. Title 7 UTILITY CHARGES AND REGULATIONS Current Language Change Requested/Recommended L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0019_694_Utility Code Update 110306.doc Page 3 of 7 7.10.070 Turn on and turn off charges. A. Charges for turning water off or on at the main shall be as follows: 1. Where streets are paved, $25.00. 2. Where streets are not paved, the actual cost of providing the service shall be charged to the customer. B. Except as provided below, the charge for turning on or off the water other than at the main shall be $20.00. If the water is turned on or off at any time other than during regular working hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. from Monday through Friday) or if the service is requested on any holiday, the charge shall be $75.00. [Ord. 2880 § 2, 1992; Ord. 2214 § 4, 1981; Ord. 2179 § 2, 1980; Ord. 2139 § 5, 1980; Ord. 1942 § 5, 1977]. Delete section A and clarify that it is $20.00 to turn off the water and it is $20.00 to turn on the water regardless as to whether it is for non-payment or at the customers request, except for after hours. 7.10.080 Request for inspection of meters. The water division, upon the request of any water user, shall inspect the water meter on the user’s premises. A deposit of $7.00 shall be made with such request to cover the cost of such inspection. In the event such meter is found to be overregistering, such deposit shall be returned to the depositor; otherwise, said deposit shall be retained by the city. [Ord. 821, 1960; Ord. 413 § 22, 1929]. Increase fee to $20.00. 7.10.110 Charge and bill adjustments. The director of public works, or such authorized representative as he may designate, is authorized to make adjustments or corrections to billings for any charge for water service, including but not limited to connection charges, minimum monthly billings, meter charges, penalty and special charges, improperly charged rates, and, subject to the mayor’s approval, the cancellation of uncollectible bills and accounts. [Ord. 2179 § 2, 1980]. Change authorization to Administrative Servcies Director. Change to City Council approval of uncollectible accounts. Title 7 UTILITY CHARGES AND REGULATIONS Current Language Change Requested/Recommended L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0019_694_Utility Code Update 110306.doc Page 4 of 7 7.30.070 Water and sewer rate reductions for low income citizens. A. Definitions. For the purposes of implementing water and sewer rate reductions under the provisions of this section, the following words or phrases shall have the following definitions: 1. “Low income citizen” shall mean a person who has established Edmonds as their residence and whose total disposable income including that of his or her spouse or cotenant does not exceed the amount specified in RCW 84.36.381(5)(b) as the same exists or is hereafter amended. 2. The definition of terms such as “residence”, “total disposable income”, “combined disposable income”, and other such terms used in this section shall be given those meanings established by RCW 84.36.383 as the same exists or is hereafter amended. In the event that any provision of the Revised Code of Washington incorporated by reference or implication in this definitional section shall be amended, such amendment shall be deemed to be incorporated within or utilized in interpretation of this section. B. Low income citizens shall be given reductions in the water base rate and the sewer rate as those rates are established from time to time by the city council: 1. A rate reduction of 30 percent shall be afforded those low income citizens who meet the qualifying income and asset levels established by RCW 84.36.381(5)(b)(i) as the same exists or shall hereafter be amended. 2. A 50 percent rate reduction shall be afforded those low income citizens qualifying under the provisions of RCW 84.36.381 (5)(b)(ii). 3. No rate reduction shall be afforded to any person shown as a dependent on the income tax return of any other individual, whether or not such person resides at the location for which the rate reduction is sought, unless the total combined disposable income of the applicant, along with their spouse, cotenant and all family members shown on the income tax return in which the applicant is shown as a dependent, meets the standards established by this section. C. The community services director is authorized to establish an application for low income citizens rate reduction applications. The Finance is proposing to change the eligibility to mirror the County requirements for Property Tax exemptions. We would like have applicants sign an affidavit and provide proof of Exemption for Property Taxes as the only required support for reduced water rates. • Simplifies process for applicants. • Reduces staff time in administering the program. • Reduces risk to the City as we no longer would be retaining copies of citizens tax returns and other personal information. At this time there are approximately 165 of our 11,000 single family accounts receiving the low income discount. Changing the eligibility would exclude renters and all others non-disabled customers who are low income. See attached guidance from Municipal Research. Title 7 UTILITY CHARGES AND REGULATIONS Current Language Change Requested/Recommended L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0019_694_Utility Code Update 110306.doc Page 5 of 7 application shall be provided without cost by the utility billing division of the city and shall include such information, including the following information, as may reasonably be required by the community services director: 1. Name, street address and telephone number of the applicant. 2. Social security number of the applicant. 3. Names and relationships to the applicant of all persons residing with the applicant and any person(s) upon whose annual income tax return the applicant is shown as a dependent. 4. Signed copies of the last federal income tax return of the applicant, all persons residing with the applicant, and any individual(s) upon whose income tax return the applicant is shown as a dependent, unless no filing(s) was required under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. 5. An affidavit of the applicant, all persons residing with the applicant, and any person upon whose income tax return the applicant is shown as the dependent, setting forth the amount and source of all other income not subject to income tax, and a schedule of all assets of the applicant other than the primary residence in which they are residing and personal affects not readily convertible to cash. [Ord. 2807 § 1, 1990; Ord. 2805 § 2, 1990; Ord. 2777 § 1, 1990]. 7.40.040 Fire service monthly service charges. A. The monthly rates for inspection and maintenance of detector check systems are fixed as follows: Fire Service or Detector Meter Size Bimonthly Service Charge 2" – 4" $12.34 6" $21.59 8" $30.81 Water used through the fire service line for fire suppression purposes and limited testing of the system will normally be furnished without any charge in addition to the bimonthly minimum charge set forth for fire service meter or detector check meter. Change meter size from 2” – 4” to”up to 4”. Title 7 UTILITY CHARGES AND REGULATIONS Current Language Change Requested/Recommended L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0019_694_Utility Code Update 110306.doc Page 6 of 7 3.50.030 Delinquency charge. A charge equal to 10 percent of the outstanding balance of the delinquent utility bill shall be added as a fee, except in cases of extraordinary hardship as determined by the public works superintendent or his/her designee. The decision of the public works superintendent shall be appealable to the finance committee of the Edmonds city council. The account shall be considered delinquent 35 days after the sending of the regular billing. Such delinquency notice and billing will be provided 35 days following the mailing of a regular utility bill. This charge shall be applicable to all delinquent utility billing accounts except for commercial and sewer only accounts. In order to be considered delinquent an account must total $21.00 or more of delinquency, and no delinquency charge shall be levied against any delinquent account under $21.00. This delinquency charge shall be paid prior to the application of any payment against the fee or charge initially assessed and nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the city’s collection of its attorneys’ fees and other reasonable costs and charges in the event it is forced to seek judicial remedy for collection. [Ord. 3156 § 2, 1997]. Presently in Chapter 3, as it relates to Utility accounts, move to Chapter 7. According to our City Attorney, the City can treat different classes of accounts differently, but must state reason why. Two classes of accounts, storm and sewer only billed every two months, and storm only only billed every six months are not charged deliquency charges. Current staff are not aware of the reason why these classes have been treated differently. Presently commercial accounts that are billed monthly are not being charged deliquency charges. Current staff are not aware of the reason why this class is being treated differently. Title 7 UTILITY CHARGES AND REGULATIONS L:\Productiondb\CCOUNCIL\0019_694_Utility Code Update 110306.doc Page 7 of 7 AM-688 2.B. Approval of Minutes Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By: Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Committee: Agenda Memo Subject Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2006. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Please refer to the attached draft Minutes. Recommendation Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 11-06-06 Draft Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/07/2006 03:52 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/07/2006 06:09 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 09:44 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/07/2006 03:48 PM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES November 6, 2006 Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding potential litigation, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Deanna Dawson, Mayor Pro Tem Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Pro Tem Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Wambolt requested Items E and F be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Plunkett requested Item B be removed. Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 24, 2006 Councilmember Plunkett requested the last sentence on page 9 be revised as follows: “The Committee considered State law governing condominium conversions and although there is not a great deal the City can do, the Committee plans to recommended the Council discuss requiring tenants be provided a small compensation for moving expenses.” COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM B AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda item approved is as follows: (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2006 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 2 Item E: Proposed Ordinance Amending Residential Parking Permits Councilmember Wambolt referred to Section 8.52.010 that prohibits parking for more than 72 hours, pointing out that although this was desirable, it could not be accomplished as downtown residents simply moved their cars 1-2 car lengths. He preferred to eliminate the 72 hour requirement. Next he referred to Section 8.52.020(D)(3) that limited a resident to three residential permits. The consequence of allowing a resident three parking permits was a resident with two onsite parking spaces could have a total of five vehicles parked downtown. He preferred to limit the total vehicles to three; for example, if a resident had two onsite parking spaces, they would be allowed only one parking permit. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS HE DESCRIBED. Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council reviewed this ordinance several times. What is before the Council is a proposed minor change – to allow use of residential parking permits to park downtown between the hours of 6 p.m. and 9 a.m. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson suggested if the Council wanted to make further changes to the ordinance, the proposed changes be referred to the Downtown Parking Committee. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with the suggestion. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM E AND TO SEND THE CHANGES SUGGESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT BACK TO THE PARKING COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION. Councilmember Plunkett was opposed to the motion, commenting the Parking Committee had sufficiently reviewed the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson asked whether the changes suggested by Councilmember Wambolt had been specifically discussed by the Parking Committee. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the intent of the amendment was to allow after-hours parking on 5th & Main. He acknowledged the Parking Committee had discussed the number of residential parking permits in the past as well as the problems associated with the 72 hour limit but had not been charged with forwarding a recommendation. He noted a comprehensive rewrite of the ordinance was done approximately 18 months ago and it had been tweaked twice since then. He concluded there may be some merit in the Parking Committee discussing these issues but urged the Council to approve the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Moore remarked the Parking Committee was a standing committee and because parking was a work in progress, the ordinance would be continually reviewed as circumstances changed. Councilmember Marin clarified his motion was to approve the ordinance and refer the issues raised by Councilmember Wambolt to the Parking Committee. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda item approved is as follows: (E) ORDINANCE NO. 3606 AMENDING RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS. Item F: Approval of Concession Agreement with Old Milltown Pizza and Proposed Ordinance Amending City Code Section 4.04.030, Leases of Public Right-of-Way. Councilmember Wambolt asked how the $100 fee was determined. