2010.03.02 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
MARCH 2, 2010
6:00 p.m. - Executive session regarding pending and threatened litigation.
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A. Roll Call
B. AM-2851 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2010.
C. AM-2857 Approval of claim checks #117328 through #117509 dated February 25, 2010 for
$1,552,949.43.
D. AM-2841 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Roland Yen ($150.00) and Helen Belvin
(amount undetermined).
E. AM-2847 Authorization to surplus City vehicles and to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers.
F. AM-2848 Authorization to expend budgeted conference registration funds for Edmonds Arts
Commissioners.
G. AM-2842 Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County to
surplus and transfer title for one (1) totaled police vehicle.
H. AM-2849 Proposed Snohomish County PUD Distribution Easement for the Five Corners Booster Pump
Station Upgrade Improvements project.
I. AM-2856 City Attorney Annual Report
J. AM-2858 Acceptance of list of businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the
Washington State Liquor Control Board, February 2010.
3. AM-2843
(15 Minutes)
Climate Solutions Presentation
4. AM-2845
(10 Minutes)
Report of Community Service Announcements
5. AM-2853 Public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3779 - Amending the provisions of ECDC
Packet Page 1 of 178
5. AM-2853
(30 Minutes)
Public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3779 - Amending the provisions of ECDC
20.110.040(F) Monetary Penalties in the Civil Enforcement Process, clarifying the
impact of the amendment on existing code enforcement actions.
6. AM-2855
(30 Minutes)
Public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3780 - Adopting certain procedures with
respect to the abandonment, construction and authorization of public projects and street
vacations and dedications.
7.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
8. AM-2840
(30 Minutes)
Campaign contributions reform proposal.
9. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 178
AM-2851 2.B.
Approval of 02-23-10 City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 02-23-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 10:22 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/25/2010 11:23 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 02:07 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/25/2010 10:20
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 3 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
February 23, 2010
At 6:50 p.m., Council President Bernheim announced that the City Council would interview Stohn
Nishino, a candidate for appointment to the Sister City Commission. Councilmembers Bernheim, Orvis,
Fraley-Monillas, Plunkett, Buckshnis, and Wilson were present. Also present were Mayor Haakenson,
Parks and Recreation Director Brian McIntosh and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The interview was held in
the Council Chambers and concluded at 6:55 p.m.
At 7:00 p.m. the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Rob English, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5 AND 6, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2010.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #117180 THROUGH #117327 DATED FEBRUARY 18,
2010 FOR $287,463.61, AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
CHECKS #49097 THROUGH #49128 FOR THE PAY PERIOD FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH
FEBRUARY 15, 2010 FOR $621,015.81.
Packet Page 4 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 2
E. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF STOHN NISHINO TO
POSITION #8 OF THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #6 TO
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF THE EDMONDS
INTERURBAN TRAIL.
G. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 226TH STREET SW WALKWAY
PROJECT.
3. PRESENTATION BY THE EDMONDS FLORETUM GARDEN CLUB ON THE RENOVATION
OF THE GARDEN AT OLD MILL TOWN.
Betty Larman, President, Edmonds Floretum Garden Club, described the history of the Garden Club,
founded in 1922. She displayed the Garden Club’s logo depicted on a pin that can be earned by helping
the Garden Club. She identified the founding members of the Garden Club who decided in 1922 to
beautify Edmonds. At that time, Edmonds had a population of 1,000 and no paved streets. She displayed
several historic items including a 1924 Fruit Garden & Home magazine, explaining in 1924 Edmonds
adopted the dahlia as its official flower. From 1922 until the 1950s, the Garden Club had spring and fall
garden shows as well as a plant sale. She displayed the yearbook that contains annual entries by Garden
Club members. From 1942 to 1945, there were no Garden Club activities as flower gardens were
removed and replaced with vegetable gardens.
From 1953 until 1959 the Garden Club assembled flower baskets using plastic flowers due to the lack of a
watering system. In 1960 the Garden Club began planting flower baskets sponsored by the Chamber of
Commerce. She displayed several photographs of Garden Club activities and awards they received. She
invited the public to donate any awards they had received from the Garden Club in the past. Until the
1980s, the Garden Club did plantings at the Port and hospitals and gave flowers to nursing homes. The
Garden Club plants corners in the City and 150 baskets. Last year the number of baskets was reduced to
75 and she urged the City to provide funds for all 150 baskets. Each basket contains 16 plants; they are
typically planted in April. The Garden Club also plants trees and holds raffles, workshops and an annual
plant sale. The Garden Club provides two $1,000 scholarships to agricultural students from the proceeds
of their plant sale.
Members of the Garden Club displayed a quilt created by the Garden Club that they are raffling to
provide funds for the Old Mill Town garden. Tickets were available at the Garden Club booth downtown
every Saturday until the drawing on March 15. She recognized several local businesses that support the
Garden Club.
Old Mill Town was built in 1972. She displayed a photograph of the Old Mill Town courtyard with the
gazebo prior to demolition. When Old Mill Town was demolished, several plants were saved from the
courtyard that will be replanted in the new courtyard. She envisioned the entire community assisting with
the construction of the structures and planting in the Old Mill Town garden. She displayed plans for Old
Mill Town, advising architect Paul Wu, who designed the structures, and landscape architect Audrey
West, who designed the garden plan, donated their services. She identified the bandstand and matching
shelter, open area, benches and seating areas and path through the garden. A model of the bandstand was
circulated to the Council. She assured the Old Mill Town garden would be chemical free and sustainable
within a short amount of time.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Garden Club was a 501(c)(3) organization. Ms. Larman advised
the Garden Club would accept any size donations. As a new member, Councilmember Buckshnis
commented she learned at lot and had a great deal of fun at Garden Club meetings. She asked the
difference between the Floretum Garden Club and Edmonds in Bloom. Ms. Larman explained Edmonds
Packet Page 5 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 3
in Bloom was started in 1995 by three ladies who visited Europe where there are floral competitions
between cities. That concept did not catch on with other cities and it evolved into an annual competition
between businesses and an annual garden tour.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the P Patch. Ms. Larman responded a location had been
identified in Esperance; the Club is working with Snohomish County to provide water.
Councilmember Plunkett asked when the buildings and landscaping will be complete. Ms. Larman
responded she has been working closely with Parks Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay who hopes to
begin the project in April.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled when the Council purchased the property, the Garden Club offered to
beautify it. Ms. Larman commented it will be beautiful as well as educational; all the plants will be
identified and tagged. She invited everyone to contribute by purchasing raffle tickets.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to the report provided to the Finance Committee on February 10
regarding the differences between the October 16, 2009 financial forecast and the January 25, 2010
financial forecast with regard to the Fire District 1 contract. He expressed concern the comments made
by two Councilmembers degraded work done on the Fire District 1 contract and drew into question the
due diligence by Council including the four sitting members who voted in favor of the contract. Finance
Director Hines explained to the Committee that the numbers in the financial forecast differed because
they were done months apart. When forecasting operational results, it is customary to use the current
actuals as the basis for the forecast; changes in the actuals have caused the forecast to change. However,
the changes in forecast have nothing to do with the Fire District 1 contract; they would have occurred
without the contract. The changes are the result of varying revenue expectations. The cost for the service
provided to the City by Fire District 1 remains unchanged as does the revenue from the sale of assets to
Fire District 1. He reminded that approximately $800,000 of the asset sale proceeds was always intended
to be provided to Fire District 1 to cover accrued vacation and sick leave for the transferred personnel.
The Council agreed the remainder of the proceeds would be placed in the General Fund; the financial
forecasts reflect that decision. With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis’ statement that many citizens
brought up issues with the numbers but no one listened, he suggested she provide Mr. Hines a list of
issues for a response. He requested Council President Bernheim schedule a Council agenda item to
review the list of issues and responses publicly. Unless that occurred, he suggested citizens could deem
the issues meritless.
Fred Bell, Edmonds, Edmonds Historical Society, read a letter provided to the City Council: The
Edmonds Historical Museum was founded in 1973 and through the generosity of the City has been
housed in the Carnegie Library building at 118 5th Avenue North since its founding. There have been
numerous modifications to the interior to accommodate temporary and permanent exhibits, confirming
their dedication to the mission and objectives of the museum. This year they will celebrate their 100
anniversary and their immediate concern is the necessity of re-pointing the exterior of the museum before
the mortar crumbles and bricks fall out. The membership and the community would greatly appreciate
the Council’s effort in allocating the necessary funds to accomplish the re-pointing before further damage
becomes irreparable.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, displayed an example of a recently proposed Planned Residential Development
(PRD). In a PRD, developers are allowed to reduce lot sizes below the zoning and reduce the distance
between homes. In the example she provided, lot sizes were reduced from the 8,000 square feet required
by the zoning to as small as 5,700 square feet. The distance between homes was also reduced. The PRD
ordinance includes a provision that requires a perimeter buffer, open space, landscape or passive
Packet Page 6 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 4
recreation or normal setbacks are used on perimeter lots. In the example she provided, on the small lots
the setback area comprised the entire backyard. When she pointed out that the perimeter buffer had been
omitted from this PRD, staff and the applicant drew in a perimeter over the setback area and the
backyards. In her example, the perimeter buffer was designated as a landscaped buffer; she questioned
whether sheds, swing sets, dog houses or BBQs were considered landscaping or would homeowners be
forbidden to use their backyards. Use of backyards would be even more problematic if the perimeter
were designated open space as even roof overhangs were not allowed. She provided an aerial photograph
of a PRD approved when she was on the Council where the buffer did not overlay the setback and
homeowners have use of their backyards. She provided proposed language, “setbacks shall not overlay
the permanent buffer area,” and requested the Council act on this quickly, perhaps even tonight via a
moratorium on PRD applications until the issue was addressed.
Joan Bloom, Edmonds, explained her comments related to Agenda Item 7. She referred to her October
25, 2005 comments to the City Council asking the Planning Department to obtain assessments by the
Army Corp of Engineers and the State Department of Ecology (DOE) on the wetland on Thuesen’s
property in order to avoid an appeal, a lengthy adversarial process involving the time and energy of
private citizens, city government and ultimately the City Council. She explained John Pell assessed the
property and determined it to be an isolated wetland and therefore not subject to federal regulations;
however, the DOE has never been allowed on the Thuesen property to complete an assessment. What
followed was as she predicted, an adversarial, 4½ year process involving City staff and citizens time and
energy, private citizens’ money and an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars. She noted City Attorney
Scott Snyder had been involved in this process from the beginning. The issue remains unresolved and
approval for the short plat application remains preliminary.
She and others have lost confidence in the City Attorney’s representation of Edmonds throughout this
process and request the City Council immediately remove him from any further involvement in the
Thuesen-Reidy case and open a full and complete investigation into his role in the short plat application
process. She noted the Settlement Agreement and release of July 20, 2007 negotiated by Mr. Snyder
under substantive terms 1H appears to tie the City’s hands in enforcing its own Critical Areas Ordinance
regarding the wetland on Thuesen’s property. She requested the City Council contact DOE and request a
complete investigation of the issuance of a nationwide permit allowing Thuesen to fill the wetland. John
Pell reversed his earlier determination that the wetland was isolated and issued the NWP based on a
verbal report from the property owner that a storm drain existed in the wetland connecting it to federal
waterways. She pointed out there were no storm drains in the wetland, no pipes, no documentation of
such on City maps and no documentation of City permits to install storm drains on the Thuesen property.
She requested the City Council instruct City staff to deem Thuesen’s short plat application incomplete, an
action that should have been taken when the City learned the Reidy encroachment had not been identified
in any of the LSA surveys submitted to the City in the Thuesen application. She concluded this action
would, 1) stop the use of taxpayer dollars toward this short plat application and 2) require Thuesen to
resubmit his application under the new Critical Areas Ordinance.
Chris Johnson, Edmonds, referred to the Reidy-Thuesen issue, expressing concern that the matter had
been drawn out for five years. He pointed out the City hired City Attorney Scott Snyder as an expert,
however, when he stepped outside his level of expertise, he was no longer an expert such as when he
recommended a temporary construction easement that impacted the Reidys. The result was a waste of a
great deal of taxpayer dollars. He urged the Council to resolve this matter, noting five years was a long
time. He urged the Council to question Mr. Snyder’s involvement.
Lora Spehar, Edmonds, representing Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat Project and Pilchuck
Audubon Society, referred to Agenda Item 7. She cited the importance of wetlands; they play an essential
part in the regulation of water flow, filter pollutants and fertilizers, provide habitat for plants, insects,
birds and animals. Rather than be abandoned, wetlands should be properly managed like other critical
Packet Page 7 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 5
areas. Wetlands provide flood control, capture soap, provide erosion control, fill aquifers and other
drinking supplies, and provide vital wildlife habitat. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines
wetlands as lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil
development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface.
Wetlands can remove and store greenhouse gases from the earth’s atmosphere, slowing global warming.
She provided the Council a Corp of Engineers’ pamphlet regarding wetlands.
Scott Mallory, Edmonds, referred to the wetland and boundary dispute case involving the Thuesen
property. As an adjacent property owner, he observed the City’s handling of this case led primarily by the
City Attorney over the past five years without a solid resolution at the expense of several parties and
Edmonds taxpayers. He spoke in favor of accountability, objectivity and transparency with regard to the
way tax dollars are spent. When the dispute first began 2005 with the wetland issue, he was surprised to
find the City non-responsive to federal and state requirements particularly after a significant rewrite of the
City’s critical areas code had just been completed. Citizens were required to remind the City of the
requirements after proceeding toward development of the wetland property. He explained this was one
example of the questionable issues that have occurred as part of this property dispute. He recommended
the City Attorney be relieved of this case and the Council set up an independent review that focused on,
1) the accuracy of the critical information used to make decisions over the past five years, and 2)
compliance with procedures including but not limited to coordination with the federal Corp of Engineers
and the State DOE with regard to the wetland size and its hydrological connection with federal and state
waters. Another key issue is the adverse possession on the southern border; he questioned whether the
information obtained during the past five years was accurate and whether procedures were complied with
in determining the fate of the property.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to the presentations made at the Council retreat regarding an aquatics
facility and the Senior Center and asked whether those issues would be presented at a Council meeting.
Next, he referred to information he provided in August to which the Council had not responded. He also
commented on zoning on Hwy. 99 for adult entertainment and provided information regarding a case in
Boise, Idaho. With regard to City Attorney Scott Snyder, he has always been responsive to his requests.
5. FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 116.
Public Works Director Noel Miller explained the City owns and must maintain 20 buildings:
Police, Courts, Council Chambers
Fire Station #17
Frances Anderson Center
Public Works O & M Center
Meadow Club House
Old Public Works
Historical Museum
Wade James Theatre
Boys & Girls Club
City Hall
Fishing Pier & Ranger’s Station
City Park Maintenance Building
Library
Senior Center
Fire Station #20
Fire Station #16
Log Cabin
Packet Page 8 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 6
Grandstand
Cemetery
Yost Pool
Six year project needs indicate an annual funding shortfall of approximately $200,000 for 2010-2015.
The funding shortfall was identified in the property tax levy increase proposal in 2009. A stopgap
funding source is needed until a more permanent revenue stream is established. One of the projects
requiring funding is the Edmonds Historical Museum exterior restoration for the 1910 Carnegie Library
building. Elements of the restoration work include:
Brickwork grouting and sealing
Foundation wall repairs
Parapet and sill repairs
Front entry stair renovation
Mr. Miller provided several photographs illustrating areas in need of repair on the Edmonds Historic
Museum exterior. He referred to photographs taken two years ago pointing out more deterioration has
occurred in the interim. In 2008, Edmonds conditionally secured a $48,000 grant from the State of
Washington Heritage Capital Project Fund to renovate the exterior of the museum. The grant is based on
a matching 1:2 ratio of state to local funds. The project must be constructed this summer in order to
fulfill the grant requirement ending date of June, 2011. He provided the following funding proposal:
2010
Museum Exterior Repairs (+$48,000 State grant) $100,000
Frances Anderson Center Gym Roof Replacement $30,000
Fire Station #16 Painting $5,000
Fire Station #17 Carpet $12,000
Cemetery Building Gutters $5,000
Wade James Theater Gutters $5,000
2011
Frances Anderson Center Radiator Replacement $75,000
Wade James Theater Roof Replacement $30,000
2012
Frances Anderson Center Oil Tank Removal $30,000
Fire Station #20 Interior Painting $10,000
Total Estimated Expenditure $302,000
Mr. Miller requested the Council authorize an additional source of funding for Building Maintenance
Fund 116 to preserve and keep City buildings functioning by utilizing $300,000 from the proceeds of the
sale of equipment associated with the City’s fire stations to Snohomish County Fire District 1.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if staff investigated securing a grant from the Hazel Miller Foundation.
The Foundation recently announced grants of $50,000 - $100,000 for 501(c)(3) organizations to fund
projects that benefit education, support civic and community services, arts, culture and the environment.
She suggested the Historical Society could apply for a grant. Mr. Miller stated it was unclear whether the
Historical Society would qualify since they did not own the building. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed
out the Senior Center was applying for a grant and the City owns the Senior Center building.
Councilmember Plunkett observed in order to utilize the $48,000 grant, the City needed to provide an
approximately $100,000 match. Mr. Miller agreed. Councilmember Plunkett noted that amount would
cover all the Museum exterior repairs. Mr. Miller agreed.
Packet Page 9 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 7
Councilmember Wilson asked why the Museum exterior repairs were not included in projected
expenditures, and what higher priorities had been funded instead. Mr. Miller answered the Six Year CIP
includes several essential, life safety building maintenance projects, such as repairs to the cooling system
in the Public Safety Complex, HVAC replacement at Fire Station 16, and replacement of the library fire
alarm system. Councilmember Wilson asked whether there were any other non-life safety capital
improvements that could be delayed to allow the Museum exterior repairs to be funded. Mr. Miller did
not recommend delaying any of those three projects, explaining a building would have to be closed if the
ventilation system failed.
Mayor Haakenson asked the expiration date of the $48,000 State grant. Mr. Miller answered it must be
used by June 2011.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Miller explained identification of matching funds would be necessary
in the next few weeks to allow sufficient time to do design work and bid the project, and to construct the
project this summer when the weather is dry and warm. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there
would be sufficient time to complete the project if funds were identified in two months. Mr. Miller
agreed that would be possible. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Museum exterior repairs would be
on the funding priority list in 2011 or would there be other higher priority projects. Mr. Miller anticipated
there would continue to be projects that would delay the Museum exterior repairs due to the backlog of
critical projects. If the City did not provide matching funds, the City would lose the $48,000 grant.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how often the State of Washington Heritage Capital Project Fund awards
grants. Mr. Miller answered it was done on a biennial basis but was uncertain whether funds would be
available in the future due to the declining State revenue forecasts.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the list of projects and questioned the urgency of the painting
at Fire Station 16 and carpet at Fire Station 17. Mr. Miller responded that discussion would need to occur
with Fire District 1 if the City did not have adequate funds for those projects. Under the agreement, the
City is required to keep the buildings in a serviceable condition. He summarized the City may be able to
reach an understanding with Fire District 1 to delay those projects.
Council President Bernheim asked why the project must be done this summer if the grant deadline is June
2011. Mr. Miller responded it would be preferable to complete the exterior repairs this summer to ensure
dry, warm weather. Council President Bernheim asked whether the project would be put out for bid. Mr.
Miller answered it would.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a grant from the Hazel Miller Foundation could be used as a match
for the State grant. Mr. Miller answered yes. He stated staff discussed with the Historical Society their
conducting a fundraiser and were told it would be problematic to raise a significant amount of money for
the project. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Hazel Miller Foundation grant was announced
recently and the funds will be granted this year. Mr. Miller explained the Historical Society could apply
but it may be necessary to have funds available for the project prior to when those grants are awarded.
Councilmember Plunkett explained this proposal was presented to the Finance Committee. The
Committee forwarded it to the full Council for consideration without a recommendation.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern that this proposal would consume approximately half the
funds received from Fire District 1. She acknowledged some of the projects needed to be done and
reiterated her suggestion to pursue a grant from the Hazel Miller Foundation.
Packet Page 10 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 8
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
ALLOCATE $100,000 TO THE BUILDING FUND FOR THE PURPOSES OF RESTORING THE
HISTORICAL MUSEUM.
Councilmember Wilson relayed his dislike for spending one time revenues such as the sale of the rolling
stock to Fire District 1, to fund ongoing operations. Repairs to City buildings were one time
expenditures; however, because there were so many, they required many years to fund. He suggested the
Council have a discussion about the City’s financial future, noting Council President Bernheim has
scheduled a discussion regarding a levy at the March 16 Council meeting. If the Council decided to place
a levy on the ballot and it was successful, it would be easier to support the other projects staff proposed.
He was not prepared to commit to all the projects proposed by staff but found staff made a compelling
case for the Museum repairs. The Museum is a downtown icon that he wanted to preserve. The Council
could address the other building maintenance items after a broader discussion occurs regarding the City’s
financial future.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the proposed $100,000 expenditure, noting it was asset for
asset. He was opposed to nibbling away at the funds obtained via the sale of assets.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. REPORT ON THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD'S NAMING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE NEW PARK IN NORTH EDMONDS AT 162ND STREET SW AND 75TH PLACE W.
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained via the Park Naming Policy adopted by City
Council in 2009, the Planning Board is charged with recommending park names for new parks developed
in Edmonds. A new park will be opened in north Edmonds this spring at the northwest corner of 162nd
Street SW & 75th Place. W. With the assistance of Parks & Recreation staff, naming proposals were
solicited throughout the City during a five week period last fall and 63 names were submitted for
consideration. A three person Planning Board sub-committee was established to review all of the
proposed names and provide the Planning Board with a short list for their February 10, 2010 Park
Naming public hearing. The recommended name is forwarded to the Council and the Council has the
final authority to amend, accept or reject the name.
Planning Board Member Kevin Clark explained eight citizens expressed their opinion regarding the park
name at the Planning Board’s February 10 public hearing. Of the eight, five suggested the name of
Haines Wharf Park or Haines Fishing Pier Park, two recommended naming the park after an individual
citizen, Del Carl, and a third recommended the park be named recognizing its public vista characteristics.
The Planning Board policy and the Park Naming Policy has specific criteria to be considered in the park
naming process.
The Planning Board reviewed the 63 names submitted by the public; 24 nominations referenced Haines
Wharf or Haines Fishing Pier Park, 10 nominations referenced Del Carl and 9 referenced the Puget Sound
views. Haines Wharf or Haines Fishing Pier Park meets nearly all the criteria in the Park Naming Policy;
it recognizes a geographic and descriptive location of the park. This area is known geographically for the
Haines family and the fishing wharf. The Haines Fishing Wharf has an excellent reputation over a
number of years association with service to the local fishing community and serves as a focal point for the
City. As part of the Edmonds Arts Festival, a local artist created a painting of the property. Haines
Wharf is also the name of a residential subdivision in the immediate area. Jim Haines was involved with
the Edmonds Planning Board, Edmonds City Council, Snohomish County Assessor, the Snohomish
County Council and in the establishment of Stevens Hospital. After deliberation, the Planning Board
recommended the new park be named Haines Wharf Park.
Packet Page 11 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 9
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION TO NAME THE
PARK HAINES WHARF PARK AND TO HAVE DEL CARL AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS
RECOGNIZED IN ANOTHER MANNER.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out 1 of the 63 park name submissions was to name the park after the late
Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson. He noted there were few times in public life when a person
provided as much public leadership as Ms. Olson did during her final year. He noted two parks had been
opened in the City since 1974, both in the last year. He did not want to rely on a Council 20-30 years in
the future to name a park after Ms. Olson. He summarized the City was unlikely to have another
opportunity to honor her memory in the near future. In addition to the unique leadership she provided,
Ms. Olson passed away while serving on the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO NAME THE PARK THE PEGGY PRITCHARD
OLSON PARK AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE OTHER NAMES COULD BE APPLIED TO
ELEMENTS WITHIN THE PARK.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Planning Board had discussed this name. Mr. Clark
answered there was recognition of that submission. He found it difficult to ignore the amount of public
response to a specific theme/name and the location of the park across the railroad tracks from the Haines
Wharf facility. He suggested naming the garden at Old Mill Town after Ms. Olson.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND FRALEY-
MONILLAS VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT, ORVIS, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Mayor Haakenson offered to provide the Council a list of opportunities to name something prominent in
the City after Ms. Olson.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PRESENTATION FROM CITIZENS KEN REIDY AND ERIC THUESEN.
Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Reidy and Mr. Thuesen would each be allowed 30 minutes to speak. Mr.
Thuesen won a coin toss to determine who would go first. As Mr. Thuesen was out of the room at the
time of the coin toss, Mr. Reidy made his presentation first.
Councilmember Wilson asked for a summary of the City Attorney’s advice regarding the Council’s
response and engagement on this matter. Council President Bernheim declined, noting that advice was
provided to the Council in Executive Session.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, petitioned the City Council to conduct a full investigation into the situation that
began in his neighborhood in 2004 and continues to cause problems and turmoil today. He hoped the
City Council would be motivated to determine everything that had gone wrong, to take all possible steps
to minimize the chance that this would happen again to innocent citizens in Edmonds.