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained because the City had not charged a fee in the past, staff contacted the Port and Washington State Ferries Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 3 to determine the amount they charged for similar uses. Considering the type of business and this being the first one, Mayor Haakenson determined a $100 fee was an appropriate start. She noted this was a one year contract. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda item approved is as follows: (F) APPROVAL OF CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH OLD MILLTOWN PIZZA AND ORDINANCE NO. 3607 AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 4.04.030, LEASES OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #91751 THROUGH #91884 FOR OCTOBER 26, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $864,978.99, AND #91885 THROUGH #92057 FOR NOVEMBER 2, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $415,815.41. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44007 THROUGH #44061 IN THE AMOUNT OF $770,212.78 FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 16 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2006. (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM BARBARA HINTZEN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). 3. CITY ATTORNEY ANNUAL REPORT City Attorney Scott Snyder described how the City’s legal budget had been spent year-to-date. He explained in a City such as Edmonds that was nearing build-out and construction was occurring via infill development where the most difficult lots were being developed and/or redeveloped, 29.6% of the legal budget or $69,200 was expended on Planning. He commented that was unlikely to change and likely would increase, particularly depending on the outcome of I-933. He noted this trend was likely to continue due to the strong, involved citizenry who are concerned with changes in quality of life, limits on citizens’ ability to have input into the process due to Regulatory Reform and Growth Management that focused growth in existing communities. He pointed out year-to-date the City had spent $12,000 on LUPA litigation and $33,000 on code enforcement; the City recovered $16,000 of the $33,000. The City spent $37,000 on day-to-day legal advice related to planning. Mr. Snyder explained the City spent 21.5% or $49,600 of its legal budget on the physical plant including advising engineering ($6,700), property acquisition/damage to public property ($10,000), lawsuit to abandon cemetery lots and ownership revert to the City for resale ($4,000), Public Works ($4,000), day- to-day advice to Parks ($5,000), acquiring interest in the interurban trail ($4,300), and utilities – streets, landslides, sewer and water ($16,500). He advised approximately $33,400 was spent advising the Mayor, Finance Department, City Clerk and approximately $35,000 advising the City Council, drafting ordinances and attending Council meetings. He planned in the upcoming year to look for ways to recover negotiation costs and attorney fees in code enforcement cases. He reviewed legal expenditures with regard to personnel - $4,800 for litigation and $12,500 for labor, primarily for police and fire. He noted the biggest success this year was a decision by the Thurston County Superior Court upholding an arbitration award in the City’s favor involving an unfair labor practice charge by the Police unit with regard to insurance. He noted the $12,500 for labor included approximately $5,000 related to this decision which would save the City approximately $150,000 - Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 4 $200,000 over ten years. Legal expenses related to personnel also included $2,800 for accommodation and $10,200 for day-to-day advice. He pointed out accommodation claims had increased in recent years and would continue to increase as more employees in strenuous occupations such as Public Safety and Public Works worked later in their careers to preserve health benefits. Mr. Snyder reviewed legal expenditures related to Public Safety ($12,100 for Police and $4,000 for Fire) for advising the departments on a day-to-day basis. Expenditures for police and fire were a small portion of the legal expenditure because the Council contracted for defense of liability claims with WCIA and because approximately two-thirds of the personnel legal expenditures were related to public safety. Mr. Snyder acknowledged he provided erroneous advice to the Council with regard to the remand to the ADB and what a public hearing could consist of. In the future, he planned to be more careful about providing advice which may result in continuing a hearing to allow him to conduct further research. He noted this would affect the Council in quasi judicial matters as it would prevent the Council from talking with the parties until the matter had been concluded. With regard to the amount of the legal budget expended on planning issues, Mr. Snyder noted increases in the amount were due not only to an involved citizenry but also laws that increasingly favored development and density. He referred to a citizen’s comments about the impact of PRDs on neighborhoods including the removal of trees. He pointed out the problem from a legal prospective was the trees belonged to the property owner. He noted the challenge in his job – informing the Council and enforcing the City’s decisions – was that it was frequently in opposition to individuals’ perception of what the community should/could be like. Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Snyder to expand on accommodations. Mr. Snyder commented the law enforcement and firefighters pension LEOFF1 strongly favored retirement of officers for an on-the-job injury – full salary tax free. As this was a very generous pension system, the legislature moved to the LEOFF2 and LEOFF3 system which were less advantageous public pension systems; LEOFF2 is the equivalent of Worker’s Compensation. As a result, officers were not retiring at the same rate and like many older Americans, more officers were working later in their careers to preserve health benefits. As employees with strenuous jobs worked later in their careers, more accommodations for disabilities would be necessary. When the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed, the assumption was accommodations would be for employees in wheelchairs, with vision impairments, etc. The reality was under ADA and Washington law against discrimination, the majority of accommodations were for bad backs and other transient disabilities. He noted accommodations also required assessing employees via fit-for-duty evaluations. He noted statistically 80% of all Americans would be disabled under one of the State or federal statutes at some time in their lifetime. Councilmember Moore inquired about the legal component of fit-for-duty evaluations. Mr. Snyder answered primarily assisting with negotiations with the union. Fit-for-duty evaluations were conducted by an independent physician or psychiatrist. Councilmember Moore commented the increasing number of accommodations would be reflected in the legal budget as well as the City’s budget as it became necessary to fill in for disabled employees. Mr. Snyder commented the Washington State pension plan was one of the best funded in the United States; two-thirds of the State’s employees would be eligible for retirement in the next ten years. He noted although wages were the majority of employment costs, 30% or more were benefits, pension, and payroll taxes. 4. 2006 ANNUAL REPORT - MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair introduced Court Administrator Joan Ferebee and commended her for her invaluable assistance. He displayed a comparison of filings through September 2007 with the past Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 5 two years that demonstrated filings this year had already exceeded past years. He pointed out the rate of traffic filings had decreased in recent months because both motorcycle officers were on disability leave. Judge Fair displayed a comparison of the different types of infractions – traffic, other (nuisance and animal control), parking, criminal traffic (DUI, driving while license suspended, reckless, no valid operator license), and criminal non-traffic (minor in possession, theft, minor drug possession). He pointed out the increase in parking tickets, DUI and traffic infractions. He attributed the increase in parking tickets to the Parking Enforcement Officer, the increase in criminal traffic to reenactment of the statute found unconstitutional, and the substantial increase in DUIs to the Police Department’s allocation of time and resources to DUI arrests. Judge Fair explained the result of increased filings was increased revenue. He anticipated this year’s gross revenues would exceed last year’s gross revenues. Unfortunately the State receives a portion of this revenue. He advised the revenue projections for 2006 were conservative; revenue to date was 92% of projected and he anticipated the yearend would be 10-15% over projections. He anticipated the Court’s expenditures would exceed revenues by 1.2-3.7%, primarily due to interpreter fees which were State mandated and electronic home monitoring (EHM) systems. He commented on the importance of providing an interpreter for anyone unable to understand the language. With regard to EHM, he explained the equipment rental was $5.75/day and was offered on a sliding scale of $5.75 - $50/day to defendants which resulted in a profit, anticipated to be $18,000-$19,000 this year. He pointed out savings via the use of EHM as defendants on EHM were not incurring the $57/day jail cost. He estimated the savings in jail costs to be $123,000 year-to-date and $150,000 at yearend. He advised community service was also offered as an option to jail for minor offenses. Year-to-date, community service has saved approximately 300 days of jail time, a savings of $17,100, anticipated to be $20,000 by yearend. He summarized the EHM savings, profits, and community service savings totaled $200,000 in jail costs by yearend. Next, Judge Fair reviewed passport revenue, advising revenues had decreased this year over last year. He found this a valuable service, pointing out issuance of passports was cyclical. He anticipated if passports were required for travel between the U.S. and Canada, the issuance of passports would increase. He commented on the importance of staff development, noting the audit provided objective evidence of the value of the training. He recalled shortly after he took office, Councilmember Dawson suggested an independent audit of the court to provide a baseline as well as the circumstances under which he was appointed. The audit was completed in April with exceptional results and he recognized his staff for their efforts. He quoted from the audit reports final observation, “In all aspects of court administration, the Edmonds Municipal court is well organized, managed and appropriately staffed. Especially exemplary is the care that has been taken in the handling of funds which can be a problem area for courts. Judge Fair, Court Administrator Ferebee and the court staff are to be complimented for a well organized operation that conducts business in an appropriately cordial manner.” Councilmember Moore asked what language interpreters were used for most. Judge Fair answered Spanish followed by Korean. She asked whether there were volunteer interpreters. Judge Fair responded interpreters must be court certified/qualified as interpretation simultaneous with speech was required. Councilmember Moore commented EHM technology was rapidly changing and asked whether the equipment the City used was up-to-date. Judge Fair responded yes, alcohol sensor monitoring was used when appropriate. He advised the City did not use GPS tracking. Councilmember Moore asked whether DUIs were primarily for alcohol or drugs. Judge Fair responded alcohol. Councilmember Moore asked about the effectiveness of community service. Judge Fair commented using the City’s Parks & Recreation did not work out well as often the defendant did not show up, etc. He explained defendants Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 6 were assigned a timeframe within which to serve a certain number of community service hours; if they did not complete the community service within that timeframe, they must report to jail. Councilmember Moore expressed support for community service but wanted to ensure the person was actually working. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson explained each year the Bench, Bar Association and various legal entities presented a joint priority for the legislature with regard to how the State could better fund the judicial system. She noted Washington’s judicial system was one of most poorly funded by the state and cities and counties were required to provide additional funding. The priority that Justice in Jeopardy plans to present to the State legislature is additional State funding for interpreters. She encouraged the public to contact their legislature to urge them to support that proposal. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson thanked Judge Fair and the court staff for their efforts, commenting she had heard good things about the court. 5. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE CLOSED RECORD REVIEW HELD ON 10/17/06 - APPEAL BY ELISABETH LARMAN ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPROVAL OF THE REFURBISHMENT OF OLD MILLTOWN, LOCATED AT 201 5TH AVENUE SOUTH Mayor Pro Tem Dawson advised Mayor Haakenson had recused himself from any participation in this matter to allow him to negotiate on behalf of the City with the public and the developer. City Attorney Scott Snyder recalled when the Council held the closed record review, he advised that a second public hearing could be held. Upon further research, he confirmed the City could only have one open record hearing and one closed record hearing and any attempt to present new evidence or add parties of record at another hearing could be a violation. He advised the ADB had tentatively scheduled this for their December 6 meeting; for the ADB to consider it sooner would require a special meeting. If that date was acceptable to the Council, the first date for Council consideration would be December 19. As this was a quasi judicial matter, Mayor Pro Tem Dawson asked whether any Councilmember had any conflicts or ex parte communication to disclose. Councilmember Orvis disclosed that Roger Hertrich had left him a message advising him of what Mr. Snyder just explained. Councilmember Wambolt advised he also received a telephone call from Mr. Hertrich; he did not discuss the substance of the matter, only the process. Councilmember Plunkett advised he also had a conversation with Mr. Hertrich regarding the process but they did not discuss the substance of the matter. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson disclosed she received a similar message from Mr. Hertrich in which he commented on the process. The day following the hearing, Mayor Haakenson made a passing comment referencing information in the record and a meeting he set up; they did not discuss it further because the matter had not been completed. She advised neither contact would affect her ability to proceed in the matter. She asked the Councilmembers whether their contact with Mr. Hertrich would adversely affect their ability to proceed. Councilmembers Orvis, Wambolt and Plunkett answered no. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson asked whether the parties of record had any challenges to the participation of these Councilmembers. There were none voiced. Councilmember Plunkett asked for clarification regarding Mayor Pro Tem Dawson’s comment that Mayor Haakenson was negotiating on this matter. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson answered she was not certain who Mayor Haakenson was talking with as she had been very careful to avoiding talking to him about it. She explained negotiating may not be the appropriate word – Mayor Haakenson was responding to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 7 inquiries from the public and the developer and directing staff; therefore, Mr. Snyder advised he should not participate in the quasi judicial proceeding. Mr. Snyder explained one of the Mayor’s responsibilities was the day-to-day administration and direction of employees; questions were posed to staff from the developer and interested citizens and he needed to be able to respond to both. He noted it was rare that the Mayor could vote on a decision as most were made via ordinance, this was an instance when he could be required to vote. His advice was if Mayor Haakenson discussed this matter outside the record, he should recuse himself from participation. He summarized the goal was to maintain very clear separation between the Mayor’s discussions and the Council’s action. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT WITH THE INSERTION OF THE DECEMBER 19, 2006 DATE. Councilmember Moore commented she preferred not to refer the matter to the ADB; however, since it had been, she recommended the ADB hold a special meeting. She would vote against the proposed motion but would vote in favor of motion that required a special ADB meeting. Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised a special meeting was suggested to the ADB and they preferred to schedule it on their December 6 agenda. Mr. Snyder commented the ADB had only five members; they may be unable to get a quorum on another date. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson commented the Council could have a special meeting following Council committee meetings on December 12. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson pointed out the wording in the findings was “on or before,” which would allow the ADB to hold a meeting sooner than December 6 if possible. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene explained the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan was a requirement of GMA. Goals and objectives included identifying problems for the system based on feedback from the Sewer Division, hydraulic analysis, lift station run time information and flow meter information; ensuring the City was in compliance with Federal & State laws; and identifying and prioritizing projects and other actions to meet these objectives. Mr. Fiene displayed a map of the existing service area, explaining most of the City limits was served by the City of Edmonds sewer utility although there were areas in the south served by Olympic View. He explained the current system consisted of approximately 168 miles of sewer pipe, approximately 3,200 manholes, over 9,200 service connections, and 14 lift stations. Over half of the pipe was constructed between 1959 and 1968 and over 85% of the pipe was concrete. The system had sufficient capacity for treatment at the Edmonds and Lynnwood treatment facilities. He explained analysis identified problems with inflow and infiltration associated with storm and groundwater entering the sewer system which can cause sewer backups and raw sewage overflows. High flow rates observed during January 2006 storms raised concern warranting flow monitoring/smoke testing, small works projects to connect inflow and infiltration sources to the storm system, and embarking on the CIP Rehabilitation Program. Mr. Fiene explained the consultant analyzed operations and maintenance. He displayed a chart identifying sewer maintenance worker utilization. He reviewed problem areas and recommendations, advising the problems were prioritized by Engineering and Public Works staff. Projects include rehabilitation or replacement of all sewer lift stations, replacement of many sewer mains with bellies and poor grade, inflow and infiltration study and projects, and the Cured in Place Pipe Restoration Program. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 8 Mr. Fiene displayed a map identifying the location of problem areas throughout the City that were analyzed and prioritized. He displayed a sample CIP project description. Next, he reviewed the financial program analysis that found sewer rates had increased only 6% between January 2002 and January 2006, well below inflation and that rates had been supplemented by connection charges since January, 2001 in the amount of $730 per equivalent residential unit. The proposed sewer rates for 2007-2012 would only increase a total of 10% (5% in 2008, 5% in 2009) which included funding for one additional staff – a Utilities Engineer in 2008. Mr. Fiene displayed a chart illustrating sewer utility spending 2002-2007, noting the treatment plant debt would be retired in 2008, making funds available for a more proactive capital program while maintaining low rates. He displayed a comparison of sewer rates, noting Edmonds was near the bottom. Mr. Fiene advised the Planning Board reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and held a public hearing. The Planning Board forwarded the Plan to Council with a recommendation for approval and strongly recommended approval of the Utilities Engineer position beginning in 2008 to facilitate and accomplish Plan recommendations. He explained the position would be funded entirely by utility rates, however, it was not currently included in the 2007-2008 budget. Mr. Fiene recommended the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan and authorize the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for amendment to the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the annual Comprehensive Plan update. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the rate consultant. Mr. Fiene answered the City hired FCS as the rate consultant. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Utilities Engineer position would be discussed during the budget presentations. Mr. Fiene advised the position was proposed in a decision package but had not been included in the budget by Mayor Haakenson. Councilmember Moore asked why the position was not included in the 2007-2008 if it was funded by utility taxes. Administrative Services Director Dan Clements answered it would require an increase in utility rates and it was preferred to keep rates as low as possible as well as limit the number of capital projects. He noted the only proposed increase was a 3% increase in water in 2007 and 3% in 2008. The primary reason for not including the Utilities Engineer position was additional engineering could accomplish more capital projects which would increase rates. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson asked whether there was a conflict with adoption of the Plan if the Council did not intend to include the Utilities Engineer position in the 2008 budget. Mr. Fiene commented a consultant could be used instead of an in-house engineer although that was likely to be more expensive. Another advantage of an in-house engineer was the Cured in Place Pipe Restoration Program that would begin in 2008 and would improve older pipes at a lower cost than trenching. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson asked whether adoption of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan would require hiring a Utilities Engineer in 2008. Mr. Fiene answered not necessarily; those tasks could be done by a consultant. Councilmember Marin asked whether neighborhoods were notified before inflow and infiltration smoke tests were conducted. Mr. Fiene answered yes. Councilmember Marin suggested by notifying residents in advance of the test it would allow them to fix any problems and avoid the stiff fines associated with a violation. Public Works Director Noel Miller advised a fine was rarely levied; homeowners were allowed a reasonable amount of time to fix any defects that were identified. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Pro Tem Dawson closed the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 9 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE SANITARY SEWER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE UTILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, suggesting the Council consider the Utilities Engineer position in the future. He referred to a section in the Plan that identified deficiencies in the system, noting the City’s system was old and built when there were few safeguards. Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Marin’s suggestion, noting the Utilities Engineer position was strongly recommended by the Planning Board. Councilmember Wambolt suggested asking Mayor Haakenson why the decision package was not included in the 2007-08 budget. He commended Mr. Fiene on the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Plunkett also commended Mr. Fiene on the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. He recalled in 1998/99, the rate structure did not provide sufficient funds for maintenance of the sewer system and staff proposed the idea of a rate structure study. The result was an increase in rates although the rates remained below the State average and a system that could handle the current and additional flow, and a maintenance/repair schedule. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson requested further information regarding the Utilities Engineer position be provided at the November 14 budget workshop. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2007-08 BUDGET AND REVENUE SOURCES. Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained the purpose of the public hearing was to receive public comment on the proposed budget and provide information about revenues and potential property tax increases. He noted the Council packet contained responses to questions raised by the Council. Mr. Clements advised the 2007 budget totals $70.5 million, less than a 1% increase over the 2006 budget. He explained there was a $2.5 million increase in operations in the General and Utility Funds which was offset by decreases in several capital funds. The 2008 budget totals $65.9 million, a 6.5% decrease over the 2007 budget. The 2007 General Fund totals $31.9 million, a 4.8% increase over the 2007 budget due to State pension rate increases, a full year of the Street Crime Unit and court and incarceration charges. The 2008 General Fund totals $33.2 million, a 4% increase over 2007. The preliminary 2007-08 budget recommends a 1% statutory increase in property taxes, and recapture of 1.6% remaining banked capacity. The 2007 budget includes a .25% utility rate increase and a 3% water rate increase in 2007 and 2008 to fund the capital replacement program. The proposed budget recommends an Emergency Medical Services Levy election in 2007 with funding in place for 2008. Next he reviewed property tax distribution – 15% to the City and 3.7% to EMS, the remainder is distributed to schools (64%); Port, Library and Hospital (6.9%) and the County (9.8%). He summarized there were no staffing increases in the 2007-2008 budget other than the transition of one Police Sergeant from grant funding to General Fund. The 2007-2008 budget includes miscellaneous Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 10 equipment replacement and development of a utility billing e-payment system. A plan will be developed in 2007 for a $500,000 reduction in the General Fund for 2009. He displayed a General Fund Projection Model without the utility tax increase and the 2008 EMS levy. He reviewed the 2007-08 budget adoption schedule – Council budget deliberations on November 14, second budget public hearing on November 21 with possible budget adoption. Additional dates for further budget deliberation and adoption included November 28 and December 5, 12, and 19. Councilmember Wambolt requested for the November 14 meeting further information regarding the EMS levy. He noted in 2006 the cost was estimated to be $5.3 million; $2.3 million from the levy and $3 million from the General Fund. He suggested a standalone budget for EMS in view of the significant EMS levy that was proposed, a more than 50% increase in the levy. Mr. Clements recalled one of the questions was whether this was an EMS levy for EMS purposes or to assist with funding of other services. Staff would respond to that at the November 14 meeting. Councilmember Moore referred to the General Fund Projection Model and suggested a comparison between this year and last year and a long term projection to assist the Council with developing a vision for funding the City through the next decade. Mr. Clements commented he could lengthen the planning horizon but a way to fund operations for the next decade had not been identified. Councilmember Moore commented on the importance of sales tax to avoid increasing property taxes. Mr. Clements offered to provide options for stabilizing the budget over the next decade. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson opened the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented a 3% increase in water rates was a burden for residents living on a fixed income. He requested the 3% increase be supported by costs. Next, in regard to the EMS levy, he questioned whether there were ways to reduce costs. He suggested consideration be given to changing the policy of two vehicles on each call by having one responding vehicle and another for back-up. He recalled the previous fire rescue boat became a financial burden, particularly for overtime. He questioned whether the City received grant funds for the operation of the boat. He suggested the fire rescue boat was a regional service that should be paid for with regional funds. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, suggested developing Firdale Village and Five Corners would result in additional tax revenue. He pointed out the Council’s land use planning had consequences including insufficient multi family housing. If the Council did not allow buildings to exceed 25-feet, development would not occur. He did not support increased property taxes. He encouraged the City to provide incentives so that developers would build apartments on transit lines. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Pro Tem Dawson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on the funding for operation of the fire rescue boat. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg advised the boat was acquired via a $200,000 State homeland security grant. The boat was acquired due to the presence of the marina, the Port and the extensive waterfront area. The estimated annual maintenance is $2,136. The boat is cross-staffed like any other vehicle and used as a tool like any other apparatus similar to the aid unit, ladder truck or engine. He advised no overtime had been expended for the use of the fire rescue boat. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the large format copier would replace an existing printer. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the existing copier required a great deal of maintenance and was being phased out. The existing copier was used to copy large plans; the City was required to keep plans for the life of a building plus 10 years. He advised the plans could be converted to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 11 PFD files but a large format copier was needed to copy plans requested by the public or copy drawings provided by developers. Councilmember Orvis asked whether there were advantages to requiring plans to be submitted in an electronic format. Mr. Bowman answered smaller developers did not have access to that technology. He noted the ability to work with electronic plans would require additional equipment. Councilmember Wambolt requested a comparison of EMS levies for communities similar to Edmonds. Councilmember Moore asked staff to elaborate on the declining levy rate as assessments increased. Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained in states like California, if the assessed valuation doubled, the levy rate doubled. In Washington, due to the 1% cap, if the assessed valuation doubled, the levy rate was cut in half plus 1%. Therefore, as assessments increased, the levy rate declined. He noted that was the issue with EMS, as the levy rate decreased, the EMS levy generated less revenue. He noted in Washington, the amount of money a city, county or taxing jurisdiction was authorized to collect was divided by the assessed valuation to determine the levy rate. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson advised the Council would be discussing the budget on November 14 following Council committee meetings. She requested staff provide information regarding what the proposed utility tax increase would fund. She requested Council submit any additional questions by Thursday so that a determination could be made regarding what staff members needed to be present at the November 14 Council meeting. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3595 – A ZONING MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPLICATIONS OR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS, NOT OTHERWISE VESTED PURSUANT TO STATE LAW PRIOR TO DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE WHICH SEEK TO UTILIZE MODULATED DESIGN IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A BUILDING HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF THE TWENTY-FIVE FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ESTABLISHED BY ECDC 15.40.020(A)(2). (ORDINANCE NO. 3595 EXPIRES 11/26/06.) Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised this was an ongoing extension of the zoning moratorium as the Council and Planning Board worked on the downtown zoning regulations and implementation. The Council has begun but has not completed their deliberations. The ordinance would expire if not extended. Staff recommended extending the moratorium to allow the Council to complete their deliberations on the downtown zoning regulations. He commented Agenda Item 8 was a similar extension. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Pro Tem Dawson apologized this extension was necessary. She pointed out the quasi judicial matter that had delayed the Council’s deliberations. She was hopeful the Council could complete their deliberations as soon as possible. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson opened the public hearing. She cautioned speakers not to speak about the pending quasi judicial matter. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, asked how many moratorium the City had in place compared to most other cities. He recalled Lynnwood was very concerned with having one moratorium. He pointed out time was money for business people and moratoriums cost businesses money. He summarized the Council was responsible for the moratorium that was binding everything up. Gary Krohn, Edmonds, acknowledged the Council had few options other than to extend the moratorium to allow the Council to complete its deliberations. He noted there came a time when the Council needed to ask whether more time, more information, more hearings, or more analysis would help them reach a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 12 better decision. Although he understood the difficulty of the building height issue and the tendency to delay a final decision, at some point the difficult decisions must be made. He noted one of the goals of the building code was predictability and stability; indecision often led to unpredictability and property owners who were unsure of what actions could be taken, took no action. He suggested in this region at this time, with no action particularly in the downtown core, the City was being left behind. He urged the Council to make this the last extension and to deal with the issue. He noted the next Agenda Item was a similar situation. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Pro Tem Dawson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Kreiman’s comment that the Council’s indecision was binding everything up and asked how many applications had been submitted. Mr. Bowman answered the City could not accept applications affected by the moratorium. Councilmember Plunkett asked how many people had inquired about submitting an application. Mr. Bowman estimated only one. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE NO. 3608 EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3595, A ZONING MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPLICATIONS OR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS, NOT OTHERWISE VESTED PURSUANT TO STATE LAW PRIOR TO DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE WHICH SEEK TO UTILIZE MODULATED DESIGN IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A BUILDING HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF THE TWENTY-FIVVE FOOT HIEHT LIMITATION ESTABLISHED BY ECDC 15.40.020(A)(2). Council President Pro Tem Olson commented although she would support the motion, she was frustrated with the repeated extensions of this moratorium. Councilmember Moore agreed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3596 – A ZONING MORATORIUM ON THE APPLICATION OF ECDC 20.10.070(C)(3) RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL HEIGHT LIMITS TO PROTECT VIEWS. (ORDINANCE NO. 3596 EXPIRES 11/26/06.) Mayor Pro Tem Dawson noted Mr. Bowman had referenced the extension of this moratorium in his presentation on the previous agenda item. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out the proposed ordinance extending this moratorium and the moratorium in the previous agenda item indicated the Council had received a recommendation from the Planning Board. Because the Council was still in deliberation on a quasi judicial matter in the downtown area, it was difficult for the Council to have a frank discussion on a legislative matter without appearing to be in deliberation on the quasi judicial matter. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Pro Tem Dawson closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3609 EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3596, A ZONING MORATORIUM, ON THE APPLICATION OF ECDC 20.10.070(C)(3) RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL HEIGHT LIMTIS TO PROTECT VIEWS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 13 10. PUBLIC HEARING ON RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE PLANNING BOARD FOR AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 16.60 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CONCERNING THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG AND CG2) ZONES. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the Hwy. 99 Task Force who considered regulations with regard to Hwy. 99, recommended amending the Comprehensive Plan which was done in 2005. In considering zoning regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Board proposed amendment to the General Commercial CG and CG2 zones. He explained currently the CG and CG2 zones had a base height limit; the height of a building on a property in the high rise node could exceed the base height limit an unlimited amount with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). After reviewing the Hwy. 99 Task Force’s recommendations, the Planning Board recommended, 1) increasing the base height limits in the CG zone from 35 feet to 60 feet and from 45 feet to 75 feet in the CG2 zone, 2) removing the requirement to obtain a CUP for higher building heights, 3) providing greater flexibility in the arrangement of uses for large- scale mixed use developments (2+ acres), and 4) including specific site design standards for development in the CG zone. Councilmember Orvis asked how this applied to Harbor Square. Mr. Chave answered development of Harbor Square was governed by the contract rezone; changes to the CG and CG2 zone would not impact that property. Councilmember Orvis requested a copy of the Harbor Square contract rezone. Council President Pro Tem Olson asked the difference between CG and CG2 zones. Mr. Chave responded primarily location, the uses were essentially the same. The CG2 was the northern portion and CG was the southern portion of Hwy. 99. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether having the ADB at the beginning of the process would include a public hearing. Mr. Chave the ADB would hold the open record public hearing and focus on the checklist and issues to be addressed. As a result, the public hearing and the appeal would be very early in the process. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a CUP included a public hearing. Mr. Chave answered yes if it required Hearing Examiner review. He explained staff could issue CUPs, if the Code was not specific, it was reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the letter regarding 15-foot setbacks associated with an automobile dealership and asked whether that could be addressed separately. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Item D2 on page 8 of the Planning Board’s recommendation, “In buildings with footprints over 10,000 square feet, attention needs to be given to modulation, scale and massing…” asking whether in a building under 10,000 square feet, attention did not need to be given to modulation, scale and massing. Mr. Chave advised that was correct for buildings on Hwy. 99. Councilmember Plunkett asked for an example of a 10,000 square foot building. Mr. Chave responded it was approximately 100 x 100 and Mr. Snyder advised it was approximately ¼ acre. Councilmember Plunkett observed a building under 60 feet would not require ADB pre-planning and a building over 60 feet would not require a CUP. Mr. Chave agreed, commenting the building would need to meet the same standards but it would be reviewed by staff. He explained a building would need to be in a high rise node to exceed 60 feet and would require a ADB pre-planning meeting. Councilmember Wambolt referred to the letter from the car dealership indicating the 15 foot setback would be a hardship and asked whether that issue had been considered by the Planning Board. Mr. Chave answered no, it was an existing code provision. He acknowledged the points raised in the car dealership’s letter were worth considering but recommended consideration be given to what would be provided in Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 14 exchange for a reduction in the setback. He noted the portion of Hwy. 99 within Edmonds had better design, landscaping, etc. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Item D2 on page 8 of the Planning Board’s recommendation that referred to modulation, recalling the City was abandoning that term. Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Wambolt’s comment regarding the use of the term modulation. She asked what process would be used to address the setback issue. Mr. Chave answered the ordinance could be referred back to the Planning Board for a quick look at that issue. Mr. Snyder explained the Council could make minor changes but could not include a new issue that had not been considered by the Planning Board as GMA required a public process. Councilmember Moore recommended referring that issue back to the Planning Board, recognizing car dealerships provided a substantial amount of sales tax to the City. Mr. Chave suggested scheduling it on the agenda of the first Planning Board meeting in December. Councilmember Marin suggested Magic Toyota make a presentation to the Hwy. 99 Task Force at their meeting next week and the Task Force forward a recommendation to the Planning Board. Councilmember Orvis referred to Jim Underhill’s reference to a minority report that was not submitted. Mr. Chave recalled his concern was with the BR zoning around the hospital. Council President Pro Tem Olson commented on the importance of working with the car dealerships due to the amount of sales tax revenue they generated. Councilmember Plunkett agreed with Councilmember Marin’s suggestion that Magic Toyota make a presentation to the Hwy. 99 Task Force. Mr. Chave suggested the matter also be scheduled on the Planning Board’s agenda. Councilmember Wambolt commented the purpose of the Hwy. 99 Task Force was to raise issues such as the 15 foot setback; as the issue had already been identified, he questioned the need for the Hwy. 99 Task Force to be involved. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson opened the public hearing, advising the Council received a letter from Peter Chung, General Manager, Magic Toyota, requesting an exemption from the 15 foot setback for car dealerships. Peter Chung, General Manager, Magic Toyota, Edmonds, advised due to their success as well as agreements made with the manufacturer regarding required space, they needed to expand their operation. He explained they had a deficiency of approximately 107,000 square feet at their current location. Upon learning they purchased property a block north in Lynnwood, Edmonds staff asked whether their current site could be redeveloped. As a result they purchased additional property to the south to accommodate their expansion. In conducting their due diligence, they discovered the 15 foot setback requirement. He pointed out the 15-foot setback represented approximately 80 parking spaces which represented a loss of approximately $600,000 as well as reduced the amount of land available for expansion. He displayed several photographs illustrating how a landscaped 15-foot setback obscured the visibility of vehicles behind it, photographs of dealerships with a 2-3 foot setback, and a photograph illustrating how the 15- foot setback would impact operations on their site. He requested they be allowed to retain their existing 3-foot setback. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested this would be an appropriate application of a CUP. He disagreed with removing the requirement for a CUP for buildings on Hwy. 99, noting the CUP process provided Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 15 opportunity for public input, it did not waste time and did not slow the process. He also did not agree with removing the ADB pre-planning review. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, recommended the Council approve the Planning Board’s recommendations unless it required a 15-foot setback for car dealerships which he recommended be considered by the Planning Board. He noted this section of Hwy. 99 did not have any pedestrian traffic and was appropriate for commercial and multi family development. Pat Ikegami, Doug’s Lynnwood Mazda, advised they were required to build a building for their Hummer franchise and the 15-foot setback would severely limit their available space. She noted manufacturers required a certain building square footage, parking spaces, and lot size. She requested the Council reconsider the 15-foot setback and staff review, noting an impediment to the construction process was the time for planning and review. She remarked they had less than two years to complete their building and a year in planning would make their schedule very tight. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Pro Tem Dawson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett asked how long it took to get a permit in Edmonds for a building as large as 20,000 square feet. Mr. Chave stated ADB review could add 2-4 months depending on the scale of the project. Although buildings below the proposed base height limit did not require ADB review, there was public notice provided for any project that exceeded the SEPA threshold. Because the SEPA threshold was fairly low, he noted most projects on Hwy. 99 would have public notice. Councilmember Plunkett noted although there was public notice, there was no public hearing. Mr. Chave explained the public could appeal the decision which triggered a public hearing with the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether it took a year to get a building permit in Edmonds. Mr. Bowman answered it took approximately 12 weeks for a major commercial building. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson clarified because the setback was not considered by the Planning Board, it would be inappropriate for the Council to take action on that issue. Mr. Snyder agreed, advising the public had not been notified of that change. GMA required the City follow its public comment procedures which in this instance required review by the Planning Board, recommendation to the Council and another public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson asked whether taking action on the ordinance would preclude the Council from referring the setback issue to the Planning Board. Mr. Snyder answered no. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE HWY. 99 TASK FORCE. Councilmember Plunkett commented SEPA notification was inadequate, pointing out a formal appeal to the Hearing Examiner was very different than notice of a public hearing. He referred to Item E on page 1 of the Planning Board’s recommendations, “encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods…” He objected to a building that was ¼ acre that did not need to consider massing or modulation, a building up to 60 feet that did not require ADB review, and a building over 60 feet that did not require a CUP. He explained a CUP required an applicant to demonstrate the use was consistent with the zone and that their application would not be a significant deterrent to public health, safety or welfare. He concluded the proposed ordinance violated the principle of being sensitive to the neighborhoods. If ADB review and a CUP were appropriate for other neighborhoods in the City, it was appropriate for the Lake Ballinger neighborhood. He did not support the motion. Council President Pro Tem Olson, a former member of the Hwy. 99 Task Force, commented the reason this was recommended was to encourage development on Hwy. 99 and to streamline the process for higher buildings that did not impact views. She pointed out a member of the public could appeal the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 16 SEPA decision which would result in a public hearing. She commented on the importance of increasing the City’s sales tax revenue, asking if development downtown was not desirable, where would development occur. Councilmember Wambolt advised the requirements from the vehicle manufacturers that were cited by the dealerships were not an exaggeration. He supported considering the setback issue, noting the loss of a car dealership would have a significant impact on the City’s revenue stream. Councilmember Plunkett supported referring the 15-foot setback issue to the Planning Board. He agreed Hwy. 99 would an appropriate place for increased development, noting there were residents adjacent to Hwy. 99. He recalled residents of Lake Ballinger wanted the same protections the rest of the City received. Mr. Snyder referred to Item 2A on page 6 of the Planning Board recommendation, which referred to a minimum 4-foot wide landscaping; however, page 5 had a minimum street setback of 15 feet that was required to be fully landscaped. He concluded there was an inherent conflict in the proposed ordinance; the Council could change the minimum 4-foot wide landscaping to 15 feet to be consistent but could not reduce the 15-foot setback as it had not been noticed. Mr. Chave disagreed, pointing out the landscape requirement on page 6 was a minimum of 4-feet which was not inconsistent with 15 feet. He suggested staff proceed with preparing an ordinance that omits the landscaping issue and refer it back to the Planning Board. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson concluded the Council could omit the portion regarding landscaping and setbacks. Mr. Bowman agreed with Mr. Chave’s assessment and recommended the Council authorize preparation of the ordinance omitting that issue and return that issue to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Councilmember Orvis supported changing the setback to make it as easy as possible to park cars on Hwy. 99, recognizing car dealerships were a major source of sales tax revenue. With regard to building heights, he was uncomfortable with allowing 60 foot building heights in the CG zone or 75 foot building heights in the CG2 zone. He did not envision buildings of that height would fit the area and the neighbors deserved the same considerations as other neighborhoods. He summarized he would not support the ordinance with those building heights. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN RESTATED HIS MOTION TO OMIT REFERENCE TO LANDSCAPING AND RETURN THAT ISSUE AND THE 15-FOOT SETBACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION. Councilmember Wambolt expressed support for the motion. He had driven around this area and while there was residential development, it was primarily a commercial area. He supported doing whatever possible to enhance commercial development on Hwy. 99. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson remarked there was a new car dealership off I-5, recognizing competition among dealerships was stiff and time was of the essence for commercial development. She expressed support for the motion. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), MAYOR PRO TEM DAWSON, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM OLSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, WAMBOLT, AND MARIN IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. 11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS June Robinson, Executive Director, Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County, commended the Council for considering a requirement for relocation assistance in the event of Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 17 condominium conversions. She advised Snohomish County was experiencing a high rate of condominium conversion, over 700 apartments were converted to condominiums in 2005 and she anticipated conversions would exceed that amount in 2006. She explained this often led to hardship for low income residents living in the apartments at the time of conversion. Although $500 in relocation assistance was not a lot, she recognized it was the maximum currently allowed by State law. She noted apartment conversions were a major cause of homelessness in the Puget Sound region. James Claussen, Edmonds, recalled the Hwy. 99 building heights were determined in the late 1980s as a result of perspectives his wife, then the Planning Board Chair, drew for residents. He recalled the residents in Lake Ballinger were amazed the building heights were of no consequence due to the topography. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, commented although his good manners required civility with the Council, he disagreed with a lot of what the Council did including their land use policy. He pointed out supply and demand – if demand for a product increased and the supply stayed the same, the result was an increase in price. He noted if land prices were high enough, property owners could sell their property for condominiums. He concluded the Council’s land use policy and their objection to higher building heights was impacting development. With increased demand for housing and the Council’s land use policies not allowing for increased supply, the result was housing occurred in unexpected places such as wooded areas being replaced with houses selling for $750,000 - $1 million. He pointed out the population of schools in the Edmonds School District was decreasing because families could no longer afford to live in Edmonds. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, relayed the next chapter in her ferry tale, entitled “An Edmonds Kind of Idea.” She noted the Unocal hillside slid when disturbed and was designated a landslide hazard area. To reach the proposed new ferry terminal, the access road would traverse the hillside for a distance of approximately 900 feet. The consultants determined the simplest way to fix the slope was to remove it via cut and fill. The excavation and fill would substantially change the slope and ground surface along portions of the access road alignment. The final EIS’ comment with regard to the visual impact was the ferry access road would create a visual scar on the hillside. She objected to the cost and the concept of building a ferry terminal at an exposed, distant, deep water site as well as the destruction of Marina Park and the Unocal hillside. She advised the next chapter of the ferry tale was entitled, “The Cost: $78 Billion and Still Rising.” She distributed a comparison of the $19 million cost of a breakwater in 1994 to the $31 million cost today. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the question about how long it took to get an application approved in Edmonds, relaying that builders, architects and business people have told him no one wants to build in Edmonds because of the delays. He commented one year was an accurate estimate of the amount of time it took to get a project approved in Edmonds. He cited problems of a person building a single family home as well as Lund’s Office Supply experienced. He commented the meetings and public hearing were not the reason for the delays; the delays were caused by the City. Builders did not complain due to their fear of reprisals. He urged Council to look into this and determine what needed to be done. MAYOR PRO TEM DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled this issue was raised by a citizen who voiced concerns with condominium conversions. The Community Services/Development Services Committee discussed the issue at their October 17 meeting and the City Attorney advised the City could, 1) provide a warranty program, and 2) require a developer doing a condominium conversion to provide $500 to low income tenants (the maximum allowed under State law). Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 18 Mr. Bowman did not support the warranty ordinance, finding that an issue that was best addressed by the buyer in the Purchase and Sale Agreement. He supported requiring a developer involved in a condominium conversion to provide $500 in relocation assistance to low income tenants. City Attorney Scott Snyder noted as Bio Park of his office indicated in his memo to the Council, a similar State Statute providing for larger compensation was struck down by the State Supreme Court, thus even requiring $500 had the potential for challenge. He noted there was a provision for more compensation under the Landlord Tenant Act; however, the City was required to match the payment. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson was aware of a number of bills that may be proposed in the upcoming legislative session including mobile home park conversions as well as a proposal to increase assistance to $2500. She noted the warranty provisions seemed to be intended for urban areas to slow the process for conversion of large buildings where tenants were required to make a quick decision with no warranty protection. Mr. Bowman noted only Seattle and Mercer Island enacted the warranty provision. Councilmember Moore commented the warranty provision did not protect low income residents as they were not the ones purchasing the unit. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson commented that unlike areas such as New York City, there were likely few people renting apartments in Edmonds who would be capable of purchasing their apartment when it was converted to a condominium. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3610. Councilmember Marin commented he was interested in low income housing. He recalled a document at Snohomish County Tomorrow that stated Edmonds was fortunate to have more affordable rental properties than other nearby cities because many rental properties were older and the rents were more affordable. He noted condominium conversions eliminated those affordable rental properties. Councilmember Plunkett advised the Washington State Realtors Association and the Governor in association with the Affordable Housing Advisory Board would be recommending action to the legislature and he preferred to delay any Council action pending the Legislature’s action. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson commented she had been working recently on affordable housing and efforts to prevent homelessness in Snohomish County. She pointed out land prices made it infeasible to build affordable housing in South Snohomish County; therefore, it was important to maintain the existing stock of affordable housing as well as maintain a wide variety of housing types in the community. Recognizing that $500 was not a great deal of money, it would assist tenants displaced by condominium conversion and possibly prevent someone from becoming homeless. She was aware the Legislature may be taking action this session; if they did, the Council could revisit this issue in a few months. Council President Pro Tem Olson agreed although $500 was not a great deal, it was something. She referred to two apartment buildings in Edmonds that recently became low income housing. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson clarified those apartments were purchased by the Housing Authority, one of the only ways to preserve low income housing in the community. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT OPPOSED. 13. MAYOR PRO TEM COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Dawson thanked Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman for the flowers for her birthday. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 6, 2006 Page 19 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Pro Tem Olson wished Mayor Pro Tem Dawson a Happy Birthday. She reported she took her granddaughter downtown on Halloween where the merchants did a great job distributing candy. She next reported the Friends of the Edmonds Library raised over $9,000 at their recent book sale and thanked everyone for their support. Councilmember Moore complimented the Council for passing the Planning Board’s recommendation regarding Hwy. 99 with the caveat that the Planning Board review the setbacks and landscaping requirements. She anticipated this would assist with positive development on Hwy. 99. She suggested next year, possibly at the Council retreat, revisiting the Council’s role in quasi judicial decision-making. She favored the Council extracting themselves from quasi judicial reviews as much as possible, commenting on the difficulty for Councilmembers to be unable to talk to residents. She also viewed the Council sitting as judges on the City’s code as a conflict of interest. She commented the current situation was the worst case scenario – a perfect storm of quasi judicial decision-making holding up an important Council decision. Councilmember Wambolt wished Mayor Pro Tem Dawson a Happy Birthday. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. AM-686 2.C. RFQ for Park Design / Old Woodway Elementary School Site Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By: Brian McIntosh, Parks and Recreation Time:Consent Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action Committee: Agenda Memo Subject Authorization to advertise for statements of qualification from landscape architectural firms or consultant teams for park design and construction services for the Old Woodway Elementary School park site. Previous Council Action None Narrative The proposed capital budget for 2007-2008 includes $1,700,000 for demolition of the existing school buildings and surfaces and construction of a neighborhood park at the Old Woodway Elementary School Site. This request for qualifications (attached ) is for park design and construction management services only. A hazardous materials survey has been completed for the site and abatement specifications for these will be incorporated into demolition specifications due to be completed in January. Recommendation Council authorize staff to advertise for statements of qualification from landscape architectural firms or consultant teams for design and contruction services for Old Woodway Elementary School park site. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: RFP Park Design Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 11/07/2006 02:29 PM APRV 2 Community Services Stephen Clifton 11/08/2006 11:35 AM APRV 3 Development Services Duane Bowman 11/08/2006 02:39 PM APRV 4 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 02:49 PM APRV 5 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:51 PM APRV 6 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Brian McIntosh Started On: 11/07/2006 12:33 PM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 Page 1 City of Edmonds, Washington REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) Park Design and Construction Administration Services Old Woodway Elementary School Site Purpose of Request The City of Edmonds (“City”) is soliciting Statements of Qualifications from landscape architectural firms or consultant teams in connection with performing services for the City. Project Overview This 5.56 acre neighborhood park site is located at 23700 104th Avenue West in Edmonds. The City of Edmonds is accepting Statements of Qualifications from firms interested in providing services for the development of a neighborhood park. The project will include master planning, conceptual and final designs, cost estimation and construction documents, and providing construction support services. The scope of services will also include consultation with demolition consultants and contractors in regard to disposition of the school buildings and surfaces and retention of vegetation. The project will include input from City professional staff, City Planning/Parks Board, and the public at neighborhood meetings conducted by the consultant. The consultant selected by the City will be required to execute the City’s Standard Professional Services Agreement. The established City procedures for selection of architectural and engineering consultants for projects with an estimated consultant fee greater than $50,000 will be followed. This site currently houses 50 year old elementary school buildings in the City’s Sherwood neighborhood in southwest Edmonds. The City has completed a hazardous materials survey and is developing demolition specifications in anticipation of removing the school buildings in the first half of 2007. It is anticipated that the east parking lot and significant mature vegetation, including a wooded 1.5 acre north park boundary, will be left in place. The goal at this site is to provide both active and passive amenities in a traditional neighborhood park setting. Project Manager: Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director, 425-771-0256, mcintosh@ci.edmonds.wa.us Selection Criteria • Experience and expertise of project team in park design and development of parks • Experience with and approach to public involvement • Previous successful experience working with municipalities similar to the City of Edmonds on similar projects • Project approach, including innovative alternatives/cost saving solutions • Past performance • Personnel experience/expertise • Understanding of project requirements • Staff resources/capacity to perform Page 2 Selection Panel A selection panel will be comprised of 4 - 6 City personnel from Parks, Engineering, Public Works and Planning. Submittal Requirements The Statement of Qualifications will be the basis from which qualified firms will be selected for interview. A minimum of three firms will be invited to present their qualifications to the selection panel. The respondent shall list, on the cover sheet of the response, the following information of the prime consultant: firm name, address, phone number, fax number and a contact person. The title of the Submittal shall be: Statement of Qualifications for Park Design & Construction Administration for Old Woodway Elementary School Site. Submit five copies of the SOQ to the City of Edmonds, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department, 700 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020, Attention: Brian McIntosh, Director. Submittals will be accepted until 4:30 PM on Thursday, December 7, 2006. Submittals shall be limited to no more than 20 pages. We ask that your SOQ be organized in the following format: a) Project understanding b) Project approach c) Project delivery d) Proposed schedule e) Project experience f) Proposed team organization (including resources and capacity to perform) g) Team member resumes h) References Other information and creative ideas your firm wishes to present are welcome. At your discretion, you may insert additional information into the SOQ where you deem appropriate. Project Schedule • Receive consultant SOQs December 7, 2006 • Interviews December 18 - 21, 2006 • Signed contract January 2007 • Design complete May 2007 • Advertise for construction bids June 2007 • Award construction project July 2007 • Project completion December 2007 Page 3 AM-690 2.D. Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood for SR Traffic Signal Retiming Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By:Linda Klein, Public Works Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:Consent Department:Public Works Type:Action Committee: Agenda Memo Subject Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood for SR 99 Traffic Signal Retiming. Previous Council Action None Narrative It is necessary periodically to retime traffic signals in order to maximize the traffic capacity of a roadway corridor. Along the length of Highway 99 in South Snohomish County, Lynnwood owns and operates 9 traffic signals and Edmonds owns and operates 4 traffic signals. The cost of this work will be prorated accordingly . Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood for the SR 99 Traffic Signal Retiming Agreement. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2006 Revenue: Expenditure: $17,400.00 Fiscal Impact: Attachments Link: Interlocal Agreement Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 11:15 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:51 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Linda Klein Started On: 11/08/2006 08:07 AM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 AM-692 2.E. Senior Center Elevator Rehabilitation Project Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By:Conni Curtis, Engineering Submitted For:Dave Gebert Time:Consent Department:Engineering Type:Action Committee: Agenda Memo Subject Report on final construction costs for the Senior Center Elevator Rehabilitation Project and Council acceptance of project. Previous Council Action On April 19, 2005, Council awarded a construction contract for the Senior Center Elevator Rehabilitation Project to R. C. Zeigler Company, Inc. in the amount fo $107,555.09 and approved a project budget in the amount of $118,751. On August 23, 2005, Council authorized the Mayor to sign change order number 1 and approved a project budget increase of $45,000, to a total project budget of $163,751. Narrative The Senior Center Elevator Rehabilitation Project was designed (with design assistance from WJA Consultants), inspected and accepted by City staff. This project has been funded by a HUD Community Development Block Grant. Project Budget $163,751.00 Contractor $149,953.12 Design Assistance (WJA) 3,912.00 Miscellaneous/Advertising 1,017.38 Total Project Cost $154,882.50 Recommendation Council accept the Senior Center Elevator Rehabilitation Project. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 11/08/2006 02:14 PM APRV 2 Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh 11/08/2006 02:18 PM APRV 3 Development Services Duane Bowman 11/08/2006 02:39 PM APRV 4 Public Works Noel Miller 11/08/2006 04:09 PM APRV 5 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 04:18 PM APRV 6 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:51 PM APRV 7 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 11/08/2006 10:33 AM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 AM-695 3. 2007-08 Budget Deliberations Edmonds City Council Date:11/14/2006 Submitted By:Dan Clements, Administrative Services Time:60 Minutes Department:Administrative Services Type:Action Committee: Agenda Memo Subject 2007-08 Council Budget Deliberations Previous Council Action October 17- Mayor's Budget Address and transmittal of 2007-08 Budget October 24- Council discussion of budget issues November 6- Public Hearing on Budget, Property Taxes, and Revenue Sources Narrative The budget workshop is an opportunity for Councilmembers to further discuss budget issue both among themselves and with staff. Attached to this agenda memo is a response to Council budget questions that were raised this past week. Background information has been provided on: 1.) Police budget; 2.) EMS Services; 3.) Utility Engineer; and 4.) Future General Fund stability. Recommendation Provide staff with direction on what changes are recommended to the preliminary budget. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Budget Response 3 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 03:35 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/08/2006 04:51 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/08/2006 05:01 PM APRV Form Started By: Dan Clements Started On: 11/08/2006 03:25 PM Final Approval Date: 11/08/2006 City of Edmonds 121 FIFTH AVENUE N. ● EDMONDS, WA 98020 ● 425-771-0239 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Gary Haakenson Mayor Dan Clements Director R:\BUDGET\2007Budget\Council Budget Questions\Budget_Question_Follow-Up_3.doc November 9, 2006 Deanna Dawson, President Edmonds City Council 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Reference: Follow-Up Response 3 to Council Budget Questions Dear Deanna: This correspondence will provide responses to questions raised by Councilmembers during the past week. The five questions were: 1.) Would it be possible to provide additional analysis of the growth in the Police Department budget; 2.) Please provide additional details about EMS services, levy, and benchmarks with other jurisdictions; 3.) Please provide additional information about the need for a Utility Engineer, along with the rationale for why it was not included in the 2007-08 budget; 4.) Please describe what strategies the City has available to balance the General Fund in the long term; and 5.) Please provide an over-lay of how last year’s projection model looks compared with this year’s. Police Department Budget Increase Councilmember Wambolt requested an analysis of the budget increase in the Police Department. The rationale behind this request is that the department’s budget growth appears to be greater than other departments. A full description of the budget changes is presented in Appendix 1 attached. The significant drivers include: 1.) Addition of three officers in mid-2006, with a full year’s salary and benefit impact occurring in 2007; 2.) Transfer of a sergeant position from grant to General Fund in 2007; 3.) Inclusion of fire arm replacement funding in 2007; 4.) Professional Services increase to include funding for possible DNA testing in investigation; and 5.) Vehicle fleet rate increases, as determined by Finance. Additionally, attached as Appendix 2 is a memo from the Police Department outlining several significant future funding needs. EMS Services Several Councilmembers and members of the public requested additional information about Emergency Medical Service levies, what specific services are provided by EMS, and how Edmonds levy and services compare with other jurisdictions. Budget Question Response, Page 2 Funding Issue The basic funding dilemma associated with Emergency Medical Services is that employee, fuel, medical supplies, and equipment costs increase more rapidly than the property tax levy that helps fund these services. Costs typically increase in the 4% to 6% range, while property tax increases are capped at 1% plus new construction. In practical terms, this means General Fund support for EMS services will start around 40%, and as was shown in the table in the previous response to Council questions, will climb to almost 60%. As a result of having to channel an increasingly large portion of resources for EMS services each year, there are fewer General Fund dollars available for activities such as fire suppression, police services, and parks. This is why jurisdictions providing EMS services ask voters to approve levies at regular intervals, usually every four years or so. From a financial perspective, it would be highly desirable to be able to have a stable EMS funding source that would consistently provide 60% of the resources needed to fund this service. EMS Services Attached as Appendix 3 is a memo from the Fire Department describing how EMS services work, what a tiered response is, and the methodology for breaking EMS costs from the total Fire Department budget. Benchmarks We have not been able to generate detailed benchmark information. The Fire Department correspondence does, however, note that the Department’s 2005 cardiac survival rate was 86%: one of the highest in Snohomish County. There is also reference to EMS levy as a percent of Lynnwood Fire’s budget. We have been able to run down examples of when, because of declining levy rates, cities and departments run EMS levy propositions. These examples are listed below. FIGURE 1: EMS LEVY RATES BEFORE & AFTER BALLOT PROPOSITIONS ENTITY YEAR OLD LEVY NEW LEVY Mountlake Terrace 2004 .34 .49 Fire District #1 2005 .47 .50 Lynnwood Estimated Levy 2007 .35 .50 Edmonds Estimated Levy 2008 .31 .50 Should the levy be approved in 2007 for taxes collected in 2008, for every $100,000 in assessed valuation the cost to the taxpayer will be an additional $19, or $95 annually on a $500,000 house. Budget Question Response, Page 3 Utility Engineer The next set of questions centered around Development Services’ request for a Utility Engineer, whether funding for the position was included in the rate study, and why the position was not included in the budget. Need The City has aging water, sewer, and storm infrastructure. Professional engineering assistance is required to help prepare plans and provide project management expertise for repair and replacement programs. This can be accomplished either by hiring staff or retaining consultants. It is generally less expensive to hire staff, hence the Utility Engineer request. Funding The 2007-08 utility rate study includes funding for engineering support for the infrastructure projects outlined in the capital improvement plan. This support can be accomplished by either hiring staff or consultants. Budget As part of the budget process Development Service submitted a request to hire a Utility Engineer in 2008 at a cost of $94,000 annually. There are several reasons why this position was not funded. • In reviewing the request, a question was raised regarding whether hiring staff was the most efficient approach to providing engineering support. This question was prompted by a backlog in water system capital projects resulting from a staff engineer being ill. It was felt this issue needed further review. • Due to the strong economy there has been turnover in a number of engineering positions. If this trend were to continue, it was felt the City should investigate whether we might have more project management continuity by hiring consultants, rather than staff. • A storm water engineer was recently added to the Engineering staff. The position was projected to be 100% funded by the utility, but the General Fund has provided a partial subsidy. Before adding additional utility engineering staff we recommended fully assessing what General Fund fiscal impacts, if any, exist. • During budget development staff questioned whether adding a Utility Engineer would reduce utility charges from other engineering staff, and as a consequence increase General Fund support for other positions. It was felt more analysis of this topic was needed. • From an overall perspective, the City is committed to maintaining lean staffing levels, and only adding positions if there is a critical need or cost savings. At this juncture the Mayor and budget staff did not feel the Utility Engineer meet this test. On a final note, we felt that 2007 would provide an opportunity to further review potential General Fund financial impacts, evaluate the current construction back log and hiring environment, and determine whether or not it makes sense to hire additional staff Budget Question Response, Page 4 or outsource these services. If it does appear appropriate to hire a Utility Engineer, this request can be brought forward as a budget amendment in the fourth quarter of 2007. Future General Fund Stability The next question staff were asked to address were strategies that could help stabilize the General Fund’s financial position for a longer planning horizon. What follows is a brief discussion of what we anticipate will be a major topic for Council and staff during the coming year. For 2007 it is estimated that 41% of General Fund revenue is generated directly from property taxes. Since property tax growth rates are considerably below our cost of doing business growth rates, from my perspective as long as the General Fund is as dependent on property tax revenue as it currently is, we will continue to have a future funding deficit. Add to this mix the State’s reduction in support for street maintenance and construction, and our need to increase general resources, plus the pending decline in telephone tax revenue from the migration to voice over internet, and our financial future continues to be challenging. There are three broad strategies to address this issue: 1.) Rely less on property tax; 2.) Reduce costs through efficiencies; and 3.) Reduce costs through cuts and elimination of non-mandatory programs and services. Prop Tax There are two ways in which the City could reduce its dependence on property taxes: 1.) Transfer programs presently funded by property taxes to another revenue source that grows at approximately the same rate as our costs; and 2.) Broaden the City’s tax base. While cities are limited by State laws as to what taxes and fees they can charge, there is a provision some communities have used to help fund public safety. RCW 35.21.870 authorizes cities to levy utility taxes above 6%, with voter approval. Unlike property taxes, utility taxes are levied against all users, so the tax burden is spread more equitably across the community. In Edmonds case, for example, an approach might be to look at dropping EMS funding from property taxes to a voter approved utility tax designated for this purpose. Broadening the city’s tax base can take two forms: economic development and collection of new revenue. In the economic development arena, land uses that generate sales tax revenue and bring additional workers into the City would help offset property tax reliance. Especially important are auto dealers. Budget Question Response, Page 5 A second potential economic development strategy is the City’s fiber optic network, and the generation of revenue associated with leasing the system to content providers. The City’s CTAC committee has been moving down this path, and is readying an RFI that will help assess the viability of this plan. Looking at new revenue sources, there are few material options open to Edmonds. The major options currently available are: 1.) Reduce cemetery subsidy ($60,000); 2.) Business and occupation tax ($2.7 million); and Emergency transport fees ($662,000). The cemetery is presently not in a financial position to absorb the annual subsidy, and business and occupation taxes have a detrimental impact on local businesses. The Emergency Transport Fee has recently been introduced in a number of communities, and with one modification has received a positive reception. If claims are made to insurance companies, not individuals, then there has not been a strong “push-back” against these fees. Everett is an example of how this might work. Looking at revenue options not currently allowed by statute, staff have been working for several years on sales tax sourcing, which appears as though it will pass this coming legislative session. The City’s legislative packet contains a request to support ferry mitigation fees for impacted communities. Efficiencies Edmonds has been working on instituting “best practices” for the past few years. There has been a major revamping and cost savings in areas such as building permit issuance, preparation of Council agendas, utility billing and payment, and network improvements. The most promising efficiency measure presently being examined are technology solutions for public records requests. This has mushroomed into a major effort for several departments, and there is the potential to save considerable staff time if document searches could be carried out electronically, rather than through paper records. Staff are currently examining this topic. Reductions If funding becomes untenable, then organizations are left with the option of eliminating positions, programs, or services. The Mayor’s 2007-08 budget calls for looking at ways of eliminating $500,000 in General Fund costs for 2009. This proposal calls for a rigorous examination of what activities are mandatory, a look at provision of service levels, and how we are structured and provide services to our residents and business community. This will be a major work plan activity for the coming year. Budget Question Response, Page 6 One of the reasons for moving to a biennial budget is the opportunity of focus on strategic planning during off-budget years. As noted above, we anticipate that stabilizing the City’s long term financial future will be a major focal point in 2007. General Fund Projection Model The final Council request asked staff to overlay last year’s General Fund projection on the current model. This information is provided in Figure 2 below. The dashed line represents the 2005 projection model. FIGURE 2: GENERAL FUND PROJECTION MODEL As discussed earlier, the major drivers behind the revisions in 2008 and beyond include: 1.) Jail fee projections increased by $350,000 in 2006, $364,000 in 2007, and $370,000 in 2008 for a total three year cost of $1.1 million. 