He explained his property was located along the original northern border of Edmonds. When Edmonds
was incorporated in 1980, George and Etta Brackett dedicated a 7½ foot wide right-of-way easement for
future use for ingress/egress to the City under the presumption when the City grew to the north, the City
would annex another 7½ feet providing adequate space for ingress/egress. When the City grew to the
north, that annexation did not include the reservation of another 7½ feet, leaving the 7½ foot strip of land
that the City did not open for any public purpose.
Packet Page 12 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 10
He explained the legal difference between open and unopened rights-of-way; when a property owner
owns the underlying fee title to the property burdened by a right-of-way easement that the City has not
opened for public use, the property owner had a legal right to make reasonable use of that property. If the
City decides to open it for public use, at that point the property owner can be asked to clear the property.
This is consistent with constitutional law that promotes the efficient use of land; it would be unfair to
preclude a property owner from using land on which the City has an easement but the City was not using.
Washington State Supreme Court has clearly ruled on this issue.
He referred to a brief included in his exhibits prepared by Keating Bucklin and McCormack, the firm that
employs Stephanie Croll who does WCIA work for the City. The brief, prepared less than two weeks
before the temporary construction easement was approved on March 17, 2009, makes a very strong and
comprehensive argument that unopened public rights-of-way are treated no differently than private
property with regard to public access rights. The fee owner has the right of reasonable use and the City
has no legal duty to clear unopened rights-of-way. City Attorney Scott Snyder has represented on many
occasions that the City had a duty to clear the right-of-way. He agreed the City would have a duty if the
right-of-way had been opened for a public purpose; since it had not, not only did the City not have a duty
to clear it, they could not have cleared it because they would have been in violation of private property
rights of the owner of the underlying fee title. Furthermore, the private property owner has the
responsibility for maintenance of an unopened right-of-way with an easement.
Property owners abutting an unopened right-of-way do not have any legally recognized right to access
their property via that right-of-way; no such legal right is available under the law until the right-of-way is
opened for public purpose. Mr. Snyder’s representation that Mr. Thuesen had a legal right to use the
unopened right-of-way on his property was incorrect. No one could have used that property until the City
opened it for public purpose. As a result of this incorrect assumption, a great deal of private and public
resources have been wasted.
On the evening of March 17, 2009 when the City Council passed Ordinance 3729 vacating the unopened
alley right-of-way easement and reserved a temporary construction easement, a new easement against
only his property specifically for Mr. Thuesen’s private benefit for temporary construction purposes, Mr.
Thuesen did not possess a right-of-way permit requiring the City to reserve a temporary construction
easement for his private benefit. Mr. Reidy referred to a letter prepared by Rob English dated February
24, 2009 in which he informs Mr. Thuesen that both of his right-of-way permits have expired and that a
new permit would be required prior to any grading or other work within the alley right-of-way area. The
letter also states a licensed contractor is required as part of the issuance of a City right-of-way
construction permit. The letter concluded the Settlement Agreement the City signed with Mr. Thuesen in
July 2007 does not purport to extend the term of any right-of-way permits and does not operate to prevent
their expiration.
Mr. Reidy explained on March 17, 2009 Mr. Snyder introduced the temporary construction easement.
There was no public notice, he did not have the opportunity to research a temporary construction
easement or prepare written or oral comments. Mr. Snyder’s recommendation to Council on March 17
differed materially from the Mayor and staff’s recommendation to vacate the unopened 7½ foot strip of
land as proposed. Following that evening, he attempted to inform the Council that he felt the temporary
construction easement was improper and he was virtually ignored. Mr. Snyder eventually agreed to meet
with him but he refused to allow Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember Plunkett to participate in the
meeting.
The letter from Mr. English to Mr. Thuesen that documents that Mr. Thuesen had no permits, no
contractor license and that his Settlement Agreement did not prevent the expiration of his permits was
critical information that should have been shared with the Council on March 17, 2009. Mr. Snyder, City
Packet Page 13 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 11
staff and Mr. Thuesen had the letter but none of them raised the issue that Mr. Thuesen did not have the
necessary permits to use the property. Mr. English’s letter was not copied to him (Mr. Reidy) or his
attorney; he found it during his review of public records. He envisioned the outcome of the March 17,
2009 meeting would have been different had he had Mr. English’s letter.
With regard to the temporary construction easement, Mr. Reidy pointed out it was clearly not for any
public use but was for Mr. Thuesen’s supposed private needs. The last of Mr. Thuesen’s permits expired
in January 2008. He pointed out Mr. Snyder did not inform the Council during the September 16, 2009
City Council meeting that Mr. Thuesen did not have permits.
Mr. Snyder had Landau and Associates visit the property to determine whether there was any private need
for a temporary construction easement. In a letter dated August 6, 2009 Mr. Snyder informed Mr.
Thuesen that an independent consultant informed the City that there were other construction methods
available that would allow him to build the wall without the need for a temporary construction easement
and he could proceed with his project using a different construction method. He summarized the Council
passed Ordinance 3729 under the false impression that Mr. Thuesen had vested rights to an easement that
the record clearly shows he did not. Passage of that ordinance set the stage for a huge waste of public and
private resources.
Once the temporary construction easement was passed, the City immediately ordered him to remove his
shed, permitted and built in 1962, from the temporary construction easement. Staff proceeded despite Mr.
Snyder’s representation in a December 23, 2008 letter that a correction notice would be issued after Mr.
Thuesen’s civil plans had been approved. Mr. Thuesen’s civil plans were not approved until August 13,
2009; however, the City commenced its enforcement efforts two days before Ordinance 3729 was
effective on March 25, 2009. By August 13, 2009 the City would have amended the correction notice
twice, including one order that required him to prepare a work plan to remove his shed, an illegal request
that he protested. Mr. Snyder and Mr. Thuesen’s attorney subsequently argued that the work plan he was
required to prepare is evidence that he somehow agreed his shed needed to be removed. He assured that
was not true; the City required him to prepare the work plan violating the principle that a citizen is
innocent until proven guilty. The work plan appears to have been requested to get him to admit a wrong-
doing and requesting it was highly improper. He summarized neither the City nor the Hearing Examiner
has been clear about what he is required to remove.
Between March 17, 2009 and April 1, 2009, he informed Mr. Snyder that the wall related to Mr.
Thuesen’s 2-lot plat ended 17 feet west of his shed and the temporary construction easement area,
identified by Mr. Snyder after the ordinance was passed, it was located next to three of his four 35-foot
wide lots and not next to the eastern most lot. His shed is 50% on the eastern most lot. The end result
was the temporary construction easement was next to half of his shed. When he notified Mr. Snyder of
these facts, he could have matched the easement area to the approved wall and his shed would no longer
have been an issue with regard to impacting Mr. Thuesen’s wall. That reasonable step was ignored and
instead Mr. Snyder put a hold on the enforcement against his building. He issued a new order with two
new setback violations that were not on the original order. In Mr. Snyder’s April 1, 2009 letter, he states
the enforcement action would be placed on hold until his adverse possession claim had been resolved.
This representation was also made to Mr. Thuesen by Public Works Director Noel Miller in a letter dated
April 6, 2009.
Mr. Thuesen appealed the vacation ordinance on April 7, 2009, surprising because the right-of-way
vacation met the criteria for vacation and the temporary construction easement had been reserved from
Mr. Thuesen’s private benefit. Mr. Thuesen’s appeal of the vacation ordinance would become very
significant approximately three months later. Mr. Snyder has said that because he (Mr. Reidy) did not
appeal the vacation ordinance, he must live with the temporary construction easement. The reason he did
not appeal the vacation ordinance was because he relied on Mr. Snyder’s representation that the
Packet Page 14 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 12
enforcement effort would be placed on hold until his adverse possession claim was resolved. His reliance
on the credibility of Mr. Snyder’s representation would turn out to be misguided.
On December 1, 2009, Mr. Snyder made a presentation regarding this situation to the City Council.
During that presentation, Mr. Snyder informed the Council he was sharing all responses that Mr.
Thuesen’s attorney sent him with his (Mr. Reidy’s) attorney. That was untrue, in mid-July 2009 while he
was working on his adverse possession case, Mr. Snyder emailed Mr. Thuesen’s attorney to request an
update on the status of the vacation appeal. Three days later Mr. Thuesen’s attorney responded with a
framework for resolution in which Mr. Thuesen offered to drop his appeal of the alley right-of-way
vacation if the Reidy’s shed and trees were removed by the deadline date of August 6, 2009. This email
was never forwarded to the Reidy’s attorney and all communication between mid July and early August
was conducted without his knowledge. Mr. Snyder told Mr. Thuesen’s attorney that he would convey the
offer to his client, the City of Edmonds. He was unclear whether the offer was discussed with the Council
but the City soon commenced action to remove his trees and shed. Mr. Miller contacted him on July 22,
2009 regarding the removal of his trees, asking him to sign an agreement allowing tree removal by
August 5, 2009.
During his public requests, he discovered an email prepared on July 28, 2009 from Mr. Snyder to Mr.
Miller, City Engineer Rob English, Building Official Jeanie McConnell and Planning Manager Rob
Chave. The email documents they met on July 21, 2009 to discuss Mr. Thuesen’s offer to drop the civil
appeal of the vacation if these items were removed. Mr. Snyder was now beginning to change his stance
that the enforcement effort would be on hold until his adverse possession case was solved. Mr. Snyder
interpreted an unrecorded Court of Appeals case, which has no precedented legal value, that the City
could ignore the adverse possession case, issue Mr. Thuesen a civil plan approval to build a retaining wall
through the prescriptive area he (Mr. Reidy) was trying to quiet title in hopes that the quiet title action
would be unsuccessful. A time table was established for tree removal and removal of the shed. The City
slid a new order to correct under his door on August 7, 2009, a day after giving a copy to Mr. Thuesen’s
attorney.
The civil plans had still not been approved; they were approved on August 13, 2009. In order to meet the
deadline, the City began its enforcement efforts a week prematurely, similar to the action they took when
they passed the ordinance on March 17, 2009. His legal expenses exploded as he tried to fight the
enforcement effort and how it would impact his adverse possession case. The situation quickly spiraled
out of control and his adverse possession case had to be delayed. On July 29, 2009, Mr. Thuesen’s
attorney emailed Mr. Snyder asking about the status of the framework for resolution because the City’s
decision could materially effect how they proceeded in fighting his adverse possession.
Mr. Reidy referred to Mr. Snyder’s indication that he has failed to assert his adverse possession rights
early in the 2-lot plat process. Throughout the majority of the time that this situation has been ongoing,
Mr. Snyder appears to have believed that Mr. Thuesen had finalized and recorded his plat. Mr. Snyder
has represented on many occasions that he failed to assert his adverse possession claims early in the
process and thus had failed to pursue his administrative remedies. Mr. Reidy assured his adverse
possession rights were intact and could still be asserted. Mr. Snyder’s April 1, 2009 letter states his
adverse possession claims will not have any impact on Mr. Thuesen’s 2-lot final approval.
On September 22, 2009 Mr. Reidy asked Mr. Snyder to confirm the 2-lot short plat had been finalized and
recorded at the County. Mr. Snyder did not know and asked Mr. Chave and Ms. McConnell who both
responded the plat had not been recorded at the County, Ms. McConnell adding that the City had released
performance bond money back to Mr. Thuesen that would have allowed him to finalize his 2-lot plat. On
October 6, 2009 Mr. Snyder wrote a letter admitting he had failed to distinguish between final plat
approval and final approval of permits necessary to develop the preliminary plat. Mr. Reidy questioned
Packet Page 15 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 13
what would have been different throughout this process had Mr. Snyder known that Mr. Thuesen had not
finalized his 2-lot plat at the County.
Mr. Reidy concluded it was time the elected officials did whatever they could to end this situation. The
appropriate thing would have been to never have reserved the temporary construction easement. He
suggested the temporary construction easement be removed from Ordinance 3729 and enforcement efforts
against him withdrawn. Steps must be taken to ensure this type of situation does not happen to an
innocent family again. To the question of why he has continued to fight, he explained the physical
attributes and benefits of his shed are a tiny part of this matter; the significance of his shed is what it
represents. The shed is representative of his family’s true vested federal and state constitutional rights.
Citizens have rights to public notification of City Council actions that can dramatically impact their lives.
They have rights to public hearings and the right to prepare written and oral comments. They have the
right to expect the City to follow its own code and not have the burden of code enforcement shifted to
innocent citizens. The City Attorney has recommended a course of action that tramples on their
constitutional rights to grant a special privilege to a developer who has no need for, no permits for, and no
vested rights to temporarily use the property in question, property owned by his family. The City
Attorney has exacerbated the violation of their constitutional rights by trying to illegally take their
property via a code enforcement action. Edmonds can benefit from studying and learning from this
situation.
Mr. Reidy pointed out the City Attorney exceeded his authority when he intervened in a legislative
session on September 16, 2008 and recommended an action different from the Mayor and staff’s
recommended action. Once Mr. Snyder did that, he had a conflict of interest that precluded him from
providing the City objective legal advice. He recommended Mr. Snyder remove himself from this case
immediately, noting he should have removed himself as soon as he recommended the temporary
construction easement. It is critical that Mr. Snyder know his role and what he can and cannot do;
intervening in a legislative session and recommending an action that differs from the Mayor and staff’s
recommendation is inappropriate.
Mr. Reidy requested the Council conduct a thorough investigation into this matter including conducting
an assessment of the City Attorney’s credibility. He requested Mr. Snyder be immediately removed from
this legal situation. He summarized the need for accountability, objectivity and transparency in City
government and the City Attorney. He thanked the Council for their assistance with this very difficult
matter.
Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, submitted the Hearing Examiner’s decision which he indicated addressed all
the issues Mr. Reidy presented. Mr. Thuesen referred to information he provided for the Council packet
including a letter and a surveyor’s map that identifies the Reidy’s house, shed and sport court. He
explained the shed that Mr. Reidy indicates was constructed in 1965 is shown on the surveyor’s map as
two structures, one identified as an outbuilding and a second structure attached to the outbuilding. The
outbuilding was permitted in 1965; Mr. Reidy’s assertions that he obtained a permit for the entire building
is incorrect. The addition to the structure was added after the original building was constructed, without a
permit and in the City right-of-way. It is illegal to build a building without a permit and to construct a
building in a City right-of-way without an encroachment permit. Mr. Reidy did not obtain either to make
the building a legal structure. As a result the building is not a legal structure and according to the code,
he must apply for an encroachment permit or remove it from the City right-of-way and comply with the 5
foot setback in the zone. The Hearing Examiner denied Mr. Reidy’s appeal because she found he did not
address the issue of whether the shed was legal, was not in the right-of-way, or that he had obtained
construction or encroachment permits.
With regard to the wetland, he agreed wetlands were important to all citizens including himself. The
City’s codes address how wetlands are to be protected. The process outlined in the code including hiring
Packet Page 16 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 14
an expert to determine the wetland type and location. The code also determines how much of the wetland
will be preserved; at the time he submitted an application, the code clearly stated the size of a wetland that
must be protected was 2500 square feet. A wetland less than 2500 square feet was unregulated by the
City. Experts hired via a third party agreement examined the wetland and made the determination. The
neighbors have never accepted that determination and the City contested the determination which resulted
in a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) case where the Superior Court Judge made a determination regarding
the wetland. In that proceeding Mr. Snyder and Ms. Croll represented the City and the neighbors were
also represented by an attorney. The legal determination was the wetland was under 2500 square feet and
as such was not regulated by the City.
As an unregulated wetland outside the authority of the City, the wetland is under the authority of the DOE
or Army Corp of Engineers. To Ms. Bloom’s assertion that the wetland is not connected, he assured it
was, noting the City has drawings showing a storm sewer connection that drains to Shell Creek. Because
it is not an isolated wetland, the DOE has no authority, the Army Corp of Engineers has authority. He
applied to the Army Corp of Engineers who made the decision the wetland could be filled.
He agreed this situation had been going on a long time; the first three years were in court to determine
whether the wetland was regulated. The last two years have been in regard to the removal of the shed.
To Mr. Reidy’s question why the City granted him a temporary construction easement, he explained his
first application was for a 2-lot short plat that utilized the alley. That application was denied due to the
encroachment in the alley, Mr. Reidy’s shed. He decided to move the wall away from the alley and
construct the wall on his own property. During the past year there has been a disagreement regarding
whether Mr. Reidy’s shed should be removed. He requested the Council rely on experts, follow the code
and if someone constructed an illegal structure, they be required to remove it.
Mr. Thuesen read a letter he submitted that was included in the Council packet: By a letter dated January
13, 2010, I received notice that you would like to hear from me at the next Council meeting on January
26, 2010 and that you would accept any written materials from me if submitted before January 20, 2010.
As you know I have been out of town since the beginning of December and only just returned on January
15th.
The historical reports from the City Attorney regarding the Thuesen subdivision and alley vacation as
reflected in the December 1, 2009 minutes appears fairly thorough and largely correct. Mr. Snyder
outlined the legal actions and decisions vesting the short plat, the pending legal actions to date, Mr.
Reidy’s failure to appeal, require reconsideration and the consequences of possible Council decisions. He
has also outlined the balance beam the City is walking between my vested rights and Mr. Reidy’s code
violations.
When I filed my preliminary plat application(s), I was not required to submit a survey of the property’s
exterior boundaries (that is a survey that generally isn’t required until the final plat unless the City
separately asks for a formal boundary survey earlier; the City didn’t ask me to provide a boundary survey
at the time it reviewed my preliminary plat). Prior to beginning plat improvements and installing utilities
for the short plat per the approved preliminary plat, L.S.A. completed a construction survey. The survey
uncovered an alley encroachment (i.e. the Reidy shed). Reidy contracted with Western Survey to perform
a boundary survey in order to verify L.S.A.’s survey. The Western Survey verified an unpermitted lean-
to shed extension (extending into the alley), an unpermitted single car garage in the Daley Street right-of-
way (building in 5/03/91 per county assessor), a shed conversion to office and sports court (each
encroaching into 8th Avenue and the alley, respectively, and both unpermitted – constructed by Reidys in
2003). (Appraisers report and aerial photographs and an outline of the permit history for the Reidy
residence included in Council packet.)
Packet Page 17 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 15
Reidy purchased the property in 1994 and executed an earnest money with Mrs. Cox. A condition of the
purchase and sale agreement between Reidy and Cox was that Reidy would order a survey to verify the
location of the structures and their compliance with setbacks prior to closing. The Reidys decided to
purchase the property apparently without verification by survey and decided to construct a sports court
and lean-to shed without permits.
It is unreasonable to ask the City knowingly to turn a blind eye to structures that were built without
permits, violate setbacks, encroach into alleys and rights-of-way in order to resolve his problems and at
the same time violate the vested rights of my plat. Reidy is attempting to have all these problems solved
by demanding the City relax its codes claiming he is an innocent victim of a developer and a hostile City.
This could not be further from the truth. He has made his own decisions throughout this process and
unfortunately they were incorrect.
Reidy has had legal counsel since at least April 2007 and has been apprised of all legal avenues and
appeal actions necessary. He has made his own decisions about required legal actions (appeals and
reconsiderations). To date Mr. Reidy:
Chose not to obtain a boundary survey at the time of purchase
Did not appeal the 2-lot and 3-lot short plat applications
Did not request Council reconsideration of alley vacation ordinance
Chose not to appeal or otherwise challenge the vacation ordinance
Failed to assert an adverse possession claim in 2007 prior to City’s approval of both 2-lot and 3-
lot preliminary plat approvals or prior to City’s issuance of engineering permits for development
of 2-lot short plat
Failed to appeal original notice of violation and failed to timely appeal order to correct violation
Has admitted in writing and verbally that the structures are unpermitted and in violation of City
Code and previously agreed to a timeframe for removal (that he did not comply with)
With respect to my short plat, I believe there are several other things going on that are operating to delay
my ability to move forward. Certain neighbors have never accepted the legal conclusion and approval of
the short plat. Mr. Reidy, with the help of Mrs. Moore, has gathered together those neighbors in an
attempt to persuade the Council to act against my vested interests and prevent the plat from being
finalized. It is legally improper for the City to take any action that would support this attempt to delay my
project. To the contrary, the City has an obligation to enforce its codes and order removal or to remove
the lean-to structure. By failing to do it, the City is preventing the construction of an approved retaining
wall that is necessary for physical access to the middle lot.
Over the last 2 years I have attempted to negotiate with Reidy, redesigned my wall location outside of the
alley in an attempt to finalize the plat and patiently waited for the city to enforce its order to correct
violation. The City’s decision over the last 2 years not to take determinative and timely action is violating
my vested rights under the short plat approvals and the terms of the settlement agreement, and is delaying
my ability to proceed with construction of the plat.
Any stay in the pending enforcement action will result in more delays to my development. The city
should not attempt to remedy Reidy’s code violation by violating my vested right. Further, if the city
were to bow to the attempts made by Mrs. Moore, Mr. Reidy and certain other neighbors and pressure the
City to throw out the issued vested permit, I will suffer substantial damages that the city would be
responsible for.
It is clear to me that Mrs. Moore is coordinating with Mr. Reidy for political gain. She is well aware from
her years on the Council of the quasi judicial responsibilities the City must honor in matters such as these.
I strongly believe she should disqualify herself from this involvement with the neighbors.
Packet Page 18 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 16
The City needs to take affirmative and conclusive steps to enforce its code, take immediate action to
finally remedy the outstanding Reidy code violation and leave the temporary construction easement in
place. Any other approach by the City means that I have to protect my vested rights through formal legal
action against the City and Mr. Reidy which I very much don’t want to be forced into.
8. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS.
Councilmember Plunkett reported on the Parking Committee meeting where employee permits were
discussed and also noted that Parking Enforcement Officer Debbie Dawson plans to present five minor
changes to the Parking Committee with regard to the parking code and better parking enforcement. With
regard to the Historic Preservation Commission, Councilmember Plunkett announced 17 properties have
been nominated for registration on the City’s Historic Registry.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she spoke to the Economic Development Commission. She
recognized the work they are doing and looked forward to a brighter future for Edmonds.
Councilmember Wilson reported the Lake Ballinger Forum is trying to determine how best to organize
itself as a board. The only way to clean up Lake Ballinger and keep it clean is to have a governance
model that can be maintained over a significant period of time. He commented on the difficulty of getting
all six groups involved in the forum to agree on a governance model and that they may be nearing an
impasse. He offered to work with Mayor Haakenson and staff to bring a resolution to the Council to
reiterate the City’s support for Lake Ballinger and ensure if the Forum reached an impasse that the Lake
Ballinger project remained a top priority for the City.
Councilmember Orvis reported he attended the Economic Development Commission and the Board of
Health meetings. The Board of Health adopted a policy to require all unpaid fees be paid at the time of
permit renewal. He presented an award to one of the cleanest restaurants in Snohomish County which is
located in Lynnwood.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she also attended the Economic Development Commission meeting
as well as two Port Commission meetings. The Port reviewed their year-to-date financials and fiscal year
end 2009. The Port made a profit in 2009 and is working on making their financials more transparent and
easy for the public to understand. A representative of the Snohomish County Economic Development
Commission made a presentation to the Port Commission, and has made a similar presentation to the
city’s Economic Development Commission. She relayed by 2014, 30% of Snohomish County residents
will be over the age of 60.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reiterated his offer to develop a list of opportunities to name something after the late
Councilmember Olson.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Council had developed a labor negotiation strategy policy at the
retreat. He relayed that recently inquiries from the City’s labor unions have been forwarded to City
Attorney Scott Snyder who has participated in past labor negotiations. He requested the Council inform
him if they intended to change that process.
As Chair of the SNOCOM and the 800 MHz SERS Boards in 2010, Mayor Haakenson invited the
Directors of SNOCOM and SERS to provide a report to the Council.
Packet Page 19 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 17
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Bernheim advised the labor negotiation issue is on the April 13 Finance Committee
agenda. Mayor Haakenson suggested the Committee discuss the matter at the March meeting. Council
President Bernheim requested a schedule regarding when contract negotiations begin. Mayor Haakenson
advised two labor unions have indicated a desire to begin early negotiations; negotiations typically do not
begin until summer. He requested direction from the Council whether they wanted to continue with the
existing practices or whether they wanted to hire a separate negotiator.
Council President Bernheim reported he will be scheduling a series of opportunities for the public to
comment on budget cuts beginning with the March 23 meeting. He explained the City was in a dire
financial situation with regard to tax revenue versus expenditures and his intent was to give the public an
opportunity to identify where cuts could be made. The Council could consider the information in
discussions regarding whether to raise taxes.
Councilmember Wilson suggested guidance regarding labor negotiations be provided in Executive
Session. He agreed the information regarding the negotiator or how negotiations would occur could be
done during an open meeting. Council President Bernheim explained he planned to invite several labor
negotiators to describe to the Finance Committee the services that a specialized labor negotiator could
offer. Councilmember Wilson expressed interest in that information and suggested it be scheduled at a
Council meeting.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about employee health insurance, recalling the Association of
Washington Cities planned to discontinue Plan A, employees’ primary health benefit package, at the end
of 2010. Mayor Haakenson stated he would request Human Resources Director Debi Humann provide
the Council an update.
Councilmember Wilson reported he spoke at a Lions Club meeting last night. One of the questions posed
was whether City employees received a 5% salary increase last year. He recalled the inflation rate in
2008 was approximately 5% and employees were provided an approximately 5% cost of living increase in
2009. He explained the contracts have a minimum 2.5% cost of living increase, noting that may be
something that should be addressed during negotiations. He summarized citizens were watching the
Council closely; public employee compensation is now on average greater than private employee
compensation. If the Council wants to ask voters for a levy increase, these are issues that will arise.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out although employees received an increase, they also took
furlough days which nearly eliminated the raise. Councilmember Wilson relayed comments made at the
Lions meeting regarding the pay level for directors and how quickly a levy increase that generated $2
million would be consumed by salaries. He also made the argument that the City needed more police
officers to reach the average level of officers per capita.
Councilmember Buckshnis reminded this Friday is the first Town Hall meeting, held at Prestige Care and
Rehabilitation Center at 21008 76th Avenue. She announced an adopt-a-park project; she will make a
presentation to the Council in March. The intent of the project is for citizens to spend one day cleaning
up a park.
With regard to Mr. Wambolt’s comments, Councilmember Buckshnis explained the current Finance
Director admitted the prior Finance Director was responsible for the Fire District 1 numbers. Citizens
believed the numbers had been reviewed by the current Finance Director but apparently they had not. Her
concern was the Fire District 1 numbers were prepared by a former Finance Director who now works for
Fire District 1.
Packet Page 20 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 23, 2010
Page 18
Mayor Haakenson reported Lorenzo Hines was hired as the Interim Finance Director and given one job –
to review the numbers prepared by former Finance Director Junglov. Although the numbers were
prepared by Ms. Junglov, in the end they were Mr. Hines’ numbers.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m.
Packet Page 21 of 178
AM-2857 2.C.
Approval of Claim Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Debbie Karber Time:Consent
Department:Finance Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #117328 through #117509 dated February 25, 2010 for $1,552,949.43.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council.
Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends
either approval or non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 2-25-10
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Finance Lorenzo Hines 02/25/2010 04:43 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 04:45 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/25/2010 04:47 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 04:50 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 02/25/2010 03:34
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 22 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117328 2/25/2010 069798 A.M. LEONARD INC C110007638 ANCHOR PINS, GROUND COVER
ANCHOR PINS, FABRIC GROUND COVER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 322.95
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 84.98
Total : 407.93
117329 2/25/2010 069157 AIONA, CYNDI AIONA12027 HULA KIDS
HULA KIDS #12027
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 210.00
ADULT HULA #12029
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 483.88
Total : 693.88
117330 2/25/2010 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 8814 Monthly Wholesale Water Charges For Jan
Monthly Wholesale Water Charges For Jan
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 90,430.41
Total : 90,430.41
117331 2/25/2010 069445 ALLDATA fw313005 ACC#425-771-0233/CITXIQ
Fleet - All Makes Data Subscription
511.000.657.548.680.490.00 1,500.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.490.00 142.50
Total : 1,642.50
117332 2/25/2010 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 10851 BRONZE PLAQUE
CAST BRONZE PLAQUE - MARINA BEACH SCOUT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 148.30
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.71
Total : 169.51
1Page:
Packet Page 23 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117333 2/25/2010 001634 AQUA QUIP 480680-1 50609
CHLORINE TABS
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 229.98
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 21.85
Total : 251.83
117334 2/25/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4764003 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 29.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.84
Total : 32.71
117335 2/25/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4752109 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 75.42
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 7.16
Total : 82.58
117336 2/25/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-4732392 PW Mats
PW Mats
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW Mats
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
2Page:
Packet Page 24 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117336 2/25/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
Street Storm Uniform Svc655-4732393
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.37
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.36
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22
Street Storm Uniform Svc655-4732394
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.93
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.92
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.28
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.28
Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4739977
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06
PW Mats655-4744445
3Page:
Packet Page 25 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117336 2/25/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW Mats
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW Mats
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
Street/Storm Uniform Svc655-4744446
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.37
Street/Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.36
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22
Fleet Shop Uniform Svc655-4744447
4Page:
Packet Page 26 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117336 2/25/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
Fleet Shop Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 5.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.56
Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4752106
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06
PW Mats655-4756541
PW Mats
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW Mats
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
5Page:
Packet Page 27 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117336 2/25/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4764004
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06
PW Mats655-4768392
PW Mats
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW Mats
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW Mats
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
Total : 217.35
117337 2/25/2010 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0040937-IN 01-7500014
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 1,585.08
6Page:
Packet Page 28 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117337 2/25/2010 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 150.58
Total : 1,735.66
117338 2/25/2010 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 76780 PS - Council Mbr Plaque
PS - Council Mbr Plaque
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 281.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 26.70
Total : 307.70
117339 2/25/2010 073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE 271 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE583
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE698
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
Total : 300.00
117340 2/25/2010 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST March 2010 MARCH 2010 AWC PREMIUMS
03/10 Fire Pension AWC Premiums
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,197.55
03/10 Retirees AWC Premiums
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 27,322.73
03/10 AWC Premiums
811.000.000.231.510.000.00 264,722.25
Total : 296,242.53
117341 2/25/2010 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2008-906 INV# 2008-906 EDMONDS PD - HERIGSTAD
PRE-EMPLOY SCREEN - HERIGSTAD
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 150.00
INV#2008-909 EDMONDS PD COSME2008-909
7Page:
Packet Page 29 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117341 2/25/2010 (Continued)012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH
PRE-EMPLOY SCREEN - COSME
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 150.00
INV#2008-910 EDMONDS PD MCCLELLAN2008-910
PRE-EMPLOY EXAM - MCCLELLAN
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 150.00
Total : 450.00
117342 2/25/2010 069297 BANK OF AMERICA 1010037925 CUSTOMER # 16-657082
Phone System Principal Pmt Pmt in Full
001.000.390.591.730.790.00 22,882.58
Phone System Principal Pmt Pmt in Full
411.000.652.582.391.790.00 1,842.05
Phone System Principal Pmt Pmt in Full
411.000.654.582.391.790.00 5,343.08
Phone System Principal Pmt Pmt in Full
411.000.655.582.391.790.00 3,283.65
Phone System Principal Pmt Pmt in Full
411.000.656.582.391.790.00 4,786.27
Total : 38,137.63
117343 2/25/2010 072581 BARK TIME BLOWER TRUCK SERVICE 122123 Storm Dump Fees
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60
Total : 151.60
117344 2/25/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 795697 Shop - Lamp Module
Shop - Lamp Module
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 35.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.41
Total : 39.31
117345 2/25/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 791287 INV#781287 CREDIT FOR SWITCHES
SWITCH ASSY FOR SL-20X (REPLACE)
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 -21.90
8Page:
Packet Page 30 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117345 2/25/2010 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 -2.08
INV#791287-01 - EDMONDS PD - SWITCHES791287-01
SWITCH ASSY FOR SL-20X
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 76.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 7.28
INV#795937 - EDMONDS PD - ROBINSON795937
GORE TEX RAINPANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 117.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.12
Total : 188.07
117346 2/25/2010 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING &038750 Storm Dump Fees
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 26.00
Total : 26.00
117347 2/25/2010 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL BRUNETTE11901 PRENATAL YOGA
PRENATAL YOGA #11901
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 200.20
Total : 200.20
117348 2/25/2010 068484 CEMEX 9418667351 Roadway - Asphalt
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 246.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 23.43
Roadway - Asphalt9418675027
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 246.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 23.43
Roadway - Asphalt9418692878
9Page:
Packet Page 31 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117348 2/25/2010 (Continued)068484 CEMEX
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 175.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 16.63
Storm Dump Fees9418698932
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 197.51
Roadway - Asphalt9418698933
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 520.20
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 47.86
Roadway - Asphalt9418706268
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 318.12
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 30.23
Roadway Asphalt9418706269
Roadway Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 318.12
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 30.23
Roadway - Asphalt9418713222
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 388.82
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 36.94
Storm Dump Fees9418713223
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 109.65
Roadway - Asphalt9418728424
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 351.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 33.40
10Page:
Packet Page 32 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117348 2/25/2010 (Continued)068484 CEMEX
Roadway - Asphalt9418745358
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 352.34
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 33.48
Roadway - Asphalt9418745359
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 423.12
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 40.20
Fee Adjustment9418752368
Fee Adjustment
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 -107.93
Storm Dump Fees9418752372
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 559.50
Storm Dump Fees9418752374
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 111.82
Total : 4,526.78
117349 2/25/2010 064690 CHAMPION BOLT & SUPPLY INC 515105 349252
NUTS & BOLTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 159.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 15.16
LATEX GLOVES515367
LATEX GLOVES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 631.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 60.00
Total : 866.40
117350 2/25/2010 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-1001 E9GA.Services thru 01/29/10
E9GA.Services thru 01/29/10
11Page:
Packet Page 33 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117350 2/25/2010 (Continued)065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 24,207.43
E0FA.Services thru 01/29/10451001-1001
E0FA.Services thru 01/29/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,847.82
Total : 26,055.25
117351 2/25/2010 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I10000369 Water Quailty - Water Lab Analysis
Water Quailty - Water Lab Analysis
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 567.00
Total : 567.00
117352 2/25/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2157919 LINERS
LINERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 965.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 91.68
Total : 1,056.68
117353 2/25/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2158275 005302
Z FOLD TOWELS/PAPER TOWELS
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 206.31
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 19.60
Total : 225.91
117354 2/25/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2153914-1 Fac Maint - Floor Pads
Fac Maint - Floor Pads
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 48.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.62
Fac Maint - Seat Covers, TT, TowelsW2159255
Fac Maint - Seat Covers, TT, Towels
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 505.57
FAC - Nat Towels
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 109.80
12Page:
Packet Page 34 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117354 2/25/2010 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 58.46
FAC - Wave Brake Down Press Wringer YLW2159363
FAC - Wave Brake Down Press Wringer YL
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 65.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.22
Total : 798.76
117355 2/25/2010 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC Dec-Jan + Install C/A CITYOFED00001
Dec-08 Fiber Optic Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 854.56
Jan-09 Fiber Optic Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 913.50
Installation Fee
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 2,537.50
C/A CITYOFED00001Feb-10
Feb-10 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 913.50
Total : 5,219.06
117356 2/25/2010 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 22197 PUMP PARTS
PUMP PARTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4,484.94
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 399.16
Total : 4,884.10
117357 2/25/2010 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 0210 2989771 5374044 INV#0210 2989771 5374044 - EDMONDS PD
HOT/COLD COOLER RENTAL
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.00
5 GALLON BOTTLES OF H20
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 73.71
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.95
13Page:
Packet Page 35 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117357 2/25/2010 (Continued)066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.95
Total : 86.61
117358 2/25/2010 073131 CURLEY, MARA CURLEY0222 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO CANCELLED RENTAL
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 200.00
Total : 200.00
117359 2/25/2010 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3229650 E8GC.Bid Invitation Advertisement
E8GC.Bid Invitation Advertisement
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 130.80
E8GC.Bid Invitation Advertisement
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 130.80
E8GC.Bid Invitation Advertisement
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 130.80
Total : 392.40
117360 2/25/2010 063064 DEZURIK WATER CONTROLS RPI/56001723 108505
vALVES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,594.48
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 24.69
Total : 1,619.17
117361 2/25/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3075 MINUTE TAKING
02/16 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 285.00
Total : 285.00
117362 2/25/2010 064640 DMCMA 01302010 MEMBERSHIP TO COURT ASSOCIATION FOR
MEMBERSHIP TO COURT ASSOCIATION FOR
001.000.230.512.500.430.00 40.00
MEMBERSHIP TO COURT ASSOCIATION FOR01312010
MEMBERSHIP TO COURT ASSOCIATION FOR
001.000.230.512.501.430.00 40.00
14Page:
Packet Page 36 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 80.00 117362 2/25/2010 064640 064640 DMCMA
117363 2/25/2010 007253 DUNN LUMBER 02355791 Fac Maint - Work Jacket, Work Pants - D
Fac Maint - Work Jacket, Work Pants - D
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 91.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 8.67
Total : 99.95
117364 2/25/2010 007550 ECONOMY FENCE CENTER 16797A-IN HICKMAN PARK FENCE REPAIR
HICKMAN PARK FENCE REPAIR
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 250.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 23.75
HICKMAN PARK FENCE REPAIR16797B-IN
HICKMAN PARK FENCE REPAIR
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 250.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 23.75
Total : 547.50
117365 2/25/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001031/1 FELT BLANKET
PAD FELT BLANKET
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.29
SUPPLIES001033/1
TAP CARDED
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.09
PAD FELT BLANKET001034/1
PAD FELT BLANKET
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.29
SHEARS001040/1
HEDGE SHEARS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.99
Total : 42.66
117366 2/25/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001030/1 Unit 95 - Supplies
Unit 95 - Supplies
15Page:
Packet Page 37 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117366 2/25/2010 (Continued)073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 22.13
City Park Green House - Caulk001032/1
City Park Green House - Caulk
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.99
Total : 30.12
117367 2/25/2010 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 18082 UPS/DEPT OF LNI
UPS/DEPT OF LNI
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 11.96
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.14
Total : 13.10
117368 2/25/2010 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP AGUIRRE0222 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS FOR:
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 221.00
Total : 221.00
117369 2/25/2010 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R22504 Water Quality - Water Bacteriaological
Water Quality - Water Bacteriaological
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 189.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 18.01
Total : 207.61
117370 2/25/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 57.59
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 388.54
SPRINKLER1-00875
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER1-02125
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
16Page:
Packet Page 38 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117370 2/25/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
SPRINKLER1-03900
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
SPRINKLER1-05125
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
CORNER PARK1-05340
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05650
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 422.72
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
CORNER PARK1-09650
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
SW CORNER SPRINKLER1-09800
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
PLANTER1-10780
PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
CORNER PARKS1-16300
17Page:
Packet Page 39 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117370 2/25/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
CORNER PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
WATER1-16420
118 5TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 6.24
CITY HALL TRIANGLE1-16450
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.38
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD1-19950
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 48.12
WATER1-36255
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80
Total : 1,332.39
117371 2/25/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00655 Lift St 7 - New Water Line 2010
Lift St 7 - New Water Line 2010
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 25.84
LIFT STATION #81-00925
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.97
LIFT STATION #11-01950
LIFT STATION #1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80
LIFT STATION #21-02675
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 25.84
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms1-03950
18Page:
Packet Page 40 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117371 2/25/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 365.28
Public Works Meter Shop1-05350
Public Works Meter Shop
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 54.79
LIFT STATION #61-05705
LIFT STATION #6
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 50.50
CITY HALL1-13975
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 362.51
CITY HALL1-14000
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 62.55
LIFT STATION #144-34080
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80
Total : 1,026.88
117372 2/25/2010 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 084900 Radix Monthly Maint Agreement / March
Radix Monthly Maint Agreement / March
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 152.00
Total : 152.00
117373 2/25/2010 068796 ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECH INT'L 10352 BALL VALVE KIT
BALL VALVE KIT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 44.95
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.59
Total : 50.54
117374 2/25/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU19267 SUPPLIES
MISC. SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 60.00
9.5% Sales Tax
19Page:
Packet Page 41 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117374 2/25/2010 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.70
Total : 65.70
117375 2/25/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY wamou19179 Street - Hex Lag
Street - Hex Lag
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 11.88
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 1.13
Shop Tool - TapWAMOU19241
Shop Tool - Tap
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 6.68
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 0.63
Total : 20.32
117376 2/25/2010 072945 FBI AC-DJ02 Treas310 Return City of Everett's electronic
Return City of Everett's electronic
001.000.000.111.100.000.00 1,030.22
Total : 1,030.22
117377 2/25/2010 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 273667 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
Mar-10 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00
Total : 300.00
117378 2/25/2010 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 148851 December 2009 - Section 125 plan fees
December 2009 - Section 125 plan fees
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 50.00
December 2009 - Section 132 plan fees
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 39.40
Total : 89.40
117379 2/25/2010 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH11878 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+ #11878
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 351.00
IRISH DANCE 13+ #11882
20Page:
Packet Page 42 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117379 2/25/2010 (Continued)072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 250.25
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #11890
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 218.40
Total : 819.65
117380 2/25/2010 071945 GILL-ROSE, SUE GILL ROSE11835 DRAWING & WATERCOLOR CLASSES
DRAWING BEGINNING/INTERMEDIATE #11835
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 369.60
WATERCOLOR BEGINNING/INTERMEDIATE
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 616.00
Total : 985.60
117381 2/25/2010 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 093893 Unit 129 - Tire Disposal
Unit 129 - Tire Disposal
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 54.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.13
Total : 59.13
117382 2/25/2010 073132 HAAN, LESLIE HAAN0222 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 58.00
Total : 58.00
117383 2/25/2010 012560 HACH COMPANY 6604539 229817
CABLE/PLUGS/SC PROBE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 400.50
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 26.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 40.61
Total : 468.06
117384 2/25/2010 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007B1719 036570
PUMPS & PARTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 675.38
21Page:
Packet Page 43 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117384 2/25/2010 (Continued)060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.06
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 65.78
Total : 758.22
117385 2/25/2010 012900 HARRIS FORD INC FOCS268973 Unit 775 - Service and Repair
Unit 775 - Service and Repair
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 540.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 51.39
Total : 592.37
117386 2/25/2010 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 9874288 Storm Parts for site project
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 12.15
Storm Parts for site project
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 127.89
Total : 140.04
117387 2/25/2010 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 174271-H E4GA.Services thru 01/30/10
E4GA.Services thru 01/30/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 2,378.05
Total : 2,378.05
117388 2/25/2010 071368 HEFFERAN, BRIGITTE HEFFERAN11924 CALLIGRAPHY CLASSES
CALLIGRAPHY: COPPERPLATE
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 809.90
Total : 809.90
117389 2/25/2010 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 21800 E9FG.Services thru 01/29/10
E9FG.Services thru 01/29/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 5,357.66
E8FD.Services thru 01/29/1021812
E8FD.Services thru 01/29/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 12,007.49
22Page:
Packet Page 44 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117389 2/25/2010 (Continued)072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL
E9FB.Services thru 01/29/201021884
E9FB.Services thru 01/29/2010
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 7,328.85
Total : 24,694.00
117390 2/25/2010 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY 47190366 EVDO Minicard
EVDO Minicard
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 248.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 23.56
Total : 271.56
117391 2/25/2010 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 27 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 8.00
Total : 8.00
117392 2/25/2010 013677 HORTICULTURE 2010 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL
PARK MAINTENANCE SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 39.95
Total : 39.95
117393 2/25/2010 067369 HUMANN, JENNIFER 02-22-2010 Door monitoring - Citizen's Commission
Door monitoring - Citizen's Commission
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 24.00
Total : 24.00
117394 2/25/2010 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 81558231 INV#81558231 467070-1005305A3 EDMONDS PD
COPIER RENTAL 2/13-3/12/2010
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 192.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 50.60
Total : 583.26
23Page:
Packet Page 45 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117395 2/25/2010 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 6493339 C/A 768328
PR1-2 City Phone Service thru 2/11/10
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 835.88
Total : 835.88
117396 2/25/2010 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 110435552 Unit 474 - Batteries
Unit 474 - Batteries
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 527.70
8.7% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 50.13
Fleet Inventory - Batteries110435553
Fleet Inventory - Batteries
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 75.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 7.22
LS 4 Sewer Dept - Battery110435622
LS 4 Sewer Dept - Battery
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 135.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.92
Fleet Batteries Returned110436073
Fleet Batteries Returned
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -467.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -44.43
Shop Supplies - Fuel Line Hose, Supplies761015
Shop Supplies - Fuel Line Hose, Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.37
Shop Supplies- Brake Clean761037
Shop Supplies- Brake Clean
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 50.16
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 4.77
Unit 18- 700 Watt Inverter, Holgen761460
24Page:
Packet Page 46 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117396 2/25/2010 (Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
Unit 18- 700 Watt Inverter, Holgen
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 119.45
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.35
Unit 80 - Lamps761545
Unit 80 - Lamps
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.80
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.98
Fleet - Returned Plugs761546
Fleet - Returned Plugs
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -34.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -3.23
Total : 496.29
117397 2/25/2010 069851 JACKYE'S ENTERPRISES INC 8194 Street/Storm - Uniform Customize and
Street/Storm - Uniform Customize and
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 240.00
Street/Storm - Uniform Customize and
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 240.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 22.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 22.80
Total : 525.60
117398 2/25/2010 067512 JACO ENVIRONMENTAL INC 17712 Storm - Appliance Disposal
Storm - Appliance Disposal
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 75.00
Total : 75.00
117399 2/25/2010 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 458253 54278825
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 2,835.50
25Page:
Packet Page 47 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117399 2/25/2010 (Continued)015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 269.37
Total : 3,104.87
117400 2/25/2010 068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC 113163 INV#113163 EDMONDS PD
PHQ REPORT - SCHEELE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 15.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 1.22
Total : 16.22
117401 2/25/2010 072199 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC 0068853 E7AD.Services thru 01/29/10
E7AD.Services thru 01/29/10
112.200.630.595.440.410.00 818.60
Total : 818.60
117402 2/25/2010 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRAR 02172010 COURT TRAINING FOR LEYDA
COURT TRAINING FOR LEYDA
001.000.230.512.501.490.00 45.00
Total : 45.00
117403 2/25/2010 015490 K & K CONCRETE PRODUCTS 33916 Sewer -1" & 2" Adjustment Rings
Sewer -1" & 2" Adjustment Rings
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 298.20
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 28.33
Total : 326.53
117404 2/25/2010 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD11821 BASIC PHOTOGRAPHY
BASIC PHOTOGRAPHY #11821
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 500.50
Total : 500.50
117405 2/25/2010 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 0210-108246 E8GC.Services thru 01/31/10
E8GC.Services thru 01/31/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 205.31
26Page:
Packet Page 48 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117405 2/25/2010 (Continued)068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
E8GC.Services thru 01/31/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 205.31
E8GC.Services thru 01/31/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 205.30
E2DB.Services thru 11/30/09E2DB.44
E2DB.Services thru 11/30/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 33,526.25
E2DB.Services thru 12/31/09E2DB.45
E2DB.Services thru 12/31/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 42,811.29
Total : 76,953.46
117406 2/25/2010 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 02132010-01 INV#02132010-01 - EDMONDS PD
34 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 - 01/10
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 171.02
Total : 171.02
117407 2/25/2010 073136 LANG, ROBERT RLANG0223 MONITOR TRAINING
MONITOR TRAINING 2/23/10
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 15.00
Total : 15.00
117408 2/25/2010 073134 LANGESATER, TOR AND CHERYL 7-07200 RE: #10-103-RDW UTILITY REFUND
UB Refund
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 31.49
Total : 31.49
117409 2/25/2010 072059 LEE, NICOLE 516 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 119.60
INTERPRETER FEE579
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 119.60
Total : 239.20
117410 2/25/2010 061814 LEYDA, SHERRIE 02182010 REFUND FOR TRAVEL TO TRAINING
27Page:
Packet Page 49 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117410 2/25/2010 (Continued)061814 LEYDA, SHERRIE
REFUND FOR TRAVEL TO TRAINING
001.000.230.512.501.430.00 51.00
Total : 51.00
117411 2/25/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 103531 10
TABLE
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 279.99
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 26.60
Total : 306.59
117412 2/25/2010 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 598483 Sewer - Hose end
Sewer - Hose end
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.59
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.34
Total : 3.93
117413 2/25/2010 070959 MAINTSTAR INC 22 ANNUAL SUPPORT
ANNUAL SUPPORT
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 1,747.00
Total : 1,747.00
117414 2/25/2010 061900 MARC 0408673-IN 00-0902224
DE-LIMER/DETERGENT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 672.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 63.89
Total : 736.39
117415 2/25/2010 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 300 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE301
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.25
28Page:
Packet Page 50 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117415 2/25/2010 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
INTERPRETER FEE577
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE680
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE685
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 108.25
INTERPRETER FEE686
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 128.25
INTERPRETER FEE687
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE697
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE699
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25
Total : 854.25
117416 2/25/2010 070028 MCA 02102010 MEMBERSHIP TO PROBATION ASSOCIATION FOR
MEMBERSHIP TO PROBATION ASSOCIATION FOR
001.000.230.512.501.430.00 25.00
Total : 25.00
117417 2/25/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 46867998 123106800
PIPE FITTING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 49.68
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.05
12310680047154092
LIGHT BULBS/TUBE FITTING/FACE
29Page:
Packet Page 51 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117417 2/25/2010 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 512.75
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.38
12310680047370233
PIPE FITTING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 52.74
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.05
Total : 633.65
117418 2/25/2010 072010 MEISER, GARLAND MEISER0216 PICKLE BALL LEAGUE SUPERVISOR
PICKLE BALL LEAGUE SUPERVISOR @
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 84.00
Total : 84.00
117419 2/25/2010 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER0224 GYM MONITOR
GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL2/3 -
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 110.00
Total : 110.00
117420 2/25/2010 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 101866 Water - Arbor Adaptors
Water - Arbor Adaptors
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 19.12
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.82
Total : 20.94
117421 2/25/2010 022733 MUTUAL MATERIALS 563180 Storm - Wood Supplies
Storm - Wood Supplies
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 423.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 40.21
Total : 463.46
117422 2/25/2010 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0422666-IN Fleet Filter Inventory
Fleet Filter Inventory
30Page:
Packet Page 52 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117422 2/25/2010 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 58.30
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 5.53
Total : 63.83
117423 2/25/2010 065933 NELSON, WILLIAM K NELSON PD COINS REIMBURSEMENT FOR PD COIN ORDER
PD COINS ORDERED BY NELSON FOR DEPT. USE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 267.00
Total : 267.00
117424 2/25/2010 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB11946 FUN FACTORY
FUN FACTORY #11946
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 745.03
MINI ME FUN FACTORY
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 352.80
Total : 1,097.83
117425 2/25/2010 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 33660 CITYEDMTRE
SEALANT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 41.58
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.83
Total : 45.41
117426 2/25/2010 068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1023323 Street - State Contract - Pre-Wet
Street - State Contract - Pre-Wet
111.000.653.542.710.350.00 4,652.00
Freight
111.000.653.542.710.350.00 400.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.350.00 479.94
Total : 5,531.94
117427 2/25/2010 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 9002 260
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,422.84
31Page:
Packet Page 53 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117427 2/25/2010 (Continued)066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 135.17
Total : 1,558.01
117428 2/25/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 428756 Copy paper - HR, MY, Econ Dev.