2.) Due to pension rate increase, labor contract provisions, and pending retirements, labor costs are projected to increased $507,000 in 2007, and $607,000 in 2008 above 2005 projections; and 3.) Sales tax sourcing revenues have been reduced to reflect a delayed 2008 implementation. Attachment Attached please find the following appendices: 1.) The Police Department reconciliation summary; 2.) The Police future needs memo; and 3.) Additional information relating to EMS. If you have any additional questions or comments, staff will he happy to respond to them. (4,000,000) (3,000,000) (2,000,000) (1,000,000) - 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 8% of Expenditure Fund Balance Balance w ith Utility Tax in 2007, EMS Levy in 2008 Without utility taxes to 6% and 2008 EMS Levy 2005 Projection Model Budget Question Response, Page 7 APPENDIX 1: 2007 – 08 POLICE PRELIMINARY BUDGET ANALYSIS Per Council Member Wambolt’s request, we removed the 2006 Hospital Security costs of $170,905 and Overtime costs of $230,032 resulting in an overall increase of 14.3% in the 2007 budget over 2006 estimates instead of 9%. After removing these costs, we analyzed the costs and determined the following: • The 2006 Year-End Estimates for Salaries and Benefits were underestimated by $101,134 and $33,691, respectively. This was primarily due to the department recently hiring or promoting experienced police officers. • This caused the net growth in the 2007 Police Budget to increase from $761,261 to $1,012,551. The following significant changes account for $951,868 of the $1,012,551 overall budget growth: • Three Police Officers were budgeted for half of the year in 2006 and a full year in 2007 resulting in an increase of $93,801 and $44,950 in salaries and benefits, respectively. • A new Sergeant position was added to the 2007 budget via a decision package for ¾ of the year. This resulted in an increase of $63,543 and $16,394 in salaries and benefits, respectively. • Cost of living increased an average of 3% for salaries or $131,472. • Additional increases in salaries of $198,748 were primarily due to vacant budgeted positions in 2006 and staff promotions in 2007. • Benefits increased $205,452 (14.6%) due to vacant budgeted positions in 2006, and medical and LEOFF retirement increases. • The purchase of firearms for $35,086 was added to the 2007 budget via a decision package. • Professional services increased by $41,228 primarily due to the low volume of budgeted DNA testing in 2006 compared to prior years. • Intergovernmental services increased approximately 3% or $48,434 due to contract increases with SNOCOM, SERS, and the County Jail. • Interfund rental charges are calculated by the Finance Department. The police department’s interfund rental rates increased by $72,760 due to the retroactive cost of replacing four police vehicles and additional funding required to replace laptops in vehicles. Budget Question Response, Page 8 Date: November 8, 2006 To: City Council, Mayor Haakenson From: David N. Stern, Chief of Police Subject: Future Budget Requirements In response to Council President Dawson’s request that departments address future budget needs beyond the 2007/2008 cycle, I would like to draw your attention to some significant factors that are likely to impact future budgets three to six years out (2009-12). In all likelihood the most significant budget issue on the horizon will be the need to fund our share of the replacement of the Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management System (CAD/RMS) housed at SnoCom. This is a multi-million dollar investment that could be upon us in four to six years but must be planned and saved for soon. The total bill will be shared by all the members of SnoCom but our share for police, fire and public works could easily exceed a million dollars. A related item is replacement of the wireless system that supplies data to computers in the police vehicles. At the present time we utilize the infrastructure owned by the PUD. They have indicated that within the next few years the system will need to be replaced and that they may not be able to supply access to government entities. This too could be a million dollar plus expenditure. The final issue I would like to comment on is future staffing requirements in our commissioned and support ranks. Rising calls for service and increases in crime will compel us to keep pace with appropriate staffing levels or be forced into a situation requiring cuts in service levels and programs. It is also our hope to do some restructuring in the next several years to provide a middle management capability in the department. Most likely this will take the form of converting some existing first line supervisor positions into middle managers. The cost will be relatively modest. I do not believe any of these issues will be new to you but as we move into longer term budget planning via the two year budget cycles this seems an ideal time to expand our view and engage in long term planning. Thanks for the opportunity to provide input on this important topic. David N. Stern Chief of Police APPENDIX 2: FUTURE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET NEEDS MEMORANDUM Budget Question Response, Page 9 DATE: November 7, 2006 TO: Chief Thomas Tomberg FROM: Assistant Chief Mark Correira RE: EMS System Explanation EMS SYSTEM OVERVIEW The Edmonds Fire Department operates an EMS system known by emergency medical processionals as a “tiered response” system. A tiered response system staffs units based on EMT level of certification and dispatches them as appropriate to emergency medical events. The Fire Department currently employs both Firefighter/EMTs and Firefighter/Paramedics. In its simplest sense, a Firefighter/EMT receives 110 hours of training and education, and a Firefighter/Paramedic receives 1,900 hours of training. Firefighter/EMTs are trained in early recognition of critically ill patients, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, bleeding control, extrication, and assessment skills. The Firefighter/Paramedic is trained in all of the EMT skills, plus has had a more in depth education of anatomy and physiology, possesses advanced patient assessment skills, is qualified to insert advanced airways, has the ability to evaluate a three-dimensional view of the electrical activity of a patient’s heart, and can administer drugs. Paramedics work closely with physicians via telephone and radio to bring the emergency room from the hospital to a patient’s living room. Both EMTs and Paramedics work under close supervision of local physicians. Built as a Countywide EMS system, it is overseen Dr. Ron Brown, MD, an emergency room physician at Providence Everett Medical Center in Everett. He is appointed by the Snohomish County EMS Council on which I sit as a board member. Due to the size of the County, Fire Departments contract with their own physician for direct system oversight. The Edmonds and Lynnwood Fire Departments contract with Dr. James Mercer, MD, of the Stevens Hospital Emergency Department. Dr. Mercer provides the paramedics with monthly training and reviews each incident report written by the Paramedics. He also advises the Fire Department on equipment and training updates, and recommends changes to enhance the system. Fire Department EMTs and Paramedics work as an extension of the physicians and operate under their medical licenses. A tiered EMS system begins with an emergency event occurring which triggers a 911 call to the dispatch agency. SNOCOM takes the caller’s information and enters a code into the dispatch computer which automatically determines which units to send. The APPENDIX 3: EMS DISCUSSION EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Budget Question Response, Page 10 number of apparatus sent is based on proven experience and knowledge of predictability from past events, and the tasks that need to be performed at the incident. An example of this would be a motor vehicle collision with injuries is reported at the corner of Puget Way and Olympic View Drive. The dispatcher punches a code into a computer which automatically sends Aid 17, Engine 16, and Battalion 16. Proven experience and predictability determines that we will need the Aid Unit to treat and transport the people that are hurt; the Engine Company to protect the scene from other cars driving through it, provide the availability of tools to extricate patients from the car if they are trapped, and control any fluids that may be released on the ground from the damaged vehicles; and the Battalion Chief to manage and oversee the event, interface with law enforcement, and work as a Safety Officer to prevent personnel injuries from occurring. An additional example of a tiered response is a patient calls up with chest pain at 23009 88th Ave W. As with the motor vehicle collision, the dispatcher takes the caller’s information and enters it into the computer which will automatically send Aid 20 and Medic 17. The Aid Unit will respond with the three Firefighter/EMTs and the Medic Unit will respond with two Firefighter/Paramedics. The Aid Unit will begin emergency care to include the administration of oxygen, taking vital signs, and patient assessment. The Medic Unit arrives and performs a more extensive evaluation to include the use of cardiac monitoring. Based on the findings, the patient will either be transported to the hospital by an Aid or Medic Unit, or will be left at home to follow up with their private physician. The tiered system mirrors our neighboring King County system. The Seattle system gained recognition in 1974 as the “best place to have a heart attack” because of their system of early recognition and dispatch center contact, early Aid Unit arrival, and early Medic response. Coined the “Chain of Survival,” it is a proven and effective system used in many parts of the country today and is very effective in Edmonds. As implied in the first paragraph, the Fire Department employs cross-trained, dual role Firefighter/EMTs and Firefighter/Paramedics. These city employees provide EMS care or firefighting skills as appropriate. If a structure fire is reported in the Edmonds Bowl, Firefighters on Engines, Medic Units, and Aid units respond and mitigate the emergency as trained. If a person is injured in the Edmonds Bowl, Firefighters respond and treat and transport the patient to the local hospital. This system is built on the philosophy of training employees in multiple disciplines to provide a more efficient and effective level of service that has proven to be the case within the City of Edmonds. In closing, as you are aware, the Edmonds 2005 Cardiac Arrest Save rate was 86 percent, one of the highest in Snohomish County. Although this only represents few of our emergency incidents, it is a direct reflection of our deployment model and the entire EMS delivery system. EMS COSTING BREAKDOWN The Edmonds Fire Department Budget is broken down into seven main categories which encompass our entire operation as a contemporary Fire Department. The categories are Administration, Operations, Fire Prevention, Training, Volunteer, Advanced Life Support, Budget Question Response, Page 11 and Fire Alarm Dispatch. The following chart explains the percent breakdown of the budget by cost center: 2008 Fire Department Budget Operations 66.3% Training 0.6% Fire Prevention 3.6% Volunteers 0.1% Advance Life Support 22.2% Fire Alarm Dispatch 3.4%Administration 4.0% Additional expenses not included in the Programatic Budget shown in the Budget book include the following: 2008 Fire Department Additional Expenses Station 20 Contract Payment 65,954 Transfer to 511 FD Apparatus Replacement Fund 204,124 Transfer to Fire Pension 53,000 1996 and 2003 Public Safety Bond 204,343 ESCA 28,743 800 Mhz Radio Snohomish County Bond 19,406 Transfer to LEOFF Health 167,517 TOTAL 743,087 Total 2008 Fire Department Budget is $7,999,105. All of the categories listed above encumbers EMS costs except Fire Prevention. 2008 Fire Prevention Costs totaled $257,619. Removing the Fire Prevention costs from the 2008 Budget totals $7,751,235. In an effort to benchmark how local fire departments determine EMS costs, I sent out an email to the Medical Services Officers of Snohomish County soliciting their imput. Fire District 8 (Lake Stevens) and Fire District 7 (Maltby/Clearview) both replied stating that they base EMS costs from the number of EMS Calls that the Fire Department responds to. Fire District 8 also indicated that they have broken out each cost center by a specific TOTAL BUDGET: Budget Question Response, Page 12 percentage based upon a best-guess of what they think the cost to EMS is. I ran the numbers both ways and the cost difference was nebulous. Recently I discussed this issue with Lynnwood Fire and they indicated that historically the EMS levy represents 20% of their budget revenues. They evaluate their costs by comparing the EMS Levy revenues to 20% of the budget. Note that in 2005, the Edmonds Fire Department responded to 4,061 incidents in which 73% were EMS related. The following compares each of the different methodologies listed above: 73% of the total Fire Department budget, minus Fire Prevention costs. $5,651,285 Randomized programmatic costs based on best-guess of EMS expenses $5,630,578 20% of Total Fire Department Budget $1,599,821 Costing of expenses can be scrutinized in many different ways. Intuitively, call volume appears to be the most accurate depiction of EMS expenses and the easiest for the public to understand. It also appears to be used more commonly than the Lynnwood model.