Copy paper - HR, MY, Econ Dev.
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 19.89
Copy paper - HR, MY, Econ Dev.
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 19.89
Copy paper - HR, MY, Econ Dev.
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 19.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 1.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.89
Office supplies - HR892963
Office supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 17.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.62
Total : 84.11
117429 2/25/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 379016 OFFICE SUPPLIES
PARK MAINTENANCE INK CARTRIDGES & GLUE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 156.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.89
DISXCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES462200
BRASS FASTENERS
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 17.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 1.70
OFFICE SUPPLIES482784
32Page:
Packet Page 54 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117429 2/25/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
YELLOW CARTRIDGE, POST IT NOTES
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 47.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.54
Total : 243.65
117430 2/25/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 246390 Staples; Ext Cord; pens; card holder;
Staples; Ext Cord; pens; card holder;
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 38.31
Desk Calendar
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 15.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 3.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 1.44
Tape; pens; phone rest483183
Tape; pens; phone rest
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 23.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 2.26
Total : 84.67
117431 2/25/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 146829 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 216.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 20.57
OFFICE SUPPLIES147063
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 376.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 35.77
OFFICE SUPPLIES489895
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 67.68
33Page:
Packet Page 55 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117431 2/25/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 6.43
Total : 723.37
117432 2/25/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 421697 PW Office Supplies - 9x12 Envelopes
PW Office Supplies - 9x12 Envelopes
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 27.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 2.57
Street - Clip boards433169
Street - Clip boards
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 51.16
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 4.86
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.15
PW Archive Rm - Index Cards
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 12.14
Total : 98.90
117433 2/25/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 459634 Office Supplies DSD
Office Supplies DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 268.03
Total : 268.03
117434 2/25/2010 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 681476 JAN-2010 LITIGATION LEGAL FEES
Jaqn 2010 Litigation Legal Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 12,833.55
JAN-2010 BASIC LEGAL FEES681479
Jan-10 Basic Legal Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 29,039.72
Jan-10 Legal Fees ECDC Rewrite
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 968.60
Total : 42,841.87
34Page:
Packet Page 56 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117435 2/25/2010 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 681479 Prof Serv Leg Legal Fees for Jan. 2010
Prof Serv Leg Legal Fees for Jan. 2010
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 8,723.40
Total : 8,723.40
117436 2/25/2010 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 042593 YOST POOL PUMP
YOST POOL PUMP
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 315.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.86
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 30.58
Total : 352.44
117437 2/25/2010 068316 PACE ENGINEERS INC 46587 E9DA.Services thru 01/31/10
E9DA.Services thru 01/31/10
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 11,777.75
Total : 11,777.75
117438 2/25/2010 026560 PACIFIC AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CO VI-004759 Water/Sewer Jackhammer Repair
Water/Sewer Jackhammer Repair
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 65.32
Water/Sewer Jackhammer Repair
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 65.31
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 6.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 6.20
Total : 143.04
117439 2/25/2010 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 94251 Storm Dump Fees
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 157.60
Storm Dump Fees94262
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 157.60
35Page:
Packet Page 57 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117439 2/25/2010 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
Storm Dump Fees94303
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 157.60
Storm Dump Fees94566
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 133.60
Strom Dump Fees94583
Strom Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 133.60
Storm Dump Fees94589
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 118.20
Total : 858.20
117440 2/25/2010 071020 PALADA, RANDY 2397 UNIFORM/PALADA
UNIFORM/PALADA
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 339.76
Total : 339.76
117441 2/25/2010 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.911315 PAINT FOR YOST POOL
BASE PAINT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.59
Total : 6.82
117442 2/25/2010 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.910005 Yost Pool - Paint
Yost Pool - Paint
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 138.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.18
City Hall - Paint Supplies910999
City Hall - Paint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 25.32
9.5% Sales Tax
36Page:
Packet Page 58 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117442 2/25/2010 (Continued)027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.41
City Hall - Paint911001
City Hall - Paint
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.02
City Hall - Paint911327
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.09
City Hall - Paint
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.52
City Hall - Paint Supplies911625
City Hall - Paint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.81
Total : 236.35
117443 2/25/2010 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK11731 LITTLE FISHES PRESCHOOL PREP
LITTLE FISHES PRESCHOOL PREP
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 470.40
PILATES STRETCH & SCULPTPECK11782
PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT#11782
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 303.80
Total : 774.20
117444 2/25/2010 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20090060.000-5 E9CA.Services thru 12/27/09
E9CA.Services thru 12/27/09
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 11,879.96
Total : 11,879.96
117445 2/25/2010 007800 PETTY CASH tc petty "where to turn" book, Thies
"where to turn" book, Thies
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 10.50
plastic wrap
37Page:
Packet Page 59 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117445 2/25/2010 (Continued)007800 PETTY CASH
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 2.18
refreshments for econm dev mtgs
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 16.38
mileage reimb-L. Carl
001.000.210.513.100.430.00 102.86
TBD reimb-James Hanson
001.000.000.344.900.000.00 20.00
tbd reimb- M Davis
001.000.000.344.900.000.00 20.00
wapro training in lakewood, Hynd
001.000.250.514.300.430.00 62.58
batteries
001.000.620.558.600.310.00 14.99
coffee/creamer
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 47.97
parking/mileage reimb-ICC meeting in
001.000.620.558.800.430.00 24.50
parking icc meetings-English
001.000.620.532.200.430.00 6.00
bus tickets to seminar-Machuga
001.000.620.558.600.430.00 3.00
coffee/supplies
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 51.08
parking for meeting
001.000.610.519.700.430.00 10.76
Total : 392.80
117446 2/25/2010 064552 PITNEY BOWES 3833100FB10 POSTAGE METER LEASE
Lease 01/30 to 02/28
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 866.00
Total : 866.00
117447 2/25/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 182364 Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.30
38Page:
Packet Page 60 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117447 2/25/2010 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.30
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.30
Water/ Sewer/ Street/ Storm - Dept of
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.31
Total : 9.21
117448 2/25/2010 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 04371 UNIT F1 B1 FUEL
Public Safety Boat - Fuel
511.000.657.548.680.320.00 25.28
Total : 25.28
117449 2/25/2010 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 10-030 COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00 2,337.50
Total : 2,337.50
117450 2/25/2010 030695 PUMPTECH INC 0025759-IN 0047800
DIAPHRAGM/BUSHING ROD
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 638.32
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 60.64
Total : 698.96
117451 2/25/2010 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 106084 NICHE INSCRIPTION
INSCRIPTION: O'BRIEN
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 110.00
INSCRIPTION106085
INSCRIPTION: KELLISON
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 84.00
INSCCRIPTION106086
NICHE INSCRIPTION: BENTLER
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 107.00
INSCRIPTION106087
39Page:
Packet Page 61 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117451 2/25/2010 (Continued)030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
INSCRIPTION: BROWN
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
INSCRIPTION106088
INSCRIPTION: HUNTLEY
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
INSCRIPTION106089
INSCRIPTION: WOOD
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00
PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT679
PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 -80.00
Total : 461.00
117452 2/25/2010 073130 RALSTON, CHRISTINE RALSTON0218 REFUND
REFUND - INSTRUCTOR UNAVAILABLE
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 38.00
Total : 38.00
117453 2/25/2010 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 001571 Storm - Street Sweeping Dump Fees
Storm - Street Sweeping Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 726.45
Total : 726.45
117454 2/25/2010 071979 SACKVILLE, JODI L 2/18/10 OT from sick leave buy back not bought
OT from sick leave buy back not bought
001.000.410.521.220.110.00 176.62
Total : 176.62
117455 2/25/2010 073057 SALINAS CONSTRUCTION INC 3rd/Dayton Retainage Frontage Improvements Retainage Release
Frontage Improvements Retainage Release
001.000.000.223.400.000.00 1,139.37
Total : 1,139.37
117456 2/25/2010 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-035938 Unit 424 - Shock/Strut Set
Unit 424 - Shock/Strut Set
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 102.52
40Page:
Packet Page 62 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117456 2/25/2010 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.74
Unit 424 - Motor and Fan03-036253
Unit 424 - Motor and Fan
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 193.41
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.37
Unit 329 - Pads03-036387
Unit 329 - Pads
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 40.70
Unit 132 - Trans Filter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.81
Unit 424 - Trans Fluid03-036676
Unit 424 - Trans Fluid
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 86.16
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.19
Fleet - Core Refund05-337334
Fleet - Core Refund
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -8.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -0.76
Total : 465.12
117457 2/25/2010 073110 SEATTLE RADIOLOGISTS APC 75.198.6627.1 Testing services
Testing services
001.000.220.516.210.410.00 39.00
Total : 39.00
117458 2/25/2010 036041 SETINA MFG CO 20428 Unit 424 - Bumper, Fender Wraps,
Unit 424 - Bumper, Fender Wraps,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 483.00
Freight
41Page:
Packet Page 63 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117458 2/25/2010 (Continued)036041 SETINA MFG CO
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 39.25
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.10
Total : 556.35
117459 2/25/2010 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0106399-IN Unit 424 - 500 TIR6, Compact Speaker,
Unit 424 - 500 TIR6, Compact Speaker,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 226.39
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.25
Unit 424 - Speaker Brackets0106499-IN
Unit 424 - Speaker Brackets
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 38.40
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.75
Total : 296.79
117460 2/25/2010 036955 SKY NURSERY 283047 DAYTON STREET PROJECT
RHODODEDRONS
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 215.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 20.50
PLANTING SUPPLIES283048
BARK, FERTILIZER, PLANTS
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 204.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 19.45
Total : 460.43
117461 2/25/2010 036850 SMITH, SHERLUND D 28 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 150.00
Total : 150.00
117462 2/25/2010 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 Vac & S/L Bal Per section 5.3 of Contract with SCFD
42Page:
Packet Page 64 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117462 2/25/2010 (Continued)037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1
Per section 5.3 of Contract with SCFD
001.000.390.522.200.230.00 782,207.41
Total : 782,207.41
117463 2/25/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2060028723 YOST PARK POOL
YOST PARK POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 771.27
MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK2710014701
MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.55
Total : 802.82
117464 2/25/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2060014392 SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.00
SIGNAL LIGHT2470018124
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 38.59
LIFT STATION #92790012476
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 243.04
SIGNAL LIGHT2880012519
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT3380016422
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.51
Traffic Control Light 21531 HWY 993630573867
Traffic Control Light 21531 HWY 99
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 81.72
LIBRARY3720012057
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,488.77
BLINKING LIGHT3970013599
BLINKING LIGHT
43Page:
Packet Page 65 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117464 2/25/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
SIGNAL LIGHT4320010194
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 38.18
TELEMETRY SYSTEM4640017416
TELEMETRY SYSTEM
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 28.32
TRAFFIC SIGNAL4680011956
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 125.14
Public Works4840011953
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 102.96
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 391.26
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 391.26
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 391.26
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 391.26
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 391.27
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX5390028164
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 5,738.78
CITY HALL5410010689
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,066.12
TRAFFIC LIGHT5450016042
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 191.10
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS5470012336
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
44Page:
Packet Page 66 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117464 2/25/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
TRAFFIC LIGHT5510015661
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
Total : 14,279.66
117465 2/25/2010 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 10-02-086 Adv Contract fee on Jointly owned PUD &
Adv Contract fee on Jointly owned PUD &
001.000.310.518.870.490.00 22.47
Total : 22.47
117466 2/25/2010 037521 SNO CO TREASURER 00479000100302 2008-10 SURFACE WATER CHARGES
2008 Surface Water Charges 23009 88th
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 617.70
2009 Surface Water Charges 23009 88th
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,053.96
2010 Surface Water Charges 23009 88th
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 439.15
Total : 2,110.81
117467 2/25/2010 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 2/22/2010 2/18 - Snohmish County Cities dinner
2/18 - Snohmish County Cities dinner
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 35.00
Total : 35.00
117468 2/25/2010 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 44388 Fleet - GL Bars Stamp
Fleet - GL Bars Stamp
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.19
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.16
Total : 24.85
117469 2/25/2010 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 44387 Stamp for DSD - Eng
Stamp for DSD - Eng
001.000.620.524.100.310.00 29.17
45Page:
Packet Page 67 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 29.17 117469 2/25/2010 038100 038100 SNO-KING STAMP
117470 2/25/2010 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 44414 INV#44414 - EDMONDS PD - ROBINSON
LOCKER MAGNET- ROBINSON
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 4.00
MAILBOX MAGNETS-ROBINSON
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 5.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 2.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1.09
Total : 12.59
117471 2/25/2010 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2372153-01 Storm - Work Jeans (5) M Johnson
Storm - Work Jeans (5) M Johnson
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 188.35
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 17.33
Storm - Work Jacket, Work Jeans (5) M2372189-01
Storm - Work Jacket, Work Jeans (5) M
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 232.45
9.2% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 21.39
Street/ Storm - Work Jackets (15)4162980-01
Street/ Storm - Work Jackets (15)
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 534.00
Street/ Storm - Work Jackets (15)
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 534.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 50.73
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 50.73
Street - Work Jacket Exchange4163004-01
Street - Work Jacket Exchange
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 6.00
9.5% Sales Tax
46Page:
Packet Page 68 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117471 2/25/2010 (Continued)038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.57
Storm - Work Jeans (5)- Wickers4163066-01
Storm - Work Jeans (5)- Wickers
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 123.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 11.73
Street - Work Jeans (5) - Hiatt4163296-01
Street - Work Jeans (5) - Hiatt
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 178.75
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 16.98
Total : 1,966.51
117472 2/25/2010 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO February 2010 FEBRUARY 2010 STANDARD INSURANCE
02/10 Standard Insurance
811.000.000.231.550.000.00 15,323.01
Total : 15,323.01
117473 2/25/2010 071973 STARFEATHER 1 STAR0219 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 58.00
Total : 58.00
117474 2/25/2010 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 201551 CITYWIDE BEAUTIFICATION
TUBES, MOSS, VERMICULITE, PERLITE, ETC.
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 981.89
Total : 981.89
117475 2/25/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2119970 FS 20 - Elect Supplies
FS 20 - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 123.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.71
Library - Elect Supplies2122268
Library - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 126.31
47Page:
Packet Page 69 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117475 2/25/2010 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.00
Total : 273.32
117476 2/25/2010 065842 SWIFT TOOL CO INC 03097613 BUSHING
BUSHING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 61.51
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.84
Total : 67.35
117477 2/25/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18894345 100323
FLAT HD SOCKET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 136.19
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.94
Total : 149.13
117478 2/25/2010 067375 TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC T102259 E9FB.Services thru 02/13/10
E9FB.Services thru 02/13/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 225.00
Total : 225.00
117479 2/25/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1684509 E8GC.Bid Invitation Advertisement
E8GC.Bid Invitation Advertisement
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 64.03
E8GC.Bid Invitation Advertisement
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 64.03
E8GC.Bid Invitation Advertisement
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 64.02
Total : 192.08
117480 2/25/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1681952 NEWSPAPER AD
Feb 2 Hearing on Ord. 3769
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 55.72
NEWSPAPER AD1681953
48Page:
Packet Page 70 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117480 2/25/2010 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
Feb 2 Hearing on Ord. 3775
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 55.72
NEWSPAPER AD1681954
Feb 2 Hearing on PW Surplus
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 57.40
NEWSPAPER AD1684510
Ordinance 3783
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 33.88
NEWSPAPER AD1684511
Ordinance 3782
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 33.88
NEWSPAPER ADS1684512
Ordinance 3781
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 32.20
Total : 268.80
117481 2/25/2010 070713 THE GREENBUSCH GROUP INC 200925202 NOISE STUDY
NOISE STUDY
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 156.50
Total : 156.50
117482 2/25/2010 062949 UNIT PROCESS CO 10005994 236500
ACTUATOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 828.00
Total : 828.00
117483 2/25/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8411307 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
CAPS, STAKES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 57.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.48
Total : 63.20
117484 2/25/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8407058 Water Supplies - Patch & Repair Clamps,
Water Supplies - Patch & Repair Clamps,
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 667.43
49Page:
Packet Page 71 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117484 2/25/2010 (Continued)061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 63.40
Water- Meter Supplies8411705
Water- Meter Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,293.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 122.89
Total : 2,147.32
117485 2/25/2010 043935 UPS 00002T4T13070 Return Barracuda Spam Filter
Return Barracuda Spam Filter
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 13.98
Total : 13.98
117486 2/25/2010 062693 US BANK 3223 Survey Monkey + Late Charge
Survey Monkey + Late Charge
001.000.510.522.200.490.00 21.95
Total : 21.95
117487 2/25/2010 062693 US BANK 022810 POSTAL MAILING OF PASSPORT APPLICATIONS
POSTAL MAILING OF PASSPORT APPLICATIONS
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 96.20
Total : 96.20
117488 2/25/2010 062693 US BANK 8669 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS
LEADERSHIP & SUPERVISION TRAINING @ ED
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 289.00
ASST. SEEDS
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 23.23
AD SPACE FOR WRITE ON THE SOUND
123.000.640.573.100.440.00 1,092.50
GYM WIPES
001.000.640.575.540.310.00 41.27
DISCOVERY PROGRAM MATERIALS
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 13.90
50Page:
Packet Page 72 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
51
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117488 2/25/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
CALENDAR FOR OWEN CADDY
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 10.89
SEEDS
001.000.640.576.810.310.00 202.95
SEATTLE NW FLOWER & GARDEN SHOW
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 126.00
STAMP PADS FOR GYMNASTICS
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 24.09
GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTY SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 61.32
PRESCHOOL POCKET CALENDAR & SEASONAL
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 34.13
NEW CD/IPOD BOOMBOX FOR RHYTHMIC &
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 86.49
ITHACA RIBBONS FOR CREDIT CARD PRINTER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 148.92
US FLAG & BASE FOR PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 21.05
EGG HUNT PRIZES
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 91.98
KENMORE VACUUM FOR PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 54.74
Total : 2,322.46
117489 2/25/2010 062693 US BANK 2462 Home Depot-Tools for computer repair
Home Depot-Tools for computer repair
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 27.34
CDW-Credit Card Reader for P&R
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 95.71
Northern Tool-IT Misc Parts
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 138.18
Domain Name Registration
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 38.85
MonoPrice-Misc Parts
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 55.76
51Page:
Packet Page 73 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
52
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117489 2/25/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Northern Tool-Misc Parts
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 180.79
Target-Voice to computer digital
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 109.49
Cables to go-Cables & Jacks
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 44.56
Nuance-Dragon Naturally Speaking 10.1
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 131.34
Nuance-Dragon Baturally Speaking 10.1
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 164.24
newegg.com-Secure Digital High Capacity
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 391.96
Innovation First Inc-Adapter kits for
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 621.83
Late fee
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 20.21
Home Depot-Return Tool Kit2462
Home Depot-Return Tool Kit
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 -21.87
Cleverbridge-return disk director
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 -609.00
Total : 1,389.39
117490 2/25/2010 062693 US BANK 3462 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD
Misc recorded documents
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 84.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 372.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 372.00
Total : 828.00
117491 2/25/2010 062693 US BANK 3355 2010 MUTCD Books for Traffic Control
2010 MUTCD Books for Traffic Control
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 220.00
52Page:
Packet Page 74 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
53
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117491 2/25/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Unit 90 - Town & Country - Switch Doc3363
Unit 90 - Town & Country - Switch Doc
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.57
Fleet Shop - Mag Charger bulb
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 8.75
Unit 372 - Part
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.97
Units 203,582,405 - Radios Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 369.85
Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 84.76
Unit 099 - Transmitter
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 350.78
Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 44.69
Unit M-16 - Door Stop
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.52
Unit 337 - Printer Mount
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 194.18
Guardian Secuity - Old PW3405
Guardian Secuity - Old PW
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00
BOC 2010 Cert Renewal - L LaFave
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 55.00
BOC 2010 Cert Renewal - D Startzman
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 55.00
BOC 2010 Cert Renewal - D Housler
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 55.00
Guardian Security - Old PW
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00
Sewer - National Safety Return Postage3546
Sewer - National Safety Return Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 4.80
Fleet -Setcom Corp Return Postage
53Page:
Packet Page 75 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
54
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117491 2/25/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 19.60
Sewer - TV Truck Computer Keyboard
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 35.05
Office Max Part 1 of 2 - PW Admin -
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 27.37
Office Max - Part 2 of 2 - Water - 5
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 18.60
Total : 1,698.49
117492 2/25/2010 062693 US BANK 3389 Refreshments for Council Meetings
Refreshments for Council Meetings
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 21.50
Red Lion accommondations for
001.000.110.511.100.430.00 112.84
2010 Council Retreat Lunch
001.000.110.511.100.430.00 166.46
Total : 300.80
117493 2/25/2010 062693 US BANK 1000 Wichers/Johnson/Lemcke Training
Wichers/Johnson/Lemcke Training
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 750.00
Chave Training - APA National Conf.
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 595.00
Hotel Accommodations Chave APA National
001.000.620.558.600.430.00 150.00
Mailing Services Parks & Rec
001.000.640.574.100.490.00 21.03
Stormwater code update
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 8.64
Sepa Mailing Eng
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 21.80
Rob English 2010 APWA Spring Conf.
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 400.00
Total : 1,946.47
54Page:
Packet Page 76 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
55
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117494 2/25/2010 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS T0298897B INV#T0298897B EDMONDS PD
PAGER & MESSAGING 2/27-3/26/2010
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 182.73
Total : 182.73
117495 2/25/2010 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 0010115 utility locates
utility locates
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 79.43
utility locates
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 79.43
utility locates
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 81.84
Total : 240.70
117496 2/25/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 53.54
YOST POOL425-775-2645
YOST POOL
001.000.640.575.510.420.00 57.08
Total : 110.62
117497 2/25/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-2844 POLICE T1 LINE
Police T1 Line 2/10-3/9/10
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 381.64
Total : 381.64
117498 2/25/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425 712-0423 03 0260 1032797592 07
AFTER HOURS PHONES
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 61.16
Total : 61.16
117499 2/25/2010 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-7147 LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 19.96
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE425-672-7132
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE
55Page:
Packet Page 77 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
56
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117499 2/25/2010 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 95.58
TELEMETRY STATIONS425-712-0417
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 27.65
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 27.64
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.39
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 71.93
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 60.42
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 60.42
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 80.56
Sewer - PW Telemetry425-774-1031
Sewer - PW Telemetry
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 45.77
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS425-775-1534
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 320.99
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 596.11
Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 52.90
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 43.02
Sewer LS 7425-776-2742
Sewer LS 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.48
PUBLIC WORKS CPNNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133
56Page:
Packet Page 78 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
57
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117499 2/25/2010 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48
Public Works Connection to 911
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78
Total : 1,652.32
117500 2/25/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0842443164 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg 1/13-2/12/10
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 120.45
Cell Service-Eng 1/13-2/12/10
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 171.16
Cell Service Fac-Maint 1/13-2/12/10
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 114.95
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.22
Cell Service Parks Maint 1/13-2/12/10
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 60.24
Cell Service-PD 1/13-2/12/10
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 536.85
Cell Service-Planning 1/13-2/12/10
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.44
Cell Service-PW Street 1/13-2/12/10
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 26.58
Cell Service-PW Storm 1/13-2/12/10
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 27.45
Cell Service-PW Water 1/13-2/12/10
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 68.43
57Page:
Packet Page 79 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
58
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
117500 2/25/2010 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Cell Service-PW Fleet 1/13-2/12/10
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.22
Cell Service-WWTP 1/13-2/12/10
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 39.66
Total : 1,218.65
117501 2/25/2010 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2011-0313 INV#2011-0313 EDMONDS PD - HOSTAGE NEGOT
HOSTAGE NEG. 1/25-29/10 FROLAND
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 25.00
Total : 25.00
117502 2/25/2010 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 43309 INV#43309 - EDMONDS PD - #10-0576
TOWING 2002 ESCALADE 812XZN
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total : 173.01
117503 2/25/2010 045912 WASPC 10204 ELECTRONIC MONITORING SERVICE
ELECTRONIC MONITORING SERVICE
001.000.230.523.200.510.00 454.25
Total : 454.25
117504 2/25/2010 045912 WASPC 2009-00324 INV#2009-00324 EDMONDS PD - COMPAAN
ACTIVE DUES
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 365.00
Total : 365.00
117505 2/25/2010 045912 WASPC 022554 INV#0022554 - ANDERSON/EDMONDS PD
ACCREDITATION TRAINING 2/9/10
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 25.00
Total : 25.00
117506 2/25/2010 070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS 2 4181-03M
Reidy Conflit Legal Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 3,182.00
58Page:
Packet Page 80 of 178
02/25/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
59
3:28:21PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total : 3,182.00 117506 2/25/2010 070796 070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS
117507 2/25/2010 073137 WELCH-LANG, CAROLE CLANG0223 MONITOR TRAINING
MONITOR TRAINING 2/23/10
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 15.00
Total : 15.00
117508 2/25/2010 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 41324001 GREEN ASH
GREEN ASH
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 155.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.73
Total : 169.73
117509 2/25/2010 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 914 FEB 2010 RETAINER
Feb, 2010 Retainer
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 11,330.00
Total : 11,330.00
Bank total : 1,552,949.43 182 Vouchers for bank code :front
1,552,949.43Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 182
59Page:
Packet Page 81 of 178
AM-2841 2.D.
Claims for Damages
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Roland Yen ($150.00) and Helen Belvin
(amount undetermined).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute
entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Claims for Damages were submitted by:
Rolando Yen
18211 Homeview Drive
Edmonds, WA 98026
($150.00)
Helen Belvin
4757 45th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98105
(amount undetermined)
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 02-18-10 Claim for Damages (Yen)
Link: 2-24-10 Claim for Damages (Belvin)
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 09:29 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/25/2010 11:23 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 02:07 PM APRV
Packet Page 82 of 178
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/18/2010 04:37
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 83 of 178
Packet Page 84 of 178
Packet Page 85 of 178
Packet Page 86 of 178
Packet Page 87 of 178
Packet Page 88 of 178
AM-2847 2.E.
Authorization to Surplus City Vehicles
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Kim Karas
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:Consent
Department:Public Works Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to surplus City vehicles and to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with James G. Murphy
to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment.
Previous Council Action
Previously, the city has utilized the services of James Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city
vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items.
Narrative
The following vehicles and equipment have become surplus and are the vehicles and equipment
Public Works wishes to auction with James G. Murphy:
VEHICLES
Minimum
Unit # Dept. Description VIN Number Residual Value
485 Fire 2001 Ford E-450 Aid Car 1FDXE45F01HB14423 $6,000.
487 Fire 1999 Ford E-350 Aid Car 1FDWE30F3XHC21309 $4,000.
Forfeiture Police 2000 Jeep Cherokee 1J4GW58N4YC106501 $4,000.
234 Police 2004 Ford Crown Victoria 2FAHAP71W34X173034 $100.
EQUIPMENT
Fourteen (14) studded snow tires $10/each
One (1) 5250 Watt Power Back Generator $100
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Packet Page 89 of 178
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/24/2010 09:46 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/25/2010 11:23 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 02:07 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kim
Karas
Started On: 02/23/2010 11:49
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 90 of 178
AM-2848 2.F.
Conference Registration Funds for Edmonds Arts Commission
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Frances Chapin Time:
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to expend budgeted conference registration funds for Edmonds Arts Commissioners.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize expenditure of up to $500 budgeted in the 117-100 for Arts Commissioners to attend
2010 statewide Cultural Congress.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Washington Cultural Congress, an annual conference put on by the Washington State Arts
Alliance, is the primary gathering of arts administrators and members of community based arts
organizations in the state. This year the conference is being held in Stevenson, WA, April 26-28,
2010. The Arts Commission requests authorization to use budgeted funds of up to $500 to register
one or more Arts Commissioners to attend this conference. Commissioners pay for their own
accommodations. Sessions this year include workshops on funding challenges facing arts
organizations, marketing the arts, arts education, and websites for arts organizations. This is a key
opportunity for Commissioners to learn more about arts endeavors throughout Washington and
Oregon and most importantly to participate in workshops that will benefit the Commission’s own
programs and planning. Knowledge gained from attending this conference will be helpful in
implementing the goals of the EAC strategic plan and the Community Cultural Plan.
City Council authorization is required as per Ordinance 2893 (Section 1, 2.25.050, D).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Cultural Congress brochure
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/23/2010 01:23 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/23/2010 01:26 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/23/2010 02:44 PM APRV
Form Started By: Frances
Chapin
Started On: 02/23/2010 12:21
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/23/2010
Packet Page 91 of 178
Packet Page 92 of 178
Packet Page 93 of 178
AM-2842 2.G.
Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish Co. to Surplus and Transfer Title for a Police
Vehicle
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Kim Karas
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:Consent
Department:Public Works Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County to surplus
and transfer title for one (1) totaled police vehicle.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the Mayor be authorized to enter into an interlocal agreement to surplus
and transfer title for one (1) totaled police vehicle to Snohomish County.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
In 2006, Unit #719, a Police Division 2006 Ford Crown Victoria, was involved in an
accident which left it totaled. The City's Fleet Division stripped all usable parts from the vehicle
and has declared the vehicle surplus. Since the City has determined that the cost of selling or
disposing of the vehicle would either equal or exceed its residual value, the City Attorney has
instead prepared an Interlocal Agreement which allows Snohomish County to take possession of
the vehicle. This will save the City the cost of disposing of the vehicle and allows Snohomish
County to use this vehicle as a live shooting prop at its shooting range, which Edmonds Police
also use for ongoing training.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attachment 1 - Interlocal Agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 02:07 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/25/2010 04:00 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 04:06 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kim
Karas
Started On: 02/19/2010 08:57
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 94 of 178
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 95 of 178
Packet Page 96 of 178
Packet Page 97 of 178
Packet Page 98 of 178
Packet Page 99 of 178
AM-2849 2.H.
Snohomish County PUD Easement
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Robert English Time:Consent
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Snohomish County PUD Distribution Easement for the Five Corners Booster Pump
Station Upgrade Improvements project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize Mayor to sign easement with Snohomish County PUD.
Previous Council Action
On December 16, 2008, Council awarded a contract to Interwest Construction for the Five Corners
Booster Pump Upgrade Improvements project.
Narrative
During construction of the Five Corners Booster Pump Upgrade Improvements project, it was
determined that the existing Snohomish County PUD electrical service was not adequate for the
new Five Corners water system. Snohomish County PUD must install a new utility pole and
service within the distribution easement on City property to serve the new water system
improvements. The proposed easement to Snohomish County PUD has been approved by the City
Attorney and the Hearing Examiner's decision on February 19, 2010 has found the easement to be
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposed easement is attached.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: PUD Easement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 02/25/2010 01:16 PM APRV
2 Public Works Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 04:19 PM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 04:22 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/25/2010 04:24 PM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 04:45 PM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 02/23/2010 02:20
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 100 of 178
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 101 of 178
Packet Page 102 of 178
Packet Page 103 of 178
Packet Page 104 of 178
AM-2856 2.I.
City Attorney Annual Report
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Submitted For:City Attorney Scott Snyder Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
City Attorney Annual Report
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Provided for information.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the City Attorney's 2009 Annual Report.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: City Attorney 2009 Annual Report
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 03:18 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/25/2010 04:00 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 04:06 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/25/2010 03:13
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 105 of 178
{WSS766799.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101-1686 206.447.7000 Fax: 206.447.0215
Web: www.omwlaw.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 25, 2010
TO: Edmonds City Council
City of Edmonds
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE: Annual Report - 2009 - City Attorney
COUNCIL CONTROL OF LITIGATION AND BUDGET
One of the major issues which arose in 2009 was the “contingent” budget for litigation.
Litigation costs vary significantly from year to year. The City rarely brings an action itself, and
is primarily the defendant. Most of the claims against the City are handled through the
Washington Cities Insurance Authority and assigned counsel from Keating Bucklin &
McCormack. Claims which are not covered by your insurance coverage (for example
constitutional taking claims) and land use appeals are handled by the City Attorney’s office.
In the last few years, the primary source of litigation expense has been pro se suits, that is, suits
brought by individual citizens in their own capacity rather than through an attorney. Such suits
are typically more expensive to defend for a variety of reasons. Judges typically give a good
deal of latitude to pro se plaintiffs regarding pleading and discovery, and some pro se plaintiffs
unfamiliarity with the court system can result in prolonged procedural briefing and work by our
office. Other pro se plaintiffs are quite sophisticated, Lora Petso being the best example. The
major expense factor has been the sheer number of claims which Ms. Petso pleads. While the
Council President is correct that any good attorney has an ethical obligation to assert any viable
claim, Ms. Petso is a master at bringing a significant number of claims (for example, 18 counts in
her Growth Management appeal and 43 in the Burnstead LUPA matter). These result in lengthy
briefing and research. Ms. Petso never gives up. Following the City’s recent hearings, she
raised 5 additional objections to the City’s compliance efforts, resulting in further briefing.
The attached report brings the City Council up to date on four major pending claims.
Thuesen/Reidy, Petso GMHB appeal, Burnstead Construction LUPA action, and Breske LUPA
action.
Packet Page 106 of 178
Edmonds City Council
February 25, 2010
Page Two
{WSS766799.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
I have suggested to the Council President that we begin the practice of reviewing significant
ongoing litigation with the City Council quarterly. This will allow the City Council to both
review the budget and appropriate funds as it deems fit and to assume a greater role in the
conduct of litigation. Certain matters such as misdemeanors and other matters brought to
Municipal Court and code enforcement actions are within the province of a Mayor. When,
however, a matter is taken to Superior Court or higher on appeal, the City Council has the
authority to assert control over the strategy and tactics employed in a particular case.
Accordingly, I would recommend that we pursue quarterly reporting and more frequent budget
updates so that the Council is not left at the end of the year with a large unbudgeted legal cost
and questions regarding the strategy which cause those costs to be incurred.
FRANCHISES
In 2009, the use of consortiums of cities to negotiate a first franchise with Verizon and then a
transfer of that franchise to Frontier, saved the City tens of thousands of dollars by combining its
negotiation with that of other cities and Snohomish County. The strategy ultimately resulted, in
large part because of the cost-effective nature of the process, with the City being reimbursed for
its costs. It is reasonable to assume that using the consortium saved the City $50,000 to $75,000.
The City has two major expired franchises: Puget Sound Energy and Snohomish County PUD.
The franchise agreements expired in 2008 and 1967 respectively. For reasons which I would be
happy to discuss with you in executive session, prior Councils have chosen not to pursue the
renegotiation with Snohomish County PUD. The PUD asserts that it does not require a
franchise. At the Council’s convenience, I would like to discuss the cost/benefit of pursuit of a
franchise with the PUD and whether you would like to reach out to other communities to discuss
a joint negotiation with Puget Sound Energy regarding its franchise agreements.
Franchise agreements provide certain protections and indemnities to the City but, unlike cable
television franchises, are not a revenue source for the City. The City does receive revenue
through its gross receipts tax on the utility. One of the reasons that past Councils have not
chosen to pursue the PUD is that considerable costs would be expended without any additional
revenue. The sole benefit is the value of the indemnity for PUD work in the right of way which
the City could derive from the franchise agreement.
It is and has been a pleasure to serve the City. I look forward to addressing any questions which
you may have and to discussing your litigation strategy in an appropriate executive.
WSS/gjz
Packet Page 107 of 178
AM-2858 2.J.
WSLCB List
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Acceptance of list of businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the Washington
State Liquor Control Board, February 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The City Clerk’s Office, the Police department, and the Mayor’s Office have reviewed the
attached list and have no concerns with the Washington State Liquor Control Board renewing the
liquor licenses for the listed businesses.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: List
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 04:22 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/25/2010 04:24 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 04:45 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 02/25/2010 03:55
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 108 of 178
Packet Page 109 of 178
Packet Page 110 of 178
AM-2843 3.
Climate Solutions Presentation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilmember Strom Peterson Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Climate Solutions Presentation
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
Councilmember Peterson informed Council and handed out information during the 2010 Council
Retreat.
Narrative
Climate Solutions is an organization dedicated to partnering with cities in the NW to lead the way
in making the transition to a clean energy future through their “New Energy Cities” project. This
project will help member cities accelerate the transition to a clean, renewable, super-efficient
energy system that integrates smart power grids, green building design, plug-in electric vehicles,
and renewable power sources (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.). This is an informational presentation
and an opportunity for Council to consider partnering with Climate Solutions.
Attach 1 - Introduction to New Energy Cities
Attach 2 - New Energy Cities FAQ 2010.pdf
Attach 3 - New Energy Cities Workshop Outline
Attach 4 - 2010 Council Retreat Minutes
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attach 1 - Introduction to New Energy Cities
Link: Attach 2 - New Energy Cities FAQ 2010
Link: Attach 3 - New Energy Cities Workshop Outline
Link: Attach 4 - 2-5-6-10 Approved City Council Retreat Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 10:22 AM APRV
Packet Page 111 of 178
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 10:22 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/25/2010 11:23 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 02:07 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 02/19/2010 10:53
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 112 of 178
New Energy Solutions is made possible with funding from:
New Energy Cities
Creating jobs, growing the local economy, cleaning up our air and water, and achieving energy independence –
these are among the significant challenges that forward-looking community leaders must wrestle with in these
intensely challenging economic times.
Climate Solutions has a clear vision and a practical roadmap to aid pioneering local civic and elected leaders
in embracing their cities to the clean energy economy that will power America in the future and create jobs to
combat the worst economic downturn in decades.
New Energy Cities aims to accelerate the transition to a clean, renewable, super-efficient energy system with a
comprehensive systems approach that integrates:
The program leverages Federal stimulus dollars and private investment to help leading-edge cities
in the transformation to a clean, efficient 21st century energy system.
In the future, we will live and work in smart, super-efficient green buildings, powered
by clean, renewable energy and linked by a power grid that optimizes energy flows to
match supply and demand at lightning speeds. Our vehicles will draw from and feed
the grid – running mostly on electricity instead of gasoline, and when parked and
plugged in, they will offer the grid valuable battery storage capacity.
Pioneering cities will lead the country in making the transformation to this
clean-energy future. The New Energy Cities project focuses on the Northwest cities
that are best positioned and most prepared to provide ground breaking leadership to
fundamentally transform the way we power our communities.
The Vision — Pioneering Cities Lead the Way
Cities at the forefront will train and mobilize brigades of new energy workers, providing a vibrant market for
innovative local energy companies. The best of these companies will grow into powerhouses, exporting green
energy solutions around the world. Meanwhile, local businesses and residents will spend less money buying
imported energy and more of that money will stay local, multiplying the economic benefits.
Smart power grids
Green intelligent buildings
Plug-in electric vehicles and energy storage
Renewable power sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.
Packet Page 113 of 178
Contact Rhys Roth, Director of Strategic Innovation: 360.352.1763 x23; rhys@climatesolutions.org
For more information about Climate Solutions, please visit www.climatesolutions.org.
For more information on New Energy Cities:
Cities that partner with Climate Solutions to develop a New Energy City blueprint customized to their specific
economic situations will receive the following benefits:
Building from the lessons of 30 years of experience with energy retrofit programs, New Energy Cities will develop
models that yield both significant economic benefits and deep carbon emissions reduction by:
The Roadmap
Accelerating the pace and breadth of building efficiency retrofits to systematically reach buildings of all types,
capturing not just the lowest hanging fruit, but also the bigger, long-term investments that deliver much greater
energy efficiencies.
Coordinating retrofit programs with the district- and city-scale deployment of a complementary energy infra-
structure that uses clean distributed energy production, smart grid, district energy systems for heating/cooling,
and electric vehicle charging networks.
Fitting district-scale projects today into a 20-year, comprehensive program of sufficient scale to attract new pools
of investment capital – patient capital, both public and private, that seeks modest but reliable returns
We find ourselves at a moment in time where several factors are aligned: communities need new jobs; there’s
agreement that climate change economy has matured; and the Federal government has stepped up with signifi-
cant investment in energy efficiency to build a clean energy future.
Over the past 10 years, Climate Solutions has emerged as one of the most effective nonprofit organizations in
the nation. With a proven track record of providing practical and profitable solutions that galvanize leadership
to address climate change, grow investment, and offer sustainable prosperity to the Northwest and the world,
Climate Solutions is uniquely qualified to lead the New Energy Cities movement in this region.
The opportunity, funding, vision, tools, and expertise are in place to transform the Northwest into a national
clean-energy leader. New Energy Cities will seize this moment to demonstrate a new way of doing business—
harnessing investment to modernize their energy infrastructure and built environment to chart their critical path
to prosperity and reduced carbon dependence. New Energy Cities is the roadmap that will get you there. We
invite you to partner with us to blaze the path to the new energy future.
Benefits of Partnering with Climate Solutions
Consultation with a team of experts in the field of clean energy.
A one-stop shop connecting cities with regional and national experts on energy
efficiency, smart grid, renewable energy, electrified vehicles, and financing
tools.
Development of an Action Plan that engages local government, business and
civic leaders in mapping out a blueprint for how a city can move
forward most effectively in the next 18 months in implementing the
New Energy Cities vision.
Support in putting together a high-quality team to roll out the 18-month
Implementation Plan.
Seizing the Moment
Packet Page 114 of 178
New Energy Cities Frequently Asked Questions
What is the New Energy Cities Program?
The New Energy Cities program is a partnership between Climate Solutions and innovative Northwest
cities and counties that wish to be early adopters of the 21st Century clean energy system. The New
Energy Cities program embraces four key components of an integrated energy system—very efficient
and intelligent buildings, smart power grids, plug‐in electric vehicles and energy storage, and renewable
power sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.
Our goal is to help the cities and counties that we work with embrace this integrated program in ways
that create local jobs, spur economic development, reduce vulnerability to energy price swings, and
leverage public investment with large‐scale private investment.
Climate Solutions brings expertise in policy leadership, program design, finance, public engagement, and
technology to help communities develop practical, comprehensive strategies customized to their unique
circumstances and assets.
Our goal is to leverage the leadership of the pioneering communities we work with to provide model
strategies that will translate into similar success elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest and the country.
What are the components of the New Energy Cities program?
The New Energy Cities program offers the following services:
Workshop
Action Plan
Implementation Planning Consultation
Financing Framework
Communications/Public Outreach Planning
Ongoing Consultation
How does the Workshop work?
New Energy Cities experts conduct a two‐day workshop during which they provide an intensive review
of energy systems; instruct participants about the way that energy will work in the future; build capacity
among local leaders to adopt a new energy approach; and develop a common strategic focus around
which to build toward carbon‐neutrality by 2030.
New Energy Cities FAQ 1 | Page
Packet Page 115 of 178
New Energy Cities FAQ 2 | Page
New Energy Cities workshops are geared toward 25‐50 key City and or County decision‐makers—elected
officials, utility representatives, city managers, finance directors, top staff, influential local business and
nonprofit leaders. The workshop is designed to create a meaningful strategy for action, based on a 20‐
year timeline to achieve the dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions called for by the
international scientific community, and by doing so capture substantial economic benefits for the
communities who participate.
The workshop format is presentational as well as interactive focusing on five essential modules:
Buildings and Efficiency
Clean, Distributed Energy Production
Next‐Generation Infrastructure, including Smart Grid and Electrical Vehicle Interface
Financing Strategy and Tools
Leadership and Capacity‐Building
The workshop includes a visual mapping exercise to translate the emerging vision and collective
knowledge into a road map for the whole energy system. This road map is the basis for developing a
three‐year action plan for the community, which is the final outcome of the workshop.
What is the Action Plan?
The Action Plan is crafted to provide a community with three years of actions that will put it on the path
to achieve its 20‐year objectives and in this respect represents a unique transformative process for
communities that are mired in incremental processes. It distills the concepts and community input from
the workshop into a roadmap for action by each local jurisdiction—mapping the most important steps to
take in the next three‐six months, the next six‐12 months, and the next 18‐36 months.
The Action Plan recommends program structure, policy, capacity building, community engagement, and
finance strategies based on an understanding of what’s needed in every community, but tailored to the
local context.
The core purpose of the Action Plan is to affirm the community’s ability to achieve this great challenge—
long‐term transition to a clean energy system that drives economic development, upgrades local
infrastructure, attracts large‐scale private investment, and achieves needed greenhouse gas reductions
and environmental performance.
What is in the Implementation Plan?
Implementation of this Action Plan requires a community to be strategic and committed to the
transformation of its energy systems. Once a community has gone through the process of developing its
Action Plan, Climate Solutions works closely with community leaders and key staff to design an
Implementation Plan, identifying short‐term resource needs and sources, facilitating rapid development
of pilot projects at scale, and supporting an intensive engagement of the broader community about the
Action Plan and what it will mean for the community.
What is in the Financing Plan?
Success in the New Energy Cities program is based on the proven reality that each of the components of
the Action Plan represents investments that can be tied to appropriate investors. Climate Solutions
Packet Page 116 of 178
provides the support and expertise necessary to create the financing tools essential for the scope and
scale of work by helping a community think and operate with an investor orientation.
We help identify the critical elements of policy and institutional structure necessary to leverage very
large amounts of investment capital available to finance improvements in building performance,
infrastructure, and clean, distributed energy producing technologies. The Financing Plan provides the
necessary capital for an aggressive approach to transforming the energy system by emphasizing the role
that scale and risk management play in enabling private investment capital to participate in these
activities.
What does the Ongoing Consultation provide?
While the Action Plan and associated implementation and financing support is critical to the New Energy
Cities, we also understand that every community needs help building their capacity to have the
wherewithal to carry on for the next 20 years. Our role can include ongoing, direct support to key staff
and leadership as they build their own expertise, confidence, and track record of success.
For information please contact:
Eileen V. Quigley
New Energy Cities
eileen@climatesolutions.org
http://www.climatesolutions.org/solutions/initiatives/NES
206.579.9644 (m)
206.526.8657 (o)
New Energy Cities works with Northwest cities to accelerate the transition to a clean, renewable, super‐
efficient energy system that integrates smart power grids, green intelligent buildings, plug‐in electric
vehicles, and renewable power sources.
New Energy Cities FAQ 3 | Page
Packet Page 117 of 178
New Energy Cities Workshop Outline
Introduction
New Energy Cities Framework: Blueprint for Jobs and Innovation
Why this framework? Where has this worked elsewhere? What is our challenge?
Buildings and Efficiency
Buildings and energy use overview [how much will be demolished in the next 10‐20 years, how much will
be newly constructed: half of existing building stock can become more energy efficient through tear down
& rehab) U.S. energy use (buildings, industry, transportation)
U.S. electricity use (buildings, industry)
Characteristics of the national electrical grid (hydro, coal, natural gas, etc)
Abatement curve [Cost of abatement per ton of GHG, shows you what you can do for net cost]
What is net zero & what does it take? [factors in building performance, real time feedback, optimizing
costs]
Local and State policies on building efficiency [example of net zero policy] Examples of initiatives
underway
Real time feedback, need for information and data for the consumer, getting them to monitor and abate
their behavior
Building report card (goal to have these be part of inspection)
Take away points:
1. Buildings use a lot of energy, nationally and locally and offer a significant opportunity for energy efficiency
when retrofitted and built new.
2. Enormous opportunity for adjusting energy use (more bang for your buck)
3. Buildings that have the capability to give real time feedback information about energy use make it
possible for occupants and owners to have the data to reduce their energy use.
Renewable Energy
Overview of types of renewable energy discussed (solar, wind, fuel cells etc)
Distributed generation: technologies, applications, trends, emerging models
Federal & State incentives [and GHG regulation]
Overview of market status of each type [i.e. what is the current capacity for each type in the U.S.?]
Overview of cost per MWh in the U.S.
Challenges (upfront costs, transmission, permitting, markets)
PGE/Salem electric efforts on renewable energy
Austin TX example
Take away points:
1. Communities have multiple options for renewable energy technology.
2. Incentives and regulation are key to the development of cost‐effective renewable energy technologies
3. Short‐term costs are a significant challenge but the integration of renewables and efficiency can help
overcome short‐term cost barriers
Packet Page 118 of 178
Next Generation Energy Infrastructure
Electric vehicles (EV); EV components and infrastructure; market projections; financial incentives
Current opportunity (EV’s): US DOE grant; Oregon programs, etc
Existing opportunities (EV’s, expansion of bike/ ped infrastructure, transit, etc.)
What is the Smart Grid and Smart Meters
Potential benefits and challenges
District Energy [what is it and how does it work?]
Take away points:
1. Energy infrastructure will evolve in several key ways:
a. Smart Grid ‐ the array of technologies will bring greater intelligence and interactivity to energy
distribution and consumption
b. Electric vehicle interconnection will offer major opportunities for upgrading systems
c. Urban energy storage will become an increasingly important element of energy infrastructure
planning
2. Unprecedented amounts of capital are being directed to energy infrastructure upgrades
3. State and Local initiatives can accelerate implementation, align with other energy system activities (e.g.,
retrofits), and attract additional investments
4. Consideration of energy infrastructure relates to alternative transportation and land use efforts, notably
around in‐fill development and vehicle fuels
Sustainable Industry and Jobs
Green jobs & workforce innovation
Market sectors represented; growth projections; jobs
Related federal and state directives
Sustainable economy road map
Take away points:
1. Why are green jobs important?
2. What are components of sustainable economic development?
3. How does a city mobilize resources to create green jobs?
Finance
Role of local government [policy, collaboration, investment]
Importance of partnerships; leveraging funds
Finance innovation
Examples around the country
Take away points:
1. Financing for clean energy is fluid and cutting edge. There are a variety of financing models being
developed around the country, which we will describe.
2. You can do LIDs, Special Purpose Districts, private capital, charitable dollars, bonds, etc.
3. The goal is to create models that enable a combination of public and private resources that will be
deployed as appropriate given the nature and scope of the projects to be financed, enabling both patient
capital and capital that demands a higher and swifter return.
New Energy Solutions eileen@climatesolutions.org 206.579.9644
Packet Page 119 of 178
New Energy Solutions eileen@climatesolutions.org
For Information
Eileen V. Quigley
Program Director, New Energy Cities
eileen@climatesolutions.org
http://www.climatesolutions.org/solutions/initiatives/NES
206.579.9644 (m)
206.526.8657 (o)
New Energy Cities works with Northwest cities to accelerate the transition to a clean, renewable, super‐efficient
energy system that integrates smart power grids, green intelligent buildings, plug‐in electric vehicles, and
renewable power sources.
206.579.9644
Packet Page 120 of 178
Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 16
D. Long Range Task Force Future
Council President Bernheim encouraged the Long Range Task Force to meet and discuss items suggested in B
above.
Councilmember Peterson referred to information he distributed regarding Climate Solutions new energy cities.
Climate Solutions is similar in structure to Cascade Land Conservancy, with a certain number of consulting
hours for a fee. Their goal is to create climate solution cities, help cities create environmental plans as well as
help cities identify funds. He planned to meet with Climate Solutions next week and offered to provide more
information to the Council.
Topic 6: Revitalization of Senior Center/Future Planning
Rose Cantwell, President, South County Senior Center Board, explained over the past year 170+ volunteers
donated 32,054 hours. If they were paid $9/hour, the cost would be $288,576. The amount of volunteer time
has been consistent over the past 5 years – a total of $1.4 million over five years. She considered the volunteer
hours a gift to the City and the taxpayers and hoped to partner with the City on plans for the site’s future.
Kathy McNulty, South County Senior Center VP Board of Directors and Chair of the Strategic Planning
Committee, described two new members who chose to retire in Edmonds after learning about the programs
offered by the South County Senior Center. She referred to the City’s interest in promoting tourism and
attracting visitors, pointing out the Senior Center could be one of the attractions. She described programs that
could be offered that would attract younger members and commented on the need to revitalize the public’s
image of Senior Center, the location of the Center at the hub of many transportation modes, opportunity for the
Center to be a partner in the development of downtown/waterfront, services offered by the Center in addition to
recreation programs, and the Center’s access to funding sources not available to the City.
She expressed the Center’s desire to develop a partnership with the City, community groups and the business
community; to increase the number of people they serve; to institute innovative programs; and to be financially
sound. However, the condition of the building and the Center’s future on this site impedes those efforts. In
order to partner with the City on capital grants and to run a capital campaign, the Center needs a commitment
from the City that it supports the Center’s continued use of the site. She requested the Council reaffirm the
resolution passed in 1977 regarding the Center’s use of the site. She clarified the Senior Center wants to retain
use of the site; the resolution specifies the current address of the Center.
Council suggestions included seeking input from administration and staff regarding the resolution, scheduling
consideration of the resolution on a future agenda, and partnering with the Center to develop a vision for the
site.
Closing Remarks
Councilmembers thanked staff and Council President Bernheim.
Council President Bernheim thanked the South County Senior Center for hosting the Council retreat.
The retreat was adjourned at 12:27 p.m.
Packet Page 121 of 178
AM-2845 4.
Report of Community Service Announcements
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilman Plunkett Time:10 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Report of Community Service Announcements
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
None
Previous Council Action
Resolution 1179 from 7/28/2008
Narrative
Community Services Announcements.
Attach 1: Plunkett 7/11/2008 Memo to Council
Attach 2: 8/5/2008 City Council Minutes
Attach 3: Resolution 1179
Attach 4: 2/5-6/2010 Council Retreat Minutes
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attach 1 Councilman Plunkett's Memo 7-11-08
Link: Attach 2 - 8-5-2009 CM
Link: Attach 3 - Reso No 1179
Link: Plunkett\Attach 4 - 02-05 and 02-06-10 Approved City Council Retreat Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 09:29 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/25/2010 11:23 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 02:07 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 02/22/2010 09:54
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 122 of 178
Packet Page 123 of 178
City of Edmonds
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 11, 2008
To: Councilmembers
From: Michael Plunkett, Council President
Subject: Chamber of Commerce Public Service Announcements
An issue and an idea continue to come up. Several great local organizations ask for
time at Council meetings to make public service announcements. Most recently the
Chamber has asked to be put first on agendas for about ten announcements over the
rest of the year. Complying with this request would be a violation of existing council
policy for order on agenda and, in general, would not be fair to other organizations. I
was elected Council President to uphold Council policy and to administer it fairly and
openly. I may have a solution for your consideration.
This kind of issue comes up all the time. I have spend time speaking to some folks
about this before. So here is what I’m going to do. I will put on each agenda a five
minute Public Service Announcement item at the start of each meeting. This way the
opportunity to make a PSA will be equitable for all and avoids just setting aside time for
one organization when there many worthy organizations.
Hence, to make this an equitable situation for all those who meet the criteria (see Mr.
Clifton’s policy for existing criteria for PSA); I am going to allow a five-minute segment at
the beginning of the agenda for public service announcements.
In the beginning, I would like to do this on a trial basis; and if it presents too many
difficulties or the Council is not on board with this, we can rethink it. But I would like to
give all the worthy organizations an opportunity. Now I know there maybe some details
to work out but why not give it a try and see how it works.
Thanks for your consideration.
Attachment 1
C: Mayor Haakenson
Stephen Clifton, Director CS/ED
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
COUNCIL OFFICE
L:\Productiondb\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0026_2845_Attach 1 Councilman Plunkett's Memo 7-11-08.doc
Packet Page 124 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 2
ITEM F: AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS FROM
CONSULTING FIRMS FOR CONSULTANT TEAMS TO PERFORM AN AQUATICS
CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the Aquatics Center Feasibility Study would allow the Parks
Department to solicit an expert to evaluate the community for an aquatics center. He noted the $60,000
budgeted for the study was a reasonable amount considering the scope of the project that would provide costs
and benefits of different types of aquatic centers. He supported the expenditure for the feasibility study,
acknowledging although there were many enthusiastic supporters of an aquatics center, not all citizens were
swimmers.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F.
Council President Plunkett advised there was a panel established to select a consultant and asked if another
Councilmember in addition to Councilmember Wilson was interested in participating. Councilmember Orvis
volunteered to participate on the selection panel.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM H: RESOLUTION NO. 1179 – ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR USE OF THE "COMMUNITY
SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT" PORTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the 15 minute timeframe would be added to the beginning or end
of Council meetings and the difference between public service announcements and audience comments.
Council President Plunkett responded the public service announcements would be scheduled at the beginning
of the meeting. The difference was convenience; a community organization requested an opportunity to
speak to the Council at the beginning of the meeting about upcoming events. However, the Council’s rules
did not allow that order on the agenda, resulting in their presentation occurring late in the evening. Further,
audience comments are limited to three minutes and often public service announcements cannot be
accomplished within three minutes. Council President Plunkett summarized public service announcements
were an opportunity for an organization that met the criteria to spend 3-5 minutes making a public service
announcement.
Councilmember Bernheim preferred at least for the time being, due to the length of recent Council meetings
and weighty issues the Council was considering, not to add a 15 minute period for public service
announcements at the beginning of the meeting. He strongly supported pre-recording and airing the
announcements on Channel 21.
Council President Plunkett did not anticipate the public service announcements would take 15 minutes at
every meeting, noting the organizations needed to notify City Clerk Sandy Chase or him prior to the meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM H. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM OPPOSED.
3A. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Pat Greenstreet, Team Captain, Team Peggy, recognized several members of the team in the audience.
She explained Team Peggy was named after Councilmember Peggy Pritchard-Olson. The team’s missions
were, first and most important to support Councilmember Olson on her journey with ALS as well as increase
awareness of Lou Gehrig’s Disease, known as ALS, and to raise money for the ALS Association. She
invited the Council and the public to visit their booth at the Saturday Market, the Taste of Edmonds, and the
Art Walk. She announced upcoming events including a card-marking workshop to benefit the ALS
Association at United Methodist Church on August 24 from 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. and the Walk to Defeat ALS at
Aquatics
Center
Feasibility
Study
Res# 1179
Community
Service
Announce-
ment
Public Service
Announce-
ments
Team Peggy /
ALS Fund-
raising &
Awareness
Packet Page 125 of 178
Packet Page 126 of 178
Packet Page 127 of 178
Packet Page 128 of 178
Packet Page 129 of 178
Packet Page 130 of 178
Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes
February 5-6, 2010
Page 7
The Council discussed meeting starting time, duration of meetings, and too many items on agenda not providing
enough time to address important issues. Suggestions included prioritizing agendas more carefully, selecting a
time such as 11:00 p.m. to stop the meeting, continuing lengthy meetings to the next evening, asking questions
of staff prior to meetings, using the committee process to research items, having discussion on items one
meeting and a decision at the next meeting, and providing materials regarding major topics to Council a week
ahead of the meeting.
B. Conduct
Suggestions included more productive interactions between Councilmembers and with the public at meetings,
monitoring responses to public comments and between Councilmembers and taking a break if verbal altercations
arise between Councilmembers.
C. Adoption and Use of Rules of Order
Information provided as resource.
D. Outside Council Committees
Council President Bernheim advised appointment to the SeaShore Transportation Forum was still open.
Following a brief discussion, Council President Bernheim invited Councilmembers to submit suggestions for
committees that could be discontinued.
E. Questions/Research Requests to Staff
Council President Bernheim relayed that Mayor Haakenson did not mind Councilmembers making requests
directly to staff as long as they copied him on their request. Council President Bernheim urged discretion in the
number of requests Councilmembers made of staff. It was suggested Councilmembers email questions to staff
prior to meetings to provide adequate time to research and respond to a question at the Council meeting.
F. Public Service Announcements
Councilmember Plunkett recalled an agenda item that allowed non-profit entities to make a public service
announcement was previously initiated and later discontinued. It was the consensus of the Council to add this to
the agenda, limit announcements to 5 minutes each and a total of 15 minutes per meeting with the Council
President having discretion to schedule announcements based on length of agendas, organizations submit their
request to Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman and to publicize the opportunity on Channel 21.
Topic 2: City Operations
A. Review Legal Counsel Contract/Labor Negotiations
Council President Bernheim explained the packet contained information regarding the labor contract schedule as
well as a list of firms that provide labor negotiation services.
Human Resources Director Debi Humann described how labor negotiations are conducted with bargaining units
and who has participated in the past. She commented on the reasons the City has utilized City Attorney Scott
Snyder in labor negotiations in the past is he also defends contracts against grievances and is familiar with past
practices and the City’s history with unions.
Discussion followed regarding benefits of using a consultant to assist with negotiations, possible financial
savings via good contract negotiations, and a suggestion for a hybrid whereby the Mayor, Ms. Humann and the
Packet Page 131 of 178
AM-2853 5.
Public Hearing on Interim Ordinance 3779
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Submitted For:City Attorney Scott Snyder Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3779 - Amending the provisions of ECDC
20.110.040(F) Monetary Penalties in the Civil Enforcement Process, clarifying the impact of
the amendment on existing code enforcement actions.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing on the Interim Ordinance. No
action is required. A public hearing is required to be held within 60 days for interim ordinances.
Previous Council Action
On January 19, 2010, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 3779.
Narrative
Section 3 of Ordinance No. 3779 reads: "In accordance with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.390,
a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance within sixty (60) days of its adoption. The City
Clerk is hereby authorized to provide notice of such hearing for the 2nd day of March, 2010 at
7:00 p.m. before the City Council, or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard."
Attached are copies of the following documents:
1. City Attorney Scott Snyder memorandum included in the 01-19-10 City Council packet on this
topic.
2. 01-19-10 City Council Meeting Minutes
3. Ordinance No. 3779
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: City Attorney Memo from 01-19 Council Packet
Link: 01-19-10 City Council Minutes, Pgs 12-15
Link: Ordinance 3779
Packet Page 132 of 178
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 02:07 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/25/2010 04:00 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 04:06 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/25/2010 01:41
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 133 of 178
{WSS756753.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101-1686 206.447.7000 Fax: 206.447.0215
Web: www.omwlaw.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 30, 2009
TO: Edmonds City Council
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE:Post v. Tacoma and the City’s Civil Enforcement Process
On October 15, 2009, the Washington Supreme Court held that the City of Tacoma civil
enforcement procedures violated constitutional due process protections. A number of the defects
cited by the Court in Post v. Tacoma are not applicable to the City’s enforcement procedures.
The City’s procedures do, however, provide for the continuation of daily fines without
specifying an appeal process. The ordinance should be clarified that such fines may continue to
accrue and be addressed only after additional notice of civil violation and opportunity for appeal.
Post v. Tacoma. Cities are permitted pursuant to RCW 70.80.010 to either utilize a court of
limited jurisdiction for civil infraction processes or adopt their own system. The Supreme Court
summarized the statute:
… a local jurisdiction may enforce civil infractions ‘pursuant to its
own system established by ordinance’ RCW 7.80.010(5). But, to
the extent cities do not establish a system for hearing and
determining infractions, the judicial track is by default the system
authorized by law.
Post, at 1185.
The City of Tacoma’s ordinance utilized its municipal court system and did not establish their
own procedures. The City of Edmonds’ process is a separate process utilizing the City’s Hearing
Examiner. Unlike the City of Tacoma process provides notice of repeat violations [ECDC
20.110.040(B)(2)] and an opportunity for appeal to the Hearing Examiner [ECDC
20.110.040(C)]. Because the City of Tacoma’s procedures did to utilize a separate process, the
Land Use Petition Act 21-day appeal period was not applicable to them. The City’s procedures
Packet Page 134 of 178
Edmonds City Council
December 30, 2009
Page Two
{WSS756753.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
do establish a separate process and are subject to the LUPA appeal period. Therefore, the City’s
ordinance is not subject to a number of the challenges raised in Post.
The City’s procedures provide for continuing fines and do not clearly state the need for
additional notice and opportunity for hearing before those fines can be assessed. ECDC
20.110.040(F) At the present time, the City has one case on appeal that involves the assessment
of continuing fines (Locke), as well as six pending civil enforcement actions on which fines
accrue. The Reidy appeal has not yet been set for hearing.
Attached for your consideration is an interim zoning ordinance. The Council may either
consider the ordinance at its meeting of January 19 without public hearing or may set a public
hearing for January 19 in order to hear from the public before acting. Regardless, the City’s
ordinance needs to be amended at your earliest opportunity to bring it into conformance with the
Supreme Court’s decision in Post v. Tacoma. The interim ordinance also addresses pending
cases requiring either dismissal or notice and rehearing to assess additional fines.
WSS/gjz
Attachment
Packet Page 135 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 12
permanent homeless shelter, it could be deleted. The intent of that sentence was to identify dangers
associated with living outside as well as seeking shelter in inappropriate settings.
Councilmember Wilson recalled there was discussion of a limit of 14 days in order to define temporary.
Mr. Snyder answered the duration of temperatures below 33 degrees would determine the length of time
the shelter was operated. He used “as forecast by the National Weather Service” to allow churches to
plan ahead rather than watching the thermometer.
For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Snyder explained the compliance permit would be applied for ahead of
time; a church would apply once and have an annual review. Enforcement would then be a discretionary
matter by the Building Official and Fire Marshal.
In light of the Fire Marshal’s concerns, Councilmember Wilson supported utilizing volunteers such as
Mr. VanTassell to review the City’s ordinances but to err on the side of protecting the homeless from
weather rather than from fire particularly with alternatives to fire sprinklers.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE ALTERNATIVE A, ORDINANCE NO. 3778, AMENDING
THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 19.00 TO ADD A NEW SECTION 19.00.040, EXCLUSION OF
CHURCHES PROVIDING EMERGENCY HOUSING FOR THE INDIGENT FROM CERTAIN
REQUIREMENTS.
Councilmember Wilson summarized this was good policy and reflected the resolution the Council
unanimously approved. He commended Rev. Hansen, Kerry St. Clair Ayers and others for their
assistance.
Councilmember Peterson looked forward to the discussion of emergency shelters such as tent city, noting
this was an important step for the Council to take.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
REGARDING AMENDMENT OF ECDC 20.110.040(F) OF THE CITY'S CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
PROCEDURES RELATING TO CONTINUING FINES AND VIOLATIONS IN ORDER TO
CONFORM TO POST V. TACOMA
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained on October 15, 2009, the Washington Supreme Court held that the
City of Tacoma civil enforcement procedures violated constitutional due process protections. The ruling
was based on a continuing fine provision; once a person was found to be in violation, fines would
continue to accrue. A number of the defects cited by the Court in Post v. Tacoma are not applicable to the
City’s enforcement procedures. However, the City’s procedures do provide for the continuation of daily
fines without specifying an appeal process. The ordinance should be clarified that such fines may
continue to accrue and be addressed only after additional notice of civil violation and opportunity for
appeal.
Mr. Snyder advised he provided the Council his response to questions posed by Council President
Bernheim as well as corrected a word in the ordinance (replacing “explanation” in Section 1 of the
ordinance with “expiration.”
Councilmember Orvis understood there was a right to appeal a code enforcement action to a Hearing
Examiner. Mr. Snyder explained the civil enforcement process had two steps, first the Notice to Correct.
The Notice to Correct could be issued by various officials with various appeal routes depending on
whether it is a building code, zoning code or nuisance provision. Once a Notice to Correct is issued, if
Packet Page 136 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 13
not complied with or appealed, the second step is a Notice of Violation. The Notice of Violation can be
appealed to the violations Hearing Examiner. Section F provides for after the Hearing Examiner has
made her determination, fines continue to accrue. For example there are pending actions in Edmonds
where people have accrued thousands of dollars in fines. The Supreme Court held that the person
accruing the fines must be given another opportunity to appeal if they correct the situation.
The interim ordinance, 1) provides a clear cut off and a new notice and opportunity so that fines do not
continue to accrue and 2) offers two alternatives for the current violators – dismiss the matter entirely or
give notice and an opportunity to appeal.
Councilmember Orvis provided an example: if he built a garage 50 feet tall, was cited and refused to
remove it and was assessed fines. The interim ordinance would provide another opportunity regarding the
fines. If the person is found to be in violation, the interim ordinance would require staff to return to the
Hearing Examiner, giving new notice to the person every time a new fine was imposed and providing a
new appeal opportunity.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented there was nothing wrong with this section of the code. In fact the
code enforcement section of the City’s website was one of the most informative. The ordinance is very
good and outlines a three step process, an Order to Correct and following an administrative hearing if the
order is not followed, staff has the opportunity to issue a Notice of Violation. The person is not obligated
to appeal until the Notice of Violation is issued. He expressed concern that his email to the Council
regarding this subject was ignored. He questioned why there was a continued misrepresentation of the
facts. He was suspect of interim ordinances and was concerned that interim ordinances were being
pushed through without public comment and very little information. He questioned the applicability of
Tacoma’s code to Edmonds, pointing out Tacoma has an administrative hearing prior to the Notice of
Violation. He urged the Council not to adopt the proposed interim ordinance before reviewing what other
cities were doing and gathering additional information.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, was uncertain whether the City’s code was ambiguous or whether the staff did not
understand its code. He suggested more attention be paid to this issue instead of a quick fix to the
monetary penalty portion of the code. As someone familiar with the code enforcement process, he
commented on the difficulties associated with that process and how much of it could be avoided if the
City offered an administrative hearing to allow citizens to identify errors made by the City prior to the
enforcement process or if the City worked with citizens in an effort to correct problems before monetary
penalties were imposed. He urged the Council to ascertain that the standard due process requirements of
the State and federal constitution were being met by the City’s code. He urged the Council to have the
City Attorney review property rights, civil enforcement actions, etc. He cited from Post v. Tacoma, “it is
sufficient to hold that where local jurisdictions issue infractions, there must be some express procedure
available by which citizens may bring errors to the attention of their government and thereby guard
against the erroneous depravation of their interests.” Edmonds is supposed to have an express procedure
for citizens to bring errors to the attention of the City; there is supposed to be an administrative hearing
but for some reason it is overlooked. The City claims an administrative hearing is represented by an
appeal to a Hearing Examiner. However, requiring a citizen to pay to appeal a prejudged guilty verdict,
the Notice of Civil Violation, does not qualify as an administrative hearing. He displayed a thick
document prepared by the City for his appeal, commenting that did not represent an express procedure
where he could point out errors made by the City. He urged the Council not to pass the ordinance until
they reviewed the entire matter. He suggested the City establish an independent committee to review the
code enforcement process and to use his situation as a case study.
Packet Page 137 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 14
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented it appeared the issue of violators not paying their fines had been
ongoing for quite some time and he questioned why the City had not collected on those debts. He
referred to the Locke case, and agreed with Mr. Snyder’s suggestion to simply dismiss the case. He felt it
was appropriate for staff to refile violations. Although Mr. Tupper discovered these errors, he doubted he
would sue the City. He anticipated Mr. Tupper brought this to the City’s attention to allow staff to correct
the situation. He questioned the need for an interim ordinance, citing the lack of an emergency.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, recalled a fence violation that was appealed to the Hearing Examiner who
reversed staff’s decision. He suggested the appeal fee be refunded to a person who won their appeal.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Council President Bernheim inquired about an expedited schedule to process this ordinance via the
normal procedure. Mr. Snyder estimated review by the Planning Board would take approximately 2½
months.
With regard to the emergency, Mr. Snyder explained the City’s ordinance was violating the due process
rights of six people by providing for continuing violations.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich’s comment that Mr. Tupper raised this issue, Mr. Snyder clarified the
Washington State Supreme Court ruled on the matter on October 15, 2009. He agreed with Mr. Tupper
that interim ordinances were usually suspect and should be carefully considered. Due to the sensitivity of
this issue, the ordinance was drafted to address only the continuing fines. He provided a copy of the
proposed interim ordinance to Mr. Reidy’s attorney via email last week and instead of the usual interim
ordinance process that provides for a public hearing within 60 days, the public hearing was held tonight
because it was suspect.
He agreed with Mr. Reidy’s suggestion to review the code enforcement process and to use the process
that was followed for Mr. Reidy as a case study. The packet Mr. Reidy displayed was from the Notice of
Civil Violation, not the latter ordinance. To Mr. Rutledge’s point, anyone who appealed and won was
refunded their appeal fee. He summarized the interim ordinance was intended to correct a clear
unconstitutional provision of the City’s ordinance that arose in October 2009 and this was the first
opportunity the Council had to review it. He considered the violation of a citizen’s due process rights to
be an emergency.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich’s comments about Mr. Locke, Mr. Snyder explained that matter is in Superior
Court. With regard to the fence issue Mr. Rutledge mentioned, staff is waiting for the expiration of the 21
day LUPA appeal period.
For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Snyder explained under the current ordinance, once a violation
is determined, penalties accrue daily forever. He recommended this be amended to provide for periodic
notice and opportunity to appeal. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the correlation between
administrative hearings and the Reidy-Thuesen situation. Mr. Snyder was uncertain what correlation
there was. Mr. Reidy has not been adjudged to be in violation by the Hearing Examiner and no fines are
accruing.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about Mr. Reidy’s suggestion to form an independent body to review the
City’s code enforcement process and use his situation as a case study. Mr. Snyder suggested the Planning
Board would be the appropriate body to review the City’s code enforcement procedures. One area that
needed to be addressed was the three different appeal processes depending on which City official issued
the Notice to Correct.
Packet Page 138 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 15
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the liability posed to the City. Mr. Snyder answered the liability
was a lawsuit because the City was violating their rights. He explained most of the people in violation
were not paying the fine because their homes were in foreclosure. If the Supreme Court says a person has
a due process right to a hearing and there cannot be continuing fines, the City needed to obey their ruling.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how long the six people had been in violation. Mr. Snyder answered
some as short as six months, others as long as four years. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why this
change was being proposed now. Mr. Snyder answered it was due to the Supreme Court’s October 15,
2009 ruling.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
APPROVE INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3779 AS AMENDED, AMENDING ECDC 20.110.040(F)
OF THE CITY'S CIVIL ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES RELATING TO CONTINUING FINES
AND VIOLATIONS IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO POST V. TACOMA.
Councilmember Orvis observed the continual accrual of fines violated due process rights and there should
be a process for a review.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed the interim ordinance was appropriate to address the issue of due
process. He agreed with the suggestion for the Planning Board to review the code enforcement
procedures.
Council President Bernheim advised he would not support the interim ordinance as it would only take a
few months for a thorough review of the entire situation. He pointed out the City would of course not
continue to impose the unconstitutional fines, thus this only applied to future violators. The only people
who would potentially sue the City would be those that the City pursued payment of the unconstitutional
fines. He did not anticipate any exposure to the City since the City would not continue to impose the
unconstitutional fees. He preferred to refer the matter to the Planning Board for an expedited hearing and
in the meantime voluntarily refrain from imposing the unconstitutional fines.
Mr. Snyder pointed out the City turned the collection of fines to a debt collection agency that has been
actively pursuing them. One of the reasons he wanted the Council to pass the interim ordinance was so he
could ask for them back from the debt collection agency. Council President Bernheim asked why the City
could not simply direct the collection agency to cease collection efforts. Mr. Snyder assured he had
contacted the collection agency to ask them to discontinue actively pursuing the debt. Council President
Bernheim concluded that was not a reason to vote in favor of the interim ordinance.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBER
WILSON VOTING NO AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
11. INTERIM ORDINANCE ADOPTING A PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION,
ACQUISITION AND ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC PROJECTS BY THE HEARING
EXAMINER AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN COMPLIANCE IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
P. 2, EFFECT.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this interim ordinance was in response to a complaint made by Mr.
Tupper. In the 1980s the City’s Comprehensive Plan was part of the zoning code and contained a number
of procedures. In the 1990s when the GMA was passed, the structure for review and approval of public
projects and a variety of other processes changed dramatically and this code provision was taken out and
placed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. That left a procedural requirement in the Comprehensive Plan
Packet Page 139 of 178
Packet Page 140 of 178
Packet Page 141 of 178
Packet Page 142 of 178
Packet Page 143 of 178
AM-2855 6.
Public Hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3780
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Submitted For:City Attorney Scott Snyder Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on Interim Ordinance No. 3780 - Adopting certain procedures with respect to
the abandonment, construction and authorization of public projects and street vacations and
dedications.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing. No action is required. A
public hearing is required to be held within 60 days for interim ordinances.
Previous Council Action
On January 19, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3780.
Narrative
Section 2 of Ordinance No. 3780 reads: "These interim zoning procedures are adopted pursuant to
the authorization of Chapter 36.70A RCW. A public hearing shall be held on the adoption of
these procedures within 60 days of the date of their adoption. The City Clerk is authorized to
provide notice of a public hearing in accordance with adopted Council policy and a hearing is
hereby set for the 2nd day of March, 2010."
The following documents are attached:
1. City Attorney Memorandum included in the 01-19-10 City Council packet on this topic.
2. 01-19-10 City Council Minutes, pages 15 - 17
3. Ordinance No. 3780
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: City Attorney Memo Included in 01-19-10 Council Packet re: Comp Plan Compliance
Link: 01-19-10 City Council Minutes, Pgs 15-17
Link: Ordinance 3780
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
Packet Page 144 of 178
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 02:24 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/25/2010 04:00 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 04:06 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/25/2010 02:12
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 145 of 178
A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101-1686 206.447.7000 Fax: 206.447.0215
Web: www.omwlaw.com
{WSS755884.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 28, 2009
TO: Edmonds City Council
City of Edmonds
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE: Interim Zoning Ordinance
The Growth Management Act requires consistency between the provisions of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and its zoning code. The zoning code may be amended at any time either
with full formality or by an interim zoning ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan may be
amended only once a year, absent an emergency or other special circumstances.
While the City is required to maintain consistency between its procedures as contained in the
zoning code and its Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan provisions are not self-executing.
The Community Development Code must contain processes to implement the procedures. As
has been discussed in a previous memo, the City needs to act promptly, on the recent citizen
inquiry, to bring the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code into accord, regardless of the utility or
logic of the provision in question. As has been noted, paragraphs B and C of the Comprehensive
Plan, Effects have been contained in the Comprehensive Plan since 1980. Their purpose has
been lost with the adoption of the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan
amendment process. As the City Council is aware, having just gone through the year long
amendment process with public hearings, notice and full adoption formality, Hearing Examiner
review of projects listed in the Comprehensive Plan is redundant. Sending public projects which
have been listed for years on the Capital Facilities Plan to the Hearing Examiner for a
determination as to whether they are in compliance with the Plan makes little or no sense. That
issue, however, can only be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Until
such time as that process is complete, the City needs to comply with the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan in order to maintain compliance with the Growth Management Act.
The City Council should consider when reviewing the City’s fee ordinances whether some fees
should be raised to address the additional costs required for a Hearing Examiner hearing. The
Hearing Examiner works by contract and each hearing will cost the City additional funds.
Packet Page 146 of 178
{WSS755884.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
Notifying of publishing notice, sending mailed notice to the neighboring property owners, and
other requirements all have a cost.
The draft interim ordinance for your review requires minimal notice for those projects which
have gone through the Comprehensive Planning project. Any public project or purchase not
shown in or anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan is required to provide notice by posting,
published notice and mailed notice to adjacent property owners.
WSS/gjz
Packet Page 147 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 15
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the liability posed to the City. Mr. Snyder answered the liability
was a lawsuit because the City was violating their rights. He explained most of the people in violation
were not paying the fine because their homes were in foreclosure. If the Supreme Court says a person has
a due process right to a hearing and there cannot be continuing fines, the City needed to obey their ruling.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how long the six people had been in violation. Mr. Snyder answered
some as short as six months, others as long as four years. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why this
change was being proposed now. Mr. Snyder answered it was due to the Supreme Court’s October 15,
2009 ruling.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
APPROVE INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3779 AS AMENDED, AMENDING ECDC 20.110.040(F)
OF THE CITY'S CIVIL ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES RELATING TO CONTINUING FINES
AND VIOLATIONS IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO POST V. TACOMA.
Councilmember Orvis observed the continual accrual of fines violated due process rights and there should
be a process for a review.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed the interim ordinance was appropriate to address the issue of due
process. He agreed with the suggestion for the Planning Board to review the code enforcement
procedures.
Council President Bernheim advised he would not support the interim ordinance as it would only take a
few months for a thorough review of the entire situation. He pointed out the City would of course not
continue to impose the unconstitutional fines, thus this only applied to future violators. The only people
who would potentially sue the City would be those that the City pursued payment of the unconstitutional
fines. He did not anticipate any exposure to the City since the City would not continue to impose the
unconstitutional fees. He preferred to refer the matter to the Planning Board for an expedited hearing and
in the meantime voluntarily refrain from imposing the unconstitutional fines.
Mr. Snyder pointed out the City turned the collection of fines to a debt collection agency that has been
actively pursuing them. One of the reasons he wanted the Council to pass the interim ordinance was so he
could ask for them back from the debt collection agency. Council President Bernheim asked why the City
could not simply direct the collection agency to cease collection efforts. Mr. Snyder assured he had
contacted the collection agency to ask them to discontinue actively pursuing the debt. Council President
Bernheim concluded that was not a reason to vote in favor of the interim ordinance.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBER
WILSON VOTING NO AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
11. INTERIM ORDINANCE ADOPTING A PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION,
ACQUISITION AND ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC PROJECTS BY THE HEARING
EXAMINER AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN COMPLIANCE IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
P. 2, EFFECT.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this interim ordinance was in response to a complaint made by Mr.
Tupper. In the 1980s the City’s Comprehensive Plan was part of the zoning code and contained a number
of procedures. In the 1990s when the GMA was passed, the structure for review and approval of public
projects and a variety of other processes changed dramatically and this code provision was taken out and
placed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. That left a procedural requirement in the Comprehensive Plan
Packet Page 148 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 16
but nothing in the ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan is not self-enforcing and there needs to be
provisions in the code so that the City’s ordinances conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
The City could change the Comprehensive Plan or the ordinance; the Comprehensive Plan can only be
amended once a year; ordinances can be amended at any time. The interim ordinance is intended to true
up the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance until they can be reviewed as part of this
year’s Comprehensive Plan process. The ordinance attempts to mirror the language in the
Comprehensive Plan provision and provides for an expedited review of all the public processes that were
in the Capital Facilities Plan and the Transportation Improvement Plan. He noted there may be an
appropriate role for Hearing Examiner or Council review of some projects. For example, the
Comprehensive Plan does not designate specific properties for purchase for parks. The Hearing Examiner
or Council may want to review that for Comprehensive Plan compliance.
Council President Bernheim inquired how long it would take for the Planning Board to review this using
the usual process. Mr. Snyder answered 2-4 months.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
ADOPT INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3780, ADOPTING A PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF
CONSTRUCTION, ACQUISITION AND ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC PROJECTS BY THE
HEARING EXAMINER AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, P. 2, EFFECT.
Council President Bernheim commented he was not opposed to truing up the code but did not view this as
an emergency since this situation has existed for quite some time. He preferred to expeditiously send this
to the Planning Board for a deliberative review rather than adopt an interim ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the intent of the interim ordinance was for the City to pay Ogden
Murphy Wallace to make the changes rather than sending it to the Planning Board for recommendation.
Mr. Snyder responded he would draft the ordinance either way. Even if the Council acted tonight, a
series of public processes would follow. A public hearing would be held within the next 60 days on this
amendment. The interim ordinance expires in six months and the Comprehensive Plan process takes a
year; therefore, the Council will be required to consider it again in July. The Comprehensive Plan process
will also include a series of public hearings before the Planning Board and Council. The risk was
someone filing an appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB).
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what prompted this. Mr. Snyder answered Mr. Tupper filed a
code enforcement complaint naming Mayor Haakenson, Mr. Bowman, Mr. Chave and himself, stating
that they were not complying with the Comprehensive Plan. An outside attorney reviewed his complaint
and staff agreed the Comprehensive Plan and code needed to be trued up. The provision he cited is so
broad that every public project needs to be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner for compliance. He
suggested when the Council reviewed fees this year, they may need to be adjusted to cover those costs.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified the ordinance resolved Mr. Tupper’s issue. Mr. Snyder
answered Mr. Tupper was correct, there was nothing in the zoning code to implement a Comprehensive
Plan provision.
Council President Bernheim clarified if anyone were to sue the City for failing to comply with this
procedure, they would have an inventory of transactions that have occurred over the past 5-10 years. This
fix would only true up future transactions and not cure past failures to comply. Mr. Snyder agreed the
passage of time would. The only person in a position to take advantage of it was Mr. Thuesen in his
appeal of the street vacation with respect to Mr. Reidy. The action would be an allegation to the GMHB
Packet Page 149 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 19, 2010
Page 17
that the City’s zoning code was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore is out of
compliance with GMA. The remedy would be the GMHB would order the City to pass an ordinance like
the proposed ordinance.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM VOTING NO AND
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
12. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to the next agenda item and suggested more information be included on the
agenda so that citizens were aware it was in regard to marijuana. He supported the proposal but
suggested the agenda item more accurately reflect the topic of discussion. Next, he recalled urging the
Council approximately a year ago to ban plastic bags. He relayed many visitors to their store express
their appreciation to Edmonds for banning plastic bags and for caring about the environment. He
suggested the City take the additional step to ban Styrofoam. He acknowledged Styrofoam could not be
completely banned because there were certain applications for which there was no substitute.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, recalled the City held development meetings on Hwy. 99 in the past. He
pointed out the hotels on Hwy. 99 generate hotel/motel tax. Next he reported on the Stevens Hospital
meeting with Swedish, noting that Mayor Haakenson attended that meeting.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, advised he submitted a public documents request on November 24, 2009 for
grant applications and awards for money claimed in 2009. To date he has not received that information.
He inquired again and was told staff needed another two weeks. He concluded it was obvious every time
he approached the City with any issue, there was a policy to ignore him. He recalled a previous public
documents request was lost in spam mail. He expressed concern that his identity had been disclosed with
regard to the previous agenda item, noting he selected the box that stated do not disclose his identity. He
clarified he did not file a complaint; he filed a request for code enforcement. He was also frustrated by
his inability to schedule a meeting with a City employee and that he never received a response. He
invited anyone else who had been ignored by the City to contact him at 425-778-9465.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, questioned why one of the interim ordinances on the agenda included a
public hearing and the other did not. He questioned whether the Council understood the Comprehensive
Plan and suggested the Council review the Comprehensive Plan at their retreat. Next, he questioned
whether the City could get a credit for the fees paid to the Hearing Examiner in months where there were
no cases for her to review. With regard to amending the Comprehensive Plan once a year, he pointed out
the Comprehensive Plan could also be amended at any time on an emergency basis.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, reiterated his recommendation for the City to review the code enforcement
procedures and the appeal process and make improvements that would benefit the City and its citizens.
He raised this issue tonight because it was logical to consider all the procedures. He reiterated his offer to
share his experience with a reviewing body. With regard to the appeal packet he displayed in his earlier
comments and Mr. Snyder’s comment that it related to his appeal of the Notice of Civil Violation, he
explained he was strongly encouraged to pursue an appeal of an Order to Correct by the next day. He was
guided down a Board of Appeals process that had nothing to do with a code enforcement action,
expended a great deal of money, time and effort and the City developed the packet he displayed, wasting
a great deal of private and taxpayer money on a process that made no sense. He urged the Council to
make improvements to the code enforcement procedures.
Packet Page 150 of 178
Packet Page 151 of 178
Packet Page 152 of 178
Packet Page 153 of 178
Packet Page 154 of 178
Packet Page 155 of 178
AM-2840 8.
Campaign Contributions Reform Proposal
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:03/02/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council President Steve Bernheim Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Campaign contributions reform proposal.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
An initial discussion of campaign finance limits took place at the November 17, 2009 Council
Meeting.
Attach. 1: 11/17/09 Council Minutes
Council President Bernheim placed this on the January 26, 2010 Council Agenda. During that
meeting a motion was passed as follows:
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO DIRECT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO BRING BACK A
DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE
ACTION AND AMENDMENT AT THE NEXT FULL COUNCIL MEETING.
Attach. 2: 1-26-2010 Council Meeting Minutes
Narrative
Pursuant to a motion passed unanimously January 26, 2010, Council President Bernheim presents
the attached:
Campaign Finance Cover Memo
Bernheim Final Version Limit of Campaign Contributions
Bernheim REDLINE Version Limit of Campaign Contributions (Proposed Ordinance)
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attach 1 11-17-09 CM
Packet Page 156 of 178
Link: Attach 2 1-26-2010 CM
Link: Bernheim Campaign Finance cover memo
Link: SAB final VERSION LIMIT OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS (2 10 2010)
Link: SAB redline VERSION LIMIT OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS (2 10 2010)1
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/23/2010 02:48 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/23/2010 03:19 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/25/2010 10:23 AM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 02/18/2010 03:30
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/25/2010
Packet Page 157 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 11
Councilmember Bernheim responded it was the roof only that was above 25 feet and the large bay
windows between 25 and 30 feet were not part of the roof. He commented if this building was his
neighbor, he would likely be in litigation. Mr. Chave responded staff discussed it with the City Attorney
and followed his advice that it met the code.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out if the building did not comply with the code, it had been approved
by the City. The developer did not construct a building without approval. Councilmember Bernheim
recalled the developer’s plans were approved and he intentionally deviated from those plans.
8. INITIAL DISCUSSION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LIMITS.
Councilmember Bernheim suggested for Council and Mayor elections in the City, individuals’ maximum
contribution to a single candidate be limited to $750 per election cycle. He suggested this because he
foresaw mega-contributions to City Council and Mayor elections when there was a hot issue or a great
deal of money at stake. He anticipated $5,000 - $10,000 contributions to a City Council race could buy
an election, not because of corruption but because of the media-buys that such contributions would allow.
His suggestion was that no candidate shall accept or receive during the election cycle campaign
contributions totaling more than $750 from any person. Companies and partnership could continue to
contribute; couples and their children could contribute $750 each. He proposed a limit on donations
because expenditures were getting out of hand and because it would open the opportunity to more people.
Limiting donations would allow candidates to compete on issues rather than for campaign donations.
Councilmember Bernheim encouraged the Council to consider his proposal and suggested scheduling it
on a future agenda for public comment. If the Council adopted this proposed campaign finance limits,
Edmonds would be one of only a few cities in the country with reasonable limits on increasingly
outrageous campaign expenditures.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about federal limits. Councilmember Bernheim responded the maximum
contribution for a presidential race was $2500 per election.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the limitation per election cycle would allow donations for the
primary and general election. Councilmember Bernheim responded the election cycle was the entire time
from announcement of candidacy to final Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) reporting.
Council President Wilson commented every year Washington State and the PDC were rated as the most
transparent political financing model in the United States with regard to usability and availability of
public information. People use the information provided by the PDC for election purposes; therefore the
public would learn of any candidate that accepted large donations. He commented $750 per election
cycle would be one of the most restrictive limits in the United States and would limit candidates’ ability
to raise money and potentially open races to self-financing for which there was no counter-balance. He
agreed with discussing whether there was an appropriate limit but felt a $750 limit was not appropriate.
Councilmember Peterson referred to comments that campaigns in Edmonds were very expensive,
explaining one of the reasons may be because so many Edmonds citizens vote, 60% voted this year.
Snohomish County’s average was 45-50%. Campaigns are expensive because candidates need to reach
all those voters; limiting campaign contributions would limit candidates’ ability to reach a very educated,
enthusiastic electorate. He agreed an unlimited amount may not be appropriate but all donations must be
reported to the PDC and Edmonds voters have availed themselves of that information in the past.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he supported in general a contribution limit, envisioning it would
require candidates to spend less time raising money and send out less mail and spend more time in the
neighborhoods talking to citizens.
Packet Page 158 of 178
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 17, 2009
Page 12
Councilmember Orvis commented it appeared the Council was generally in agreement with some limit on
contributions but the specific amount was uncertain. He asked about Seattle’s limits. Councilmember
Bernheim answered Seattle’s limit per election was $700.
Councilmember Bernheim commented he was interested in hearing from citizens regarding this issue.
Under his proposal, there would be no limitations on a candidate’s own resources or the value of
volunteer services.
City Attorney Bio Park clarified there was a difference between campaign contributions and campaign
expenditures; prohibiting campaign expenditures was illegal. To his knowledge in Western Washington,
only King County, Seattle and Issaquah had campaign contribution limits.
Council President Wilson pointed out campaign contribution limits would not limit expenditures and
would take away the candidate’s voice which results in negative campaigning.
9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 10, 2009.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Orvis reported staff provided the Committee an update on the construction of sewer
improvements for 13 properties as part of the Olympic View Drive improvement project. Several
properties will be assessed a sewer connection charge at the time improvements are made, others will be
deferred until further improvements are made. This item will be presented to the full Council at a public
hearing. The Committee also discussed bikini barista stands regulations.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Wambolt summarized items reviewed by the Finance Committee:
A) Report on Water Supply Contract with Alderwood Water. Committee requested an update at the
January 2010 Finance Committee meeting. No Council action required.
B) Final 2009 Budget Amendment. Forwarded to the full Council for public hearing.
C) General Fund Report for the month of October 31, 2009. He noted a third quarter budget review
will be provided to the Finance Committee at the December meeting. REET revenues as of
September 30 are 38% below the same time last year and 69% below 2007 or $760,000 below
two years ago September YTD. The original REET budget was $750,000; year end projections
are $445,000. Sales tax is approximately $1 million below budget. The amount collected in
October was the highest YTD which may be due to Cash for Clunkers Program. Utility taxes are
13% over budget and telephone utility taxes are over budget by 8.3%.
D) Mid-Biennial Budget Amendment for 2010. Forwarded to the full Council for public hearing on
December 1.
E) Resolution Finding of Substantial Need and Property Tax Ordinance were acted on earlier in the
meeting.
Councilmember Wambolt emphasized the need for a levy lid lift next year. He pointed out the scenarios
discussed by the Port for redevelopment of Harbor Square did not generate an enormous amount of
revenue.
Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Bernheim summarized items reviewed by the Committee and forwarded to the full
Council on the consent agenda were:
A) Contract for Jail services with Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office
B) Contract with S. Morris Company for Animal Disposal Services
C) Towing Contracts
Packet Page 159 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 6
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to grant revenue for 2009, noting there was a large reduction in
2010 between the budget and projection. She assumed this was because staff had not yet determined what
grants they would apply for. Mr. Hines agreed some grants had not yet been applied for; some grants
received last year have not been fully expended. At the time of the next budget amendment, he would ask
the Council for authority to spend those grants which would increase the projection. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas asked for an example of grants. Mr. Hines agreed to provide an inventory of the grants.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mayor Haakenson advised contracts to be negotiated include Teamsters,
SEIU, Police Support and Police. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many people those unions
represented. Mayor Haakenson answered approximately 80% of the City’s employees or approximately
190-200.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the actuals were as of January 20, 2010. Mr. Hines answered the
City was still paying 2009 bills in January; the month was typically not closed until the 13th day of the
next month. The final month of the fiscal year will be closed approximately the 20th day of the month to
ensure all the previous year’s expenditures are included. Mayor Haakenson advised at the time of the
next update, the starting point would be January 1, 2010. Mr. Hines agreed. He explained the numbers
for December 31, 2009 will not be finalized until the State audit is complete in March.
Councilmember Plunkett offered to email his questions to Mr. Hines in preparation for discussion at the
retreat.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the labor line item under expenses by function included
benefits. Mr. Hines answered it did.
7. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CITY
COUNCIL CAMPAIGNS AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 1.99 OF THE EDMONDS CITY
CODE.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the proposed ordinance would apply to City Council as well as Mayoral
campaigns.
Council President Bernheim explained he had previously proposed to the Council that a limit be
established on local City Council and Mayoral campaigns. His proposed ordinance would establish a
$750 cap on individual contributions per election. This would apply to cash as well as in-kind campaign
contributions. The enforcement mechanism would be the way campaign contributions are reported to the
Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) which would allow any citizen to learn whether the cap was being
exceeded. If a person illegally contributed an amount over the cap such as a $1000 to a campaign without
reporting it, it would be a PDC violation. As a result, the enforcement of the proposed limitation on
campaign contributions would be cost free to the City. The proposed cap included in-kind contributions
to prevent a person from, for example, contributing $5000 in yard signs to a campaign. The proposed cap
did not include the equivalent value of volunteer services. The proposal also does not place a limit on the
amount a candidate could contribute to their own campaign.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the proposed ordinance references a limit per election and includes a
definition of election cycle. The definition of an election cycle includes the general and primary election.
He observed the limit Council President Bernheim proposed applied to the election cycle. Council
President Bernheim clarified his proposal was for the limit to apply to a candidate’s race for office, from
the beginning to the end, regardless of how many elections were in that time period. Councilmember
Plunkett summarized the limit Council President Bernheim proposed was not per election, the limit was
Packet Page 160 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 7
per election cycle. Council President Bernheim agreed his proposed limit of $750 would apply to both
the primary and general campaigns.
Councilmember Plunkett advised a limit could not be placed on a candidate’s own personal contributions.
The Supreme Court has determined that constitutes free expression and cannot be limited. He preferred a
$250 cap, noting $750 was not really a cap. For example, he raised approximately $32,000 in his last
campaign; under a $750 cap, he anticipated he could raise $30,000. If the goal was to make campaigns
fairer, the cap needed to be more realistic.
Councilmember Wilson agreed some cap on campaign contributions was appropriate. He preferred to
adopt the PDC’s disclosure standards which are applied by the State of $850 per election. That process is
in place and is the number one standard in the United States. To Council President Bernheim’s assertion
that this would be a no cost proposal, Councilmember Wilson anticipated there would be a cost. For
example, enforcement of the City of Seattle $600 per election cycle limit required the creation of an
enforcement agency because the PDC is not tasked with enforcing cities’ laws, only the State law. If the
City adopted the PDC law, the PDC would have enforcement authority. In the example cited by Council
President Bernheim where a candidate reported a contribution over the $750 cap, the public would learn
of the contribution and it would be contrary to the code but there was no enforcement mechanism.
Councilmember Wilson anticipated a limit on contributions would increase the power of those who are
independently wealthy and can contribute to their own campaigns. The Supreme Court also allows a
corporate or union to contribute any amount. The lower the limit on individual campaign contributions,
the less likely the City would have diverse membership on the Council or candidate voices that stood up
against corporate or union unencumbered contributions. Although he supported some type of limit, he
cautioned against giving power to people or entities with unlimited resources at the expense of candidates.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the proposed cap was a good starting point but was “smoke
and mirrors” regarding campaign finance reform. In order to have campaign finance reform, there must
be a limit on the total amount a candidate can spend, such as $10,000 for the primary and $10,000 for the
general. She summarized that would represent real campaign finance reform and would put everyone on
an equal playing field. When candidates self-finance or are provided in-kind donations of various
services, they can double the amount raised by some candidates and results in people who do not want to
run for election. She recalled during the interviews for the Council vacancy, several people indicated they
did not run for the position due to the amount of money they would be required to raise. Edmonds is one
of the highest cities in the State with regard to the amount required to run a campaign.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with the need for comprehensive campaign finance reform. He
anticipated placing a limit on the total amount a candidate could raise would be unconstitutional. He
agreed the more limits placed on individual campaign contributions, the more power a wealthy individual
would have. If a specific dollar limit were placed on campaign contributions, the amount would need to
be revisited periodically. He preferred to utilize the PDC’s existing mechanism, noting the Washington
PDC was one of the most respected bodies in the United States with regard to tracking campaign
contributions and ensuring it is an open and fair process.
Councilmember Peterson noted any limit on a campaign contribution could be viewed as arbitrary
whether it was $250 or $750 or $1000. If a limit were established, he wanted to ensure it accomplished
the goal of more fair elections, and not just to make people feel better. Further, the Supreme Court’s
decision regarding contributions by unions and corporations placed individuals in a disadvantage. While
it was doubtful a group of businesses or unions would funnel a great deal of money into a campaign in
Edmonds, if a limit were imposed, they would have a greater ability to contribute than would a grassroots
Packet Page 161 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 8
collection of individuals. He supported allowing people to donate to candidates and causes they believed
in.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had a very grassroots campaign and had only one $500
donation. People in Edmonds talk and if someone “bought” a campaign, the people would know about it.
She supported establishing a limit on campaign contributions, preferring a Council campaign be about
issues and the money should be secondary. She concluded establishing a limit was not just “smoke and
mirrors,” it was necessary. She assured if someone bought their campaign, it would be in the newspaper.
Councilmember Orvis spoke in support of campaign finance reform with limits on campaign
contributions. He supported a limit of $250 per election but was willing to accept a slightly higher limit
or restructuring the limit to cover the election cycle.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out a $250 limit per person would be $500 per household. He was
interested in learning whether a limit on the total amount spent on a campaign was possible. He pointed
out the legislature utilized the PDC limit; it cost $100,000 or more to be elected to the State Legislature
which he did not view as campaign reform. With regard to a person funding their own campaign, he
preferred that over a person accepting campaign contributions of $1000-$3000 from unions, corporations
or individuals. He anticipated unions and/or corporations in Edmonds would not get involved in
campaigns unless a candidate via a third party asked. He concluded a $250 per person/$500 per
household limit on campaign contributions would be fair and allow more people to participate. He
preferred a $250 per person/$500 per household limit over the PDC $850 limit, noting any limit would be
better than the current unlimited campaign contribution.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not aware that the PDC had a limit on City Council or Legislative
campaign contributions other than a $1500 limit on contributions for House members. She disagreed the
PDC had an $850 limit on campaign contributions, noting if that were true nearly all Councilmembers
have violated that limit. She reiterated her support for establishing a limit on the cash and in-kind amount
a candidate could spend during their campaign.
Council President Bernheim advised it was unconstitutional to place a cap on the amount a candidate
spends on their campaign.
Public Comment
David Dwyer, Edmonds, suggested Councilmembers ask themselves what problem they were solving; in
his opinion the problem the proposed ordinance would solve was incumbents losing an election. The
ordinance protects incumbents and wealthy individuals. Incumbents already have more name familiarity
than a challenger and have the ability to raise money from many sources. Wealthy individuals have the
ability to self-finance their campaigns and do not rely on contributions. The ordinance reduces the ability
for citizens to donate to the campaign of the candidate of their choice. The proposed ordinance is not a
progressive measure and does not promote competition for elected office.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented he was most concerned with past contributions and how they
affected the City Council’s decision making. He questioned how large contributions from Al Dykes
affected the Council’s decisions on upcoming redevelopment. He questioned whether Councilmembers
who received large contributions from certain individuals would be asked to recuse themselves from the
vote. He concluded the public knew which Councilmembers received large contributions and expected a
certain performance based on whether they were an unbiased vote or a possible suspect bias vote.
Student Representative Marmion referred to Council President Bernheim’s statement that the proposed
ordinance would prevent an in-kind donation of $5000 worth of signs. He questions whether a separate
Packet Page 162 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 9
organization could be formed that would allow people to donate whatever amount they wanted and for
that group to unofficially run a candidate’s campaign. Council President Bernheim responded in his
proposal, every entity had a contribution limit.
Councilmember Wilson agreed every entity would have a limit on the amount they could contribute, but
there were no limits on contributions that could be made to outside groups. An outside group could
accept any amount of money and do whatever they wanted as long as it was done in an unofficial way and
there was no direct connection to the campaign. The proposed ordinance does not limit those
contributions and in fact cannot per the Supreme Court.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Mr. Dwyer’s comments, the proposed ordinance was a successful
incumbent plan. If the problem the Council wanted to solve was to level the playing field, the proposed
ordinance did not accomplish that. As Councilmember Plunkett stated, with a limit of $750, he could
have raised $30,000 rather than $32,000. Leveling the playing field could be done via public financing of
campaigns which is another topic altogether and well worth discussing. If a candidate accepted public
financing, they would commit to accepting no private contributions and the amount of money spent on a
campaign could be limited.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comment, Councilmember Wilson assured no Councilmembers would put
the time and energy into being a Councilmember if they could be bought by the amount of money that
was donated to a City of Edmonds campaign, whether it was $25 or $3000. To imply that any Edmonds
Councilmember lacked the integrity to do the job under the existing rules without selling their soles was
condescending to the nth degree.
Council President Bernheim advised his intent was not to approve the ordinance tonight but to consider
the Council and the public’s comments and return at a later date.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified the difference between raising $32,000 or $30,000 was if the limit was
$750 versus $850. If there was a $250 limit, he would have raised and spent half the amount. Voters
would not have received three robocalls in one week if there was a $250 limit, instead of four mailings,
voters would have received two. If the intent was to prevent Councilmembers from raising campaign
funds in $2000 and $3000 increments and if the intent was to reduce campaign expenditures and make
campaigns more fair, Councilmembers should support a limit on campaign contributions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Mr. Dwyer that the proposed ordinance would allow a
wealthy individual to self-finance their campaign. She was concerned with the social and economic
impacts of having a Council comprised of people who self-funded their campaigns.
Council President Bernheim pointed out that under the current process, all contributions are unlimited;
anyone could contribute any amount.
Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed the proposed ordinance pandered to the rich. A person can work
hard and run a grassroots campaign; she had one contribution of $500 and 250 contributions of lesser
amounts. She had no union or corporate contributions. If limits were established, a person would not
have to compete against a candidate able to finance multiple robocalls. She assured if someone self-
funded their campaign, the newspaper would report it.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with Mr. Dwyer’s comments regarding the power of incumbency which
includes name recognition as well as resources from previous campaigns such as yard signs or campaign
literature. He questioned whether the proposed ordinance would require an incumbent to declare existing
yard signs as a donation. He summarized people would run for an open seat but were hesitant to run
Packet Page 163 of 178
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 26, 2010
Page 10
against an incumbent. He agreed the current unlimited campaign contribution system was inappropriate
but was uncertain what amount would be appropriate. To the comment that Edmonds was an expensive
place to run a campaign, he pointed out it was expensive because Edmonds consistently has the highest
voter turnout in the State. Edmonds voters are educated and they want information. He wanted to retain
the right for people to support the candidate they believe in. He pointed out a $250 individual limit did
not necessarily equate to a $500 per household contribution because there were single households or
married people supporting different candidates. He preferred to utilize the PDC’s existing system.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO DIRECT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO BRING BACK A DRAFT
ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION AND
AMENDMENT AT THE NEXT FULL COUNCIL MEETING.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested obtaining an opinion from City Attorney Scott Snyder
regarding the constitutionality of placing a cap on the amount spent on a campaign and establishing a
limit on cash and in-kind contributions.
Councilmember Wilson asked Councilmember Plunkett whether his motion included a $250 limit.
Councilmember Plunkett answered not at this time; he anticipated proposing an amendment when the
ordinance was brought back to the Council.
Councilmember Wilson requested Council President Bernheim also research enforcement. Council
President Bernheim explained the proposed mechanism was cost free because the only thing the campaign
contribution limit did was limit the amount of the contribution. Under State law, every contribution to a
City Council must be reported to the PDC. The State PDC does not limit the amount; it only requires that
contributions are reported. The City would observe the PDC records and whenever the limit was
exceeded, the candidate would receive a call from the Police Department because the violation would be a
misdemeanor in the third degree. The violation would then be enforceable via the City Prosecutor. If a
candidate did not accurately report a contribution, they were committing a PDC violation. His intent was
to develop an inexpensive, easily controllable improvement to the current system that allowed unlimited
contributions from anyone anywhere in the world.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the proposed ordinance would task the Police Department with checking
campaign contributions to see who exceeded the limit? Council President Bernheim responded he knew
of at least 25 citizens who regularly read the PDC reports and anytime the contribution amount was
exceeded, it would be reported in the newspaper and the Police or the Mayor could ask the Prosecutor to
enforce the law. Mayor Haakenson responded that portion of the proposed ordinance needed work.
Councilmember Wilson agreed that the enforcement mechanism needed work. He disagreed the proposal
was cost free if it required the involvement of the Mayor, Police Chief or Prosecutor. He noted the
Council has expressed support for making the possession of marijuana the equivalent of a traffic
infraction. If the Council approved the proposed ordinance, exceeding the campaign contribution limit
was a misdemeanor. He suggested that portion of the ordinance needed further work.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified his intent was for the ordinance to be brought back to the Council with
Mr. Snyder available to answer questions.
Councilmember Orvis commented enforcement could be complaint driven. Although enforcement would
not be cost free, he did not anticipate there would be very many complaints.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 164 of 178
City of Edmonds
City Councilman Steve Bernheim
February 26, 2010: Proposed Campaign Contribution Limits on 3/2/10 Agenda.
I attach my proposed campaign contribution limitation ordinance for your review in anticipation
of possible Council action at the March 2 Council meeting.
The basic draft I have used is that previously offered by the City Attorney, including the “civil
violation” approach suggested by the City Attorney as an alternative to the criminal
misdemeanor I had originally suggested. I have made my own suggested revisions to the City
Attorney’s offered draft in an annotated “red-line” version so you can see where and why my
suggestions differ. I also attach a “clean” copy of my own proposal and welcome additional
suggestions.
Councilmember Wilson has agreed that some cap on campaign contributions is appropriate and
preferred the PDC’s disclosure standards which are applied by the State of $850 per election. I
agree this limit (which allows $850 in the primary and $850 in the general election) is better than
the current rules which tolerate virtually no limit.
Councilmember Wilson has asserted that there will be a cost of enforcing my proposal, with
which I agree. The cost, however, will be minimal: if there is a violation (the proof of which
would appear in the public campaign contribution records of the Public Disclosure Commission),
the offender would be tried in Municipal court in the same way as other civil violations of the
Edmonds City Code. In any case, the cost of enforcement would be no more in any given case
than the cost of enforcing similar civil ordinances today.
Councilmember Wilson anticipates that a limit on contributions would increase the power of
those who are independently wealthy and can contribute to their own campaigns. While I agree
with this statement, my proposal also decreases the power of those who are sufficiently wealthy
to give large and extra-large campaign contributions to others. I would rather deal with the
possible corruption of candidates who give lavishly to themselves rather than the possible
corruption of candidates who receive lavishly from others.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented that my proposed cap was a good starting point but
was “smoke and mirrors” regarding campaign finance reform because, in her view, in order to
have campaign finance reform, there must be a limit on the total amount a candidate can spend. I
am not now proposing a campaign expenditure cap as part of a public financing system because I
think that’s a lot more complicated and expensive, and I’m not even sure that I agree that public
financing of political campaigns is better, but I would listen to any proposal along those lines. I
believe that a simple contribution cap can be implemented immediately while the merits of
public financing are debated. Limiting the potential influence of large campaign contributors is
not perfect reform, but is real reform and real protection against potentially outrageously large
and influential contributions.
Packet Page 165 of 178
I agree with Councilmember Peterson that limits on individual campaign contributions give more
power to wealthy individuals, with the proviso that the present absence of any limits on any
campaign contributions gives “more power” to wealthy contributors.
I disagree with Councilmember Peterson’s claims that if a limit were imposed, groups of
businesses or unions would have a greater ability to contribute to political campaigns than would
a grassroots collection of individuals because right now, businesses or unions can give unlimited
amounts.
It was argued that the proposal would protect incumbents and wealthy individuals. But it is
undisputable that the current system protects incumbents and wealthy individuals. The question
is not whether the wealthy and incumbents are protected or not by one system or another, but
what degree of imperfection we are willing to accept. In a city with a population of 40,000 in
2010, I believe that a contribution limit of $250 or $750 protects incumbents, challengers, the
poor and the wealthy adequately.
I also agree that under the present system and under my proposal private groups, individuals or
entities cannot be prohibited from expressing their political voices however they want to outside
of the confines of the candidate’s own formal political campaign organization. That such
activities by independent parties cannot be prohibited has no bearing, to me, on whether to adopt
a city-wide campaign contribution limit rather than permit to continue the present system of
unlimited campaign contributions by anyone.
Councilmember Peterson asserts that my proposal to cap campaign contributions adds to the
power of incumbency, and this is true to the extent that a challenger would have a more limited
ability to raise the overwhelming amount of cash that is typically necessary to topple an
incumbent. On the other hand, my proposal limits the power of the incumbent to raise unlimited
amounts of cash to overwhelm an opponent.
For the moment, I’d rather trust the proposed system that permits candidates to spend unlimited
amounts of their own money rather than the present system that permits them to spend unlimited
amounts from wealthy individuals, companies, and unions.
As a final matter, I have decided to propose a $500 contribution limit, midway between the $750
I originally proposed and the $250 for which Councilmembers Plunkett and Orvis expressed
support.
Steve Bernheim
Edmonds City Council # 6
http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/cp6.stm
512 Bell St.
Edmonds WA 98020
Council Office Hours: after 4:30 p.m.
425-744-3021 (desk/message)
425 712 8418 (fax)
206 240 5344 (cell)
council@stevebernheim.com
Packet Page 166 of 178
0006.90000
WSS/gjz; SAB rev. 2/10/10
8/19/09
8/24/09gjz
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE 1 OF THE EDMONDS
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 1.99 LIMITS
ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that important governmental interest are to be
served including the prevention of election corruption and/or the appearance of election
corruption; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a limit of $250 does not frustrate the
candidate’s opportunity to be heard nor does it in any way infringe on a contributor’s right to
discuss candidates and issues; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Title 1 General Provisions of the Edmonds City Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new chapter 1.99 Limits on Campaign Contributions to read as
follows:
CHAPTER 1.99
LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Section:
1.99.010 Intent.
1.99.020 Definitions.
1.99.030 Application.
1.99.040 Contribution limits.
1.99.050 Civil violation.
{WSS738892.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
Packet Page 167 of 178
1.99.010 Intent.
It is the public policy of the City that the people shall be assured
that the private financial dealings of their public officials and of
candidates for those offices present no conflict of interest between
the public trust and private interest;
1.99.020 Definitions.
The terms used in this chapter shall be afforded definitions found
in RCW 42.17.020 or Title 390-05 WAC, as the same exists or is
hereafter amended, and are hereby adopted by reference, except
that the following term shall be given the meaning set forth below:
(a) “Election cycle” means the combination of the general or
special election and the primary election to the office in question
and begins on the date an individual becomes a candidate for such
office as the term “candidate” is defined by RCW 42.17.020 and
ends on the date that the candidate files his or her final report
pursuant to RCW 42.17.180 (2).
(b) To “accept” or “receive” a contribution means the receipt
of a contribution, deposit of funds with other campaign funds, and
report of the contribution to the public disclosure commission,
except when a candidate returns the contribution to the contributor
within five (5) business days of the date on which it is received by
the candidate or political committee acting on behalf of that
candidate.
(c) “Person” includes an individual, partnership, joint venture,
public or private corporation, association, federal, state, or local
governmental entity or agency however constituted candidate,
committee, political committee, political party, executive
committee thereof or any other organization or group of person,
however organized.
(d) “Public disclosure commission” means the Washington
State Public Disclosure Commission as established under RCW
42.17.350 as the same exists or is hereafter amended.
1.99.030 Application.
These limits shall apply to candidates in any election for the
Edmonds City Council or for Mayor of the City of Edmonds.
{WSS738892.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
Packet Page 168 of 178
1.99.040 Contribution limits.
A. No candidate shall accept or receive during the election
cycle campaign contributions totaling more than $750 from any
one person.
B. The limitations in this section shall apply to all
contributions except:
1. A campaign contribution of his/her own resources to
his/her own campaign;
2. The value of volunteer services; or
3. Publicly donated funds under provisions authorizing public
funding of local campaigns.
1.99.060 Civil violation.
Any person who shall commit any violation of the provisions as set
forth in this chapter shall have committed a civil violation and
upon finding by the Edmonds Municipal Court that such violation
has been committed, shall pay a monetary penalty to the City of
Edmonds equivalent to the monetary amount of contributions
above $750 received by the candidate, in the aggregate, from the
source giving rise to a violation during the election cycle.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{WSS738892.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 -
Packet Page 169 of 178
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{WSS738892.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 -
Packet Page 170 of 178
{WSS738892.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 5 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, 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 TITLE 1
OF THE EDMONDS MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 1.99 LIMITS ON
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, 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 ________________, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 171 of 178
0006.90000
WSS/gjz; SAB rev. 2/10/10
8/19/09
8/24/09gjz
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING TITLE 1 OF THE EDMONDS
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 1.99 LIMITS
ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the contribution of money for political campaigns involves political
expression and therefore, is entitled to limited protection under the First Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the federal courts have found that limits on campaign contributions
“entail only a marginal restriction upon the contributor’s ability to engage in free
communication,” requiring that such limits be closely drawn to match a sufficiently important
governmental interest; and [Generally, I don’t object to most of these statements, but don’t see
the need to insert them in the ordinance.]
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that important governmental interest are to be
served including the prevention of election corruption and/or the appearance of election
corruption; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a limit of $250 does not frustrate the
candidate’s opportunity to be heard nor does it in any way infringe on a contributor’s right to
discuss candidates and issues; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance does not restrict the candidate’s contribution
from his or her own personal resources; and
{WSS738892.DOC 2 10 2010 SAB rev.;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
Packet Page 172 of 178
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the $750 limit remains a reasonable
restriction, the City Council commits to review of that limitation every five years, [Generally, I
don’t object to most of these statements, but don’t see the need to insert them in the ordinance.]
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Title 1 General Provisions of the Edmonds City Code is hereby
amended by the addition of a new chapter 1.99 Limits on Campaign Contributions to read as
follows:
CHAPTER 1.99
LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Section:
1.99.010 Intent.
1.99.020 Definitions.
1.99.030 Application.
1.99.040 Limits on timing of contributions.
1.99.050 Contribution limits.
1.99.060 Civil violation.
1.99.010 Intent.
It is the public policy of the City:
A. That political campaign contributions and expenditures be
fully disclosed to the public and that secrecy in the sources and
application of such contributions be avoided;
B. That the people have the right to expect from their elected
representatives the utmost integrity, honesty and fairness in their
dealings; [Generally, I don’t object to most of these statements, but
don’t see the need to insert them in the ordinance.]
C. That the people shall be assured that the private financial
dealings of their public officials and of candidates for those offices
present no conflict of interest between the public trust and private
interest;
{WSS738892.DOC 2 10 2010 SAB rev.;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
Packet Page 173 of 178
D. That our representative form of government is founded on a
belief that those entrusted with the offices of government have
nothing to fear from full public disclosure of their financial and
business holdings, provided those officials deal honestly and fairly
with the people;
E. That public confidence in municipal government is
essential and must be promoted by all possible means;
F. That public confidence in municipal government can best
be sustained by assuring the people of the impartiality and honesty
of the officials in all public transactions and decisions;
G. That small contributions by individual contributors are to
be encouraged;
H. That the public’s right to know of the financing of political
campaigns far outweighs any right that this matter remain secret
and private;
I. That, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy and of
the desirability of the efficient administration of government, full
access to information concerning the conduct of municipal
government must be assured as a fundamental and necessary
precondition to the sound governance of a free society; and
J. That, while a candidate’s contributions of his or her own
resources cannot be limited under law, candidates for municipal
government offices are encouraged to engage in fair play and
respect the spirit of our community by not utilizing excessive
amounts of self-funding during a campaign. [Generally, I don’t
object to most of these statements, but don’t see the need to insert
them in the ordinance.]
1.99.020 Definitions.
The terms used in this chapter shall be afforded definitions found
in RCW 42.17.020 or Title 390-05 WAC, as the same exists or is
hereafter amended, and are hereby adopted by reference, except
that the following term shall be given the meaning set forth below:
(a) “Election cycle” means the combination of the general or
special election and the primary election to the office in question
and begins on the date an individual becomes a candidate for such
office as the term “candidate” is defined by RCW 42.17.020 and
{WSS738892.DOC 2 10 2010 SAB rev.;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 -
Packet Page 174 of 178
ends on the date that the candidate files his or her final report
pursuant to RCW 42.17.180 (2).
Alternative definition:
“Election cycle” means that period of time from January 1st of
the year in which an election for city wide office is held until 14
days after the date of the general election. [I prefer to use the
same “election cycle” used by the PDC for candidates to report
their contributions rather than create a new, separate
campaign reporting period at the local level. Under the PDC
rules, candidates have to report their campaign contributions,
regardless of when the contribution is received, and that is
sufficient standard for this ordinance so that we don’t need to
create a new, different, reporting period.
(b) To “accept” or “receive” a contribution means the receipt
of a contribution, deposit of funds with other campaign funds, and
report of the contribution to the public disclosure commission,
except when a candidate returns the contribution to the contributor
within five (5) business days of the date on which it is received by
the candidate or political committee acting on behalf of that
candidate.
(c) “Person” includes an individual, partnership, joint venture,
public or private corporation, association, federal, state, or local
governmental entity or agency however constituted candidate,
committee, political committee, political party, executive
committee thereof or any other organization or group of person,
however organized.
(d) “Public disclosure commission” means the Washington
State Public Disclosure Commission as established under RCW
42.17.350 as the same exists or is hereafter amended.
1.99.030 Application.
These limits shall apply to candidates in any election for the
Edmonds City Council or for Mayor of the City of Edmonds.
1.99.040 Limits on timing of contributions.
A candidate for Mayor or member of the City Council may only
accept or receive a campaign contribution during an election cycle.
[This clause is superfluous because under PDC regulations, a
campaign cycle begins when a candidate receives a contribution.]
{WSS738892.DOC 2 10 2010 SAB rev.;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 -
Packet Page 175 of 178
1.99.050 Contribution limits.
A. No candidate shall accept or receive during the election
cycle campaign contributions totaling more than $750 from any
one person.
B. The limitations in this section shall apply to all
contributions except:
1. A campaign contribution of his/her own resources to
his/her own campaign;
2. The value of volunteer services; or
3. Publicly donated funds under provisions authorizing public
funding of local campaigns.
C. The limits set forth in this chapter may be changed at any
time by the majority vote of the City Council of Edmonds. The
limits shall be reviewed at least every five (5) years with the first
review to be conducted on or before April 1, 2015. [The City
Council can revisit this limitation any time it wants without this
clause.]
1.99.060 Civil violation.
Any person who shall commit any violation of the provisions as set
forth in this chapter shall have committed a civil violation and
upon finding by the Edmonds Municipal Court that such violation
has been committed, shall pay a monetary penalty to the City of
Edmonds equivalent to the monetary amount of contributions
above $750 received by the candidate, in the aggregate, from the
source giving rise to a violation during the election cycle. Should
the violation occur outside an election cycle, the penalty shall be
equivalent to a full aggregate contribution amount received from
the source giving rise to the violation. [Since under my proposal,
the giving of the contribution triggers the beginning of the election
cycle, I don’t believe we need to address the possibility of an “out
of cycle” contribution.]
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
{WSS738892.DOC 2 10 2010 SAB rev.;1\00006.900000\ } - 5 -
Packet Page 176 of 178
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{WSS738892.DOC 2 10 2010 SAB rev.;1\00006.900000\ } - 6 -
Packet Page 177 of 178
{WSS738892.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 7 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, 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 TITLE 1
OF THE EDMONDS MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 1.99 LIMITS ON
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, 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 ________________, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 178 of 178